Mandatory Vaccinations (Part 2) by canttakesky

Sig,

Here is an example of how adverse events don't get reported.

Quote:
On May 31, 2003, Jackson Presley Diamond was born to Chaney and Lee Diamond, of Chicago. A healthy 9 pound boy at birth, his Mom nursed him for eight months and she said "he slept well, ate well, grew well, never cried too much." Jackson met all his developmental milestones during the first 18 months of his life, and he loved to dance, pretend to talk on the phone and have his parents read his favorite books to him. Jackson was an energetic, high functioning toddler right up until Dec. 8, 2004, the day he went to his pediatrician's office for a well- child check-up and got vaccinated.

Within 24 hours of his vaccinations, which included the DTaP shot, Jackson suffered a collapse/shock and stopped breathing. Brain inflammation and seizures followed. During his hospitalization, doctors denied the vaccinations he received were responsible. His mother said: "Every time we would see a new doctor, we would make sure they knew about the vaccinations Jackson had the day before. When we would ask each doctor if they thought it could be a reaction to the vaccinations, they would dismiss the idea very quickly without a second thought. 'Vaccination reactions don't happen this way' one of them told us. " A reaction would happen weeks after, not the day after."

Jackson's parents encountered a typical response by doctors who are not taught in medical school how to recognize a vaccine reaction. Unfortunately, because most medical doctors have been misled by the rhetoric of CDC and AAP officials denying the reality of vaccine induced brain and immune system injury, out of ignorance many doctors end up misleading parents whose children have suffered vaccine injury. Therefore, many parents do not know why their children regressed physically, mentally and emotionally after vaccination until they do their own research and become educated about the risks and complications of vaccines.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 makes it clear that brain inflammation, which occurs within 72 hours of DTaP, DTP, DTP-Hib vaccination, is presumed to be caused by vaccination when no other cause can be found. Jackson's collapse/shock and brain inflammation, which ended in serious brain injury, fits the classic post-DPT and post-DTaP vaccine reaction profile. In the absence of another credible scientific explanation, Jackson is presumed to be vaccine damaged.

Source: email newsletter from NVIC, website at NVIC.org

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:43 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

To further tease apart CTS's rhetoric:

CTS claims to be 'pro-choice'. If the argument put forth was that vaccines work for some, but not all, that claim would stand. But CTS goes further to say that vaccines don't work in the general case. (See "Summary: getting vaccines is more dangerous than disease" and 'the myth of eradication'). These aren't personal arguments, they are global arguments meant to apply to all vaccines and to everyone.

Conclusion: these statements are patently anti-vaccine in the general case

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 12:14 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

As a further analysis of flaws in CTS's arguments, consider 'if vaccines work, vaccinated people have nothing to fear' (a small sampling of CTS's oft-repeated 'argument' is below).

No knowledgeable person has claimed vaccines are 100% effective. Furthermore, knowledgeable people know vaccines can fail due to the state of the recipient, and not because of a manufacturing 'scam'. But even after having this pointed out, CTS went on to repeat the argument over a dozen more times.

1) Either this argument is made out of deliberate closely-held ignorance or
2) it's a straw man argument, arguing against a position no one promotes.
Either way, it's a dishonest argument and presented solely to buttress an anti-vaccine agenda.

Conclusion: anti-vaccine agenda.

Quote:
Vaccines are supposed to cause immunity so that WHEN EXPOSED to the disease, you don't catch it. (If you're never exposed, then vaccines are superfluous.)

If your children are vaccinated, and vaccines work, your kids are protected, period. No amount of exposure can hurt them. If vaccines work, the only people that need to be afraid of diseases are unvaccinated kids. So not vaccinating does not threaten the "rest of you."

For the people who got vaccinated but scammed, well, that is the fault of the manufacturer, not the unvaccinated.

compensating for these people's resistance to immunization is still not the responsibility of the unvaccinated

Assuming herd immunity works

This argument rests on the assumptions that the vaccine in question is both effective (confers immunity) and safe (doesn't confer anything else).

If vaccines work, and the majority is immunized, they should have nothing to fear. Isn't that the point of vaccines, to protect in event of exposure? Why should protected people be afraid of exposure then?

How can "we" start an epidemic if most of "you" are immunized and protected? At worst, all unimmunized people will get sick, but that would hardly constitute an epidemic, since there are so few of "us."

Studies showing that vaccines produce "immunity" in the "vast majority" have been challenged as methodologically flawed.

I have to date seen no studies proving vaccines to be either effective or safe in the "vast majority" of recipients.

Bring it on. Give me a study that you believe is conclusive proof of effectiveness and I'll tell you what is wrong with that conclusion.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 9:15 PM

Yep.... still not going to get me to shoot it in my veins or my family's, barring my consent while not under duress.

The whole idea is just scary, if only because of the prescedent that would set and the doors that will open for big Government to further micromanage our lives.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:06 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I refuse to drink chlorinated water! I don't care what they say. Nature has mechanisms to keep me healthy and besides, it's my right to drink dirty water! Government will never MAKE me do anything ! NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH !

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:18 PM

You jest, but there are those of us who choose to boil their own water, rather than drink the chemicals. I don't take it that far, but simply because I'm too lazy when I got it on tap.

Everything is about the bottom line in capitalism. This doesn't just pertain to business but the Government as well, as it is the largest business the world has ever seen. To think that our health and safety were primary concerns before the bottom line is foolish. Unless what they were putting in our water to clean it was noticable for causing people to be seriously ill or die, they would certainly accept a substance which may shave 10 years off of our lives on average if it meant the alternative was using an ultra-pure cleaning agent that cost 100 times more. They have teams of lawyers, researchers and analysts that figure out these cost/risk ratios.

This isn't even due to any conspiracy theory or beliefs that the Government is evil. This is just business and, one would imagine, common sence. The difference between water and the subject at hand is that our bodies need water to survive, yet at the same time, we don't need to go to our Government to get water. We can go anywhere that there is a body of water and purify it on our own. We can even take the water we have in our own homes and purify it even further to our hearts content. Nowhere is it stated by law that we are forced to drink their water. No kids are being denied entery to school due to their parents beliefs that the water supply is no good for their families.

The water issue is simply a good example of how Government should operate. It is serving the people by reclaiming water and making it available again for consumption. It is not making unconstitutional demands of it's citizens here.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:00 PM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I refuse to drink chlorinated water! I don't care what they say. Nature has mechanisms to keep me healthy and besides, it's my right to drink dirty water! Government will never MAKE me do anything ! NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH !

Well I'm convinced. What a cunning, thought-provoking, mature and well thought out argument. I can't believe I didn't agree with this side before this moment, as they are so persuasive.

Basically Rue, you are doing a whole lot of talking without saying anything new. We've heard all this rhetoric, as you put it, in every post you've made sinse the outset of this argument. You dime out CTS for repeating himself, but what exactly is it you think you're doing?

The issue at hand is not the effectiveness of vaccines, nor is it in the creation of new studies to document that effectiveness. The issue at hand is our freedom of choice, and I wonder why you are so willing to give it up. In your mind, you might rationalize this as a minute thing, but it's not, and it'll set us on a slippery slope. True, the government might honestly be making vaccinations mandatory for benevolent intentions and not for money. Well, the road to Hell is paved in good intentions and if that were the case, all mandatory vaccines would be free.

Our desire to prevent vaccinations from being mandatory does not stem from some anti-government propoganda, even if it was the schools with no government involvement we'd still have a problem with it. Nor are any of us anti-vaccine, we are anti-mandatory vaccination, and there is a very distinct line between the two. All patronizing aside (I'm refering to my initial comment here, I just couldn't help myself, and admit it, that was immature), you need to ask yourself at what point does taking the decisions out of the hands of the people become a problem. Because when you give them an inch (and by 'them' I am refering to everyone in the world) they will take a mile. It might be vaccines now, but what decision will they take out of our hands in 5 years? In 10?

