It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

N.J. Mandatory Flu Shots for Preschoolers Cause Outrage

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   

N.J. Mandatory Flu Shots for Preschoolers Cause Outrage


abcnews.go.com

New Jersey is the first state in the nation to require a flu shot for all children before they enroll in preschools and daycare centers.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Wasnt Sure if this was already posted, .I just remember reading something about a lil girl dieing because of a flu shot. Mandatory Shots? whats next? How can they pass a law to inject who ever with what ever they want? when in fact they could be injecting something bad into the young one's system, or something far worse?


Been reading ATS for about a month now, finaly decided to join up!~

abcnews.go.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 06:36 AM
link   
i used to get flu shots as a child, but i don't see a need for them anymore. the body's natural immune system is a powerful and incredible thing! the more you take drugs, the less responsiblity your immune system will have, and therefore it will gradually become weaker.

i'm recalling something George Carlin said before, about him swimming in the ?Hudson? River. he mentioned that they swam there all the time as kids, and it was the filthiest, most polluted river ever. i think he said he saw a dead body floating in it before lol... anyway, he claims he never got sick a day in his life! makes perfect sense to me - whether he's joking or not, he's got a valid point! your immune system is not too much different than the rest of your body, in that proper maintainence and exercise makes it stronger!

as for mandatory flu shots, though, as far as i'm concerned, "they" can put anything they want in a vaccine... i've heard that that's how AIDS was introduced to the U.S. in the eighties...



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   
I'm against it, and again, I have to ask, how is this legal? I am against any kind of forced medical services, if you want it, fine, take it, if not, it is not only not legal, but ILLEGAL to force it on someone. By forcing it, you are accepting responsibility for any actions that occur as a result

camain



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Well, look at it this way. the more you take ANY drug, The more your body becomes resistant to it. Now, After Virus Attacking the mom for years, and her immune system fights them all off, then all of her body's knowledge is passed down to her offspring. When born , the baby in natually immune, because of the mothers past experiences. Unless the child is born and has problems. They say its for the "new" virus's , but wouldn't that mean Everyone would have to have new shots?



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Thats the gist of flu shots, they make a new flu shot every year, they are guessing if the shot will be the flu that is infecting people. If its not, then there is no immunity. If it is, then you are immune to THAT one flu virus, and similar variants, not the other 100,000 different strains out there.

You have to ask, who benefits from the this. Not the kids, that are forced at $20 a pop to take it, but the vaccine manufacturers that make $15 dollars a pop for each kid vacinated. It is a continuous stream of cash for them, gaurenteed by the government.

Cheers,

Camain



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
People in NJ need to fight this, this will only bring bad things, I garantee it.

Imo we should can the whole vaccination system and replace it with nutricionism classes and organic agriculture. I have an odd feeling the higher you go up the class ladder the lower the vaccination rates...



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Think of the money these pharma companys are now making due to this, insane profits that risk the childrens well being.

The vaccines in my opinion were a problem before, but this is just insane now. EVERY child. If autism rates go through the roof then I think we can safely link the two - as for now, it has merit but nothing solid.

What about the possibility of doing this, for EVERY child, so they can get DNA samples from each and every one of them without their knowing? What about if they start injecting these nano RFID chips into our children to start what will eventually be a world wide monitoring system?

I think vaccines should be 100% optional, as well as they should be more up front and honest about what is actually in the vaccines, as well asl the side effects and possible negative consequences.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Typical governmental meddling in the rights of others.

Where do I go and who do i talk to in order to have my product mandated? Hey, I could come up with a product easily enough, and I would be guaranteed to make good money selling it if it was the law that everyone had to buy one. Where is the economic fairness? Where's the free market? We hear so much about 'free trade' today, and yet our own government can mandate trade here?

Also, when did we remove freedom of religion from the US Constitution? There are legitimate, recognized religions where medical intervention is taboo. So those freedoms are no longer applicable somehow?

Also, what about the negative effects of this flu vaccine? What happens if someone is hurt by this injection? Who pays for that? Certainly not the state, because they are doing this for the 'public health'. Not the pharmacies, because they are now operating under then state. I guess it's just one of those terrible accidents... mandated by the government under force of law.

