# Yet another law that diminishes parental rights ...



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

California governor signed the mandatory vaccination law. It is just another nail in the coffin of parental rights in the US. I am not necessarily opposed to vaccinations but I believe it is parents' right to decide what medical treatments are appropriate for their kids. I don't understand why more parents are not up in arms over stuff like this. It seems that as a society we are more and more accepting of the "your child does not belong to you, it belongs to the government" point of view. 

The new law in CA does contain a homeschool exemption - if you don't want to vaccinate, you can as long as you homeschool. But still, that's a lot to ask of parents who would prefer to send their children to public or private schools. 

What is next? Are we going to follow in the Scottland's footsteps and assign a social worker to each child at birth? Funny thing is, Scottland passed this law in February 2014. We were speaking to a family from Scottland in April 2014 (not someone we know, we met them during a train ride in Italy) and they had no idea this happened! Their reaction? "If they tried to pass a law like this, people would be protesting in the streets!" - Guess what, while you were sleeping, they DID pass this law. 

Our government is taking parental rights away one little bit at a time while we sleep ...


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

This was all because of the measles epidemic that never materialized. Media at its worse, as usual.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Sometimes I think the best advice for expectant parents these days is to have your child quietly at home with a midwife and Never, Ever register that kid with this absurd prison system we're living in.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Woolieface said:


> Sometimes I think the best advice for expectant parents these days is to have your child quietly at home with a midwife and Never, Ever register that kid with this absurd prison system we're living in.


You wouldn't be the first. I can remember a couple of cases where the parents had done just that and it was left to me to determine citizenship (not that it's an issue anymore) and age when the kid wanted to go to college.

BTW it is still only children attending public schools that vaccination is required. Home schooled are not included. And religious exemption still applies.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

I have always been a public school person but I am so thankful that my youngest grandchild is able to go to a private school. The Government schools are just terrible now.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Your rights, parental or otherwise, end where the rights of others begin. 

Parents that choose not to vaccinate have a choice- they can home school.


----------



## cfuhrer (Jun 11, 2013)

FarmerKat said:


> I am not necessarily opposed to vaccinations but I believe it is parents' right to decide what medical treatments are appropriate for their kids.


And that is all well and good until a parents basis for not vaccinating is "Because Jenny McCarthy said vaccinations are bad.":umno:


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I support this new law and wish all states would adopt it. Hopefully they will.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

While my kids are vaccinated and I do believe in vaccination, I don't agree with any parent being forced to do something they don't agree with because I'm equally as negative about a faceless system telling me how to raise my kids.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

where I want to said:


> BTW it is still only children attending public schools that vaccination is required. Home schooled are not included. And religious exemption still applies.


Things are applied incrementally, as they always have been.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Woolieface said:


> Things are applied incrementally, as they always have been.


True. But if it becomes a vocal problem with compliance, it can equally go incrementally the other way too. And so far Constitutional court cases have still upheld religious exemptions.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

cfuhrer said:


> And that is all well and good until a parents basis for not vaccinating is "Because Jenny McCarthy said vaccinations are bad.":umno:


Right, much better to do it because the government insists it is good for us.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Your rights, parental or otherwise, end where the rights of others begin.
> 
> Parents that choose not to vaccinate have a choice- they can home school.


I am trying to understand the first part of your post. Are you saying that by not vaccinating parents infringe on parental rights of those who prefer to vaccinate? Am I reading that right? (Please correct me if my interpretation is wrong.) If that is what you mean ....

... If a child is vaccinated (i.e. protected against a disease) why would the presence of an unvaccinated child be affecting the vaccinated child? And if that is considered infringing on a vaccinated person's rights, do we need to not allow any foreigners to enter the country who have not complied with the US vaccination schedule? If you go to Disney World, you are likely to encounter hundreds/thousands of tourists that have not been vaccinated at all or against the same diseases. 

I think homeschooling is the best education option, I would not educate my children any other way. But it is not feasible for all and should be a choice, not something our government is forcing on us. One group in particular comes to mind - single parents. I think that this law is putting single parents who do not wish to vaccinate between a rock and a hard place. If you stay home to educate your child, when are you going to work? 

And contrary to the popular belief, I honestly believe that most people who do not vaccinate do not do so just because Jenny McCarthy said so ...


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

First of all, please know that, as I do not have kids, I really do not have the proverbial "dog in the fight", so to speak, but I'd like to ask a question of those who are so vehemently against vaccination...

Other than religious-based objection, why are you against it?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

hippygirl said:


> First of all, please know that, as I do not have kids, I really do not have the proverbial "dog in the fight", so to speak, but I'd like to ask a question of those who are so vehemently against vaccination...
> 
> Other than religious-based objection, why are you against it?


I am actually pro-vaccination. . And get irritated at people who don't see what a child saving thing it was. I am old enough to know what it was like.
But the number of vaccinations and the rigidity of the time frames raise alarms with me too. It needs examination.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

They are reacting to the recent outbreak, measles I think it was. Vaccinations aren't 100% effective, the unvaccinated kid can transmit disease to a vaccinated kid. But when virtually 100% of the population is vaccinated there is a "herd immunity". It doesn't seem 100% logical but it works. 

When I was a kid, chicken pox, mumps and the "3 day" milder version of measles all went around, there was not a vaccination for those. I had all 3. However, whooping cough was suppressed and almost non existent. Now whooping cough is making a comeback. We've lost our "herd immunity". 

It would cost the public schools too much to segregate the vaccinated and non-vaccinated kids. So the responsibility is going to be on the parents. Home school, private school if you don't want to vaccinate your kids. They still have a free choice, just not an easy, convenient choice.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

hippygirl said:


> First of all, please know that, as I do not have kids, I really do not have the proverbial "dog in the fight", so to speak, but I'd like to ask a question of those who are so vehemently against vaccination...
> 
> Other than religious-based objection, why are you against it?


They are physically damaging


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Who's Jenny McCarthy?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Woolieface said:


> They are physically damaging


So is polio, scarlet fever, smallpox, typhoid, etc. Talk to some old timers who actually remember people dying or being damaged from those on a regular basis.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FarmerKat said:


> I am trying to understand the first part of your post. Are you saying that by not vaccinating parents infringe on parental rights of those who prefer to vaccinate? Am I reading that right? (Please correct me if my interpretation is wrong.) If that is what you mean ....
> 
> ... If a child is vaccinated (i.e. protected against a disease) why would the presence of an unvaccinated child be affecting the vaccinated child? And if that is considered infringing on a vaccinated person's rights, do we need to not allow any foreigners to enter the country who have not complied with the US vaccination schedule? If you go to Disney World, you are likely to encounter hundreds/thousands of tourists that have not been vaccinated at all or against the same diseases.
> 
> ...


Because a vaccinated child's titer may not be high enough to prevent being infected, and there are children that cannot be vaccinated due to medical problems. Your (collective your) right to not vaccinate ends when my right to keep my child healthy begins. More vaccinated people equals less disease; less vaccinated people equals more disease. It's referred to as herd immunity. 

If home schooling is a hardship than your child must be vaccinated to go to public school, unless there is a medical reason why he or she can't be. It's unclear if this adaptation of the CA law includes a religious exemption, but it likely does.

As of 2009, the US requires vaccinations of anyone entering the country on a visa. Here's the list of required vaccines:

Hepatitis A
Hepatitis B
Influenza
Influenza type b (Hib)
Measles
Meningococcal
Mumps
Pneumococcal
Pertussis
Polio
Rotavirus
Rubella
Tetanus and diphtheria toxoids
Varicella

From: http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/immigrate/vaccinations.html


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

hippygirl said:


> First of all, please know that, as I do not have kids, I really do not have the proverbial "dog in the fight", so to speak, but I'd like to ask a question of those who are so vehemently against vaccination...
> 
> Other than religious-based objection, why are you against it?


Maybe this question is not for me as I am not "vehemently" opposed. However, I am opposed to some vaccinations and I am most vehemently opposed to the aggressive vaccination schedule that is pushed on families today. 

I feel that too many vaccines are pushed too fast on young babies before their immune systems are strong enough to deal with it. I believe that this push is directly related to the fact that more and more babies are in day care from practically birth vs home with parents for the first few years.

I feel that some vaccines are not necessary because the disease itself is not severe and that it may be better in the long run to develop immunity from the disease. 

Some vaccinations have ingredients I do not want injected in my children. (I am not talking about mercury which is only used in the flu vaccine these days - and you can request a mercury free version). 

That mostly sums it up for me.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Don't worry the border patrol vaccinates everyone coming in.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I think what a lot of people who are critical of people who are against forced vaccinations don't understand, is that those people tend to be very critical of taking anything the healthcare industry instructs or demands as gospel. Could be nutrition, rx safety, otc mrd safety, recommended treatments and even diagnosis they encounter with themselves and their children. At least that has been my experience.

My kids were vaccinated, I felt bullied into it as a young mom. We've dealt with several serious problems with misdiagnosis and treatments and such over the years. If I could do it over again, I wouldn't vaccinate following the prescribed schedules...but, I would also have dealt with other medical issues quite differently. Our healthcare needs have only improved since I started standing up to doctors and nurses more. It is after all called practicing medicine for a reason.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

FarmerKat said:


> Maybe this question is not for me as I am not "vehemently" opposed. However, I am opposed to some vaccinations and I am most vehemently opposed to the aggressive vaccination schedule that is pushed on families today.
> 
> I feel that too many vaccines are pushed too fast on young babies before their immune systems are strong enough to deal with it. I believe that this push is directly related to the fact that more and more babies are in day care from practically birth vs home with parents for the first few years.
> 
> ...


Some have no effect at all either until the child is over 12 months of age, but they are given because it is a way to condition parents to come for healthcare from the start of parenting before they get to confidently independent outside of the eyes and authority of doctors and mandated reporters. That's a big one to wrap your head around in my opinion.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Your rights, parental or otherwise, end where the rights of others begin.


Does that apply to gay marriage and religious rights?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> Does that apply to gay marriage and religious rights?


The topic of this thread is the CA Vaccine Bill of 2015, that was signed in to law by Gov. Jerry Brown.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Your rights, parental or otherwise, end where the rights of others begin.
> 
> Parents that choose not to vaccinate have a choice- they can home school.


 the fact that everyone is expected to contribute to the cost of the school system for the public schools is an infringement on my rights to self finance my own families needs.

So where exactly is the line that you seem to have a GPS lock on that says where each person's personal rights space begins and ends?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> the fact that everyone is expected to contribute to the cost of the school system for the public schools is an infringement on my rights to self finance my own families needs.
> 
> So where exactly is the line that you seem to have a GPS lock on that says where each person's personal rights space begins and ends?


Lots of people who have no children pay school taxes.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Lots of people who have no children pay school taxes.


But we all benefit from the lack of epidemics. And from the freedom to choose our own paths. The correct balance is tricky.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gibbsgirl said:


> the fact that everyone is expected to contribute to the cost of the school system for the public schools is an infringement on my rights to self finance my own families needs.
> 
> So where exactly is the line that you seem to have a GPS lock on that says where each person's personal rights space begins and ends?


Stop paying your school taxes if you don't think it's fair. 

We all have choices.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

We chose not to vaccinate ours and we homeschooled. If we had sent them to public school then we would have done at least some vaccinations. I would have worried about what they would be exposed to in such a large group of kids. 

These days contrary to the misinformation the media is so fond of spreading the things we vaccinate against come in through exposure to people outside of our country. People who travel and take their kids or people with relatives who travel, etc. The outbreak at Disney for example came from an adult who had traveled overseas and was not up to date on their vaccinations and brought back measles. 

I think these days if you want to go 100% non-vaccination you will have to also choose to be somewhat isolationist with your children. I personally recommend that parents find a doctor they can trust and work their way through the recommended vaccines and decide what is appropriate for their kids based on their life style and exposures. You don't have to get everything and you don't have to get it on the schedule. 

The vast majority of us made it through childhood with only half the things they vaccinate for today and half the shots for those things that they give today. I would hope that every parent actually looks at the vaccination schedule critically and educates themselves rather than just doing whatever the doctor says. 
This is comparing the 80s to today. The list of what I got in the late 60s is even smaller. Same for the 40s and 50s smaller still. Were kids dropping like flies in the 70s? If not ask yourself why so many today.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> But we all benefit from the lack of epidemics. And from the freedom to choose our own paths. The correct balance is tricky.


I am pro vaccinations. It is far better for society as a whole. I am old enough to have school mates who died because of no vaccinations.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Stop paying your school taxes if you don't think it's fair.
> 
> We all have choices.


So your answer is just break the law if I don't like it? Well that's about as well thought out and cohesive an answer as I expected


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> So your answer is just break the law if I don't like it? Well that's about as well thought out and cohesive an answer as I expected


Please attack the post not the poster.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

basketti said:


> I support this new law and wish all states would adopt it. Hopefully they will.


 So do I it is a good thing as schools have such a mix of children now form literally from all over the world.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Lots of people who have no children pay school taxes.


Yep, and every one of them is coerced into doing so by threat of prosecution for breaking the law if they don't. So, that just identified more of the group I already mentioned. But, failed to state why they should be forced to finance other people's education.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> Yep, and every one of them is coerced into doing so by threat of prosecution for breaking the law if they don't. So, that just identified more of the group I already mentioned. But, failed to state why they should be forced to finance other people's education.


It is better for the country when all our children are educated. That is a good reason.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Well I'm going to tell you folks something. Two of the posters in this topic aren't real. You guess the ones. They haven't been online all day............ If this post gets deleted I'll know I'm right.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

TripleD said:


> Well I'm going to tell you folks something. Two of the posters in this topic aren't real. You guess the ones. They haven't been online all day............ If this post gets deleted I'll know I'm right.


How do you determine that? You do know that there are settings in the user profile that block posters from seeing when you are online.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Woolieface said:


> Sometimes I think the best advice for expectant parents these days is to have your child quietly at home with a midwife and Never, Ever register that kid with this absurd prison system we're living in.


A good friend of mine tryed this back in the eighties... it wasnt two months till the gooberment was on their doorstep demanding they either register their boy then and there, or they would take the boy and arrest the parents for criminal neglect!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gibbsgirl said:


> So your answer is just break the law if I don't like it? Well that's about as well thought out and cohesive an answer as I expected


What did you want me to say? It was silly question, if you own property (and want to keep it) you pay school taxes... Period.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I had NO idea that so many vaccines are now required! Poor little pincushion babies.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> the fact that everyone is expected to contribute to the cost of the school system for the public schools is an infringement on my rights to self finance my own families needs.
> 
> So where exactly is the line that you seem to have a GPS lock on that says where each person's personal rights space begins and ends?