I am smart enough to understand that the concept of 'total freedom' is a nice way of putting anarchy. We, as a people, need guidance, that's why we created governments and religion. But the laws that are in place to not drive on the other side of the road, or to not kill, to not steal, those are laws that we can follow without incident, and are something that only an idiot, disturbed or desparate individual will do. But to mandate laws that allow them to put something in my body is a whole different monster. And that's a precedent I do not want to set.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:33 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You haven't been reading my posts then. All I've done is point out the utility of vaccination programs.

And I have to say some of you look really, really silly. The government has already made you do things for your own good and the good of society, and is making you do them even now. And you go along without a single peep.

Have the courage of your convictions, man! STAND UP for your right to drink contaminated water ! STAND UP for your right to crap in the street ! STAND UP for your right to eat uninspected and undercooked meat !

After all, what's the difference between one government intrusion and another, right ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 12:43 AM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER

There's actually a big difference. The government has set up laws for our own good that restrict us from indulging in what would be considered unhealthy behaviour, but there isn't one of them that is intrusive on my body. If you had read my entire post you'd know that I'd mentioned that. But you'd rather simply throw up more smoke and mirrors to detract from the issue at hand. As far as your rant about standing up for my rights to do a bunch of rediculous stuff, I have to chuckle and shake my head. What you use to try and debase my argument, everyone's argument, here is completely unreasonable. No reasonable human being would do any of those things, but except for crapping in the street, we have the right to do them. It's our choice to accept the risks involved with our actions, based on what we believe and what we know to be true. And the purified argument is rediculous as there are many communities (i happen to live in one) that still use well water. And there are some comunities where that water is still pumped directly from the ground into your tap. There is no law saying we have to drink purified water, there is no law saying we cannot drink unprocessed water, and there should be no law saying we have to get injected. End of story.

And your continued desire to completely try and debase our side of the argument by using childish, unrelated arguments and insult the intelligence of the opposition simply because they disagree with you shows you've become unable to discuss this topic in a civilized, rational matter. So I will politely bow out of this topic because, frankly, I'd accomplish more talking to a wall than trying to reason with the unreasonable.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 12:52 AM

You are a very silly person Rue. I'll tell you what. Why don't you come over to my house with a needle and inject me and see how far that goes?

I promise you that I will shoot you before you come within 10 feet of me with that needle, just like I would shoot anyone else who tried. Because you're a Browncoat, I will give you the courtesy of shooting your kneecaps out. Any government agent would have 2 in the chest and 1 in the head.

End of story...

Edit: I would like to add to this by saying that this is not a death threat Rue. I view somebody forcing a foreign object into my body against my will as a very hostile action, just as I suspect you would object to somebody putting a bullet in yours. I am far from alone in this belief, so good luck getting all of us to get the vaccinations. Your entire argument about the validity or success rates of vaccines is moot, because for many people this issue is much deeper.

This is not a threat Rue, this is a promise. If somebody comes at me with a needle, and I am not in agreement with why they feel I should be injected, I will put them in the hospital or the morgue, and I will defend myself with my own life in court over why it had to happen that way. I am not a prisoner and I will not be treated as such.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 4:40 AM

I apologize Rue. I came off pretty harshly and said some things that weren't necessary at all to be said. On the net I tend to dramatize things some times... okay, more than a few.

I won't take the post down because I'm not ashamed of what I said, as a figurative point. I'm also not one who wants to come off as secretive in any way, because I knew I was posting that on a public forum when I sent it. Once you've posted it, it's floating out there in limbo somewhere. No matter what server you may think you have deleted it from forever, you can't stop the signal. I don't think it would be right to censor my own words anyhow, especially from friends and Browncoats (which I hope we all Browncoats can be friends.

I sincerely apologize to you if that came off really offensive in any way, it was meant defensively. I am not a violent person in real life. I'm not a fighter at all, really. I've had my share of scraps back in the highschool and a few here and there at bars, but the were all in self defense or defence of my friends. I actually won't even sit through a movie like "The Hills Have Eyes" because for whatever reason it bothers me even seeing pretty much anything that I've been told happens in that movie, or several other movies that have come out recently. Not sure if you watch Futurama, but Bender once said "Once you watch it, you can't unwatch it.", and that's kind of stuck with me ever since.

Bottom line is, I really believe that if you're not harming somebody and you're not stealing from them... you work a 9 to 5 job or do something more adventurous to earn your take, you realize that while you're weak as a human sometimes you try do good by people for the most part, and you just don't spend your spare time scheming ways of doing bad things to people, well... you're alright by me. I think we good folk have enough laws already anyhow. We been abiding by them now for a long time... for several civilized generations now, in fact. I think maybe it's time we get people we have elected into power enforcing the laws and finishing projects that are already established and then, when they finish all of that, they can concern themselves with and collaborate with the public on new laws that might be made to better mankind. I think we've all just got way to damn much to think about right now.

I'm assuming, and I could be wrong so sorry ahead of time if I am, that you're older than me. Not much, I'm guessing, but old enough to remember a simpler time in the world for all of us. One where we didn't concern ourselves every single day with politics and issues and all of the worlds happenings. I don't belive that's just because I was a child 20 years ago. Life without computers and lightning fast travel of information allowed us to live at a slower pace then, and concern ourselves with more immediate and intimate things. If nothing else, we spent our time arguing with our own familys about political issues rather than hearing celebrities and FOX news argue with each other, then taking whatever sides speak our truths and then logging on to go argue with complete strangers about it online.

I like you Rue. I like all of the Browncoats I've met in here since I joined back in April when I first saw the show. Even the ones that I tend to disagree with seemingly all the time. This is a place that's very engaging and wonderful because we can have differences in opinion and argue with each other till we're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, we're Browncoats and we have some level of respect for each other because even if we don't agree, we do have that. We've all obviously cared enough to share and defend our positions to each other. I've been witness to concessions on issues in here from time to time before too. I've even given on things myself before.

I've never been a die hard fan of anything before. I've never even watched Firefly since the first Serenity weekend yet, other then half an episode here or there when Sci Fi runs it. I dont' suppose I really am a die hard Firefly fan in the most technical sense, but I fell in love with the show. The acting was out of this world for a cast of TV actors I've never heard of beforehand (I never watched Buffy or Angel, so they were probably similar), and the stories were so intrigueing and they just pulled you in for the ride. The politics of that wonderful show really are at play out there in the real world, on similar levels, and I think Joss is brilliant* for having created something which so believably captures the spirit of what it may have been like when most of us had no one but ourselves to rely on to get by in life. After our BDH's fought and died to keep from losing that way of life they had to run further and further out and watch the way they grew up disappear. Think of how the kids in the privelaged school with River were being taught lies about PAX and the Reavers. Then think about how you've never really had a desire or oppurtunity to take a good hard look at what your kids, or kids you know, read in school today. There's some subtle and not-so-subtle differences in the Social Studies texts and the snail paced dumbing down of the English cirriculum. It makes me wonder, how different their opnions of how the world should work and of my generation will be when they're 27 and I'm.

There's just something about Firefly and how it just captured the idea of living on the outer rim and being your own man and having control of your own destiny, living a much harder life where you do what you can to get by, and build meaningful relationships on those around you because you need each others support. You might not have loved or even liked each other a lot of the time, but you respected the ones you chose to associate with. Even the ones that weren't out defending or consoleing you when you needed it, weren't robbing you blind when your back was turned either. That's how community started grew stronger together. I'd imagine it was a life where you didn't obsessess or worry much about things you can't control because you know, no matter what happens, you can always feed yourself or find shelter in the worst of times because you're prepaired and you've got those people around you. The only preparations I've made in life like that, aside from a few solid relationships is a 401k and an IRA....

Some things I just don't think are right and should be forced upon us all by laws. Though I respect other's peoples opinions, I would just like for them to respect that others feel differently than they do. We are never going to be pleased all at the same time. Would your really want to live in a world where we were? That would just be creepy if we all naturally felt the same on every issue, and even more creepy if over generations we were legislated into having no choice really but to think the same way on any of the important issues.

If the need ever comes to defend myself or my beliefs, and I hope and still believe that it never will, I like to feel that I would be able to defend myself. If the absolute worst case real-life "Reaver scenario" were to ever happen to any one of us Browncoats, I would like to know that they would be able to do the same.... even better if one Browncoat could get another Browncoat out of a jam.

