The push to make you vaccinate your children

originally posted by: xDeadcowx
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

drtenpenny.com...

An article about the author of your "evidence"

Here’s the problem. It’s not surprising that death rates were declining before introduction of the vaccines. Medicine was improving. More importantly, supportive care was improving. For example, take the case of polio. Before the introduction of the iron lung and its widespread use, for example, if a polio patient developed paralysis of the respiratory muscles, he would almost certainly die. The iron lung allowed such patients to live, some for decades. No doubt improved nutrition also played a role as well. However, if you want to see the impact of vaccines, take a look at this graph from the CDC of measles incidence, not death rates:

Similar results were seen most recently from several other vaccines, including the Haemophilus influenza type B vaccine, as the CDC points out:

Hib vaccine is another good example, because Hib disease was prevalent until just a few years ago, when conjugate vaccines that can be used for infants were finally developed. (The polysaccharide vaccine previously available could not be used for infants, in whom most cases of the disease were occurring.) Since sanitation is not better now than it was in 1990, it is hard to attribute the virtual disappearance of Haemophilus influenzae disease in children in recent years (from an estimated 20,000 cases a year to 1,419 cases in 1993, and dropping) to anything other than the vaccine.

In the post to which I referred, the most intellectually dishonest graph is this one:

Note how this graph, unlike all the other graphs used to make the claim that “vaccines didn’t save us” actually uses incidence data, in this case from Canada from 1935 to 1983. I was immediately suspicious of this graph, though. The reason should be obvious; the decline in measles incidence is far too smooth. Measles incidence typically varies greatly from year to year. Fortunately, in his chutzpah, Obomsawin included a link to the actual source of the graph. Naturally, I couldn’t resist checking it out, and I found that the link leads to the Canadian Immunization Guide section on the measles vaccine. And this is the actual graph from which Obomsawin allegedly extracted his data:

Note how Obomsawin left out a section of ten years (1959 to 1968) during which measles was not nationally reportable. Also note how he’s, to be charitable, cherry picked the years to produce the impression of a smoothly declining measles incidence from 1935 to 1958. As I said, it doesn’t get much more intellectually dishonest than that

a reply to: coldkidc

There are risks involved with letting your children use public restrooms too, but that doesn't mean I'd see the logic in letting your kids crap in their pants because you refuse to let them use that Walmart John.

a reply to: coldkidc

The Media is to blame here. Actual medical professionals will freely admit that there are risks with vaccines. The
www.hrsa.gov...
"National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program" is not just a waste of government funding. It is a legitimate division of the department of health and human services. It's the media that has hyped it and created the controversy.

This has led various user submission sites to take up arms by creating memes that are often very unscientific themselves. Most posts and memes created are driven by pure emotion, with no real scientific contribution to any debate.

a reply to: coldkidc

Couldn't agree more, I've had to drive some distances lately and I've heard it every single time I'm in the car. The BS spin being that the original study linking autism has been rejected, ignoring all the other studies say there is a causal linkage.

Also I would like to point out that this outbreak occurred in people who HAD BEEN vaccinated. Same thing in New York a couple of years back. Vaccinated people got ill from the vaccination, not from an un-vaccinated individual.

This propaganda campaign stinks to high heaven. There is something really, really off about the whole thing in general. To you vaccine pushers, back off.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
To be blunt, exactly who the hell are they to tell us what to do with our bodies and our families? I mean really? Take all the little Hitlers, local and federal and put them on an island somewhere. Our bodies, our rules, why is that so hard to comprehend for them and some people? S + F

A good argument for the total legalization of all drugs, all consensual sexual activities, and of course any form of restriction on marriage or abortion.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Vaccines don't cause autism.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Every person's body reacts differently, there are always some people whose bodies do not react well to a vaccine. Here are some vaccine documents that show some side effects, including autism:







Pentacel - www.fda.gov...

Daptacel - www.fda.gov...

Havrix - www.fda.gov...

Prevnar - www.fda.gov...

Tripedia - www.fda.gov...

worldtruth.tv...

Brain Eating Nanobots Being Put in Vaccines Says Whistleblower

frightening read

a reply to: Philippines

My contention isn't that vaccines cause autism in every person who receives it, simply that in certain people it does something and the end result is autism. I'm sure they're responsible for other ailments too. Just clearing that up.

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Better yet...if your kid gives my kid some disease and my kid dies or gets some crazy life-altering side effect (ie brain damage) can we imprison you? What about eye for an eye? My kid goes down, so does yours? Is that fair? Obviously I'm taking this to the extreme but answer this: what right do you have to allow your kids to be disease carrying menaces that can infect other kids, immunized or not immunized. What if he plays with another kid who isn't immunized and they both get something?

My two cents: Anyone who doesn't immunize their children shouldn't be allowed within several miles of any other children. It doesn't matter if schools ban them. They can come into contact with each other at malls, hospitals, passing on a sidewalk, restaurants, airplanes, etc. If you want a disease-prone menace because you're afraid of a ultra remote chance of a bad side effect (instead of a fairly high chance of actually dying from measles or other diseases) then you don't belong in my country and neither do your kids. How DARE you think that you can drag your rugrats around everyone elses kid putting them at risk.