I KNOW....RIGHT?! 

The roads department is totally redoing a street near me and I NEVER, EVER DRIVE ON IT!!!! Where can I get my tax refund????

Paving that street is an infringement on my rights to self finance my own families needs!!


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

painterswife said:


> It is better for the country when all our children are educated. That is a good reason.


1. Our school systems have a long way to go to prove that they are cranking out educated people with any sort of regularity.

2. Our constitution did not guarantee education.

3. It is not the federal govts responsibilty to provide any education that may be beneficial to citizens nor society. That is a parental responsibilty. And, local communities are the only ones who could ever address that in a reasonable way for their own populations.

That is my thoughts anyway.

There are some very good readings available on it. John Taylor gatto comes to mind for anyone interested.

Sorry, farmerkat, for the thread drift. I guess all this stuff is sort of linked under the umbrella of parental rights. Thanks for sharing what's going down in California on the vaccination front.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

basketti said:


> I KNOW....RIGHT?!
> 
> The roads department is totally redoing a street near me and I NEVER, EVER DRIVE ON IT!!!! Where can I get my tax refund????
> 
> Paving that street is an infringement on my rights to self finance my own families needs!!


Road development and maintenance is a whole other ugly beast that lots of people have issues with. But, that really took off and reared it's head during the Eisenhower administration. And, since it has little to do with parental rights, I'll respect that farmerkat wanted to talk about vaccinations on this thread and try and stay more on track with that here.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> 1. Our school systems have a long way to go to prove that they are cranking out educated people with any sort of regularity.
> 
> 2. Our constitution did not guarantee education.
> 
> ...


Well let's just make everything private. Roads, public parks, fire departments, police departments. In fact why do we work together to provide for the benefit of the country at all?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Well let's just make everything private. Roads, public parks, fire departments, police departments. In fact why do we work together to provide for the benefit of the country at all?


There are options other than federal or private. Like state and local.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> There are options other than federal or private. Like state and local.


My local and sate taxes pay for education, fire and police. Been there done that.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gibbsgirl said:


> There are options other than federal or private. Like state and local.


Huh? The school taxes in NY are state... is there anywhere in the US that education isn't state run?


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

The federal dept of education exists for fun?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Huh? The school taxes in NY are state... is there anywhere in the US that education isn't state run?


Most states, if not all, get federal money for their education systems... and along with that funding comes obligations to do things the federal way.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

partndn said:


> The federal dept of education exists for fun?


"Please note that in the U.S., the federal role in education is limited. Because of the Tenth Amendment, most education policy is decided at the state and local levels"

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/landing.jhtml?src=image


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I suggest anyone interested in following the money and bureaucracy of how public education works needs to spend a little time figuring out where the money and mandates come and go from.

Honestly, I thought with all the no child Left behind and common core stuff that's been debated, people would be more knowledgeable about these types of details.

If you want to talk about school stuff I suggest starting a thread. I'm done with it here, cause this is supposed to be about vaccines.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Huh? The school taxes in NY are state... is there anywhere in the US that education isn't state run?


We get huge amounts of Federal money. And have to meet ALL their criteria to continue to get it.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> As of 2009, the US requires vaccinations of anyone entering the country on a visa. Here's the list of required vaccines:
> 
> Hepatitis A
> Hepatitis B
> ...


I would like to clarify this as this requirement only applies to "immigrant" visas. The requirement does not apply to non-immigrant visas such as a tourist visa or those entering under visa-waiver program. Non-immigrant visa holders/visa-waiver travelers can stay in the US for up to 6 months for business or pleasure. Student visas are also considered non-immigrant visas as they are temporary.

The vaccines are only required if you want to get an immigrant vista that allows you to work in the US. A lot of immigrant visa applicants enter the US under non-immigrant visa, live here for months and obtain an immigrant visa while already living in the US. 

I cannot speak for current procedures, but about 15 years ago, positive titers were sufficient in lieu of vaccination. 

There are far more non-immigrant visitors to the US than immigrant. In 2014 alone, US issued 467,370 immigrant visas in the foreign posts (i.e. before applicants entered the US) and 9,932,480 non-immigrant visas. 

Here is a link to details behind the numbers:
http://travel.state.gov/content/dam...Y2014AnnualReport/FY14AnnualReport-TableI.pdf

I have not been able to find the number of people traveling under the visa waiver program. It includes mostly EU countries. Here is a list of countries:

http://www.cbp.gov/travel/internati...iver-program-vwp-and-electronic-system-travel


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Most states, if not all, get federal money for their education systems... and along with that funding comes obligations to do things the federal way.


Of course there's federal funding, there's federal funding for everything. The school taxes I pay go to my local school, the state contributes, and the federal government does as well. 

I don't understand what you mean by the "federal way".


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Of course there's federal funding, there's federal funding for everything. The school taxes I pay go to my local school, the state contributes, and the federal government does as well.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by the "federal way".





Irish Pixie said:


> The topic of this thread is the CA Vaccine Bill of 2015, that was signed in to law by Gov. Jerry Brown.


A little selective?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FarmerKat said:


> I would like to clarify this as this requirement only applies to "immigrant" visas. The requirement does not apply to non-immigrant visas such as a tourist visa or those entering under visa-waiver program. Non-immigrant visa holders/visa-waiver travelers can stay in the US for up to 6 months for business or pleasure. Student visas are also considered non-immigrant visas as they are temporary.
> 
> The vaccines are only required if you want to get an immigrant vista that allows you to work in the US. A lot of immigrant visa applicants enter the US under non-immigrant visa, live here for months and obtain an immigrant visa while already living in the US.
> 
> ...


You're right about tourist vs immigration visas... there are countries that "require" vaccinations just as we do so not all tourists are unvaccinated. There are bound to be some tho. 

I'm glad you understand titers and how difficult and time consuming it would be to pull a titer on every kid so the certainty of coverage would be known. It's easier and cheaper to have all kids that safely can be vaccinated than vaccinate *and* pull titers.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nchobbyfarm said:


> We get huge amounts of Federal money. And have to meet ALL their criteria to continue to get it.


Each state runs it's own education system, correct? Never less that it gets money from the federal government?

The CA law proves that the state can mandate vaccinations without federal approval, or even input.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I do not know of any successful, nor widely used, testing mechanisms that determines who can be safely vaccinated yet.

That's a pretty important determination that is missing before people are injected with vaccines that are thought to mostly work, and mostly not cause long or short term side effects.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Each state runs it's own education system, correct? Never less that it gets money from the federal government?
> 
> The CA law proves that the state can mandate vaccinations without federal approval, or even input.


Its like crack dealers. They give you a hit, then to get more you must do X,Y,&Z.

If your state wants to continue getting Federal money, then you will adopt "no child left behind" or whatever the flavor of the month is. 

If you don't, here comes the media and teachers and whomever else screaming about those not conforming are depriving littles ones. 

So if your state wants its fix, it is not exactly state run.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Its like crack dealers. They give you a hit, then to get more you must do X,Y,&Z.
> 
> If your state wants to continue getting Federal money, then you will adopt "no child left behind" or whatever the flavor of the month is.
> 
> ...


OK. That's the price of receiving the money, right? The state is still able to make it's own law for it's school system.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gibbsgirl said:


> I do not know of any successful, nor widely used, testing mechanisms that determines who can be safely vaccinated yet.
> 
> That's a pretty important determination that is missing before people are injected with vaccines that are thought to mostly work, and mostly not cause long or short term side effects.


Doctors must be able to figure it out or they couldn't give exemptions for medical issues.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I get how titers work too. But, they aren't offered widely like vaccines are.

And, I'm not sure that they are more costly than just juicing people with so many shots, when compared to wasting vaccinrs on some and dealing with the side effects and long-term effects on others.

But, I have yet to see any serious movement from tptb towards something like this or any other options.

I don't think we're on the path to a better solution for vaccine administration yet, because there is too miluch big pharma money tird up in selling to so many people and shutting down any dissenting views as insane and selfish and backward.

The biggest risk to the herd mentality isn't young Americans anyway that aren't being vaccinated or are following an alternate schedule. Statistically, that number is dwarfed by legal and illegal immigrants and foreign visitors of all ages who can carry all kinds of things across every border they cross.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Doctors must be able to figure it out or they couldn't give exemptions for medical issues.


Like I said before, some people don't just assume doctors gave it all figured out.

I do know that frequently drs give medical exemptions for people with compromised immune systems. So those folks that aren't getting the shots, are not part of the statistics you're given that say that your child may have an adverse reaction to a shot. So apparently there is an at risk population that doctors haven't figured out.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> OK. That's the price of receiving the money, right? The state is still able to make it's own law for it's school system.


No because we have tried. Then the do gooders sued the state saying the poor little tots were being deprived of their education and the courts ruled schools must not cut the funds or the programs. Catch 22.

But enough thread drift from me. Sorry to the OP.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gibbsgirl said:


> I get how titers work too. But, they aren't offered widely like vaccines are.
> 
> And, I'm not sure that they are more costly than just juicing people with so many shots, when compared to wasting vaccinrs on some and dealing with the side effects and long-term effects on others.
> 
> ...


The kid (or adult) has to be fully vaccinated and then titers done to see if they are fully immunized. So you're adding the additional time and cost of a titer to every person that has been vaccinated. 

The population of the US was 318,881,991 million in July of last year, the highest amount of tourists was in 2013 and that was 69.6 million. I can't do the math but I'l guess it's much more likely that patient zero in a measles/typhoid/whatever outbreak will be an American citizen rather than a tourist. Even adding in legals and illegals it's still more likely.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nchobbyfarm said:


> No because we have tried. Then the do gooders sued the state saying the poor little tots were being deprived of their education and the courts ruled schools must not cut the funds or the programs. Catch 22.
> 
> But enough thread drift from me. Sorry to the OP.


Then how did CA pass the recent vaccine law? States have the right to make their own law. They many have to jump through hoops to get federal aid but I never said they didn't.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gibbsgirl said:


> Like I said before, some people don't just assume doctors gave it all figured out.
> 
> I do know that frequently drs give medical exemptions for people with compromised immune systems. So those folks that aren't getting the shots, are not part of the statistics you're given that say that your child may have an adverse reaction to a shot. So apparently there is an at risk population that doctors haven't figured out.


There's no way to know who is going to have an adverse reaction to a vaccine (unless it's something genetic or familial) it's trial and error. We didn't know my oldest was allergic to penicillin until she had a reaction.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Actually, titers don't make a distinction between if a person is carrying immunity from a vaccination or natural exposure, so they don't have to be done after full vaccinations to provide useabke results.

And, yes, trial and error is how it's done, which is why doctors don't have it all figured out and people are risking negatives effects whenever they receive the shots.


----------



## KatieVT (Dec 22, 2014)

FarmerKat said:


> ... If a child is vaccinated (i.e. protected against a disease) why would the presence of an unvaccinated child be affecting the vaccinated child? And if that is considered infringing on a vaccinated person's rights, do we need to not allow any foreigners to enter the country who have not complied with the US vaccination schedule? If you go to Disney World, you are likely to encounter hundreds/thousands of tourists that have not been vaccinated at all or against the same diseases.


Vermont removed their philosophical vaccine exemption recently. It was pushed through with lies & bribes to legislators at the end of the session. Their reasoning was that some people cannot receive vaccines and we must protect them (usually their example is kids with cancer).

I am severely immunosuppressed due to a kidney transplant. Not only can I not receive further boosters, due to treatment I received when rejecting the transplant, my past immunities to those diseases most likely have been removed! I am not afraid that I'll catch them from the general public because they aren't that common. I *AM* afraid I'll catch them from kids that are shedding the virus from vaccines. I'm currently having to avoid my baby niece.  

BTW, you can be considered non-compliant with vaccines and barred from public schools because of 1 vaccine not being up-to-date. It is believed that during VT's next legislative session, there will be a push to make the HPV vaccine mandatory. Wouldn't you like to be able to choose whether or not your 13-yr old daughter needs a vaccine for a sexually-transmitted disease, whose vaccine has led to many dead or severely injured girls without it, without it affecting her schooling?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Huh? The school taxes in NY are state... is there anywhere in the US that education isn't state run?


What is "common core"?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Katievt, thank you for sharing. I'll add that the HPV vaccine series is also now being pushed for boys to have as well.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Why is no one worried about those adults that were never vaccinated against chicken pox? It's millions! My friend survived leukemia and he was worried about anti vaccinated kids. I asked him about chicken pox and all the adults that hadn't been vaccinated, he just stared at me and said "----, I never thought about that", guess I'll just have to risk it then". He's fine now!

Why are the companies that produce the vaccines immune from law suits?

Why is there a multi billion dollar fund for "adverse" reactions to these "completely safe" vaccines?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Then how did CA pass the recent vaccine law? States have the right to make their own law. They many have to jump through hoops to get federal aid but I never said they didn't.


You asked "...is there anywhere in the U.S. That education isn't state run?"

I and a few others attempted to show you that it is an illusion that it is state run in its entirety. But you didn't qualify your question until you got the answer.

And I have no idea how Ca passed anything.

Uncle! Aunt! Cousin! Nephew! I give. 

:surrender:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

There is no more religious exemption here, they will be grandfathered in until their next series of vaccinations begins. The state is now being sued for reimbursement of their taxes to pay for that home schooling. We really need a voucher program. Maybe this will do that!!!!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nchobbyfarm said:


> You asked "...is there anywhere in the U.S. That education isn't state run?"
> 
> I and a few others attempted to show you that it is an illusion that it is state run in its entirety. But you didn't qualify your question until you got the answer.
> 
> ...


Me too.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gibbsgirl said:


> Actually, titers don't make a distinction between if a person is carrying immunity from a vaccination or natural exposure, so they don't have to be done after full vaccinations to provide useabke results.
> 
> And, yes, trial and error is how it's done, which is why doctors don't have it all figured out and people are risking negatives effects whenever they receive the shots.