I respect you and your opinion, and all the browncoats who have taken their own time to devote to these issues. I know I got pretty long here, and I'm going to stop now. Thanks for reading Rue, if you did, and anyone else who took the time as this was a general salute of Browncoats.

Anyways... have a glass of mudders milk with me. We aren't going to let a few touchy issues divide us, are we? That just wouldn't be our style. I look forward to the next debate, no matter which side we be on.

* This is the first, and quite possibly, the only time I will ever compliment Joss, other than just telling people I know what a great show it is. I don't even tell them that Firefly was made by the creator of Buffy because I'm pretty sure that most people in my circles didn't watch it and it might turn them off to it... but what can I say? If I was going to give the man a compliment, I just thought this would be a good place to do it. He's a man who diserves a lot of praise for his work. He gets enough of that already, so it's pretty safe to say that's the last time I'll mention him.[/]

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 6:09 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"but there isn't one of them that is intrusive on my body"

Every time you swallow, every time you breathe, you are taking in government-controlled subtances. Taking them into your body, for better or worse, whether you agree with it or not. That is FAR more intrusive than the odd vaccination.

You think too small. You agree with it so you don't see it. Minion.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 6:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Summary: getting vaccines is more dangerous than disease"

PROVE where I have ever said vaccines are more dangerous than the disease. Copy and paste please.

Quote:
and 'the myth of eradication'

The myth of eradication refers to the fact that the same clinical disease as smallpox is still walking around. Referring to facts does not make me antivaccine. It means the disease hasn't been eradicated. It doesn't mean the the vaccine was not effective at all (maybe it helped along with other things like sanitation), and it doesn't mean I am advocating smallpox vaccines not be used by anyone just because it failed to eradicate a disease.

Again, this argument tries to corner me into an extreme position that I have never made.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 7:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As a further analysis of flaws in CTS's arguments, consider 'if vaccines work, vaccinated people have nothing to fear' (a small sampling of CTS's oft-repeated 'argument' is below).

You are saying the phrase, "IF VACCINES WORK" is an anti-vaccine position?

It is like with the Christian fundamentalists. "IF God exists" automatically means you are saying God doesn't exist, and therefore no one must believe in God. Questioning or underscoring the assumption automatically makes you anti-God.

I am a scientist. Identifying and questioning assumptions is part of science. It doesn't mean an anti- position is being advocated. If you don't get that, well, there's nothing I can do about it. I have made my position clear. The thrust of my argument is to identify assumptions about vaccines that not everyone shares, and point out that depending how you interpret data and which assumptions you hold, you can arrive at different defensible positions. Therefore people deserve choice--they should not be forced into assumptions believed by the manufacturers, retailers, and a government largely bought by the industry, simply because those assumptions are believed.

As far as the word "scam" goes, what would you call buying a product that doesn't work and not being able to get a refund? I call it a scam. Not everyone who gets a vaccine is scammed, but some of them are. Most people taking vaccines are willing to be scammed, and they bought the product fully willing to take the chance to be scammed. But they are scammed nonetheless. And you don't know for a fact that vaccines don't work in people because of the makeup of the recipient. Sometimes they are not effective for very long, or sometimes not effective because of the wrong strain, or sometimes not effective in preventing infection, only symptoms, and so forth. The fact is no one knows why vaccines is not 100% effective. The analysis has to come after the fact, and there are all sorts of different reasons.

OK, I have said all this before, several times. Obviously nothing I say means anything to you. You've made up your mind what I am and what I'm not. So this is my last post defending myself from the "anti-vaccine" accusation from you. If anyone else in this thread thinks I am anti-vaccine as a matter of general application or policy, feel free to speak up.

One of my best friends just got pregnant. We have been very close and she knows exactly where I stand on vaccination. She had told me before she agreed with me and would not vax her kids. She got married and is now pregnant. Her husband is pro-vax, and she says that they are planning to selectively vax. Good for them. I did not try to talk her out of it, or shove anti-vaccine literature down her throat, or make her feel bad about the decision in anyway. That would be like someone who wouldn't have an abortion personally finding out that her best friend is having one, and respecting that choice. How is that anti-abortion?

I am NOT anti-vaccine. That's the last time I am going to say that.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 7:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Anyways... have a glass of mudders milk with me. We aren't going to let a few touchy issues divide us, are we? That just wouldn't be our style. I look forward to the next debate, no matter which side we be on.

Hear, hear. I raise my glass to ya.

And you make a very good point about the "just come on over and try to stick me with that needle." People who do not vaccinate will not change their choice simply because the law requires them to. I will move out of state before I let them stick my kids. I will move out of the country. I will move out into the bushes and hide if need be. It is not going to happen.

Mandatory vaccination law doesn't actually increase vaccination coverage. It doesn't even keep unvaccinated kids from being around other kids. My kids go to plenty of public classes (dance, gymnastics, etc) and public venues (playgrounds, parks, movie theatres, etc). It doesn't do anything except to make life more difficult for people who choose not to vaccinate, sort of like a punishment.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 7:26 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Baby,

Since you seem unable to carry on an argument based on vaccination merits vs risks, let me address the shortcomings of your post at length.

"There's actually a big difference. The government has set up laws for our own good that restrict us from indulging in what would be considered unhealthy behaviour ..."
So you think it's appropriate for government to restrict us for our own good. You'll need to take that up with 6-string. He says it's not about benefits, risks, or personal or societal well being - it's ALL abut total personal freedom.

"... but there isn't one of them that is intrusive on my body."
But they are - in a pervasive all-encompassing way. Government is there monitoring what you breathe, and determining what is acceptable and isn't. They are there with their hands on your water and your food far before you get to drink and eat. It's so big and so acceptable to you you don't see that your every breathe is regulated by government. It's just the big background to you.

"If you had read my entire post you'd know that I'd mentioned that."
Well, I did, and that was my response, which you are too small-minded to comprehend.

"But you'd rather simply throw up more smoke and mirrors to detract from the issue at hand."
And what is that issue? Is it freedom? We've already seen you give that up SO LONG AS YOU AGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT. Is it effectiveness? I haven't seen you bring up scientific arguments. What IS your issue?

"As far as your rant about standing up for my rights to do a bunch of rediculous stuff, I have to chuckle and shake my head. What you use to try and debase my argument, everyone's argument, here is completely unreasonable. No reasonable human being would do any of those things, but except for crapping in the street, we have the right to do them."
No, I'm just taking your argument to its logical next step. It used to be that reasonable human beings did crap in the street (and empty their chamber pots there) as a matter of course - till big bad government decided it was unsanitary. And they used tax money to build sanitary sewers and MADE people use them - under penalty of law. They MADE people use regulated water supplies - under penalty of law. And so on.

"It's our choice to accept the risks involved with our actions, based on what we believe and what we know to be true. And the purified argument is rediculous as there are many communities (i happen to live in one) that still use well water."
Seriously - ALL water comes from either a well or from surface water*. Having a community that uses well-water is - uhm - normal. Even private-property wells are regulated. Your water is regulated, as is your waste-disposal, air and food. (*Unless your water is reclaimed in which case it comes from a sewer.)

"And there are some comunities where that water is still pumped directly from the ground into your tap ..."
Yes, I've lived in places like that. And it IS regulated - where you drill, how deep you drill, how much you take out - and monitored for nitrites, bacteria, arsenic and the like.

"End of story."
Yep - you 'finished' your own argument.

Where's the blindfold?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 21, 2006 3:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Baby,
"... but there isn't one of them that is intrusive on my body."
But they are - in a pervasive all-encompassing way.

1) There is a difference between regulation of voluntary products/activities and forcing one to purchase said products or engage in said activities. For example, the government regulates the pasteurization of milk, but doesn't force anyone to buy milk.

And to address Signy's oft repeated "running the red light" analogy, the government regulates driving, but doesn't force anyone to drive. There are no compulsory driving laws. In addition, traffic lights are an arbitrary rule that drivers will take turns crossing intersections. The rule is not forced upon drivers, but is consentual. To my knowledge, there are no groups protesting the use of traffic lights. (If there were such groups, a democratic society should consider their arguments, but there aren't any.) People who run red lights are those who voluntarily agreed to the rule, but decided to break the rule/contract for whatever reason.