What about information so the parents can know of any possible side effects? Is there something published that lists exactly what is in this vaccine, and what the possible ramifications of taking it are? How is the average parent supposed to know how to be on the alert for side effects if they don't know what their children are taking? and what about complications with other medications? Do the doctors even know exactly what is in these vaccines and what the ramifications are with the thousands of different medications a child might be taking?

Even if this information is available, is it complete? Flu vaccines change yearly. how many medications have undergone multiple years of laboratory testing, only to be later recalled due to excessive unexpected side effects. Here's a good example: Chantix

Chantix the new stop smoking drug released by Pfizer last year is causing great concern. Psychotic and suicidal behavior appear to be side effects when combined with alcohol. The FDA is now going to be looking into these allegations to see if the Chantix drug is the cause.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Source: www.associatedcontent.com...

And al these problems apparently pale beside the concern for 'public health':

"If we allow parents to pick and choose what vaccines to give kids, we will potentially run the risk of weakening the public health of the entire community," said Dr. Tina Tan of the New Jersey State Department of Health.

By not getting your toddler vaccinated, the state argues, you risk the spread of disease.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Source: www.abcnews.go.com...

I am having some trouble understanding that last argument. If the vaccine is effective, how would not getting it lead to the contagion of someone who did?

This is so unconstitutional, so grievous, and so corrupt, it has to be on a future slate for a SCOTUS session. Someone needs to e-mail the Justices a copy of the Constitution, to make sure they have it for reference when this happens.

Apparently no copy of such exists in New Jersey... and neither does reality.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

I am having some trouble understanding that last argument. If the vaccine is effective, how would not getting it lead to the contagion of someone who did?

TheRedneck


It mainly leads to the spreading of the disease to people who have not gotten the vaccination for reasons such as choice or unavailability.

The flu vaccines typically contain 3 forms of the virus, based on global migration patterns from the tropics (*VAW refers to this process as the 'ODC Crystal Ball' method'). Still, the vaccine is only around 70% effective(*VAW refers to this as 'Wishful Thinking'). 3 out of 10 people who get the shot may still get the flu and pass it around, and can pass it around to others who have gotten vaccinated. Congress has mandated more funds to research for more efficient and better ways to vaccinate. (*VAW takes this as evidence that the flu shots don't work 100%... lol)

Only around 15% of the U.S currently receives flu shots each year. That leaves 245,000,000 people not vaccinated every year. Of the 45 million or so that are vaccinated, 13 million of those may still catch the virus. This effectively leaves only about 30 million out of 300 million people in the country who won't be spreading the virus.

Only about 1 in 10 people become immune in the US each year. Even with these low numbers, only 200,000 are hospitalized, and only 36,000 people die!

I'm sure glad I'm not one of them! I'm a smarty-pants ATS member who knows this whole flu thing is a conspiracy to cause population reduction, sterilization, and autism while all of the statistics are fabricated by the elites! I should have the choice to be a host and spread this virus! It's well within my rights to infect other people by non-action!

Worldwide, more people die of the flu each year than in the four years of the black death. The greatest flu pandemic lasted from 1918-1920 and wiped out ~4% of the world population... they even made funny little poems about it:

I had a little bird,
Its name was Enza,
I opened the window,
And in-flew-enza.

Obey the laws
And wear the gauze.
Protect your jaws
From septic paws.

Believe it or not, they are trying to increase the percentage of those vaccinated in order to protect the other 90% of the United States (not to mention the world), and to save on what could be considered unnecessary deaths and hospitalizations from the flu virus each year in the United States... and it only costs an average of $10 (if your not getting it for free) versus the ??? amount of money you'll be paying for Aspirin, Benadryl, Pepto-Bismol, missed work days, etc... etc...

Not getting the vaccine is like taking two steps back in reality, 1 step forward in self-serving ideals and believing that you are going forward.



What about information so the parents can know of any possible side effects? Is there something published that lists exactly what is in this vaccine, and what the possible ramifications of taking it are?


Are you seriously asking that question? Where do you live, under a rock?

The side effects will obviously be a short lasting (1-2 days) period which is do to being poked through your skin with a needle, causing your arm to bleed and to get sore... and the fever/increased body temperature that results from your body producing anti-bodies for the virus.