It's unlikely that you're going to have a high enough titer from just exposure, you would have had to have the full blown disease or have been vaccinated. There are titer _levels_ (the actual level of antibodies) to consider too. So they do have to be done to provide any type of result.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Here's a site that has interesting information for anyone interested.
www.vaclib.org


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

MO_cows said:


> So is polio, scarlet fever, smallpox, typhoid, etc. Talk to some old timers who actually remember people dying or being damaged from those on a regular basis.


Do you suppose I've never talked to old timers before?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> A good friend of mine tryed this back in the eighties... it wasnt two months till the gooberment was on their doorstep demanding they either register their boy then and there, or they would take the boy and arrest the parents for criminal neglect!


Well that's disgusting...but I won't roll over.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Here's a link to factual vaccine information: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Here's a link to factual vaccine information: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/


factual = .gov?
nahhh....


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> I do not know of any successful, nor widely used, testing mechanisms that determines who can be safely vaccinated yet.
> 
> That's a pretty important determination that is missing before people are injected with vaccines that are thought to mostly work, and mostly not cause long or short term side effects.


Why _would_ you know of any testing mechanisms (unless of course, you looked into it)? I'm sorry but that is just a ridiculous thing to say.

http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation

and there are about a million more links ripe for the googling....


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

basketti said:


> Why _would_ you know of any testing mechanisms (unless of course, you looked into it)? I'm sorry but that is just a ridiculous thing to say.
> 
> http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation
> 
> and there are about a million more links ripe for the googling....


As a mother of five children, I'm satisfied that my attempts to do so with the health professionals I've interacted with over the years, were not frustrated because of my lack of commitment to finding more acceptable options. It's a David and Goliath fight.

Yes, Google has it's uses, but then again if everyday citizens struggle to have the freedom of choice on these matters in real life, then the limits of Google's information should be obvious.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

(slapping forehead)


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

basketti said:


> (slapping forehead)


Then feel free to not waste any of your time communicating with me.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

What just happened to basketti's post? All it says now is slapping forehead?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The only limit on Google's usefulness is someone's ability to use it properly.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> What just happened to basketti's post? All it says now is slapping forehead?


because I edited it? Sometimes it's not best to say what you really think.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Why??


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> Why??


I'll let you sit and think about it for a while.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Do the people that argue with doctors also tell their mechanics and plumbers how to do their jobs? 

Dang. Someone that has years of experience in their field has it all over me and Google. I'm not saying have blind faith either, get a second opinion or even a third, but medicine is not DIY.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Hey if you think I have horrible writing skills and don't know how to use words and remind you of kasilofhome, then I have no problem with that. Say what you want. But, at least take ownership of your words. I doubt you deleted that because you think it's impolite to say. I think you don't want to get in trouble with a moderator.

Besides, I think you're just angry and lashing out. If you felt I wasn't worth communicating with, you just would have ignored what I wrote.

Good day to you.

Good thread idea, farmerkat. But, I'm gonna have to take my leave.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Do the people that argue with doctors also tell their mechanics and plumbers how to do their jobs?
> 
> Dang. Someone that has years of experience in their field has it all over me and Google. I'm not saying have blind faith either, get a second opinion or even a third, but medicine is not DIY.


When I'm flying I like to go up and look over the pilot's shoulder. I'm not remotely trained in aviation but it just seems so strange that he can make that thing go up in the air safely. 
Just like how anti-vaxxers think it's weird that doctors stick needles into babies. Just doesn't seem right, you know?

To the medically (or aviationally) uneducated.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Woolieface said:


> Do you suppose I've never talked to old timers before?


I wouldn't know. That's why I suggested it. 

The grandmother who raised me was born in 1911. Circa 1914, half the family died from typhoid fever. She herself had scarlet fever and survived it but with a damaged heart. 

My great-great grandmother was born around 1870 and lived to 100 with a clear mind. She also saw the devastating results of diseases that are unheard of today. 

So when I said old timers, I meant OLD. Most people don't have those opportunities. People born in the 1970's could be the "elders" or the grandparents today, ya know?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

gibbsgirl said:


> What just happened to basketti's post? All it says now is slapping forehead?


I'm surprised that having been a member for a while, you weren't aware that one can delete or edit posts within a certain period of time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> They are physically damaging


They're less damaging than the diseases they prevent.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

So true ..now remember ignore feature really works.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> Yep, and every one of them is coerced into doing so by threat of prosecution for breaking the law if they don't. So, that just identified more of the group I already mentioned. But, failed to state *why they should be forced to finance other people's education.*


Because we already have enough ignorant, uneducated people to meet the quotas.

Some things are so obvious they shouldn't need to be stated


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Do the people that argue with doctors also tell their mechanics and plumbers how to do their jobs?
> 
> Dang. Someone that has years of experience in their field has it all over me and Google. I'm not saying have blind faith either, get a second opinion or even a third, but medicine is not DIY.


I guess you have never had a valid health concern about your child that was dismissed over and over and over for months (years) ... until you finally got help from an MD who did not dismiss you as an overbearing, neurotic mother and treated your child with results you never thought possible. 

No, I don't argue with doctors but I do not stay in care of doctors who are dismissive. I move on.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FarmerKat said:


> I guess you have never had a valid health concern about your child that was dismissed over and over and over for months (years) ... until you finally got help from an MD who did not dismiss you as an overbearing, neurotic mother and treated your child with results you never thought possible.
> 
> No, I don't argue with doctors but I do not stay in care of doctors who are dismissive. I move on.


I never even implied you should, there are many reasons not to continue to see a physician that isn't listening or derisive. I've done it myself.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because we already have enough ignorant, uneducated people to meet the quotas.
> 
> Some things are so obvious they shouldn't need to be stated


Folks may not have children in the school system but they still reap the benefits of an educated society. I'm sure there's a slippery slope in there somewhere but those eductated people provide everything from urban planning, emergency personnel, medical personnel, utility services, business development, etc.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They're less damaging than the diseases they prevent.


Tell that to someone who has lost a child because of vaccination, or are they "collateral damage" too?

http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/May-2011/In-Memoriam--Infant-Deaths---Vaccination.aspx#_edn1

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They're less damaging than the diseases they prevent.


 Thats for sure we sure don't need to make the USA like things were 100 years ago. No way. Better to keep all up on vacs. There might be a handful of severe reactions but way better to keep others up on things.
Even myself had such a severe reaction to some RA drug that I nearly died. Does that want me to not take Prescribed meds and shots. NO


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Shine said:


> Tell that to someone who has lost a child because of vaccination, or are they "collateral damage" too?
> 
> http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/May-2011/In-Memoriam--Infant-Deaths---Vaccination.aspx#_edn1
> 
> http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html



Hundreds of millions of children have been vaccinated, starting with polio in the 50's. There just isn't enough "smoke" with vaccinations to suspect there is a fire. The amount of children who have been lost "because of vaccinations" is miniscule. Kids died of SIDS before vaccinations, too, it just didn't have a name then. Of course that doesn't make it any easier for their parents, losing a child is a tragedy of immense proportions no matter how it happens. But yes, I could look those parents in the eye and offer condolences for their loss and still want to vaccinate my kid for most things. Not all, I think they have gotten a bit carried away today with the sheer number of vaccinations, and if I had young children I would pick and choose vaccinations. But they would get some, probably most, that are recommended. 

I had a vaccination scare - when DS was about 15, he needed a booster on something to go back to school. He was already "man size" at that time. Well he's a little bit needle phobic too. He got the shot, we walked down the hall to pay, and he fainted dead away. Fell down, eyes rolled back, I didn't know whether to have a heart attack or pee my pants! Doctor came, roused him, checked him over and he was fine. Just an extreme nervous reaction. [He's still a little needle phobic but he's trained as a first responder and can stick a needle in you no problem - just don't stick one in him. lol]


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

I think we're missing the big picture here. This law is less about whether or not vaccinations are good and more about whether the government can force you to subject your child to a medical procedure against your personal and religious beliefs.

I have two children and we did vaccinate them but there were some shots I held off on until later and there were some that I refused to give them. For example, I have never gotten my children a flu shot. If I had any daughters, I would not get them the HPV shot. These should be my decisions as their parent. This California law has stripped parents of their rights to make medical decisions for their children.

I don't foresee this law withstanding the first legal challenge. Excluding a child from public school based on a parent's religious beliefs (which is in essence what this law does) is a clear violation of existing FAPE (Free and Appropriate Public Education) laws.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Mo_cows

Oh come on, let's stick him just to see!

I was a level 2 firefighter, driver operator, and operations level hazmat certified. Then came the medical training! I am now an elevator mechanic. Tell him thanks from someone that washed out. Seriously!


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

....so I presume your answer to my question is essentially that the few must die so that the many may live?

OK, thank God or your lucky stars it was not you or yours...


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Patchouli said:


> Were kids dropping like flies in the 70s? If not ask yourself why so many today.


There is money to be made. The CDC is in big Pharma's pocket. They don't care about the health of children they care about making money. Besides if you get sick off of the vaccinations you'll need even more medical care which means more money.

I remember hearing the story of a journalist who went to visit his old high school buddy. He was a VP in a pharmaceutical company, the VP ended up saying how he wished everyone had a sickness so that they could make and sell more drugs. Kind of made me wary of those people.

Then there was the case in Kenya, they slipped other stuff into the vaccines so the women would be sterilized but didn't tell them. I wonder if they have put anything in these vaccines they aren't telling us about. 

I have lost my trust in people and institutions, the more I learn the less I trust. That is a real crisis in this nation, who can you trust and who is lying, and who is a psychopath just looking for money with out regard for others. The less you have to do with these people, the less medicines you take, the safer you will be.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Tell that to someone who has lost a child because of vaccination, or are they "collateral damage" too?
> 
> http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/May-2011/In-Memoriam--Infant-Deaths---Vaccination.aspx#_edn1
> 
> http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html


People die.

Nothing will change that

You can't point out a few deaths while ignoring millions that didn't die, in an effort to pretend "vaccines are bad"

Whether you like it or not, vaccines save millions of lives each year, even if a few die from reactions.



Shine said:


> ....so I presume your answer to my question is essentially that the few must die so that the many may live?
> 
> OK, thank God or your lucky stars it was not you or yours...



Would you be happier with more dying from disease?

Those who have complications from vaccines are a minute percentage of the totals.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

SLFarmMI said:


> I think we're missing the big picture here. This law is less about whether or not vaccinations are good and more about whether the government can force you to subject your child to a medical procedure against your personal and religious beliefs.
> 
> I have two children and we did vaccinate them but there were some shots I held off on until later and there were some that I refused to give them. For example, I have never gotten my children a flu shot. If I had any daughters, I would not get them the HPV shot. These should be my decisions as their parent. This California law has stripped parents of their rights to make medical decisions for their children.
> 
> I don't foresee this law withstanding the first legal challenge. Excluding a child from public school based on a parent's religious beliefs (which is in essence what this law does) is a clear violation of existing FAPE (Free and Appropriate Public Education) laws.


I don't see it that way. If a kid was known to be sick and contagious they couldn't come to school either. If they get head lice, etc. You can choose not to vaccinate your children, just be prepared to home school or send them to private school. It isn't as convenient but you still have the choice. Just like it isn't as convenient to grow your own vegetables, raise your own meat animals and other things. With the choice comes responsibility.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> I get how titers work too. But, they aren't offered widely like vaccines are.
> 
> And, I'm not sure that they are more costly than just juicing people with so many shots, when compared to wasting vaccinrs on some and dealing with the side effects and long-term effects on others.
> 
> ...



I just ran across this and found it very interesting:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102473744


> Washington, D.C., March 3, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Physicians and public health officials know that recently vaccinated individuals can spread disease and that contact with the immunocompromised can be especially dangerous. For example, the Johns Hopkins Patient Guide warns the immunocompromised to "Avoid contact with children who are recently vaccinated," and to "Tell friends and family who are sick, or have recently had a live vaccine (such as chicken pox, measles, rubella, intranasal influenza, polio or smallpox) not to visit."1
> A statement on the website of St. Jude's Hospital warns parents not to allow people to visit children undergoing cancer treatment if they have received oral polio or smallpox vaccines within four weeks, have received the nasal flu vaccine within one week, or have rashes after receiving the chickenpox vaccine or MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.2
> 
> 
> ...


I think this is another good reason to cut back on how many vaccines we give and look at titers instead. Why risk kids walking around contagious after a shot they didn't need because they already had immunity built up.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> People die.
> 
> Nothing will change that
> 
> ...


That's easy to say from the outside looking only at statistics. But say that to the face of a mother who made the choice to have the vaccine inserted into the body of her child that then died because of it. 

Obviously no one here wants any child to die. We wouldn't choose not to get shots if we didn't care. I know that is hard for some people to wrap their heads around but that doesn't make it any less true. Parents who make this choice care deeply and have educated themselves on the subject. It's not easy to take the path almost no one else is taking, making a choice with real burdens that other parents don't have.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> I just ran across this and found it very interesting:
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/id/102473744
> I think this is another good reason to cut back on how many vaccines we give and look at titers instead. Why risk kids walking around contagious after a shot they didn't need because they already had immunity built up.


That's a news release from the Weston Price Foundation. Shades of Mercola quackery. 
Shame on CNBC for printing that as though it were a scientific news release.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/03/05/cnbc-publishes-an-antivaccine-press-release/


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

basketti said:


> That's a news release from the Weston Price Foundation. Shades of Mercola quackery.
> Shame on CNBC for printing that as though it were a scientific news release.
> 
> http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/03/05/cnbc-publishes-an-antivaccine-press-release/


The facts are still facts no matter who compiled them.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> The facts are still facts no matter who compiled them.


And they have long been known. What was the point of recompiling them into a pseudo-news article, when the medical community and anyone who cares to know already is aware of them and warns their immunocompromised patients? A cheap scare tactic.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

So true. There is many years and many generations of vaccines given. And a whole lot of good has come out of them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> That's easy to say from the outside looking only at statistics.
> 
> But say that to the face of a mother who made the choice to have the vaccine inserted into the body of her child that then died because of it.


Sure, let's ignore all the facts and play on the emotions, and just pretend there aren't far more who die from disease than vaccines which prevent them.

I remember when everyone knew someone with Polio.
How many do you see today?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't foresee this law withstanding the first legal challenge. Excluding a child from public school* based on a parent's religious beliefs* (which is in essence what this law does) is a clear violation of existing FAPE (Free and Appropriate Public Education) laws.


If you can show proof your religion doesn't allow the use of medicine at all, you can probably win a law suit. 