Regulation in itself is different from force to purchase. You can support one without supporting the other.

2) There is a difference between regulating an absence and forcing the presence of a substance. For example, regulating power plant emissions require an absence of certain substances deemed to be poisonous. (If you don't agree they are poisonous and find them desirable, you can always add it to your lifestyle on your own.) This is not the same thing as requiring power plant to emit certain substances and forcing people to breathe it.

Mandatory vaccination laws are unique amongst government regulation in general in that the government is forcing the purchase and consumption of substances. The only regulation that comes close to mandatory vaccinations is fluorinating water. By adding a substance into public water, the government is forcing people to consume it unless they can afford expensive fluorine removal systems, bottled spring water, or have access to a well. This type of regulation is just as wrong as mandatory vaccination, where people are forced to consume vaccines unless they can afford to homeschool.

If there were no compulsory schooling laws I'd have much fewer objections. If mandatory vaccination laws were limited to public schools, and allowed private schools to set their own standards, I'd probably not even waste time arguing this subject. Taken as a whole, mandatory vaccination laws are the most intrusive of all government regulations, bar none.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 21, 2006 1:50 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Been awfully busy, but here are two related articles:

One traveler tied to more than half '05 U.S. measles cases

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- The biggest U.S. measles outbreak in a decade -- 34 people stricken in Indiana and Illinois last year -- was traced back to a 17-year-old girl who had traveled to Romania without first getting vaccinated, government health officials said Thursday.

The outbreak accounted for more than half of the 66 measles cases in the United States in 2005... in 2004, there were just 37 cases, the smallest number in nearly 90 years of record-keeping... Thirty-two other people in Indiana and one from Illinois became infected. Three people were hospitalized, but no one died. Only two of the 34 people had been vaccinated against measles.

www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/21/measles.traveler.ap/index.html

This one is related to government regulation of what you eat, drink, breathe, wear, and are exposed to:

National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals

The National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals provides an ongoing assessment of the U.S. population's exposure to environmental chemicals using biomonitoring. Biomonitoring is the assessment of human exposure to chemicals by measuring the chemicals or their metabolites in human specimens such as blood or urine.

www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 21, 2006 4:16 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"1) There is a difference between regulation of voluntary products/activities and forcing one to purchase said products or engage in said activities."

The government decides how clean (or dirty) the air is supposed to be. If you don't like government-quality air, what are you going to do - stop breathing? The same goes for water and food. And if you don't like the government's insistance on sanitary sewers, what are you going to do - crap on your lawn? You pay for (therefore purchase) and use these government-mandated goods every day.

"2)" is like "1)".

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 22, 2006 3:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The government decides how clean (or dirty) the air is supposed to be. If you don't like government-quality air, what are you going to do - stop breathing?...
"2)" is like "1)".

WTF???

See #2. There is a difference between regulating the absence of something and forcingthe presence of something.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 22, 2006 4:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"34 people stricken in Indiana and Illinois last year -- was traced back to a 17-year-old girl who had traveled to Romania without first getting vaccinated, government health officials said Thursday...Only two of the 34 people had been vaccinated against measles.

First, we don't know if she never got vaccinated or just didn't get the measles booster before she traveled. If she had never been vaccinated, they might have said, "without ever been vaccinated" as opposed to "without first getting vaccinated [before she traveled]."

Second, most of the people affected in this outbreak are people who chose to take the risk of contracting the disease. It's their choice, and they pay the consequences. There is nothing unfair about that.

Third, we don't have enough information in this article alone to get all judgmental. This 17 year old alledgedly indirectly infected 2 people who were vaccinated against measles. Now infecting other people is always a tragedy, so I am not making light of it. But the story would be less condemning if we found out that the 17 year old had gotten vaccinated against measles when she was a child and simply did not get booster shots before she traveled, and the 2 infected were adults whose immunity to measles had obviously waned and didn't get booster shots either. We just don't really know the full story to get all contemptuous. Or rather, *I* don't know enough to leap to judgment. Obviously, others do not have such scruples.

Here is another perspective. I read this story and I see that the vaccine failed to protect 2 people who were exposed to the disease. Vaccine failure happens, exposure happens. It is terrible, but the disease is still running around (amongst vaccinated AND unvaccinated people) and some failed-vaccine recipients are still going to catch it.

You want to blame this kid for infecting those 2 people, that's fine. But hold the same standard to vaccinated people when THEY infect people too. That is, if you want to hold her responsible for infecting others, hold her responsible whether she had been vaccinated as a child, vaccinated yesterday but somehow wasn't protected, or never been vaccinated at all.

It is simply unjust to have double standards.

Here is the bottom line of scapegoating unvaccinated people for infection, and forgiving vaccinated people who do exactly the same thing. People assume vaccines are highly effective in preventing both symptoms and infection for most people, an assumption that begs to be questioned. People assume that there are no other alternatives to vaccines that are equally or more effective, an assumption that has never been tested, let alone proven. The bottom line is that vaccinated people are perceived to have "tried their best" to prevent infection, and therefore can be forgiven. Unvaccinated people are perceived as not having tried their best to prevent infection and therefore accountable for their lack of effort.

But does anyone actually have PROOF to back up these perceptions? Vaccines, as we all know, do not guarantee immunity. Do you have proof that vaccines are indeed the "best" effort available at preventing infections? Do you have proof that unvaccinated didn't try prevention methods equal to or better than vaccination?

I have said before that unvaccinated people do not threaten failed-vaccine recipients. I had implied, but should have made it more explicitly clear: unvaccinated people do not threaten failed-vaccine recipients any more than failed-vaccine recipients threaten each other.

Edited to add: I understand that infecting others is a threat, and I can go along with taking responsibility for that. If you want to hold people responsible for infecting others, then hold ALL people responsible for infecting others. Let people choose what method they prefer (more effective, less risky) to prevent infection of others.

For example, if I infect you, I have to pay for your medical bills to treat the infection. If you infect me, you have to pay for my medical bills to treat me. That's fair. (Of course, this is really impossible because it is very hard to prove that I indeed am the one who infected you, and vice versa. But for argument's sake, if one were able to prove such things, I don't have a problem with taking responsibility for my actions/choices if they hurt others.) If I don't want to vaccinate, I'd better make sure I don't get infected (not just not show symptoms) by another means. That's fair. If you choose to vaccinate, you'd better make sure you don't get infected (and not just not show symptoms) as well. That's fair.

What is not fair is blaming people unequally for the same offense, because of some perception that one person tried harder than another. Put the proof in the pudding, I say. Put the proof in the pudding.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 22, 2006 7:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
There is a difference between regulation of voluntary products/activities and forcing one to purchase said products or engage in said activities. For example, the government regulates the pasteurization of milk, but doesn't force anyone to buy milk. And to address Signy's oft repeated "running the red light" analogy, the government regulates driving, but doesn't force anyone to drive. There are no compulsory driving laws.

And likewise, there is no requirement that your children MUST be in school, because homeschooling is always an option and in most states it's very easy to do. But, like driving, most people depend on it for convenience or necessity to their lifestyle. So, like driving, it is subject to regulation. And unlike some traffic regulations (ie drunk driving, vehicular manslaughter) you won't wind up paying a fine or in jail because there's no criminal penalty attached to not vaccinating. www.hslda.org/laws

Quote:
The rule is not forced upon drivers, but is consentual. To my knowledge, there are no groups protesting the use of traffic lights.

Tell that to PN.

Actually, I know of several cases where people have successfully protested traffic lights. And as far as not being "forced" to stop at red lights, you have obviously not ever been fined or put in jail for a moving violation .... and then been nailed by your insurance company.

Quote:
2) There is a difference between regulating an absence and forcing the presence of a substance.... Taken as a whole, mandatory vaccination laws are the most intrusive of all government regulations, bar none.