If you want more information about it, go to the doctor and get one of those nifty pamphlets they have that tell all about the flu shot.. or better yet, ASK THE DOCTOR OR NURSE WHO IS ABOUT TO POKE YOUR KID WITH A NEEDLE. Perhaps you could even use Google. Have you heard of the "Internet" yes?

Interestingly enough, if you have an allergic reaction to peanut butter, you don't get compensated by the peanut butter company. If you have an allergic reaction (including thimerosal) to the flu-shot, you can get compensated by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program - which is an average of over $1 million per case if the injury was related to the vaccine.

Isn't the government evil? They try to kill us with vaccines, and pay us money if we get injured in the process.

It's the work of Satan, I tell you!



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
36 000 deaths by flu a year in a population of 350 million seems a more or less normal number. It's one in 9722. A lot of old and frail people die of flu related complications, with flu being the straw that breaks the camel's back.

It might seem a big number for fearmongering purposes, but it's perfectly normal.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Zepherian]

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Zepherian]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
so what happens if a child has a disease and the flu vaccine mutates with it into a plague spread as fast as the common cold.. they could be mixing 2 dangerous illness's into a monster....



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Also, when did we remove freedom of religion from the US Constitution? There are legitimate, recognized religions where medical intervention is taboo. So those freedoms are no longer applicable somehow?


You raise a lot of valid concerns. I think that parents should have the last word in whether their children are vaccinated. But I am going to address a couple of specific points in your post.

The article does say that exceptions are granted for religious or medical reasons, so they're not technically in trouble in these terms. If someone is a practicing member of a religion which forbids vaccination, they will not be forced to have their children vaccinated.

What concerns me is that this doesn't cover people who have personal but non-affiliated beliefs that disagree with vaccination. I don't see why it's okay to keep your child from being vaccinated because you're a member of the Church of Christ Scientist but not because you have strong beliefs in only using natural products, for example.


Also, what about the negative effects of this flu vaccine? What happens if someone is hurt by this injection? Who pays for that? Certainly not the state, because they are doing this for the 'public health'. Not the pharmacies, because they are now operating under then state. I guess it's just one of those terrible accidents... mandated by the government under force of law.


Actually, and this is worthy of controversy in its own right, there is a federal program set up to "pay off" people for adverse effects from vaccinations, so that the pharmaceutical companies are off the hook for potential liability. Again, to me the cure seems almost as suspect as the problem



What about information so the parents can know of any possible side effects? Is there something published that lists exactly what is in this vaccine, and what the possible ramifications of taking it are? How is the average parent supposed to know how to be on the alert for side effects if they don't know what their children are taking? and what about complications with other medications? Do the doctors even know exactly what is in these vaccines and what the ramifications are with the thousands of different medications a child might be taking?

Even if this information is available, is it complete?


This information is all available on the websites of the CDC and the pharmaceutical companies. There are indeed publically available lists of the ingredients in the vaccines and the ingredients used to prepare the vaccines. The doctor should alert the parents to watch for side effects – mild fever, stuffiness, etcetera are to be expected, but you can always call your doctor if you're worried.

The CDC publishes brochures which are supposed to be distributed with all vaccinations; if a doctor doesn't give a parent one, they should ask specifically what to watch for.

I hope a child taking thousands of different medications will not be vaccinated, as such a child clearly does not have a normal immune system. Always tell your health care practitioner (or your child's) all medicines, vitamins, and supplements that you are taking. Even a daily multivitamin, even a dose of children's tylenol two days ago.

As for whether the available information is complete and accurate, my guess is that it is. I trust the CDC (and our over-eager personal injury lawyers) that far. That's a personal judgement call, though, and if you think they're leaving out the microchips or killer diseases from the list of ingredients, you probably don't trust the CDC as far as I do.


I am having some trouble understanding that last argument. If the vaccine is effective, how would not getting it lead to the contagion of someone who did?


More likely, it would lead to the contagion of someone who couldn't, whether because they were too young, or had a serious egg allergy (the flu vaccine is grown in eggs, and can cause reactions in people with allergies), or some other reason (including religious).

My Opinion Having answered a few of the valid points that have been raised, I would like to reiterate my personal concern about this law. I am concerned that parents will listen to fear-mongering and not vaccinate children who should be vaccinated out of misconceived paranoia.

