CDC demanding child immunization records as part of vaccine surveillance and tracking program!

Originally posted by TurkeyTots
2) Disease/virus mutates slightly
3) Modified disease/virus gets passed from that child to my vaccinated child

...You do realize that most mutations that result in resistances are usually a result of vaccination, right? The problem isn't the people not vaccinated, it's that the virus itself adapts to the treatment...

I'll be blunt.
My wife is an RN.
We provide paperwork.
We lie.

reply to post by TechUnique

It's a phone survey. Big deal. This is the standard method by which most social research in the United States is conducted. You want statistics on vaccine uptake? You generate some phone numbers and call them. You want statistics on butter vs. margarine? You generate some phone numbers and call them. You want statistics on Republicans vs. Democrats? You generate some phone numbers and call them. Only someone already perversely opposed to modern medicine or the CDC could object to this.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
reply to post by TechUnique

 

It's a phone survey. Big deal. This is the standard method by which most social research in the United States is conducted. You want statistics on vaccine uptake? You generate some phone numbers and call them. You want statistics on butter vs. margarine? You generate some phone numbers and call them. You want statistics on Republicans vs. Democrats? You generate some phone numbers and call them. Only someone already perversely opposed to modern medicine or the CDC could object to this.

Fully agree with you. It's not something you should fret about.

Originally posted by TechUnique

Originally posted by TurkeyTots

Originally posted by TechUnique

Originally posted by TurkeyTots
Good for them.

I don't want my child to get infected with AIDS just because you decided that it was too risky for your little rat to get vaccinated.

1. Correct me If I'm wrong but if you had already vaccinated your child then surely my 'Little rat' wouldn't be a problem.
2. You develop HIV before you develop AIDS.
3. You can't just catch HIV from being around someone else with HIV.
4. Don't troll.

If not AIDS/HIV, then any of the myriad other communicable diseases that run rampant through public schools.

And clearly you have not done any research into this topic. It is very possible for a vaccinated child to get infected with the disease that they have been vaccinated against:

1) Un-vaccinated child gets disease from ____ (somewhere)
2) Disease/virus mutates slightly
3) Modified disease/virus gets passed from that child to my vaccinated child
4) My child's vaccine is not as effective due to the mutation
5) My child gets sick as a direct result of you not vaccinating yours

You just completely contradicted your first argument. Stop running around in circles trying to troll me. I'm not even going to reply any more.

I have done no such thing. I may have chosen poorly with "AIDS" but my point is still just as valid.

And as others are mentioning, this is a non-issue. Yet another case of sensationalism to the extreme. Look at how biased that article is. The CDC is not forcing anybody to provide anything. They call you, you say "no thanks", they hang up and call the next number on their list. How dare you call me a "troll" when you create yet another thread based on sensationalism.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


Actually, some of us simply don't want the government knowing what chemicals have been placed into our children for a myriad of reasons, but the one that would take the least amount of explanation is the fact that certain medications tend to have adverse side effects with certain chemicals, i.e. pain killers and alcohol, certain SSRI's and migraine medication.

Thinking along these lines, would it not be fairly easy to be able to suddenly take people out of the picture at whim?

No, I do not really think that this would ever happen, but as I said, it is only ONE reason.

Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Originally posted by TurkeyTots
Good for them.

I don't want my child to get infected with AIDS just because you decided that it was too risky for your little rat to get vaccinated.

FATALITY.FLAWLESS VICTORY.

reply to post by TurkeyTots


Please re read your post and the quote you used. Read it again. You will see that there is some reading comprehension difficulty.

Just another excuse for the government to seize more control over us.

When are we going to step up to the plate and let these government agencies and officials know that this is not acceptable. When are we going to take control back to the people? I’m not suggesting violence. I will never do that. But something has to be done, and now.

Originally posted by ShadowMonk
Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Originally posted by TurkeyTots
Good for them.

I don't want my child to get infected with AIDS just because you decided that it was too risky for your little rat to get vaccinated.

FATALITY.FLAWLESS VICTORY.

I have remained completely on-topic. You don't call someone a troll just because they disagree with you... well, unless they are too insecure with their own arguments.

Also, what if this is being used to improve safety within public schools? What if they look at all the immunizations and vaccines that are commonly used, look at what chemicals or materials react poorly with them, and attempt to curb their usage? Now what if you lied and those lies are used to determine which materials are used and those materials have an adverse reaction with what your child really has (or hasn't). Great, now your child suffers more because of your fear of loss of privacy.