First of all, as I mentioned already you are not being "forced" to purchase anything- not even public schooling. Secondly, non-vaccination consequences - such as they are- are far less than penalities attached to laws. Let me give you an examples: A person who willfully drove drunk every day for ten years and then plowed into a bus, injuring thirty three people, two of whom had to be hospitalized, would probably be in jail, sued by the victims, and have his license revoked. A person who transmitted a disease to thirty three people, two of whom had to be hospitalized, gets a news article.

Quote:
First, we don't know if she never got vaccinated or just didn't get the measles booster before she traveled. If she had never been vaccinated, they might have said, "without ever been vaccinated" as opposed to "without first getting vaccinated [before she traveled]." Second, most {but not all} of the people affected in this outbreak are people who chose to take the risk of contracting the disease. It's their choice, and they pay the consequences. There is nothing unfair about that.

Except to the two people who contracted measles and had been vaccinated.

Quote:
But the story would be less condemning if we found out that the 17 year old had gotten vaccinated against measles when she was a child and simply did not get booster shots before she traveled, and the 2 infected were adults whose immunity to measles had obviously waned and didn't get booster shots either.... Vaccine failure happens, exposure happens. It is terrible, but the disease is still running around (amongst vaccinated AND unvaccinated people) and some failed-vaccine recipients are still going to catch it... You want to blame this kid for infecting those 2 people, that's fine. But hold the same standard to vaccinated people when THEY infect people too.

If I step on the brakes and my brakes fail and I hit someone, that's an accident. If I don't step on the brakes at all, knowing full well that I may hit someone, that's intentional.

No matter how we try to parse this... and this goes for ALL behaviors... as long as you're living in a complex society in contact with a lot of people your behavior will affect others, whether it's blaring your radio at 2 AM or turning it down at 8 PM, running through red lights or driving carefully, or vaccinating or not vaccinating. It's not possible to want freedom to make choices- which have consequences to others- and then not be held responsible or to have your actions limited in some way.

I've already brought up several articles that show that the unvaccinated - while not being the ONLY contributors to disease outbreaks- have a disproportionate effect on the vaccinated and on total health care costs. Those are the consequences of that choice.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 22, 2006 7:56 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS,

The government is not regulating the absense of toxins, it's regulating acceptable levels.

The government allows a certain level of benzene (carcinogen), lead (neurotoxin), CO (poison), soot (carcinogen) and other dangerous subtances in the air. In addition there are over 40,000 man-made chemicals in the air, in water, and in food not found in nature, (industry publications) all allowed by government.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 22, 2006 8:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The government is not regulating the absense of toxins, it's regulating acceptable levels.

It is regulating absence of unacceptable levels.

It is, for example, regulating NOT MORE THAN so much mercury. It is not forcing plants to ADD mercury into the atmosphere. There's the difference: forcing an absence, not forcing a presence.

And if you can't tell the difference, I give up.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 22, 2006 9:30 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS,

If the governemnt were interested in completely eliminating these substances and consequent risk, it would be writing its rules differently. Instead what it does is find a level where it thinks a certain number of people will be damaged (risk factor), and calling it acceptable. It does this for economic reasons. Its in effect trading your health for business profit.

If you can't see the difference, then I give up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 22, 2006 10:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hmmm, I don't see a reply to my post, so I'm going to beat an analogy to death for my own amusement: the public smoking analogy.

By analogy, smoking may have negative health consequences for the smoker, placing a disproporationate demand on health services. But the consequences to smoking spread beyond that once the individual smokes in the presence of others. In this case, others are affected whether they choose to smoke or not. And while it's possible to show statistically that second-hand smoke causes illness in others, it doesn't inevitably lead to illness in others nor is it the only cause of disease. In addition, there are many confounding factors, for example, people who assocaited with smokers amy have other associated traits (such as poverty). It's also impossible to determine who specifically caused which illness, making it impossible for monetary recovery from an individual. Therefore, for the protection of others we isolate people who smoke from people who don't, and we back it up with regulations and fines.

How is that different from non-vaccination? As far as I can tell, the only difference is that non-vaccinaiton does not incur the same punishment as public smoking.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 22, 2006 10:13 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I think in general there are some common misconceptions.

One misconception is that 'you' stop at your skin external skin. In fact there is an 'internal skin' - the linings of lungs, alimentary tract, uro-genital tract and others - by which you are exposed whether you want to be, or are aware of it, or not.

The other misconception is that a 'good' is a discrete thing you can personally control. But there are things called 'public goods' - things you pay for but cannot personally own.

"Some of the most important contributors to human capability may be hard to sell exclusively to one person at a time. This is especially so when we consider the so-called public goods, which people consume together rather than separately.

This applies particularly in such fields as environmental preservation, and also epidemiology and public health care. I may be willing to pay MY share in a social program of malarial eradication, but I cannot buy MY part of that protection in the form of a 'private good' (like an apple or a shirt). It is a 'public good' -- malaria-free surroundings -- which we have to consume together."

Amartya Sen, 1998 Nobel Prize winner, economics

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 22, 2006 2:58 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

6-string

I've taken so long to reply to you specifically b/c you posted several posts and one was a long one and, well, it's the holidays and time is short, and all. I wasn't at all either offended or dismissive of any of your posts. You speak your mind, that's all.

And I really liked your last post, and not just b/c you think I'm a just little bit older than you. (In truth I'm old enough to be an old parent, or a precocious grandparent.)

To the topic at hand which is vaccination, I don't see a 'bright line' dividing some government regulations which we all seem to accept, and vaccinations. And to me it's not a black/ white/ forever topic. For example, if polio was rampant and there were enough unvaccinated people maintaining the epidemic, it might change opinions on mandatory vaccinations. People who are faced with it do reach different positions from their original one. The people of Nigeria thought the polio vaccine made men sterile and spread AIDS, and was a tool of genocide. After an outbreak of polio over the last few years, they've done an about-face from their original vehement anti-vaccination fears, and are now allowing UN vaccinations. (And the polio outbreak is abating.)

I grew up when polio was still a feared disease and know two people of my parent's generation (including my mother) who were paralyzed by polio. Growing up in a polio free-environment, without that experience, I can see how young people can have a blasé attitude to polio vaccination. What problem? I've never seen a problem.

Some things are harder to see. Anywhere between 20,000 and 40,000 people die of the flu every year. But the people dying are not likely to be you or me, they are the elderly. Do we restrict your freedom and mine to protect those vulnerable people?

What about HepB vaccines? Hepatitis B is certainly a disease of interest. "In 1990, the incidence among men and women was 9.8 and 6.3, respectively (per thousand) ..." "Six percent to 10 percent will become chronic carriers of HBV and will be at risk of developing cirrhosis or liver cancer." "In the United States, approximately 1.2 million persons have chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and are sources for HBV transmission to others." But you'd think (I'd think) that the strategy would be to target high-risk populations - drug users and prostitutes specifically. And yet - "... the most significant decline (89%) in acute hepatitis B incidence during 1990--2002 occurred among persons aged 0--19 years, from 3.0 in 1990 to 0.3 in 2002." Wha ...WHAT? This is one of those unobvious results that I would never have predicted.

So to me, vaccination partly a question of perceived risk, which is changeable as circumstances change. Then there is statistical risk. It's a balance between freedom AND protecting the lives of vulnerable people who can't help themselves. I'd never mandate blanket-vaccinations of every possible vaccine under the sun. At the same time I’d never absolutely forbid mandatory vaccinations either. It's a question that has to be asked every time.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 22, 2006 3:17 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM -

No response yet to this: "If I step on the brakes and my brakes fail and I hit someone, that's an accident. If I don't step on the brakes at all, knowing full well that I may hit someone, that's intentional."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 22, 2006 3:27 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS -

Quote:
PROVE where I have ever said vaccines are more dangerous than the disease. Copy and paste please.

I did copy, and paste a long, long list of quotes. You can't even keep your own story straight. Get a brain.

Quote:
The myth of eradication refers to the fact that the same clinical disease as smallpox is still walking around.

It's not the same disease. It doesn't have the same cause, OR transmission, OR symptoms OR prognosis (death rate). What would YOU rather face - a person with mokey pox, knowing you'll never catch it from them; - or a person with smallpox, knowing you could?
Oh, and if you have to keep lying to make your point, maybe you need to re-examine how much you value your personal honesty.