If it's about just vaccines, I doubt you have a case at all


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

SLFarmMI said:


> I think we're missing the big picture here. This law is less about whether or not vaccinations are good and more about whether the government can force you to subject your child to a medical procedure against your personal and religious beliefs.


This is exactly what worries about wide public acceptance of laws like this. They take away just a little bit of choice at a time for the "greater good" until you wake up one day and there is no choice left to be made. 




Bearfootfarm said:


> Sure, let's ignore all the facts and play on the emotions, and just pretend there aren't far more who die from disease than vaccines which prevent them.
> 
> I remember when everyone knew someone with Polio.
> How many do you see today?


I know a thing or two about polio ... both my parents had it and are/were physically disabled from it. My mom would tell you that she wishes a vaccine was available for polio before she got it. But she would also tell you that there is no way she would allow anyone to vaccinate her kids according to the aggressive schedule CDC pushes now. 



Bearfootfarm said:


> If you can show proof your religion doesn't allow the use of medicine at all, you can probably win a law suit.
> 
> If it's about just vaccines, I doubt you have a case at all


So who decides what the tenets of your faith are? Does a church have to register their tenets with the government? If you are not part of a church who registered their tenets, does it mean your convictions don't count? What if you are an atheist? Should atheist parents be denied the right to make a choice about medical care for their child based on their convictions?


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

I am going to throw one more thing into the mix. There is a group lobbying for a constitutional amendment regarding parental rights. Do you think the amendment is necessary? Do you think it would diminish government's ability to govern its citizens? Or would you rather see US ratify UNCRC & UNCRPD? Who do you think is best equipped to make the decision what is in "best interest of the child" - parents, government, some other 3rd party? 

Here is the text of the proposed amendment ...



> PROPOSED PARENTAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
> 
> SECTION 1
> 
> ...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

There are too many variables. In a perfect world all parents would make good decisions about their children's health. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world. 

There have already been some instances where the government has stepped in and forced health care on minors that parents either let them chose whether or not to have treatment or chose not to treat their child. Some I agree with, some I don't. To me, it's a case by case basis, how old the kid is, and if the parents can articulate why they think treatment shouldn't happen. If it's "big pharma is evil" or something along those lines, the parent has a mental illness or is incapable for whatever reason of choosing proper care, the government should step and _decide based on what is best for the kid_. 

We've all read about kids that have died because the parents tried to pray away infection that could have been cured with a round of antibiotics. This is wrong and the kid is dead because of their ignorance.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you can show proof your religion doesn't allow the use of medicine at all, you can probably win a law suit.
> 
> If it's about just vaccines, I doubt you have a case at all


Well, we'll just have to wait and see when the first lawsuit comes. This lawsuit, even if you believe that "it's about just vaccines", sets a dangerous precedent. If the state can force one medical procedure above your religious objections, then it can force another.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

FarmerKat said:


> I know a thing or two about polio ... both my parents had it and are/were physically disabled from it. My mom would tell you that she wishes a vaccine was available for polio before she got it. But she would also tell you that there is no way she would allow anyone to vaccinate her kids according to the aggressive schedule CDC pushes now.


On what basis would your mother make that decision? Does she have an MD or PhD in Immunology, etc? Or would she just make it because "wow...that just sounds like a butt load of shots!!"

Why would she have wanted a polio vaccine for herself if she doesn't trust the scientists and doctors responsible for making them to suggest a harmful or even unnecessary schedule of immunizations?

This makes zero sense.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...n-iowa-state-university-guilty-plea/23996449/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3024813/





basketti said:


> On what basis would your mother make that decision? Does she have an MD or PhD in Immunology, etc? Or would she just make it because "wow...that just sounds like a butt load of shots!!"
> 
> Why would she have wanted a polio vaccine for herself if she doesn't trust the scientists and doctors who make them to suggest a harmful or even unnecessary schedule of immunizations?
> 
> This makes zero sense.


Going to the extreme of dismissing anyone who questions only hardens opposition to vaccination. 
I respect stories of personal experience. I do not think that the CDC is perfect. The very idea that a person should never do at least some of their own thinking but simply follow every government is off putting.
I thoroughly approve of vaccinations. I have personally seen the good achieved by it. But I would never say that there is no room for improvement of safety and effectiveness.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

where I want to said:


> http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...n-iowa-state-university-guilty-plea/23996449/
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3024813/
> 
> ...



Your links just underline the fact that the system in place does work. The bogus researcher's boss blew the whistle on him, and as far as dietary guidelines changing....well yeah. That's kind of the beauty of ongoing research and scientists continuing to progress. 
Where did I say there was no room for improvement? I simply question someone who has no basis in understanding (presumptively) the reasoning behind a vaccine schedule, in unilaterally deciding the "experts" are wrong and she is right.

But I do thoroughly approve that you thoroughly approve of vaccines. Makes me feel like I won't get my hand whacked with a ruler or be made to write "I shall not disagree with WIWT" 50 times on the chalkboard.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

basketti said:


> On what basis would your mother make that decision? Does she have an MD or PhD in Immunology, etc? Or would she just make it because "wow...that just sounds like a butt load of shots!!"
> 
> Why would she have wanted a polio vaccine for herself if she doesn't trust the scientists and doctors who make them to suggest a harmful or even unnecessary schedule of immunizations?
> 
> This makes zero sense.


Let me answer with a question based on my own experience with my kids. 

Background first ... My children have some but not all vaccines. They received them one at a time when they were healthy (not even a runny nose). With the exception of one reaction that required medical care, neither of my children ever felt "under the weather" after shots. Most of my friends vaccinate on the CDC schedule. Every time their kids get shots, they would be down for 2-3 days, often with mild fever. 

As for the one reaction ... my son had 3 shots of the same vaccine. The first time he got a little red spot at injection site. I did not think anything about it. The second time, he got a big hard, hot red spot at injection site. Not really worrisome either. The third time - in addition to injection site reaction - he started throwing up, was in extreme pain, could not walk and was covered in a horrible rash. He was treated for pain and allergic reaction. He fully recovered after a month. I am sure happy that my child suffered as "collateral" damage for the greater good. (Yes, that last sentence is sarcastic.)

On the positive side, I know which vaccine was the culprit because he only got one shot and not 3 or 4. He is not ever getting another booster. Ever. 

With that said ... do I need to be an MD or have a PhD in Immunology to make a choice what is better for *my* kids?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> People die.
> 
> Nothing will change that
> 
> ...


Your presumptions qualify as Straw Men Arguments:
You can't point out a few deaths while ignoring millions that didn't die, in an effort to pretend "vaccines are bad"

Whether you like it or not, vaccines save millions of lives each year, even if a few die from reactions.

We will never know how many have been "saved" by vaccines. I will grant you the fact that vaccines, for the most part, are good. Why have the vaccine makers been insured by a tax on the people against adverse reactions of those people taking vaccines? Is Thimerosal still used in Vaccines? Are there any claims that this ingredient has or causes the adverse reactions? Has there been a historical increase in the number of cases of autism? Is autism linked to vaccine administration? Is it better for the children that have adverse reactions to die outright or for the family to have to go through life with an autistic child?

Finally, as with the use of Fluoride in the water, does government ever do anything that is suspect in it's intentions?


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

The news reports state that there is no religious or parental objection allowed. Only home-school and medical exemptions.

I support such laws; those parents who refuse to have their kids vaccinated are responsible for the outbreaks of contagious disease. Herd immunity is a fact---when there is a group of non-vaccinated individuals there is always a reservoir for disease. Once started it can cripple or kill unborn children and infants too young to vaccinate. 

I have never understood the anti-vaccine hysteria. No one who lived thru the age of polio, diphtheria, whooping cough and the like can understand such thinking.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Oxankle said:


> The news reports state that there is no religious or parental objection allowed. Only home-school and medical exemptions.
> 
> I support such laws; those parents who refuse to have their kids vaccinated are responsible for the outbreaks of contagious disease. Herd immunity is a fact---when there is a group of non-vaccinated individuals there is always a reservoir for disease. Once started it can cripple or kill unborn children and infants too young to vaccinate.
> 
> I have never understood the anti-vaccine hysteria. No one who lived thru the age of polio, diphtheria, whooping cough and the like can understand such thinking.


I think you are right.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Oh, yeah... before they administer vaccines do they advise the parent and/or the patient that there is a chance of death or serious complications?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Shine said:


> Oh, yeah... before they administer vaccines do they advise the parent and/or the patient that there is a chance of death or serious complications?


of course they do.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

What difference does it make.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> What difference does it make.


EXACTLY. Bring on the micro chip, the mark of the beast,open the borders, sell US land to China, run those printing presses of 100$ bills 24/7...cause it's good for the peeps!


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

MO_cows said:


> Hundreds of millions of children have been vaccinated, starting with polio in the 50's. The amount of children who have been lost "because of vaccinations" is miniscule. Kids died of SIDS before vaccinations, too, it just didn't have a name then. Of course that doesn't make it any easier for their parents, losing a child is a tragedy of immense proportions no matter how it happens. But yes, I could look those parents in the eye and offer


Go to an old cemetery and see how many children died. I know of one cemetery where one couple lost at least 6 children. Some were very young - less than a year old, some were older - 6 years or older. All different years the children died - so it wasn't some big accident that took them.

I of course, have no idea WHAT the children died of, but I suspect it was the common illnesses of the time. 

I can't imagine losing one child, let alone 5 or 6. How very heartbreaking. If vaccines would have been available back in the late 1800's and early 1900's, how many children would have grown up and lived a full life?

Vaccines certainly have a purpose. Now I'm not saying to get EVERY vaccine there is - just do your research. And for those parents who decide not to get ANY vaccines, just be aware that there is the potential for you to lose your child due to a preventable disease. Same goes for parents who decide to get vaccines - be aware your your child MAY have a reaction to it.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

FYI if you are born you will die face it I know it is hard and sad but reality.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you can show proof your religion doesn't allow the use of medicine at all, you can probably win a law suit.
> 
> If it's about just vaccines, I doubt you have a case at all


Not these days. You don't have to prove any consistency or legitimate link to a religion anymore according to the Supreme Court.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

If an unvaccinated child were to contract something like polio, who should be expected to pay the medical bills? Would insurance companies be expected to pay, the parents because they chose not to vaccinate or the public because the associated costs would be more than a family could afford?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

One, medical care is an option.
Now, why was it that Europeans were able to handle small pox... they had gone thru and the fittest survived. Took care of the over time.

This might not be your choice but why is your choice to trump my values.

If those who wanted the shot have the freedom to have the shot why must they force others who may not want the shot.

Explain to me how allowing one group the freedom of choice and another no choice equals freedom.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

wr said:


> If an unvaccinated child were to contract something like polio, who should be expected to pay the medical bills? Would insurance companies be expected to pay, the parents because they chose not to vaccinate or the public because the associated costs would be more than a family could afford?


If they had insurance, probably they would be paying higher premiums for being "non vaccinated" just like any other risk factor. At least I would hope so. 

If they don't have insurance, or enough money, the health care system eats it. That's a big part of why our health care is so expensive, so many people who aren't covered and can't/won't pay. 

Since half the states didn't go along with Medicaid expansion, the needle didn't move very far on the percent of the US population who has health care coverage of some sort.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

MO_cows said:


> If they had insurance, probably they would be paying higher premiums for being "non vaccinated" just like any other risk factor. At least I would hope so.
> 
> If they don't have insurance, or enough money, the health care system eats it. That's a big part of why our health care is so expensive, so many people who aren't covered and can't/won't pay.
> 
> Since half the states didn't go along with Medicaid expansion, the needle didn't move very far on the percent of the US population who has health care coverage of some sort.


I agree that's likely how it would be handled but should the system in one way or another be expected to pay for what turned out to be a bad choice?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

It's funny those of you who are pro-vaxx love strawmen arguments and hyperbole even though you rail against it. Who brought up Jenny McCarthy here? Autism? That would be the pro people.

As for the millions would DIE!!!! Bull crap. Those cemeteries full of children mainly died from things that are easily cured these days or they would have never been contracted today. Clean water, clean homes, antibiotics, healthy non-contaminated food and milk, etc. have made almost all of the viruses and in the case of Diptheria bacteria we vaccinate against non-killers. Not to mention the fact that most people don't die of those viruses they die of complications like pneumonia. 

The people who like to scream facts rarely have educated themselves at all on the topic. In reality their argument is one of pure emotion: look at the graveyards of the late 1800s or millions would die. Simply not true if you know anything at all about any of the diseases. 

Here's a simple question: when it came time to get your children vaccinated did you just get the shots the Doctor recommended? How much research did you do before you got the vaccinations?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

wr said:


> I agree that's likely how it would be handled but should the system in one way or another be expected to pay for what turned out to be a bad choice?


It would be inhumane not to, wouldn't it? I don't want to let a child suffer or die because their parent made a bad choice. So yes when that unvaccinated, uninsured kid shows up at the ER with symptoms of polio or whatever, I would want them treated and then let the hospital try to collect. They can garnish wages and such.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

wr said:


> I agree that's likely how it would be handled but should the system in one way or another be expected to pay for what turned out to be a bad choice?



Do you penalize every parent who lets their kid climb a tree when they break an arm? I guess all of us should move off our farms because if you want to talk about a bad choice injury wise....

Pack those kiddies in pink cotton or no insurance for you! 

Before you go off all half cocked you might want to look at the actual stats because kids who are not vaccinated are not coming down with illnesses in any perceptible numbers.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Patchouli said:


> Do you penalize every parent who lets their kid climb a tree when they break an arm? I guess all of us should move off our farms because if you want to talk about a bad choice injury wise....
> 
> Pack those kiddies in pink cotton or no insurance for you!
> 
> Before you go off all half cocked you might want to look at the actual stats because kids who are not vaccinated are not coming down with illnesses in any perceptible numbers.


Could that be because most kids _are_ vaccinated? If there aren't many cases of active disease the virus won't be easily caught, correct?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> Before you go off all half cocked you might want to look at the actual stats because kids who are not vaccinated are not coming down with illnesses in any perceptible numbers.


There is a very good reason for that. The majority of children are getting vaccinated. Herd immunity. As more that don't get vaccinated and let the others take the risk. That will change.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So who decides what the tenets of your faith are? Does a church have to register their tenets with the government? If you are not part of a church who registered their tenets, does it mean your convictions don't count? What if you are an atheist? Should atheist parents be denied the right to make a choice about medical care for their child based on their convictions?