Originally posted by ShadowMonk
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

 

Actually, some of us simply don't want the government knowing what chemicals have been placed into our children for a myriad of reasons,

The government doesn't know. They're not collecting the data, NORC is. NORC will mask respondent data so there's no personal information linked to the responses, then provide the aggregate data to the government. I suppose the government could find out what you told NORC you've been placing in your child, if they subpoenaed NORC's research material or had a spy in the center, but why would they bother? Your child, individually, just isn't that important.

but the one that would take the least amount of explanation is the fact that certain medications tend to have adverse side effects with certain chemicals, i.e. pain killers and alcohol, certain SSRI's and migraine medication.
Thinking along these lines, would it not be fairly easy to be able to suddenly take people out of the picture at whim?

You mean kill them? It is already easy to kill people at a whim. They don't need to know what vaccines your child has to kill your child. Not that they have any particular reason to kill your child. Furthermore, this has been going on since 1994, and no one has been "taken out" yet.

No, I do not really think that this would ever happen, but as I said, it is only ONE reason.

It's not a reason. It's not something a reasonable person would think. It's a fantasy.

Originally posted by TurkeyTots
Good for them.

I don't want my child to get infected with AIDS just because you decided that it was too risky for your little rat to get vaccinated.

Do you know something I don't? Are kids being injected with the AIDS vaccine? If not then - what the... is your post about?

Originally posted by TurkeyTots
Good for them.

I don't want my child to get infected with AIDS just because you decided that it was too risky for your little rat to get vaccinated.

If you don't want your little rat to get AIDS, then I suggest you sit down with him/her and discuss the dangers of unprotected sex.

reply to post by TurkeyTots


No,you trolled with the very first post you made, and you are trolling by refusing to acknowledge it. Get back under your bridge. You obviously need more training.

And there would be no lying, because I would not be talking to them at all. Also, they don't look at 'vaccination records' to find out what you put in your kids. If they really wanted to know that they'd just go directly to the pharmaceutical companies and find out how much of their extra chromosome viruses were sold.

Originally posted by ShadowMonk
reply to post by TurkeyTots

 

No,you trolled with the very first post you made, and you are trolling by refusing to acknowledge it. Get back under your bridge. You obviously need more training.

You are now trolling by attempting to derail the discussion based on one of my prior posts. I made a point and you disagreed. Don't call me a troll; post a rebuttal if you feel that strongly about it.

reply to post by TurkeyTots


lol, I did. hence the 'edit' button

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli



You could say that I am perversely opposed to the way western medicine and an out of control pharmaceutical industry capitalizes on a mostly gullible western populace. And thanks to Bill Gates, the whole of the world shall be cured.

" The CDC is not forcing anybody to provide anything. They call you, you say "no thanks", they hang up and call the next number on their list. How dare you call me a "troll" when you create yet another thread based on sensationalism."

The government doesn't necessarily leave you alone if you refuse to participate in a voluntary anonymous survey. Being prior military, and even as a veteran, I get letters in the mail telling me to wait for a phone call. If I ignore the call, they will keep calling and sending letters reminding me to answer the phone when they call. Only after a few months, the letters and the phone calls stop.

Originally posted by collietta
The government doesn't necessarily leave you alone if you refuse to participate in a voluntary anonymous survey. Being prior military, and even as a veteran, I get letters in the mail telling me to wait for a phone call. If I ignore the call, they will keep calling and sending letters reminding me to answer the phone when they call. Only after a few months, the letters and the phone calls stop.

So what you're saying is the government does leave you alone after you refuse to participate in a survey. Thanks. I was worried they might force compliance or send a grad student with a notebook to my house.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by collietta
The government doesn't necessarily leave you alone if you refuse to participate in a voluntary anonymous survey. Being prior military, and even as a veteran, I get letters in the mail telling me to wait for a phone call. If I ignore the call, they will keep calling and sending letters reminding me to answer the phone when they call. Only after a few months, the letters and the phone calls stop.

So what you're saying is the government does leave you alone after you refuse to participate in a survey. Thanks. I was worried they might force compliance or send a grad student with a notebook to my house.

I used my example to let you know that they don't just call a number, no answer, then move on.
They will, but only after months of harassment. Most people can't handle the constant harassment. Could you?