Quote:
I did not try to talk her out of it (vax), or shove anti-vaccine literature down her throat, or make her feel bad about the decision in anyway. I am NOT anti-vaccine. That's the last time I am going to say that.

You mean you didn't interfere. Wow. That's mighty big of you. And I'm curious. You say she's anti-vax. Did SHE go around and campaign to make others not vaccinate? Does she want vax's to be illegal? Is she really anti-vax?? (You know, by YOUR definition.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 22, 2006 5:08 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS has changed position more than once.

It started out as: since I'm in my corner hurting no one why can't I just do my own thing?
It quickly veered to: ALL the scientists (except the few I agree with) do bad science; they don't provide absolute 100% certainty; and no matter what science you show me I'll tell you how it's wrong.
Then it went completely off the rails: polio vaccines never did work and neither did smallpox vaccines.

Yowza. Talk about unhinged and divorced from reality.

CTS,
Telling people that polio and smallpox vaccines don't work will be a hard sell to all but the most gullible. Even illiterate Nigerians know better.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 22, 2006 5:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And likewise, there is no requirement that your children MUST be in school, because homeschooling is always an option and in most states it's very easy to do.

As I said before, homeschooling is an option for those who can afford it, just like fluorine removal is an option for those who can afford it. Single working parents cannot afford to homeschool, and that is a huge segment of our population, who is not afforded a choice. And although it is easy in some states, but it not easy in many other states.

Like I said before, I would have far, far fewer objections if there were no compulsory schooling laws.

I have answered all your arguments before. At this point, I would be prefacing all my answers with "as I said before," and I suspect you would be too. So as far as I'm concerned, I've said mine and you've said yours, and we know we aren't ever going to agree.

Merry Christmas!

(And Rue, I cut you some slack because Citizen's arguments persuaded me to be a bit more lenient. But you are back to insults, outright lies, and making groundless accusations that have nothing to do with the quotations you posted. They sound like the rantings of a crazy man to me, and I frankly have no more idea how to respond anymore than I would to someone who says, "The aluminum moon is mad and full of repentant joy." Yeah, whatever. You and I are done. Really. My last words to you: Merry Christmas, dude.)

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
"I wish to become a teacher of the Truth."
"Are you prepared to be ridiculed, ignored and starving till you are forty-five?"
"I am. But tell me: What will happen after I am forty-five?"
"You will have grown accustomed to it."
--Anthony de Mello, S.J.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 22, 2006 7:06 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS,

I KNOW you don't have any biology, medicine, immunology, biochemistry etc background. This forum is not a place where you'll be able get a grounding at even a HS level. And to add to that, you hold your ignorance adamantly. How you have the - stupidity - for lack of a nicer word, to hold those sciences in such great contempt when you know so little borders on the insane.
This is the real world which runs by cause and effect. Plugging your ears and saying NAH NAH NAH I can't hear you will not change it one whit. I hope you aren't so divorced from reality that you do something really stupid to yourself, or worse, your children. Or maybe they'll just get lucky and not run into any situations where they suffer the consequences of your quirks.

Either way I have no interest in either educating you or debating you. My only concern is to put your arguments in perspective for anyone who might mistake your posts for knowledge.

I wish your children a merry xmas and all the best luck. For you, I wish you a good, but not fatal, smack upside the head by reality. And for your husband, the discernment to know when to intervene.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 23, 2006 6:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
As I said before, homeschooling is an option for those who can afford it, just like fluorine removal is an option for those who can afford it. Single working parents cannot afford to homeschool, and that is a huge segment of our population, who is not afforded a choice. And although it is easy in some states, but it not easy in many other states.

Yep, just like driving. I would love to be able to ditch my car, but I can't afford the 2-hour bus ride to work, and the 2-hour bus ride home. So we MUST exist with each other on the road, in the classroom, in the workplace, the grocery store and the playground. And there are rules to keep us from hurting each other: rules against drunk driving, against smoking in public, against celebrating New Year's by firing a gun into the air, and against not being vaccinated.

You want me to say that I think it's OK not to be vaccinated, but all the the articles that I've pulled up so far tell me that NOT vaccinating causes real and even individually traceable harm to others, including those who have been vaccinated. The known mechanisms of epidemics tell us this is so with mathematical certainty. And in order to support your proposed policy of "choice" without having to suffer consequences, you have to deny so much science and so much evidence that it speaks of an irrational terror.

I "get" that you had a very bad experience, so much so that you would feel like a murderer if you had your children vaccinated and they had the same problem. I think it's vital to understand the mechanisms that involve bad reactions to vaccines, and necessary to place the consequences of these bad reactions on the pharmas because that will spur research into preventing those reactions. Nonetheless, I don't think that your fear should place you or your children, or anyone else, above the consequences for NOT vaccinating. Perhaps you should try to find other non-vaccinating parents in your area and have cooperative home-schooling, or press you school district to set up a special classroom for non-vaccinated children.

Good luck. Merry Christmas.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 23, 2006 2:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yep, just like driving.

Not just like driving. I understand why you would see them as similar. You have to work and eat, you have to send your kids to school. You follow the rules you gotta to do both. I simply have a different perspective. One is a natural need to work and eat, with driving as one of many options to achieve that end (many people living in big cities use public transportation and don't drive at all). The other has the boot of tyranny on my neck, forcing me to school, then forcing me into only one option of schooling, and then forcing me to conform to the laws governing that only option. No matter where I move, that same boot follows me around. Like I said, I would have far fewer objections if there weren't compulsory schooling laws, or homeschooling laws, on top of mandatory vaccination laws that are applied to BOTH public and private schools. It is an artificial hardship created by bureaucracy, and it is relentless and oppressive.

Quote:
You want me to say that I think it's OK not to be vaccinated,

No. I want you to say you value the medical ethics of the right to informed consent above reducing the risk to a few failed-vaccine recipients. Citizen is adamantly against not vaccinating, but he apparently values choice above force. I respect him for that. I suspect he finds it much easier to support choice because he lives in a country (Britain) that allows choice, and he is used to the idea that hey, choice can work!

Quote:
NOT vaccinating causes real and even individually traceable harm to others,

It would be very easy to find the same number of articles documenting outbreaks where the index person was vaccinated. I've said this before. BOTH vaccinated and unvaccinated people are going to infect BOTH vaccinated and unvaccinated people. I really didn't want to rehash, but I again object to singling out unvaccinated people as the only ones that should be accountable for infecting people. If infection is your main concern, and not simply punishing people for not vaccinating by scapegoating them, then be consistent with everyone. Have objective criteria for schools such as antibody titers, and require that all children and school personnel, vaccinated or not, meet those antibody titer standards before being allowed to enter school.

Quote:
And in order to support your proposed policy of "choice" without having to suffer consequences, you have to deny so much science and so much evidence that it speaks of an irrational terror.

Every policy suffers consequences. There is no such thing as a perfect, cost-free policy. And I have never denied any science, despite your repeated accusation that I do so. I have simply put all science in the context of confounders, limited their conclusions in that context, and pointed out that vaccination is a complex, multi-factorial issue that is not so black-and-white. Science does not offer any "mathematical certainties." Science is my field--what I was educated and trained to do. A science professional tends to see science as a more complex issue than a science consumer, who tends to think it all comes packaged in neat, conclusive answers.

Finally, the irrational terror I see is of infections and diseases and loss of "eradication heaven." It is irrational because of the aforementioned double standards. It is terror because people who otherwise value freedom and choice are so terrified they are willing to withhold choice in order to be "protected."

Quote:
I "get" that you had a very bad experience, so much so that you would feel like a murderer if you had your children vaccinated and they had the same problem.

Thank you. I appreciate your acknowledgement.

Quote:
Perhaps you should try to find other non-vaccinating parents in your area and have cooperative home-schooling...

I am happily homeschooling. And even if there were no mandatory vaccination laws, I would continue to happily homeschool as long as we can afford it. My fear is if something should happen to my husband, and I have to single-parent and work full-time, I WILL have to move to a state with nonmedical exemptions. My fear is that the AMA will finally be successful in rescinding nonmedical exemptions in the states that have them, and I will have no place to go to even move to. If mandatory vaccinationists get their way (no nonmedical exemptions anywhere), what are single working parents to do? Vaccinate or go to prison for truancy and lose their children?