If you plan to use religion as a basis for your suit, you had better be prepared to document those tenets


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> Well, we'll just have to wait and see when the first lawsuit comes. This lawsuit, even if you believe that "it's about just vaccines", sets a dangerous precedent. *If the state can force one medical procedure* above your religious objections, then it can force another.


That's already been done in cases where families tried to deny any medical treatments to people who were dying, so the issue has already been decided


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

wr said:


> I agree that's likely how it would be handled but should the system in one way or another be expected to pay for what turned out to be a bad choice?


Not on my behalf...


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's already been done in cases where families tried to deny any medical treatments to people who were dying, so the issue has already been decided


There has never been a blanket law (to the best of my knowledge) denying parents the right to make medical decisions for their children so you're really comparing apples to oranges here.

Why does it not bother anyone that the very text of the law gives the health department the right to forcibly immunize your child for "any other disease deemed appropriate by the department" (quoted from the full text of the law)? So, if the health department decides your 11 year old needs to be immunized against sexually transmitted diseases, you're ok with that?

I find it interesting that all the people who are saying the non-immunized children are a threat in school, aren't up in arms about these same children going to malls, movie theaters or grocery stores. And apparently the special ed children aren't a threat because the law doesn't exclude them from attending school if they aren't immunized. Probably because the drafters of this legislation knew they would be in violation of federal law with that one.

I also find it interesting that very few people seem to be concerned with the fact that this law is a huge overreach.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wr said:


> I agree that's likely how it would be handled but should the system in one way or another be expected to pay for what turned out to be a bad choice?


No, there are people like me that pay what they can or go with out and just face it. No one but I paid for my cancer. Seems from my thinking that knowing that life happens encouraged me to put my money aside and work extra jobs when I could because tomorrow is not a given.. living has a cost and there really is a personal choice in living beyond your means.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> No, there are people like me that pay what they can or go with out and just face it. No one but I paid for my cancer. Seems from my thinking that knowing that life happens encouraged me to put my money aside and work extra jobs when I could because tomorrow is not a given.. living has a cost and there really is a personal choice in living beyond your means.



But if they can't pay, you and every other taxpayer will cover the costs.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

wr said:


> But if they can't pay, you and every other taxpayer will cover the costs.


I can accept the question about who should pay the extra costs of medical care for patients who have not had vaccines.

But, not if it's going to be applied at a different standard than all the other care costs for bad choices.

So what about the care for people who have adverse side effects from actually getting th shots?

What about people who have vehicular accidents? Those are pretty common and getting on a vehicle is a choice.

What about obese people? That's a big one, financially speaking and eating and exercise is a choice.

What about people who hav sports related injuries? Sports are a choice.

What about patients with work place injuries? Should they have been more careful or chosen their employment better?

I'll stop there, but acknowledge the list could definitely be expanded.

My point is, before people want to proclaim that associated costs are unfair when care can be linked to personal choice, I think there should probably be some consideration of what that would look like if applied broadly. And, if that's not an acceptable option, then I suggest rethinking why anti-vax families (wherever they fall on that spectrum of vaccine useage), should be separated out from others for a separate standard of care and coverage options.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I will add that there is the presupposition that vaccines work, and are directly linked to the decline of many diseases. When that is not necessarily a true cause and effects correlation.

Also, many of these shots are for diseases that were considered typical childhood illnesses. Some could be serious and even fatal. But, many were not. And, that was in an era that did not have a medical care system that was advanced as we have now with critical care services.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wr said:


> But if they can't pay, you and every other taxpayer will cover the costs.


Not me... I know for a fact my cancer was confirmed returned and I have refused care because I choose not to under go treatment.. I explained my position after a year the doctors accepted it. 



So your are wrong.

I will pay for first aid medical care I choose and if I can't afford it that's life. You can't stop death so live till you die.

More than likely it will not be pleasant but life ending is more than not unpleasant.
I have held these view for years. That's life. I would rather die and pass on a something more than debt.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> I will add that there is the presupposition that vaccines work, and are directly linked to the decline of many diseases. When that is not necessarily a true cause and effects correlation.


So if it is not vaccines what is almost wiping out theses diseases? I would really like to know what it is.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

gibbsgirl said:


> I will add that there is the presupposition that vaccines work, and are directly linked to the decline of many diseases. When that is not necessarily a true cause and effects correlation.
> 
> Also, many of these shots are for diseases that were considered typical childhood illnesses. Some could be serious and even fatal. But, many were not. And, that was in an era that did not have a medical care system that was advanced as we have now with critical care services.


Polio was one where a vaccine was developed when I was old enough to remember. I remember standing in line and getting a oral dose on my tongue a long with everyone in school. 
I had friends in iron leg braces and there were children who simply disappeared from school each year.
That ended instantly. No new cases at all. No alerts about not swimming each summer. 
I also had chicken pox, measles and mumps in the space of 6 months at age 5 when those diseases swept through my sister's school and she brought them home. I had encephalitis as a complication along with pneumonia, and a kidney problem. A whole year was gone from my memory. 
So it will have to be a remarkable set of proofs to convince me that what I experienced in terms of vaccine and no vaccine was not real.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

painterswife said:


> So if it is not vaccines what is almost wiping out theses diseases? I would really like to know.


Try Google or the library.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> Try Google or the library.


Just what I expected.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Just what I expected.


Excellent, maybe it's coming across I have no vested interest in meeting some people's expectations on here for whether my contributions to discussions have value. 

I wrote my posts to just be an encouragement to others who have a genuine interest in looking into these issues further, some thoughts they can run down and sift through on their own, to be able to draw their own conclusions.

In other words, the undecided readers or members.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> Excellent, maybe it's coming across I have no vested interest in meeting some people's expectations on here for whether my contributions to discussions have value.
> 
> I wrote my posts to just be an encouragement to others who have a genuine interest in looking into these issues further, some thoughts they can run down and sift through on their own, to be able to draw their own conclusions.
> 
> In other words, the undecided readers or members.


But yet you have information that you won't share here on the forum. That is being so helpful.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

painterswife said:


> But yet you have information that you won't share here on the forum. That is being so helpful.


Do you actually care if I do because you'd like to read it and have a civil discussion?

Actually, I think I know the answer to that question based on past observations and interactions.

Thanks, I'll pass getting baiting into a contest. 

I'd rather not cluster up the thread with a battle. I enjoy just reading other people's thoughts and sharing mine when I have an interest in doing so.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

So because I asked instead of someone else you are going to play games and not provide the information.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> There has never been a blanket law (to the best of my knowledge) denying parents the right to make medical decisions for their children so *you're really comparing apples to oranges here.*


Only when it's taken out of context, as you have done


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Only when it's taken out of context, as you have done


Nothing is being taken out of context. This law, on its face, takes the decision for a medical procedure (immunization) out of the hands of the parents and puts it in the hands of the state. The state now gets to decide what immunizations your child receives.

This law is not about whether or not immunization is a good thing or whether or not children should be immunized. It is about who is going to make those decisions -- parents or the state. I happen to think that decision should rest with the parents. You apparently feel differently.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

SLFarmMI said:


> Nothing is being taken out of context. This law, on its face, takes the decision for a medical procedure (immunization) out of the hands of the parents and puts it in the hands of the state. The state now gets to decide what immunizations your child receives.
> 
> This law is not about whether or not immunization is a good thing or whether or not children should be immunized. It is about who is going to make those decisions -- parents or the state. I happen to think that decision should rest with the parents. You apparently feel differently.


No, it does not force the parent to have their child(ren) vaccinated. They have a choice, home school or vaccinate.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

I have been wanting to add a comment in response to the posts that claim that parents who are not MDs do not have adequate education to make medical decisions for their children but I have not had time to sit down and write it down. If that is what many people believe then how can parents parent at all? I have heard the same argument many times before in regards to homeschooling. "You cannot homeschool, because you are not a teacher." 


Well, I cook for my family. Do you think I should be allowed to do that? I am not a nutritionist or a professional chef. 

I don't take kids to the doctor with every little scratch. I clean it up and put a band-aid on it. Should I be allowed to do that? I don't have any medical education.

I drive my kids around. Should not a professional driver do that? After all, getting in the car and driving always poses the risk of getting in a wreck. Professional driver with proper training and experience will be more likely to avoid an accident. 

I teach our kids about our religion. Would that not be better left to our pastor?


I could go on and on ... if parents had to obtain college degree in every field that may come up during their parenting journey they will be well past their reproductive years.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FarmerKat said:


> I have been wanting to add a comment in response to the posts that claim that parents who are not MDs do not have adequate education to make medical decisions for their children but I have not had time to sit down and write it down. If that is what many people believe then how can parents parent at all? I have heard the same argument many times before in regards to homeschooling. "You cannot homeschool, because you are not a teacher."
> 
> 
> Well, I cook for my family. Do you think I should be allowed to do that? I am not a nutritionist or a professional chef.
> ...


Where did anyone say that you shouldn't have input into your child's health because you aren't a physician? Of course you should. What they did say was the average layman or "Google researcher" does not have the knowledge or the experience that a physician does, and that's the bottom line.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where did anyone say that you shouldn't have input into your child's health because you aren't a physician? Of course you should. What they did say was the average layman or "Google researcher" does not have the knowledge or the experience that a physician does, and that's the bottom line.


For example, post #125.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

FarmerKat said:


> I have been wanting to add a comment in response to the posts that claim that parents who are not MDs do not have adequate education to make medical decisions for their children but I have not had time to sit down and write it down. If that is what many people believe then how can parents parent at all? I have heard the same argument many times before in regards to homeschooling. "You cannot homeschool, because you are not a teacher."
> 
> 
> Well, I cook for my family. Do you think I should be allowed to do that? I am not a nutritionist or a professional chef.
> ...



Sometimes I wonder what kind of elevated brain structure people think developed in the infant fated to become a doctor. The general acceptance that we all don't have enough thinking power in our own brains to educate ourselves as much as we want to has really resulted in a population that responds to thinking an independent thought like it's some kind of aberrant behavior. 

So, no wonder we have to talk about things like a "dumbed down" society. When people stop believing they are able to think and learn as much as anyone in any field of expertise, they are at the mercy of whatever agenda is throwing the most money at those people.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FarmerKat said:


> For example, post #125.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FarmerKat View Post

I know a thing or two about polio ... both my parents had it and are/were physically disabled from it. My mom would tell you that she wishes a vaccine was available for polio before she got it. But she would also tell you that there is no way she would allow anyone to vaccinate her kids according to the aggressive schedule CDC pushes now. 

Basketti: "On what basis would your mother make that decision? Does she have an MD or PhD in Immunology, etc? Or would she just make it because "wow...that just sounds like a butt load of shots!!"

Why would she have wanted a polio vaccine for herself if she doesn't trust the scientists and doctors responsible for making them to suggest a harmful or even unnecessary schedule of immunizations?

This makes zero sense."

That's not how I read that post, you can read into it anything you'd like, I'll have to defer to the poster as to it's meaning.

Regardless you still have input into your child's health care.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Woolieface said:


> Sometimes I wonder what kind of elevated brain structure people think developed in the infant fated to become a doctor. The general acceptance that we all don't have enough thinking power in our own brains to educate ourselves as much as we want to has really resulted in a population that responds to thinking an independent thought like it's some kind of aberrant behavior.
> 
> So, no wonder we have to talk about things like a "dumbed down" society. When people stop believing they are able to think and learn as much as anyone in any field of expertise, they are at the mercy of whatever agenda is throwing the most money at those people.


That's not what I said. I said that physicians have much more _education/training_ that the average layman or "Google researcher" and that is absolutely true. 

Dr's aren't any smarter than anyone else, and that was never even implied.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I haven't read all the replies, but as soon as I saw this in the news & saw this link, I thought, CA pretty much HAD to b/c of the flood of illegal kids last yr. Many were diseased.
Here's a pretty good read about the CDC having no kind words for the Idioitincharge on this...

http://joemiller.us/2015/07/cdc-off...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-588b00bda3-230980529

Following the influx of illegal immigrant minors from Central America, an official at the federal agency charged with protecting public health describes Barack Obama as &#8220;the worst pres we have ever had,&#8221; an &#8220;amateur&#8221; and &#8220;Marxist,&#8221; according to internal emails obtained by Judicial Watch.

JW got the records as part of an investigation into the Center for Disease Control&#8217;s (CDC) activation of an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to deal with the barrage of illegal alien minors last summer. Tens of thousands of Central Americans came into the United States through the Mexican border and contagious diseases&#8212;many considered to be eradicated in the U.S.&#8212;became a tremendous concern. The CDC, which operates under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), responded by opening an emergency facility designed to monitor and coordinate response activities to eminent public health threats.


----------



## KatieVT (Dec 22, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where did anyone say that you shouldn't have input into your child's health because you aren't a physician? Of course you should. What they did say was the average layman or "Google researcher" does not have the knowledge or the experience that a physician does, and that's the bottom line.


This above really bothers me, I've struggled writing a response... It sounds so arrogant.

My mother and I are both "Google researchers", and truthfully, it may have saved my and 2 siblings lives or prevented serious harm multiple times. I have found doctors approach patients like they all react the same. Well, they don't. *I* know my body better than them (it took them over a week to discover I was rejecting, when I knew something was wrong 2 days after they lowered my medication). 

Vaccines may be fine for most children, but I believe that the number given over such a short time to little babies can lead to more harm than benefit. I have personally seen vaccine reactions in my adult sister and in several dogs (ruined 2 good working BCs). 

And BTW, at least the VT legislation doesn't just affect kids in public school. It also affects adults going to college, including ONLINE courses!


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's not what I said. I said that physicians have much more _education/training_ that the average layman or "Google researcher" and that is absolutely true.
> 
> Dr's aren't any smarter than anyone else, and that was never even implied.


But we are all able to access the same information, as well. The quality of the training depends upon the quality of the training manual. Doctors are taught a way of practicing medicine. That is what they spend years in school to learn. If we are trust the medical system blindly, then it's not a question of how long doctors trained...it's a question of whether or not you trust that standardized material they learn. If we aren't educated enough to question doctors, we aren't educated enough to trust them either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> This law, on its face, takes the decision for a medical procedure (immunization) out of the hands of the parents and puts it in the hands of the state. The state now gets to decide what immunizations your child receives.