But I am more concerned that parents who care enough to have researched the issue and have come to the conclusion that they don't want their kids vaccinated must have that right. Even if they don't belong to a church that gets a religious exemption, even if they can't articulate perfectly why they have a philosophical objection.

I don't think any parent should refuse vaccination without at least listening to the doctor's point of view, but I do think they should have the right to make up their minds after having seen both sides.

And I think it would be fabulous if this thread could focus on the issues of legality and constitutionality instead of the safety and efficacy of the flu vaccine, which have been covered in numerous other threads (I recommend StaticSky's thread "Should We Get the flu vaccine?" currently active in the Conspiracies in Medicine forum, for a nice treatment of both sides, and many interesting personal accounts).



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician

Not getting the vaccine is like taking two steps back in reality, 1 step forward in self-serving ideals and believing that you are going forward.

That is your opinion, and as such it is valid for you. I suggest you voluntarily get the shot.

However, this discussion is not about whether or not one should get the flu shot. It is about whether or not one should be forced by law to get the flu shot. If you want to debate the pros and cons of the shot itself, you might want to consider a thread on that subject. I doubt as to whether I will play a major role in that new thread, however, since I am better-versed in engineering than in medical sciences. Still, I am not sure that a success rate of 32 out of 45 is something to be touted. Would you still take airplanes if 13 out of every 45 flights ended in a crash?

I do want to commend you on your use of effective sarcasm.


Are you seriously asking that question? Where do you live, under a rock?

Actually, you are pretty close.



The side effects will obviously be a short lasting (1-2 days) period which is do to being poked through your skin with a needle, causing your arm to bleed and to get sore... and the fever/increased body temperature that results from your body producing anti-bodies for the virus.

Obviously? For some reason, every time I see that word used to calm fears, I get scared. I can remember ads where Chantrix was 'obviously' a safe medication with few rare side effects.


If you want more information about it, go to the doctor and get one of those nifty pamphlets they have that tell all about the flu shot.. or better yet, ASK THE DOCTOR OR NURSE WHO IS ABOUT TO POKE YOUR KID WITH A NEEDLE.

Suuuuure. And the next time you purchase a used car, be sure to believe everything the car salesman tells you, too.



Isn't the government evil? They try to kill us with vaccines, and pay us money if we get injured in the process.

It's the work of Satan, I tell you!

Nah, Satan is busy with other things. He delegates, you know, usually to governments.

Oh, and looky what I found with a 1-minute google search... from www.medicalnewstoday.com... :

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled 8-1 that FDA approval of certain medical devices protects manufacturers from product liability lawsuits filed in state courts, the New York Times reports.
So I guess it's good that we can get money from a fund specifically set up to address problems with the vaccine (why would anyone do that if the vaccine was really safe, anyway?) since we will probably not be allowed to file legal challenges to those companies who make the drugs and market them as safe, should something go awry.

Gee, you're right, that Internet and Google thingy really works. Wow, what will they think of next?

You have answered one of the four concerns I had, and even that partial answer contains admissions that the vaccine is not extremely reliable. I am not arguing against the vaccine, but against its forced use by legal duress. Surely you get that difference?
---------------
reply to post by americandingbat

I don't think any parent should refuse vaccination without at least listening to the doctor's point of view, but I do think they should have the right to make up their minds after having seen both sides.

I'll star that post. I just hope everyone else sees this in a legal sense instead of a medical one. We can argue all day over the effectiveness of the vaccine, but it is a minor concern when the vaccinations are voluntary. The moment they become mandatory, it becomes a major concern.

TheRedneck


[edit on 18-10-2008 by TheRedneck] extra DIV



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician
you can get compensated by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program - which is an average of over $1 million per case if the injury was related to the vaccine.

That must be a hellacious injury to warrant that kind of money. You try and tell some kid paralyzed by the shots that he did it save some other person with an egg allergy to the mild aches and pains of--horrors!--the flu!!



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
That is your opinion, and as such it is valid for you. I suggest you voluntarily get the shot.


Well, I've had the shot before, but not in years... I tend to stay around people long who are sick anyway, and often find myself holding my breath for about a 45 seconds whenever someone sneezes or coughs, keep my hands clean, and don't touch my face when I'm in public.

Kids don't do that stuff though. They rub their noses and touch everything, don't cover their mouths when they cough.. etc.. they are perfect vessels for viral transport.