Quote:
or press you school district to set up a special classroom for non-vaccinated children

Actually, I would accept such an option as a reasonable compromise. Unvaccinated children may attend school in 48 states ONLY with a medical or religious exemption. If they have the exemption, they wouldn't need the special classroom. If they can't get nonmedical exemptions in the remaining 2 states, no school, public or private, are allowed to accept unvaccinated children (without medical exemptions), period. So this option is either not necessary or not legally permissible.

I am willing to accept all manner of compromises and alternatives. They could remove compulsory schooling laws, and I'd be a lot happier. They could remove mandatory vaccination laws from being applicable to private schools, and I would be a lot happier. I wouldn't mind seeing private schools which allow unvaccinated children, which offers scholarships to those children of single parents who otherwise cannot afford the tuition. Those vaccinated who want to take the risk of attending those schools can make that choice if they want to. They could remove all homeschooling laws, and I would be a lot happier.

The only thing I ask is that any policy targeting unvaccinated children as infection risks be consistent with vaccinated and medcially exempt children as infection risks as well. No double standards, no hypocrisy. For example, if you want to segregate unvaccinated children as infection risks, then segregate children with medical exemptions, failed-vaccine recipients, and children with subclinical disease as infection risks as well.

As I said before, I don't mind taking responsibility for my choices. I just don't want double standards that white-wash and reward everyone WILLING to be vaccinated, and scapegoat and punish everyone DEFIANT of vaccines. Double standards have to do with political sanctioning of approved ideology, and has nothing to do with a genuine interest in public health. Genuine interest in public health would apply the same objective criteria to everyone, and not give vaccinated people a free ride from responsibility, whether they were currently immune or not, whether they were actually infectious or not.

Sorry, I had decided to not rehash all this, but this has been weighing on my mind. Just had to cathart a bit.

Signy, just wanted to thank you for bringing intelligent and uninsulting arguments to the table. We don't agree, of course, but you brought up good points worth considering and countering. It's been a pleasure.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 23, 2006 4:39 PM

Great post CTS. I find your views on this topic to be a breath of fresh air and I'm glad that I live in a place where individualists can still speak their mind and have a chance to make their own choices still.

I'm 100% in agreement with you on every point you made, except for possibly the people of the UK having more choice than we do. I don't live there, nor have I ever been there, but I do know they have a helluva lot more traffic cams up on street corners and even inside buses. I've heard a stat that the average person working in London has their photograph taken nearly 300 times a day.

They've put posters such as this up in the bus stops and on billboards too:

Or posters like this urging bus passengers to rat each other out for any suspicious behavior:

How long do you think it will be before they start seeing this poster:

I'm I paranoid? Probably.... I'd like to think of it more as just a very keen perception of my surrounding reality.

Bottom line, I do not recognize anyone on this thread, let alone any medical professional or government authority, on their beliefs that I should be vaccinated or be in violation of law otherwise.

I do welcome anyone who feels the need to vaccinate me to come by and try whenever they feel that my presence is threatening their well being.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 24, 2006 3:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm 100% in agreement with you on every point you made, except for possibly the people of the UK having more choice than we do.

I mean people in Britain have vaccination choice. They do not have mandatory vaccination laws or a "no shot, no school" policy.

And thanks for your kind comments and voice for freedom.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 24, 2006 7:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The only thing I ask is that any policy targeting unvaccinated children as infection risks be consistent with vaccinated and medcially exempt children as infection risks as well. No double standards, no hypocrisy. For example, if you want to segregate unvaccinated children as infection risks, then segregate children with medical exemptions, failed-vaccine recipients, and children with subclinical disease as infection risks as well.

Well, here's something we can agree on! The children with low or no titers go to a separate class, the children with subclinical diesease get to stay home. I know you can check titers for antibodies. I wonder how you look for subclinical diseases?

BTW, I know Rue offline because we happen to be working in the same field, and I can assure you that Rue IS a working scientist.

6string: I follow the principle that says the right to swing your arm ends at my nose. If you really want total choice and total freedom, you'll have to live in isolation. So, are you married? That's lesson in compromise and negotiation.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 24, 2006 8:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I can assure you that Rue IS a working scientist.

Cough. I believe you that Rue works in a field that is considered a science.

Here is the thing. In common usage, the word "science" gets thrown about a lot as synonymous with technology, fact, models, and authority. There is a body of knowledge known commonly as "science," and then there is a method of inquiry and epistemology known as "science." The two are not the same thing.

Rue, physicians, and many others who work in technical fields, know a lot of facts and beliefs that are thought of as "science." But the same people can know very little about how one arrives at these facts and beliefs, and how they are determined to be "true," and the rigors and standards of the discovery process of science. For me, a scientist is someone who is educated and trained in the latter, as opposed to the former.

The scientists I know in real life, who I know have graduate training in science (the method), understand how to DO research, and therefore how to interpret research. They understand about confounders, validity, reliability, control groups, meaningless vs. meaningful statistics, sample sizes, statistical error, etc. They understand that every study has confounders and how the conclusions of each study is limited by those confounders. They understand that correlation does not equal causation. By and large, physicians and technicians don't understand these things, and neither does Rue. They are what I call science consumers, and consumers tend to have a more simplistic view of studies and their conclusions.

I do not consider anyone who doesn't understand the scientific method to be a scientist, even if they have consumed a lot of science (memorized a lot of facts and beliefs in scientific fields). At the same time, science consumers like physicians and Rue are adamant about calling themselves scientists because their livelihoods depend on their ability to consume science and apply technology.

We'll just have to disagree about the definition of "scientist."

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 24, 2006 11:47 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

cts,

By your definition, I'm a scientist, not a technician and not a doctor. I work in the field of atmospheric chemistry, and yes, I'm well grounded in the statistics of research. I actually do understand those things far better than you suspect, and probably far better than you, since I have to use them in either setting up experiments or interpreting the results of others.

I ALSO have a medical background and I understand that there is a body of work YOU don't understand. It's roughly 99% lab work into things like 'what triggers the immune system', or 'what is the configuration of this enzyme and how does it work'. It founds, generates, investigates clinical work, like a new vaccine. B/c YOU don't understand the research, you think the results are vodoo.

As I said, I'm not about to try to teach you, or waste my time in debate with you. But the depth of your ignorance is profound. I also find your extraordinary bias and ability to reject data as bordering on the dellusional.

But go ahead. You know everything. No one else knows anything, except of course when they agree with you. Whatever you do to your own life is no skin off my nose. And though I would hate to think of your children being hurt, that's between you, CPS and local authorities.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 25, 2006 1:26 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

6-string,

It just occurred to me to give a word to the wise. While I understand you have the same position as CTS, don't try to take her arguments into anything that matters. They'll fall apart like tissue paper and if you are depending on them, you'll lose.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 25, 2006 3:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Cough. I believe you that Rue works in a field that is considered a science....
Rue, physicians, and many others who work in technical fields, know a lot of facts and beliefs that are thought of as "science." But the same people can know very little about how one arrives at these facts and beliefs, and how they are determined to be "true," and the rigors and standards of the discovery process of science. For me, a scientist is someone who is educated and trained in the latter, as opposed to the former. The scientists I know in real life, who I know have graduate training in science (the method), understand how to DO research, and therefore how to interpret research. They understand about confounders, validity, reliability, control groups, meaningless vs. meaningful statistics, sample sizes, statistical error, etc. They understand that every study has confounders and how the conclusions of each study is limited by those confounders. They understand that correlation does not equal causation. By and large, physicians and technicians don't understand these things, and neither does Rue.

CTS- Without knowing a thing about what we do you decided that we don't understand the scientific method. I assure you that we do. In fact, Rue was helping me figure out the appropriate statitics to use on a particular set of data, including whether the variances among several sets of data were equal and which variables were- and weren't- included in the experiment. We understand... well, Rue does anyway... about sample size and confounders because Rue is a biologist and a statistician. (I'm a chemist and a bureaucrat.) We also both know that the scientific method goes way beyond statistics. Because behind any correlation there has to be some sort of model explaining HOW two phenomena are related to each other. This is where your approach falls apart. You can't tell me how vaccines might be harmful. You've wiped the map clean of all data and painted a big HERE BE DRAGONS on it. That is not a productive or scientific approach.