They always have if you want to qualify for the benefits they offer in return. 
Nothing has changed at all.
Only the hysteria is new



> Nothing is being taken out of context.


My comment was in reply to your statement to the effect that"if they can force one procedure they can force any"

I wasn't "comparing" anything, but rather showing an example, therefore you changed the context when you said I was "comparing apples to oranges"


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Woolieface said:


> But we are all able to access the same information, as well. The quality of the training depends upon the quality of the training manual. Doctors are taught a way of practicing medicine. That is what they spend years in school to learn. If we are trust the medical system blindly, then it's not a question of how long doctors trained...it's a question of whether or not you trust that standardized material they learn. If we aren't educated enough to question doctors, we aren't educated enough to trust them either.


When you (collective you) have 8 years of education, training, and testing plus 3-5 more of hands-on experience I'll agree. Until then you're still an educated laymen, which there is nothing wrong with, but you are not as educated or as knowledgeable as a physician.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They always have if you want to qualify for the benefits they offer in return.
> Nothing has changed at all.
> Only the hysteria is new


Great way to dismiss any questioning. The old "hysterical" woman idea to get rid of incovenient people. Worked for generations. Doctors used it up until there were enough woman doctors to object to the word.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Woolieface View Post
> But we are all able to access the same information, as well.


Please access a *scientific *link showing goat's milk can regrow tooth enamel and I'll believe you know as much as a real Dr. 

Until then..............


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> When you (collective you) have 8 years of education, training, and testing plus 3-5 more of hands-on experience I'll agree. Until then you're still an educated laymen, which there is nothing wrong with, but you are not as educated or as knowledgeable as a physician.


The point isn't addressed. Do you trust everything in their text books and the people who set the standard of education? Do you know who they are? Do you know when medical training became standardized or who was behind that?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Woolieface said:


> The point isn't addressed. Do you trust everything in their text books and the people who set the standard of education? Do you know who they are? Do you know when medical training became standardized or who was behind that?


That wasn't the original point.  It's a subject you want to argue but I'm not interested.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> That wasn't the original point.  It's a subject you want to argue but I'm not interested.


Not really....I'm just always after that elusive understanding of the nature of trust in people. I just want to understand why people trust something they admittedly have not enough knowledge of to make decisions about.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> The point isn't addressed. Do you trust everything in their text books and the people who set the standard of education? Do you know who they are? Do you know when medical training became standardized or who was behind that?


I trust them far more than someone on the internet claiming superior knowledge when their statements show otherwise.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

One of the interesting things I've found when dealing with all types of health professionals, is that I gave to make it clear from the onset, that I will take there recommendations and consider them and ask questions. But, I will be making the decisions over what care will or won't be happening.

With perhaps, the exception of some acute care situations, there is absolutely no reason that the doctor patient dynamic should work in any other way IMO.

Whenever, I have been dealing with healthcare people on behalf of my children or as power of Atty I've done it the same way. It's my job to make decisions based on the recommendations of the healthcare providers.

It's the only way I've found to have any margin of success in getting through the system. The healthcare professionals have received training to practice medicine. Their job is to try and diagnose problems and recommend treatment. The patients or their representatives job is to take that information under advisement and make decisions about what will be done.

Healthcare people are operating under this weird hero worship status by society. It's unhealthy in my opinion for people to interract with them by framing your relationship status in that way for both sides.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Great way to dismiss any questioning. The old "hysterical" woman idea to get rid of incovenient people. Worked for generations. Doctors used it up until there were enough woman doctors to object to the word.


And yet as you posted in the Bernie Sanders thread, you are just fine with women being criticized about their appearance rather than performance because essentially, they asked for it because women dye their hair and use makeup.

Interesting ethical gymnastics you are capable of.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gibbsgirl said:


> One of the interesting things I've found when dealing with all types of health professionals, is that I gave to make it clear from the onset, that I will take there recommendations and consider them and ask questions. But, I will be making the decisions over what care will or won't be happening.
> 
> With perhaps, the exception of some acute care situations, there is absolutely no reason that the doctor patient dynamic should work in any other way IMO.
> 
> ...


I agreed with you right up until the last sentence. It's not hero worship, it's education, training and experience. I've never said that the physician is the end all be all. They aren't, they provide the information needed to determine the correct decision for that situation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I've never said that the physician is the end all be all.


No one has even implied that, other than those saying how much they distrust Dr's, and science in general.

It's like they think everything always goes to one extreme or the other unless you go along with them

It's pretty entertaining


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

basketti said:


> And yet as you posted in the Bernie Sanders thread, you are just fine with women being criticized about their appearance rather than performance because essentially, they asked for it because women dye their hair and use makeup.
> 
> Interesting ethical gymnastics you are capable of.


It is the envy of those incapable of analysis- it confuses them. I did not say it was fine- I said it was inevitable as a result of choice that was useful in one direction but was a negative in the other.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

where I want to said:


> It is the envy of those incapable of analysis- it confuses them. I did not say it was fine- I said it was inevitable as a result of choice that was useful in one direction but was a negative in the other.


I don't think analysis means what you think it does.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Had I listened to Dr Johnson in 1991 I would have been misdiagnosed he saw no need to biopsy the growth stating that it was most likely nothing new. That it would be a waste of lab work.

He was my medical contractor I pay for his service and informed him to do it .. to split the sample and to send it to two different labs...

The results came back stage one cancer of a rare genetic cancer. Rarely ever found in stage one.... it is slow growing till later stages when it ends up in the fatal stage they normally find it.

Doctors are just men.. ( charge me with pc laws) and medicine is a money machine. 
Being personally involved and not blindly trusting every white coated person claiming they have all the answers ...they don't.... they just practice and might get it right.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

painterswife said:


> So if it is not vaccines what is almost wiping out theses diseases? I would really like to know what it is.


The same things that ended things like Typhoid outbreaks and tuberculosis. There are vaccines for those but we don't get them in America. We don't need to anymore.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> *The same things* that ended things like Typhoid outbreaks and tuberculosis. There are vaccines for those but we don't get them in America. We don't need to anymore.


That's pretty vague
Can you be more specific?

Also, comparing bacterial diseases to viruses can't really be done.

With typhoid, you can clean up the drinking water and end most of the problems. 

That didn't stop Polio or Smallpox, nor any other viral disease


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> When you (collective you) have 8 years of education, training, and testing plus 3-5 more of hands-on experience I'll agree. Until then you're still an educated laymen, which there is nothing wrong with, but you are not as educated or as knowledgeable as a physician.


Try working with doctors. You will get a quick lesson in how much value their education has given them. You can't overcome stupid or arrogance or lack of common sense no matter how many degrees you throw at it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Patchouli said:


> Try working with doctors. You will get a quick lesson in how much value their education has given them. You can't overcome stupid or arrogance or lack of common sense no matter how many degrees you throw at it.


All doctors everywhere? I can't even begin to agree with you. 

I have worked with many physicians, both professionally and personally.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's pretty vague
> Can you be more specific?
> 
> Also, comparing bacterial diseases to viruses can't really be done.
> ...


Diphtheria is bacterial. Tetanus is bacterial. 

Do we get vaccinated for smallpox? Nope that would be one we also no longer need a shot for these days. 

So viral or bacterial improving hygiene, cleaner food and water supplies, teaching people how to not spread illness, better treatments when we do get viral or bacterial infections, etc. have led to a great drop in these illnesses. 

Vaccines have helped too, I don't think you will find anyone who denies that. But what we need vaccines for these days is wildly exaggerated by pharmaceutical companies looking to make a buck. Look at the vaccines you got as a child. Now look at what they claim is necessary today. Those very small and limited vaccine schedules from our childhoods eradicated these diseases from America according to your opinion it is all about vaccines. Polio has been eradicated from all of North and South America since August 20, 1994.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Try working with doctors. You will get a quick lesson in how much value their education has given them. *You can't overcome stupid or arrogance or lack of common sense *no matter how many degrees you throw at it.


That doesn't apply only to Dr's, and it doesn't detract from what they do know.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> All doctors everywhere? I can't even begin to agree with you.
> 
> I have worked with many physicians, both professionally and personally.


If you look at all doctors you will find some who are intelligent, caring and educated and who do an excellent job. You will also find plenty who do not. So a degree on the wall doesn't mean anything, it's still a crap shoot and your doctor may be wonderful or useless. My time on Google may actually leave me more educated on a subject than my doctor who hasn't bothered to keep up with the latest information for the last 20 years. 

Since you work with doctors you know this.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> The same things that ended things like Typhoid outbreaks and tuberculosis. There are vaccines for those but we don't get them in America. We don't need to anymore.


It was antibiotics that slowed down tuberculosis. And clearly they don't work on viral diseases. Most especially for viruses, vaccines are the absolute best defense.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Patchouli said:


> If you look at all doctors you will find some who are intelligent, caring and educated and who do an excellent job. You will also find plenty who do not. So a degree on the wall doesn't mean anything, it's still a crap shoot and your doctor may be wonderful or useless. My time on Google may actually leave me more educated on a subject than my doctor who hasn't bothered to keep up with the latest information for the last 20 years.
> 
> Since you work with doctors you know this.


Nope. I don't know any Google educated layman that even approaches the education, training, and experience of a MD.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> My time on Google may actually leave me more educated on a subject than my doctor who hasn't bothered to keep up with the latest information for the last 20 years.


LOL
That's pretty funny


----------



## KatieVT (Dec 22, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> That's pretty funny


It's completely true though...

I developed a breast tumor that had to be surgically removed. It was benign, thankfully, but at my 6 mth checkup I had another. By the time surgery came around for that one, I had a 3rd. "Google University" seemed to show a correlation between that type of tumor and a medication I was taking. 

At my next appointment, we mentioned it to my doctor and she had no knowledge of the possible correlation. My mother said, "well, maybe I am misreading these articles since I can only see the abstracts". She offered to send the links as the doctor had full access. The doctor said, "Well, you can send them, but I probably won't have time to read them"!!!

That's the last time I went to her. Changed meds and no more tumors.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> All doctors everywhere? I can't even begin to agree with you.
> 
> I have worked with many physicians, both professionally and personally.



Yes, all doctors everywhere, for all time.
:umno:
That's about the same all-or-nothing blanket statement as saying unless you have the M.D. degree, you're automatically less educated and less experienced, therefore your opinion is less valid.

MOST professionals are more reliable than MOST laymen but I've met my share of exceptions to the rule, that goes for all professions, not just medicine.
The thing I've found that makes the difference is the level of concern.

Being concerned about the health of that person makes a huge difference in the outcome, no matter if the level of experience and education is great or small.






Patchouli said:


> Diphtheria is bacterial. Tetanus is bacterial.
> 
> Do we get vaccinated for smallpox? Nope that would be one we also no longer need a shot for these days.
> 
> ...



I was going to point that out also, but not being an M.D., I didn't think my opinion would be counted as valid.:bored:

Reading medical studies on vaccines would be a good idea for all laypeople.
There are many types of vaccines and different processes of manufacture, different levels of effectiveness and new techniques now using RNA and DNA.
The one thing I found most overlooked was the time of immunity of different vaccines vs. natural immunity.
That one will stop and make you think twice about relying on professional opinions only.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> MOST professionals are more reliable than MOST laymen but I've met my share of exceptions to the rule, that goes for all professions, not just medicine.
> The thing I've found that makes the difference is the level of concern.
> 
> Being concerned about the health of that person makes a huge difference in the outcome, no matter if the level of experience and education is great or small.


The first sentence, we're discussing physicians not all professions. I've never seen a Google educated layman that's knowledge approaches a MD. Maybe you have?

The rest is what I've been saying throughout the entire thread- work with a physician, they aren't the enemy.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> If you look at all doctors you will find some who are intelligent, caring and educated and who do an excellent job. You will also find plenty who do not. So a degree on the wall doesn't mean anything, it's still a crap shoot and your doctor may be wonderful or useless. My time on Google may actually leave me more educated on a subject than my doctor who hasn't bothered to keep up with the latest information for the last 20 years.
> 
> Since you work with doctors you know this.


Know what they call a doctor who graduated LAST in his class?
*
*
*
*
Dr.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> That's pretty funny


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/12-million-americans-misdiagnosed-each-year-study-says/



> Each year in the U.S., approximately 12 million adults who seek outpatient medical care are misdiagnosed, according to a new study published in the journal BMJ Quality & Safety. This figure amounts to 1 out of 20 adult patients, and researchers say in half of those cases, the misdiagnosis has the potential to result in severe harm.
> Previous studies examining the rates of medical misdiagnosis have focused primarily on patients in hospital settings. But this paper suggests a vast number of patients are being misdiagnosed in outpatient clinics and doctors' offices.


You can find a story almost every day in the news about someone who went to doctor after doctor for years before finally getting a correct diagnosis for their illness. Read about Lyme disease for example. It's a newer illness that is spreading into areas it was never seen before. It's also highly controversial amongst doctors partly because it is new and doctors are human and so some of them tend to say it is all in your mind or misdiagnose it. 

Add to that there is now a new and rising tick born disease that looks a lot like Lyme but is far more lethal and you had better hope your doctor is fresh out of med school or really serious about keeping up with the latest information. 

http://www.livescience.com/38959-lyme-disease-misdiagnosed-illnesses.html


> Like Lyme disease, most of these cases occur where deer ticks thrive during warm-weather months, which can include much of the United States. So it's easy for health care professionals to default to a diagnosis of Lyme or other spirochetes (a category of bacteria spread by ticks) such as babesiosis or human granulocytic anaplasmosis (HGA) â the latter being the illness presumptively diagnosed in the two patients presented in the AIM paper.
> In both patients, what clued in doctors to their diagnostic error was each patient's lack of response to doxycycline after more than 24 hours, when that antibiotic typically begins to alleviate Lyme or HGA symptoms. Further investigation involved running more sophisticated blood tests that revealed _B. miyamotoi_ DNA, which was first described in humans by Yale scientists in 2011.
> Schumer's new bill and the recent study in AIM expose anew the challenges to doctors and patients in diagnosing tick-borne illnesses and raise awareness of the importance of conducting a complete assessment of patients with flu-like symptoms, particularly in the months of high heat and humidity.
> To health care professionals, I would advise: Look beyond the obvious. We need to ask patients and their family members more questions: Where have you been over the last few weeks? Have you been camping, hiking or spending time in your backyard? Did you find any ticks on you? Did you keep the specimen? Have you noticed any skin rashes?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

KatieVT said:


> It's completely true though...
> 
> I developed a breast tumor that had to be surgically removed. It was benign, thankfully, but at my 6 mth checkup I had another. By the time surgery came around for that one, I had a 3rd. "Google University" seemed to show a correlation between that type of tumor and a medication I was taking.
> 
> ...