However, this discussion is not about whether or not one should get the flu shot. It is about whether or not one should be forced by law to get the flu shot.


I think it's a great idea to have kids vaccinated when they are around other kids in a public school. The argument of "how can the kids who have the flu give it to those who are vaccinated?" is of course rubbish because the vaccine is not 100% Why would you (or anyone) expect it to be?

I don't think 'forced by law' is really the deeper consideration with this topic though since kids are 'forced by law' to go to school in the first place. If it is the topic, it's just a broad ideal. When the next big outbreak occurs (and it will, always does) they'll be quarantining people and giving mandatory shots to save their lives. With these vaccines, it's the government doing what it can to protect its people... or wait, no, it's the government creating a fake pandemic so that they can inject people with poisons to kill them while they are down!


I'm not sure if people living in a society around other people should have a 'right' to refuse a vaccination that saves not only them from infection, but everyone else they come into contact with. If you think so, it is inherently anti-social, somewhat selfish, and not a very logical thing to do when it involves a virus that can kill you and those around you. Society is like driving... it's not a right, but a privilege. You can't go around speeding and running over people with your car and expect to still have the right to drive. People with AIDS shouldn't expect to have the right to throw their contaminated blood in peoples faces... but why should people with the flu have the right to cough all over my face and contaminate the air I breath? The point is, nobody wants those situations to even exist. We should really be beyond that BS, so everybody and their mother gives education about condoms, vaccines, and safe driving while you still have your 'freedom' to completely ignore it. Something isn't right about it.

I read a study earlier today that showed a correlation between kids getting vaccinated and adults of 65 not getting the flu in the same numbers before the children were vaccinated, which just shows that rugrats spread it all over the place.




Still, I am not sure that a success rate of 32 out of 45 is something to be touted. Would you still take airplanes if 13 out of every 45 flights ended in a crash?


I'm not sure where you got that figure (I'm drunk now btw) but if you could get a vaccination that gave you a 10% of being administered a panacea (a cure-all) would you take it? There is a difference between complete failure and partial success. Maybe you think 2nd place is the first loser, but it doesn't work like that. I see no reason to refuse a flu shot just because it is only 70% effective. Those are great odds. If I could go to Las Vegas and win 70% of time...




Obviously? For some reason, every time I see that word used to calm fears, I get scared. I can remember ads where Chantrix was 'obviously' a safe medication with few rare side effects.


I say obviously because it's normal operating procedure for the body. When we have an infection, we get a fever and a higher temperature because it creates a better environment for the production of anti-bodies, and is usually a detrimental environment for pathogens. This characteristic of a healthy++ immune system sometimes kills us. See 'cytokine storm'



Suuuuure. And the next time you purchase a used car, be sure to believe everything the car salesman tells you, too.



Doctors =/ car salesmen




Oh, and looky what I found with a 1-minute google search... from www.medicalnewstoday.com... :


So, you make up your mind on things after 1 minute searches, and 2 minute readings? That's not a very smart thing to do. Read the actual court case and get back to me.



So I guess it's good that we can get money from a fund specifically set up to address problems with the vaccine (why would anyone do that if the vaccine was really safe, anyway?) since we will probably not be allowed to file legal challenges to those companies who make the drugs and market them as safe, should something go awry.


Nothing is 100% 'really safe'.. A heart catheter might as well be a thermometer because it's an easy, routine operation. Everything has side effects and dangers. I see your point about not being able to file a lawsuit though when the government has the medical companies under it's wings. Presumably, devices certified by the FDA are some of the better devices, but whose to say it's not the doctors fault fault for improperly inflating it (they are just like used car salesmen
) or the orderly's fault for not improperly handling it, or the O.R. nurse for not properly taking it from it's sterile wrapping?



You have answered one of the four concerns I had, and even that partial answer contains admissions that the vaccine is not extremely reliable. I am not arguing against the vaccine, but against its forced use by legal duress. Surely you get that difference?


I do, but the cost/benefit analysis puts the benefit way ahead of the cost (i.e. side effects). There is evidence that it works on 7/10 people, and that is pretty good. I can not fathom why the 30% it doesn't work on (perhaps they get the shot while they are already infected?) leads to a conclusion that it doesn't work, or that we shouldn't use it because it's not perfect.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by starviego

Originally posted by logician magician
you can get compensated by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program - which is an average of over $1 million per case if the injury was related to the vaccine.