On a more personal note, I understand your fears for your children. I have a medically complicated daughter that the medical system has failed time and time again... not because of ill-will on the part of the doctors, but simply because she isn't covered in the literature. I know her issues are wrapped up with the immune system and the brain, and some day they'll figure it all out. Unfortunately it will be too late for her. Like you, I've been LIVING in a situation of the unknown. I even found a temporarily successful treatment on the internet, and it was Rue who pointed me in that direction. (BTW Rue is not the robotic proponent of medical dogma that you paint.)

I've faced a situation where I had to either apply a time-critical experimental treatment (intravenous immonoglubulin) right at the beginning of the mad-cow scare. Think about that: I could have been saving my daughter's brain, or destroying, or saving it in the short-run only to see it eaten away in the long run. At the time, almost nothing was known about either choice and I was racked with fear. I know all about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I also know it can sustain irrational fear.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 25, 2006 4:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS- Without knowing a thing about what we do you decided that we don't understand the scientific method.

Well, I was careful to not include you in my comments. You seem to understand science better than Rue. I have never heard YOU say that "correlation does not equal causation" is "bogus."

I have heard Rue say enough shockingly ridiculous things (such as the above comment) that demonstrates unequivocally that he does not understand the scientific method. I don't need to know what he does for a living. His words here on RWED speak for themselves.

And if you recall, I did mention that amongst the sciences, the sciences that have the lowest and least rigorous standards are biology and medicine. There are quite a number of biologists who do not know the first thing about the scientific method. Some are even research biologists. I don't know how that got to be, but it happens. Of course, this is not true for all biologists. And of course, sometimes you'll find a physicist or chemist or geologist who doesn't understand the scientific method either. But in my experience, it is rare in the physical sciences, more common in biology, and highly probable in medicine.

Anyway, I hang out and speak with enough real-life PhD research scientist to know the difference when I see it. [Edited to add:]If I had to summarize the main difference between someone who knows scientific method, and someone who doesn't, it would be this:

Given any study, a scientist sees more questions than answers, more unknowns than knowns, more confounders than controls. A scientist then is the paragon of caution, qualifies conclusions carefully (and if the scientist is good, precisely as well), and avoids generalizing past the limits of actual data.

Here is an afterthought. It may be the difference between undergraduate and graduate education in the sciences. Undergraduate training focuses on science consumption, memorizing vocabulary and basic assumptions, theories, and facts in a field. Graduate training teaches the skepticism of science. When I talk to people with graduate training in scientific methodology and statistics, I don't need to explain how confounders limit the conclusions of a study. They are already thinking about those confounders before we get done discussing the study. It's a different mindset you learn in graduate training, to automatically think about what a study DOESN'T prove and where the controls fall short.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 25, 2006 9:02 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS,

Right now you're making what's called a straw-man argument. Which is, you're arguing against a point no one else is making. But then, your entire position is based on more than one lie - isn't it.

What I said was that it was 'bogus' as a straw man argument. But you seem to keep 'forgetting' that little point.

BTW, I work as a CHEMIST doing research, and have for over 20 years. And why is that you might ask? It's b/c my academic background qualifies me for the job. But I don't say a lot about what I actually do b/c frankly I can't. And my bio/ med background is just a hobby which I've used to help many people towards good, if unconventional, medical care.

Now I realize you're a little frustrated - no job, no recognition, no rewards for your 'brilliance'. But trying to knock other people down in order to put yourself up is cheap and obvious.

So lighten up. Get a job. Do something meaningful so that your ego isn't riding on this poor website. New Year's is just around the corner.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 4:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Here is an afterthought. It may be the difference between undergraduate and graduate education in the sciences. Undergraduate training focuses on science consumption, memorizing vocabulary and basic assumptions, theories, and facts in a field. Graduate training teaches the skepticism of science. When I talk to people with graduate training in scientific methodology and statistics, I don't need to explain how confounders limit the conclusions of a study. They are already thinking about those confounders before we get done discussing the study. It's a different mindset you learn in graduate training, to automatically think about what a study DOESN'T prove and where the controls fall short.

In our department, we collectively think about this quite a bit because we're presented with data all the time, typically generated by industry. After a while, you learn to separate fact from incomplete truth and from fiction. I'm pretty old, so is Rue. I would say that meither of us is naive about the uses and misuses of data.

Two items of interest:

There is more information on the Indiana girl who spread measles to 34 people. While I didn't want to jump to conclusions, I was fairly certain that this girl is a "never vaccinated" variety because she seemed to be part of a family, church, or other non-vaccinating subgroup which made it extremely easy to "find" 32 unvaccinated people.

It turns ou that this girl... "became infected after visiting a Romanian orphanage while on a church-mission trip, health investigators said. The others became infected after they attended a church gathering with her the day after her return.

"Orphanages are known to be higher risk" for measles, said Dr. Philip Gould of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "The main point is to ensure that people do get vaccinated, especially prior to leaving the country, going to a place that physicians suspect that measles is a risk."

Thirty-three people in Indiana and one from Illinois became infected. Three people were hospitalized, but no one died. Only two of the 34 people had been vaccinated against measles.

'The outbreak occurred because measles was imported into a population of children whose parents had chosen not to vaccinate their children because of safety concerns' "
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061222/ap_on_he_me/measles_traveler

---------
AFA your approach to exposing your child to various foods:

"Study: Overcoming allergies possible
...Here's how it worked: First, youngsters spent a day at the Duke hospital swallowing minuscule but increasing doses of either an egg powder or a defatted peanut flour, depending on their allergy. They started at 1/3,000th of a peanut or about 1/1,000th of an egg, increasing the amount until the child broke out in hives or had some other reaction. Then the children were sent home with a daily dose just under that reactive amount. Every two weeks, the kids returned for a small dose increase until they reached the equivalent of a tenth of an egg or one peanut — a maintenance dose that thhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061225/ap_on_he_me/healthbeat_food_allergiesey swallowed daily."

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 7:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
While I didn't want to jump to conclusions, I was fairly certain that this girl is a "never vaccinated" variety

Thanks for digging that up. I appreciate knowing.

Still, it doesn't change the fact that this story is anecdotal. What does it mean in the grand scheme of things?

So to reiterate, I am dreadfully sorry to hear about an unvaccinated person infecting failed-vaccine recipients. But these instances do not provide scientific proof of anything. I can find documentation where index patients of outbreaks were vaccinated, but that would also be anecdotal. All these stories prove is that yes, vaccinated and unvaccinated people infect vaccinated and unvaccinated people--a point I do not dispute.

All right.. way too much rehash. I've probably said all this 2 or 3 times before. (See, with my scientist friends, I only have to say it once, if at all. They automatically understand that anecdotal evidence, while sometimes useful, does not constitute scientific proof of anything. Here, on RWED, I felt like I had to say it several times, and yet anecdotal or uncontrolled evidence keeps being brought up as if it proves something. This is just one example of why I feel that the people I'm talking to here do not understand the scientific method very well.)

Anyway, done with rehash.

Thanks for the info on allergies! Appreciate it.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:12 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

cts,

You're digging yourself a hole of the type PN is in. Stop digging.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 11:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hostility is counterproductive. I think vaccination has the weight of evidence in terms of being effective. I also think it is safER than catching the disease itself. But it is not 100% effective, nor 100% safe.

SOME vaccination is prolly mandatory, especially with our godforsaken medical system. But some vaccines remain optional to this day. Perhaps exploring the gray area will help clarify when vaccines should be made mandatory, when they should be optional, and what exemptions should be made.

For example, it occurred to me that maybe there is NOTHING "inherently" wrong with either the vaccines or the child who reacts badly to them. Perhaps it is a stochastic event... a temporary permeability of the blood-brain barrier that everybody experiences from time to time time... that simply opens up the brain to very normal, useful antibodies.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 3:45 PM