I understand what you're saying, I really do. You had one issue and Googled your way to a solution. You can't apply that same scenario to all medical conditions. 

I caught three drug interactions in the medications that my mother in law was taking a few years ago. She had went through a rehab facility, her pharmacy, and a regular hospital within a few months prior to the discovery. It doesn't make me a pharmacist, or more knowledgeable than a medical professional. It means I had more time to go through them and was proactive on her behalf.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Know what they call a doctor who graduated LAST in his class?
> *
> *
> *
> ...


And he or she still has more medical knowledge than a Google educated layperson.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I understand what you're saying, I really do. You had one issue and Googled your way to a solution. You can't apply that same scenario to all medical conditions.
> 
> I caught three drug interactions in the medications that my mother in law was taking a few years ago. She had went through a rehab facility, her pharmacy, and a regular hospital within a few months prior to the discovery. It doesn't make me a pharmacist, or more knowledgeable than a medical professional. It means I had more time to go through them and was proactive on her behalf.


This is exactly what I have been saying. You actually were more knowledgeable in this case. It's quite possible you did find an interaction her doctor was unaware of and that is a good thing for you and the doctor. 

I have repeatedly said it does not apply to all doctors. But it definitely does apply to some. And any medical professional can get too busy, be distracted, have an off day etc. 

My point here all along has been you can't just go with whatever the doctor says because the doctor may be wrong. You just proved that yourself. I am sure every one of us has a case like that for ourselves or our family members or friends. We have to be proactive, we need to study things for ourselves. And sometimes we may just be more knowledgeable than our doctor.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Patchouli said:


> *This is exactly what I have been saying. You actually were more knowledgeable in this case. It's quite possible you did find an interaction her doctor was unaware of and that is a good thing for you and the doctor.
> *
> I have repeatedly said it does not apply to all doctors. But it definitely does apply to some. And any medical professional can get too busy, be distracted, have an off day etc.
> 
> My point here all along has been you can't just go with whatever the doctor says because the doctor may be wrong. You just proved that yourself. I am sure every one of us has a case like that for ourselves or our family members or friends. We have to be proactive, we need to study things for ourselves. And sometimes we may just be more knowledgeable than our doctor.


Nope, I'm not more knowledgeable. She complained to me about dizziness (but never said anything to her primary) so I looked into it. More time, not more knowledge.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

About 15 years ago someone close to me began having trouble breathing. She went in to see a doctor who performed various tests, meanwhile I researched her symptoms myself. The symptoms all pointed to something called sarcoidosis. It's an autoimmune disorder and it can cause swollen lymph tissue in the lungs making it hard to breathe.

The doctor told her she probably had lung cancer. You can just imagine the emotional trauma of that, I'm sure. He completely dismissed questions of exposure to black mold (which was found in the house) and immune response issues.

I am not certain how much time elapsed in the duration of running tests on her which included a biopsy which removed lymph nodes from her lungs, leaving her permanently scarred and a PET scan...one of the most expensive tests you can have to pay for....but after all the money and emotional agony (she assumed there was a good chance she was dying...the doctor told her she had sarcoidosis. 

Self education can save you a whole lot of time, money, suffering and maybe your life...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You can find a story almost every day in the news about someone who went to doctor after doctor for years before finally getting a correct diagnosis for their illness.


Of course you can when you consider the millions of people who go to Dr's.

You can find just as many stories about patients they saved, and won't find any stories about the vast majority of patients they successfully treat but aren't newworthy

The big difference now is the internet spreads them like wild fire, even if they aren't always true


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Of course you can when you consider the millions of people who go to Dr's.
> 
> You can find just as many stories about patients they saved, and won't find any stories about the vast majority of patients they successfully treat but aren't newworthy
> 
> The big difference now is the internet spreads them like wild fire, even if they aren't always true


That is true about so many things. The internet also spreads many stories about young people breaking the law or acting like jerks but never those that clear senior's walks, volunteer with various programs, get perfect attendance for 12 consecutive years orfundraise for a friend's funeral expenses.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

And what would be the motivation to lie about something like a misdiagnosis?:bored:
I can see it in a malpractice case, but most of the people posting about it here haven't, so why would you doubt their word?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Woolieface said:


> About 15 years ago someone close to me began having trouble breathing. She went in to see a doctor who performed various tests, meanwhile I researched her symptoms myself. The symptoms all pointed to something called sarcoidosis. It's an autoimmune disorder and it can cause swollen lymph tissue in the lungs making it hard to breathe.
> 
> The doctor told her she probably had lung cancer. You can just imagine the emotional trauma of that, I'm sure. He completely dismissed questions of exposure to black mold (which was found in the house) and immune response issues.
> 
> ...


Sarcoidosis and lung cancer have many of the same symptoms and diagnostic tests, which include biopsy. It's not a stretch that the Dr included it as diagnosis, and sarcoidosis can be as serious as long cancer. 

Are physicians infallible? Are they machines? No, and no. No one has indicated they are.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> And what would be the motivation to lie about something like a misdiagnosis?:bored:
> I can see it in a malpractice case, but most of the people posting about it here haven't, so why would you doubt their word?



There seem to be s lot of, 'a friend of a friend' stories out there and actually my son's infamous fencing staple in lung story has been used in such a way. 

It was in his lung for about 10 years but contrary to rumour, we were not seeking help from various doctors for 10 years nor did it take 10 years for doctors to do something about it. 

The truth is not nearly as exciting as the embellished version.


----------



## KatieVT (Dec 22, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> I understand what you're saying, I really do. You had one issue and Googled your way to a solution. You can't apply that same scenario to all medical conditions.


It's been 8 years of serious medical issues, not 1 little issue. And multiple times it could have been life or death had we not done our own research. I'm currently in the process of losing my 2nd kidney transplant due to doctors not paying close enough attention to my individual health needs.

Frankly, I find it difficult to trust doctors now with the major errors they have made with me & 2 siblings. We are talking multiple doctors. Everything they want to do now goes through a fine-tooth comb.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Of course you can when you consider the millions of people who go to Dr's.
> 
> You can find just as many stories about patients they saved, and won't find any stories about the vast majority of patients they successfully treat but aren't newworthy
> 
> The big difference now is the internet spreads them like wild fire, even if they aren't always true


I believe you missed the statistics? Or do those lie too?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sarcoidosis and lung cancer have many of the same symptoms and diagnostic tests, which include biopsy. It's not a stretch that the Dr included it as diagnosis, and sarcoidosis can be as serious as long cancer.
> 
> Are physicians infallible? Are they machines? No, and no. No one has indicated they are.


The doctor discounted autoimmune condescendingly from the start. She hasn't been back to a doctor since, by the way. She's a functional, gainfully employed individual who educates herself and I'm not sure her good outcome would have been anything nearly as positive if she's have opted to let conventional medicine treat her... but she sure would have parted ways with a lot of cash.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

wr said:


> There seem to be s lot of, 'a friend of a friend' stories out there and actually my son's infamous fencing staple in lung story has been used in such a way.
> 
> It was in his lung for about 10 years but contrary to rumour, we were not seeking help from various doctors for 10 years nor did it take 10 years for doctors to do something about it.
> 
> The truth is not nearly as exciting as the embellished version.


My testimony was not "friend of a friend". It happened in my own household... and a lot of other people have experienced these failures personally as well.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Woolieface said:


> My testimony was not "friend of a friend". It happened in my own household... and a lot of other people have experienced these failures personally as well.



I didn't quote your comment nor was I addressing firsthand experience.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> And what would be the motivation to lie about something like a misdiagnosis?:bored:
> I can see it in a malpractice case, but most of the people posting about it here haven't, so *why would you doubt their word*?


I have no idea why people misrepresent the truth on the internet.

I just know I see it quite often

I also doubt the word of those who have made other statements I know are false, which takes away their credibility


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> I believe you missed the statistics? Or do those lie too?


Nope, I didn't miss a thing.

You just want to highlight the "mistakes" and ignore all the successes, which outnumber them by far.

You want to make a big deal out of "1 out of 20 misdiagnosed" while ignoring 
"19 of 20 properly diagnosed".

You said, "Dr's should look beyond the obvious", and others are complaining about " unnecessary tests and expense" if the Dr's didn't accept their Google diagnosis.

You can't have perfection.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

It seems to me most people on here agree that medical care is imperfect. But, get ng back to the OP topic idea, I gather that many have strong feelings about whether patients or their representatives should have the right to determine what care they decide upon vs what care must happen based upon the doctors making the decision. And, some feel if you don't do what they say, you should face a penalty of some kind from society for your decision. Vaccines are obviously an example of this scenario.

If anyone is interested in sharing, I'd be interested in hearing where they think the line should be for patients making the call regarding what treatments they will have, and what their privacy rights are and what penalties are OK on not.

I'm fairly far on the side of let people decide for themselves, keep their choices to themselves and not face penalties. But, I do think it's not unreasonable for the public to expect notification of outbreaks. Although, I see that mechanism of public health being fairly dysfunctional after watching the Ebola problems recently.

If patients should be forced to disclose their medical history to authorities and be forced out of schools if it shows they haven't gotten vaccines, then where is the line where that type of processing and penalization stops?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nope, I didn't miss a thing.
> 
> You just want to highlight the "mistakes" and ignore all the successes, which outnumber them by far.
> 
> ...


That's not at all my point. I am responding to the idea that we are all too stupid and uneducated to make the best possible decision for our children. That point was made by at least 3 or 4 people in this thread. They also made the assertion that doctors are all smarter than us and we should just trust them. 

In response to those assertions my point was that SOMETIMES you are smarter and more educated on what is wrong with you than your doctor. My point is that doctors are not GODS they are fallible humans and sometimes they can kill you. So it's important that YOU educate yourself. That you don't put all of your trust in your doctor, that you do the research. 

Your doctor has a ton of motivations and one of them is money. You getting 38 vaccinations for your children instead of the 10 we got as kids lines a whole lot of pockets. You still have not addressed the fact that kids were not dying in the 70s and yet vaccinations sky rocketed by the early 80s. 

Or maybe you can tell this doctor he is an idiot because his experience is just anecdotal? Or he is just focusing on the negative? Or maybe you can explain that to all the patients who died due to their misdiagnosis? Or their families? Throw your stats at them I am sure that will make it all better. 

http://www.npr.org/2007/03/16/8946558/groopman-the-doctors-in-but-is-he-listening



> Jerome Groopman is a doctor who discovered that he needed a doctor. When his hand was hurt, he went to six prominent surgeons and got four different opinions about what was wrong. Groopman was advised to have unnecessary surgery and got a seemingly made-up diagnosis for a nonexistent condition.
> Groopman, who holds a chair in medicine at Harvard Medical School, eventually found a doctor who helped (Audio). But he didn't stop wondering about why those other doctors made the wrong diagnoses. And he wrote about their mistakes in a new book called _How Doctors Think_ (Excerpt).
> "Usually doctors are right, but conservatively about 15 percent of all people are misdiagnosed. Some experts think it's as high as 20 to 25 percent," Groopman tells Steve Inskeep. "And in half of those cases, there is serious injury or even death to the patient."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You still have not addressed the fact that *kids were not dying in the 70s* and yet vaccinations sky rocketed by the early 80s.


I can't address a "fact" when you've not proven it's true.

Vague generalities can't be addressed

Harping on "misdiagnoses" is still ignoring the fact they get it right the vast majority of the time

Vaccine usage went up as new vaccines were developed.
Many people were getting sick from diseases that can now be prevented.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056803.htm



> Vaccine Impact
> 
> Dramatic declines in morbidity have been reported for the nine vaccine-preventable diseases for which vaccination was universally recommended for use in children before 1990 (excluding hepatitis B, rotavirus, and varicella) (Table_2).
> 
> Morbidity associated with smallpox and polio caused by wild-type viruses has declined 100% and nearly 100% for each of the other seven diseases.





> *Jerome Groopman is a doctor* who discovered that he needed a doctor. When his hand was hurt, he went to six prominent surgeons and got four different opinions about what was wrong. Groopman was advised to have unnecessary surgery and got a seemingly made-up diagnosis for a nonexistent condition.


So going by your suggestions, I shouldn't believe this Dr either


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

"They always have if you want to qualify for the benefits they offer in return. 
Nothing has changed at all.
Only the hysteria is new"

With all due respect, you are incorrect. Parents have always been allowed to forgo immunizations and still have their children attend school. In many states, they still can. This law excludes children from participating in education unless they have all the mandated immunizations plus whatever additional immunizations the health department sees fit to add. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out since access to education is a right in the California state constitution and has been upheld several times by their state supreme court. 

I don't believe it to be "hysteria" to want the right as a parent to decide which immunizations (if any) your child receives and when they receive them. I'll give you a real life example. According to this law, immunization for influenza is required. I have never had my children immunized for the flu and here's why. After discussing it with their doctor and doing my own research, I discovered that 1) by the CDC's own research, the flu shot is only effective something like 20-30% and 2) the flu shot that is developed each year may or may not be for the correct strain. So, as their mother, I decided that getting them the flu shot was not worthwhile. I should have that right to make that decision. But under this law, I would not. 


Several posters have stated, "they do have a choice, they can homeschool". That is not a viable choice for a large portion of the population. It certainly would not have been a viable choice for us. So, in effect, this law seeks to bar children from education unless their parents go against their beliefs.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

wr said:


> I didn't quote your comment nor was I addressing firsthand experience.


My point was just that not all testimonies you read are hearsay or embellished


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Woolieface said:


> My point was just that not all testimonies you read are hearsay or embellished



I'm not a big fan of absolutes and can certainly accept that you have deal with is factual. But I can also factually state that my son's situation was drastically embellished as a way to prove Canadian health care is terrible. 

Ultimately, I applaud anyone who is actively involved in their own health care because I'm watching a friend take a very passive approach and he's getting passive treatment in return.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Great way to *dismiss any questioning*. The old "hysterical" woman idea to get rid of incovenient people. Worked for generations. Doctors used it up until there were enough woman doctors to object to the word.