That must be a hellacious injury to warrant that kind of money. You try and tell some kid paralyzed by the shots that he did it save some other person with an egg allergy to the mild aches and pains of--horrors!--the flu!!



There is no doubt that very serious side effects can (rarely) result from getting a flu shot (or smelling peanut butter) which is exactly why the government created the program and the government doesn't have to pay you for your injuries. They could just tell you to screw off euthanize you, but the US hardly does that anymore.

How many people do you know, who know, who know, who heard from a friend, whos cousin told them over the phone, that they heard from a friend of a friend that someone died from a flu-shot?

I agree with the concept of mandatory flu shots, but I don't think they are careful enough about it.. rabies vaccines are often tested by giving you a fraction of the full dose because many people do have allergic reactions, especially when it is equine. You're monitored for about an hour and 30 minutes for any allergic reactions.

Can they do this with the flu shot? I have to presume that they can't since the flu is kind of... 'gay' compared to rabies.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   
My wife's work is giving out free flus shots...they do so every year, and every year she takes them. Recently she told me that soon they would be giving them out again, and she was going to take it, and wanted me and the kids to go get ours because we can't have sick babies.

Now I have never trusted any type of vaccination. But only within the last year have I found out about the conspiracies behind all this junk. So I politely told my wife that I would prefer if she did not become someone's guenea pig, but it was her choice...as well as the kids. She took this as what she believes is best when I had to explain to her that when our 6 year-old decides that he wants a shot, and our 7 month old decides that he can say he wants a shot, then thier decision will overule what I say about it which is NO!

But I dread the day that someone mandates that I "must" do anything of this nature as I feel much distress will come out of the situation. Although I am opposed to violence, I am for standing up for what you believe.

So if anyone says that they think the flu shot is effective and they prefer to get it, just tell them to ask what ingredients are in the bottle before they get injected, and don't take "Oh, just antibodies to help fight the flu" as a response...people need to know exactly what is in the bottle!



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

the government doesn't have to pay you for your injuries

I would much prefer the vaccine makers to be liable for their products just like any other manufacturer, so that a flood tide of personal injury lawsuits would quickly drives these pushers out of business.

Anyway I guess it comes down to whether you trust your government. Personally, when the G tells everybody that need to line up for their mandatory 'injection,' I start worrying.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician

...often find myself holding my breath for about a 45 seconds whenever someone sneezes or coughs...

Sounds like someone has a wee touch of germophobia...


I think it's a great idea to have kids vaccinated when they are around other kids in a public school. The argument of "how can the kids who have the flu give it to those who are vaccinated?" is of course rubbish because the vaccine is not 100% Why would you (or anyone) expect it to be?

Again, the argument here is not whether it's a 'good idea'. It's a 'good idea' to some people to regulate access to the Internet. The concept of a 'good idea' is in the eye of the one proposing it.

This thread is titled (that's the big bold letter at the top of the page) "N.J. Mandatory Flu Shots for Preschoolers Cause Outrage". Now I don't see many outrages when ever a new medicine hits the shelves at the local pharmacy. The key word here is mandatory. That means that if you disagree with the flu shot for any reason whatsoever you must still take it. Like it or not, germophobic behavior notwithstanding, some people are more cautious than you are about what is injected into their bodies. I am one of those.

If something is voluntary, then the person using it has a choice. If it is mandatory, that means the person using it does not have a choice. If mandatory, yes, I want 100% effectiveness. Anything other is simply wrong.


I don't think 'forced by law' is really the deeper consideration with this topic though since kids are 'forced by law' to go to school in the first place. If it is the topic, it's just a broad ideal.

Actually, you are mistaken in the comparison. School attendance is only mandatory in that some type of school attendance is required, be it public school, private school, or home school. That gives parents the ability to tailor the education of their children to their own belief system. If someone has a problem with the public schools, they are free to place their children in private or charter schools, or even to school them at home. We are discussing the forced injection of a concoction into the veins of a child, by someone other than the parent.


When the next big outbreak occurs (and it will, always does) they'll be quarantining people and giving mandatory shots to save their lives.