You mean like the Government that you trust so much accomdating illegal children with a plethora of diseases and busing them all over the country unvaccinated and into schools secretly?Like that?

a reply to: Sunwolf

Precisely, why trust them that their vaccines are perfectly safe? They've never instilled much confidence in the past...

a reply to: douglas5

Now that's a conspiracy - nanobots on this scale are real & already here even though everybody still thinks it's sci-fi future stuff...so...who knows?


Here's a thread/link with Dr. Ido Bachelet, a well qualified source that says nanobots are a current reality & usable now:

Revolutionary nanotechnology that can be used to cure cancer, among others, to begin human trials.

Ido Bachelet announces 2015 human trial of DNA nanobots to fight cancer and soon to repair spinal cords

Things have gotten to the point today where any time the media starts pushing for anything I immediately have a counter reaction to it. Call me suspicious but it seems like they are eventually always on the wrong side of things, taking away more freedoms, mandating more of this and that we're forced to comply with and usually for a reason they either created or lied about to begin with.

originally posted by: coldkidc
a reply to: douglas5

Now that's a conspiracy - nanobots on this scale are real & already here even though everybody still thinks it's sci-fi future stuff...so...who knows?


Here's a thread/link with Dr. Ido Bachelet, a well qualified source that says nanobots are a current reality & usable now:

Revolutionary nanotechnology that can be used to cure cancer, among others, to begin human trials.

Ido Bachelet announces 2015 human trial of DNA nanobots to fight cancer and soon to repair spinal cords

I have a damaged spinal cord. Of all the ironies in life one of the things I fear the most (nanotech) may be the thing to give me my life back. Ah hell, it probably won't be available anytime soon and even if it is I won't be eligible for some reason.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

I hope for you that it does develop fast enough - Dr. Bachelet actually addresses spinal repair during one of his lectures...

It's an exciting threshold we stand on as humanity - it's a little scary too if it gets into the wrong hands...but I think it'll inevitably be part of our future as the benefits seem to currently outweigh the risks.

Perhaps we'll be having this same debate about nanotech in 10 years...

I want nanobots in my blood that fix everything all the time, 24/7. I'd sign up for that in a heartbeat. I probably wouldn't be able to donate blood anymore though.

I had the red measles.
I had chicken pox.
I had the mumps.
My mom was a polio victim.

What I think of anti-vaccination people can not be posted.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

"It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong" -- Jeremy Bentham

However, I don't support the multi-cocktail for babies and young children.

Jeremy Bentham: what an amazing, fascinating man: en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Awesome! Dr. Bachelet was saying there were beginning human trials - you should contact them & get to work.

However, I don't support the multi-cocktail for babies and young children.

This is where I stand on vaccines. I think they are effective, and only some are really necessary, but definitely not all - especially not the flu vaccine.

However, I adamantly oppose giving vaccines to newborns and infants. They have no business getting a shot that early in life. If the vaccines were effective for newborns, they wouldn't need boosters every 2 months too.

originally posted by: Philippines

However, I don't support the multi-cocktail for babies and young children.

This is where I stand on vaccines. I think they are effective, and only some are really necessary, but definitely not all - especially not the flu vaccine.

However, I adamantly oppose giving vaccines to newborns and infants. They have no business getting a shot that early in life. If the vaccines were effective for newborns, they wouldn't need boosters every 2 months too.

I'm on the fence regarding flu shots. I think it should be personal choice, unless it is a flu so severe it threatens society as a whole.

I did not say infants should not be vaccinated. Many infants today are in daycare where they are susceptible to communicable diseases.

I just think they should be spread out instead of a multi-cocktail.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Philippines

However, I don't support the multi-cocktail for babies and young children.

This is where I stand on vaccines. I think they are effective, and only some are really necessary, but definitely not all - especially not the flu vaccine.

However, I adamantly oppose giving vaccines to newborns and infants. They have no business getting a shot that early in life. If the vaccines were effective for newborns, they wouldn't need boosters every 2 months too.

I'm on the fence regarding flu shots. I think it should be personal choice, unless it is a flu so severe it threatens society as a whole.

I did not say infants should not be vaccinated. Many infants today are in daycare where they are susceptible to communicable diseases.

I just think they should be spread out instead of a multi-cocktail.

Understood on what you meant with infants. I don't believe newborns should receive any shots other than vitamin K. They do not even have a developed immune system to react to the vaccines. Maybe at ~2 years age should vaccines be considered if the child is expected to be exposed.

I would be much more a fan of vaccines if they were oral/inhaled as opposed to intravenous. Using a shot is highly unnatural for the human body as it doesn't really know how to process all of the adjuvants besides the weakened virus. On the other hand, the GI tract and lungs know how to deal with foreign invaders much better.

Furthermore, if the mother is immune (through vaccines or natural immunity), she should pass on the immunity to her child - rendering vaccines obsolete for the 2nd generation onwards imo (if the mother breastfeeds).

You make a good point though for children who will be exposed to the infectious pathogens in daycare... But if they are recently immunized there should be nothing to worry about, even if other children are not vaccinated.

Completely agreed on spreading them out instead of a cocktail as well. Doing multiple shots at once makes it harder to isolate the culprit should some bad reaction occur.