In the United States, it is illegal to force someone to take a vaccine, even if refusing it causes their death. The only exception is the absence of instructions from either the patient or a spokesperson for them (via living will), in which case a physician is allowed to make reasonable attempts to save the patient.

Quarantine is a different matter. It is normally only exercised when the disease is easily transmissible and deadly. That's why we do not quarantine people for having the flu. The flu is not normally deadly to the average person.


I'm not sure if people living in a society around other people should have a 'right' to refuse a vaccination that saves not only them from infection, but everyone else they come into contact with. If you think so, it is inherently anti-social, somewhat selfish, and not a very logical thing to do when it involves a virus that can kill you and those around you. Society is like driving... it's not a right, but a privilege.

I have a choice whether or not to drive a car. I do not have a choice whether or not to be a part of society. Believe you me, if I did have that choice, we would not be debating this, because I would have changed societies long ago.

Statements like yours really scare me, and actually place me more at odds with illegal actions such as this one in NJ. Exactly how arrogant do you have to be to demand that everyone else be forced to inject chemical substances (which can themselves be fatal in some cases) just so you might have a bit less chance of getting something that doesn't even usually require a doctor's visit to overcome? Are you that terrified of life, that you would live as a slave to government rather than live with the minor risks that come with being free?


People with AIDS shouldn't expect to have the right to throw their contaminated blood in peoples faces

Actually, I can remember protests from mostly members of the gay community for that very 'right'. They had a lot to say that sounded much like what you are saying. For example, changing rights to privileges and privileges to rights.


but why should people with the flu have the right to cough all over my face and contaminate the air I breath?

Because it is not your air. You do not own it, you use it. It is not my place to clean it for you prior to your using it. You were given a body with the same immunity system I have. If you abused it with chemicals to the point that your immunity cannot operate efficiently, then sorry, that is not my problem. If we both bought identical cars at the same time, and you abused yours to the point that it no longer ran, would you expect me to blow my motor up too?

Apparently you would.


I'm not sure where you got that figure (I'm drunk now btw) but if you could get a vaccination that gave you a 10% of being administered a panacea (a cure-all) would you take it? There is a difference between complete failure and partial success. Maybe you think 2nd place is the first loser, but it doesn't work like that. I see no reason to refuse a flu shot just because it is only 70% effective. Those are great odds. If I could go to Las Vegas and win 70% of time...

Let's see, where did I pick that up? Oh, that's right: YOUR OWN POST:

Originally posted by logician magician
Of the 45 million or so that are vaccinated, 13 million of those may still catch the virus.

Er, you did know that getting drunk kills neural activity and damages the liver right? Well, you do now... I wonder how many times the flu has caused memory loss?


And I would be upset with those odds, if I were forced to risk my life savings by law once per year in Vegas.


Doctors =/ car salesmen

  • Both doctors and used car salesmen are out to make a profit above all else.
  • Both doctors and used car salesmen are pushing a product.
  • Both doctors and used car salesmen think they know more than the customer.
  • Both doctors and used car salesmen will tell you they have your best interests at heart.
  • Both doctors and used car salesmen will try to deny any liability of there is a breakdown.



So, you make up your mind on things after 1 minute searches, and 2 minute readings? That's not a very smart thing to do. Read the actual court case and get back to me.

I already did research this particular subject thoroughly. That's why I knew what to search for. Your turn to read up on it.


Nothing is 100% 'really safe'.. A heart catheter might as well be a thermometer because it's an easy, routine operation. Everything has side effects and dangers.

Wow, thank you for arguing for my side.

This would explain why even routine operations require a release form to be signed by the patient. But it also explains why such things should not be mandated. What would be the point of even having a release form if you had no choice but to sign it?


I do, but the cost/benefit analysis puts the benefit way ahead of the cost (i.e. side effects). There is evidence that it works on 7/10 people, and that is pretty good. I can not fathom why the 30% it doesn't work on (perhaps they get the shot while they are already infected?) leads to a conclusion that it doesn't work, or that we shouldn't use it because it's not perfect.

Again, you're just not getting the concept here. No one, including myself, is arguing that flu shots should be outlawed or not used if people choose to use them. I am arguing that mandating the use of any vaccine is morally, legally, and ethically wrong.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join