I haven't dismissed any reasonable questions, but there are some statement of "fact" that haven't been supported by anything other than anecdotes. 

There's also been a lot of emotional rhetoric that I always dismiss.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I haven't dismissed any reasonable questions, but there are some statement of "fact" that haven't been supported by anything other than anecdotes.
> 
> There's also been a lot of emotional rhetoric that I always dismiss.


Except when creating it? 
Each mother is going to be considering her child who is getting the vaccine. She thinks of which is better for her child, not the 'herd'. 
There are two ways of getting compliance. One is to suppress any information about problems so no questions are raised in the first place. But then problems are never resolved either. Maybe unnecessary suffer continues because no one is faced with having to fix them. And there are certainly problems. And once the person who insists on their authority is shown wrong in the smallest, this 'method' of gaining compliance is totally lost.
The other is to be willing to address the concerns, fears and actual problems with respect and objectivity so that the source of the information can be reliably taken as they have proven not to be dismissive. To have considered the questions and can give reasons for their position on them.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I can't address a "fact" when you've not proven it's true.
> 
> Vague generalities can't be addressed
> 
> ...


Even for you this is reaching father than anyone I have ever seen. You and I both know that child mortality rates did not skyrocket in the 70s. I could go pull the CDC stats but you aren't actually in this for a real discussion anymore are you? 

Yes vaccine usage did go up because more vaccines were created, good for you stating the obvious. The question was: are those new vaccines needed. It also does not address why they increased the number of times a child received the older vaccines. If 5 doses worked for us why do they need 10 today? 

I will say this one more time and then I am done: I never said all doctors have problems I said SOME. Reading comprehension is important in adult conversation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *I could go pull the CDC stats* but you aren't actually in this for a real discussion anymore are you?


That would help to back your claims



> *Reading comprehension* is important in adult conversation.


 I totally agree, which is why I pointed out that *your source,* that you *want* us to read as "1 in 20 is misdiagnosed" *also *says "19 of 20 are properly diagnosed".


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I don't find statistics of diagnoses particularly useful because diagnoses is a step that is frequently bypassed entirely during treatments.

Frequently there are no tests done to rule out or identify issues and confirm what appropriate treatments should be chosen from.

Many times ,even in an emergency or urgent care facility drs will exam marginally and then prescribe medications or recommend people go home and see idlf the problem resolved on its own in a few more days or weeks.

That absolutely floors ne because that not only is refusing to provide care, it's wreckless to give people meds that may be inappropriate to address an issue.

So, how exactly do people report if they are misdiagnosed accurately? You got me, cause I find many people are never actually diagnosed at all in the course of their care.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That would help to back your claims
> 
> 
> I totally agree, which is why I pointed out that *your source,* that you *want* us to read as "1 in 20 is misdiagnosed" *also *says "19 of 20 are properly diagnosed".



http://www.statista.com/chart/3410/global-child-mortality-rate/


> According to UNICEF, child mortality rates are falling steadily everywhere across the globe. Since 1990, it has fallen 47 percent. Even though this decline may seem impressive, it is still short of a Millennium Development Goal of a two-thirds reduction.
> 
> Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest rate of child mortality anywhere in the globe. The average under-five mortality rate stood at 98 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2012 - 16 times higher than high-income nations. Taken together, Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia accounted for 81 percent of global child deaths in 2012.
> 
> This chart shows the child mortality rate per 1,000 births by world region from 1960 to 2012.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

You, me, and lots of people.
I've had to save my wife from doctors before and she almost died from a perforated bowel after delivering her son.
Even I know a month with a leaky bowel will kill you.
How bout the time I had to read an Xray correctly because the doctor couldn't? "That disk right there between C4 and C5, that don't look right, does it?"
One of her counseling clients almost died last year from a similar scenario - sent home from the ER with improper diagnosis and another one DID die.
On and on, but there only internet stories, don't trust that they are true.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

where I want to said:


> *Except when creating it? *
> 
> Each mother is going to be considering her child who is getting the vaccine. She thinks of which is better for her child, not the 'herd'.
> 
> ...


First, notice how much easier it is to read your post when you *use paragraphs*
(You're welcome)

Secondly, please point out any examples of my "creating emotional rhetoric"

No one is suppressing information about problems, but I do see a lot of overreaction to them



> The other is to be *willing to address the concerns, fears and actual problems with respect and objectivity* so that the source of the information can be reliably taken as they have proven not to be dismissive. To have considered the questions and can give reasons for their position on them.


I always attempt to address all "concerns" with objectivity and *facts* which can be verified, but that has to work both ways. 

It's fine if you want to post an example of a child who had a bad reaction to a vaccine, but don't get upset if I respond with the reality that for each of those children, there are many thousands who suffered no harm at all.

No matter how you twist and spin, vaccines save more lives than they harm.

People love to *think* they know as much as the scientists, and a FEW actually do, but realistically, the general public isn't that well educated about such things. 

If you doubt that , look at what shows are popular on network TV and tell me with a straight face they are geared towards a highly intelligent, well educated audience.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> I don't find statistics of diagnoses particularly useful because diagnoses is a step that is frequently bypassed entirely during treatments.
> 
> Frequently there are no tests done to rule out or identify issues and confirm what appropriate treatments should be chosen from.
> 
> ...



Good point. I went to our local Dr. for a throat issue I am having and I had to talk them out of antibiotics because I have zero reason to get them. Just look at the over prescription of antibiotics these days and you can see a lot of doctors are just throwing ideas at the wall to see what sticks.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I do believe that vaccines harm less people than the number who are able to tolerate them.

But, that is a different point than proving they save more lives than without them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> According to UNICEF, child mortality* rates are falling steadily* everywhere across the globe.


So you've proven vaccines are working


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Good point. I went to our local Dr. for a throat issue I am having and I had to talk them out of antibiotics because I have zero reason to get them. Just look at the over prescription of antibiotics these days and you can see a lot of doctors are just throwing ideas at the wall to see what sticks.


Exactly, that's very common. Doesn't exactly inspire great confidence in the impressive results of a doctors long years of training.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you've proven vaccines are working


False, you're trying to link it to vaccines in a cause and effect relationship that has not been proven.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> First, notice how much easier it is to read your post when you *use paragraphs*
> (You're welcome)
> 
> Secondly, please point out any examples of my "creating emotional rhetoric"
> ...


Her post was split into paragraphs she just didn't hit enter twice. 

Go look at all the old graveyards? Millions of kids would be dead? Pretty emotional rhetoric to me. Since you are so fond of facts maybe you can back up your claim of millions of lives saved? I am personally convinced that kids would not be dying here due to the reasons I have stated before. Can you actually prove they would be in our modern cleaner, healthier world with better healthcare? 

Can't argue with your last paragraph.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> You, me, and lots of people.
> I've had to save my wife from doctors before and she almost died from a perforated bowel after delivering her son.
> Even I know a month with a leaky bowel will kill you.
> How bout the time I had to read an Xray correctly because the doctor couldn't? "That disk right there between C4 and C5, that don't look right, does it?"
> ...


Yes, they are internet stories that don't change the actual data.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> I do believe that vaccines harm less people than the number who are able to tolerate them.
> 
> But, that is a different point than proving *they save more lives than without them*.


Yes they are separate points, and the latter is quite well documented

Look at the chart Patchouli posted and tell me vaccines aren't saving more lives



> False, you're trying to link it to vaccines in a cause and effect relationship that has not been proven.


It's been well documented whether you will admit it or not

I posted links to CDC data


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Go look at all the old graveyards? Millions of kids would be dead? Pretty emotional rhetoric to me


Point out where I made those statements


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Continuing to treat with vaccines does not prove their effectiveness anymore than constantly giving your livestock meds for fleas and worms proves that they are necessary.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you've proven vaccines are working


In Third world countries yes I am sure that is a big factor. I also proved there was no massive epidemic of childhood deaths in the 70s. So back to you: why the increased vaccination schedules when children were not dying? 

And I will throw a second one at you: since you agree with forcing children to get vaccinations in order to go to public school do you think parents should be able to nix anything on the current CDC recommended schedule? Or kids have to get everything? Does that apply to teachers and anyone employed in education? 

CDC schedules

Children: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html

Adults: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/adult.html

I tried to find a chart I could just post here but they are so extensive I can't transfer them.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Point out where I made those statements


I am not going to wade back through 13 pages. 

So how many lives saved then? And any shred of proof that it is vaccines that reduced the child mortality rates rather than the other factors I have put forward? We have that whole correlation is not causation factor when we look at any statistics.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I am not taking sides on the OP's issue, but it is very obvious to me that vaccines have saved far more lives than they have caused harm. Before vaccines were available millions died of small pox.... today? zero! Before vaccines millions either died or permanently disabled by polio.... today, polio has nearly been wiped out. Those are indisputable facts that prove vaccines can be and have been effective against disease. Do I think parents should be forced to vaccinate? of course not, but I think wise parents will do so. Hopefully enough parents will vaccinate their kids so those who dont will derive the benefit of "herd" vaccinations.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Anybody find the term "herd" applied to human beings pretty irritating?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> Continuing to treat with vaccines does not prove their effectiveness anymore than constantly giving your livestock meds for fleas and worms proves that they are necessary.


That's one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> *I am not going to wade back through 13 pages.*
> 
> So how many lives saved then? And any shred of proof that it is vaccines that reduced the child mortality rates rather than the other factors I have put forward? We have that whole correlation is not causation factor when we look at any statistics.


If you did you'd find you were wrong, so I guess that's taking the easy way out



> In Third world countries yes *I am sure that is a big factor*. I also *proved there was no massive epidemic of childhood deaths in the 70s*. So back to you: why the increased vaccination schedules when children were not dying?


I'm not impressed that you "proved" a silly claim that no one made other than yourself. 

It doesn't prove *some* children weren't dying from some diseases that they are now vaccinated against

What your charts DID prove is there has been a steady decline in childhood deaths in the US since the 60's, and little has changed other than the vaccine schedules and a few new antibiotics

Doesn't it sound a little strange to say vaccines are making the difference in 3rd world countries, but not here? (It does to me)

We recently had the first death from Measles in this country in 12 years, when deaths were once quite common. This one happened to also be a cancer patient with a stressed immune system


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Since we are playing the statistics game, how do you explain these numbers if you believe that vaccines are the only reason for reduced childhood mortality. I am from the Czech Republic so I compared US to Czech statistics. According to the stats compiled by UNICEF, WHO and several other organizations in 2013 the United States ranked #143 in child mortality (under age 5) - 6.9 deaths per 1000 live births. Czech Republic ranked #173 (3.6 deaths per 1000 live births). 

Now with that said, I compared the vaccination schedules. CDC has 6 more vaccines (obviously, multiple doses of each) on their schedule as compared to the vaccination schedule in the Czech Republic. These additional shots are Rotovirus, Hib, PCV, Chicken pox, flu, hep A. CDC also has 4 polio shots vs 3 polio boosters in the Czech Republic. Czech Republic vaccinates high risk children for TB which is not done in the US. This comparison for schedules for children up to 6 years old. 

Soooo ... if a a country does not vaccinate as much as the US, how come the mortality rates are lower than US? 

Here is some links to back up the numbers: 

Czech mortality rates under 5 yo: http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/czech-republic/mortality-rate

Mortality rate by country under 5 yo: http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SH.DYN.MORT/rankings

CDC schedule: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf

Czech schedule: http://www.babyonline.cz/ockovani-deti/ockovaci-kalendar-povinnych-ockovani-platny

Last page translated into English here: 
Under 6 weeks â TB (for high risk children)
2 months â DTaP, polio, hep B
3 months â DTaP, polio, hep B
4 months â DTaP, polio, hep B
15 months â MMR
18 months âDTaP
21-25 months â MMR
5-6 years â DTaP


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Soooo ... if a a country does not vaccinate as much as the US, how come the mortality rates are lower than US?


These sort of comparisons are always misleading, since you want to balance the numbers from a country with a population that is very close to the number of illegal aliens here.

I suspect that one fact alone could account for the higher death rates.

As to why the schedules differ, I really don't know, but I'd think economics and logistics come into play

You're talking about a country with a population smaller than a couple of our larger cities combined, so one has to allow for totally different demographics


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I don"t get what illegal immigrants gave to do with it.

If you mean that's making our numbers higher, because we have a demographic here of illegal aliens that they don't, I think that"s a bit off the mark.

European and Mediterranean regions have at least as many immigrant/refugee pressures as we do here, and many nations there have had significant lapses in their abilities to maintain adequate healthcare services due to many changes of govt.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you did you'd find you were wrong, so I guess that's taking the easy way out
> 
> 
> I'm not impressed that you "proved" a silly claim that no one made other than yourself.
> ...


Last time I am saying it because you are either being deliberately obtuse or you can't understand. 

Third world countries do not have the factors we have here that make the difference in my opinion: access to clean water, healthy food that is plentiful and not contaminated, clean homes, excellent healthcare where children can get things like antibiotics and IVs for hydration. The lack of the last 2 things are the number one killer of children in Third world countries. If they never get the illness they are vaccinated for then they won't die due to diarrhea and dehydration or the other things people die from when they get measles or pertussis or diphtheria: secondary illnesses like pneumonia or the toxin that diphtheria bacteria create.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Last time I am saying it* because you are either being deliberately obtuse or you can't understand.


You said you were done about 10 posts back, but that wasn't true.

You can't seem to understand you're the one talking about 3rd world countries, when your chart shows a steady decline in deaths here too



> If they never get the illness they are vaccinated for then they won't die due to diarrhea and dehydration or the other things people die from when they get measles or pertussis or diphtheria: secondary illnesses like pneumonia or the toxin that diphtheria bacteria create.


Do you read your own posts?

You just said they won't die *because *they won't get the illness *they were vaccinated* for


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> *I don"t get *what illegal immigrants gave to do with it.
> 
> If you mean that's making our numbers higher, because we have a demographic here of illegal aliens that they don't, I think that"s a bit off the mark.
> 
> European and Mediterranean regions have at least as many immigrant/refugee pressures as we do here, and many nations there have had significant lapses in their abilities to maintain adequate healthcare services due to many changes of govt.


Many of those immigrants were never vaccinated, but if they die here they become a statistic.

They equal the population of the Czech Republic without counting anyone else at all


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

My point was that both countries will have a refugee load whose got different vaccination practices from the native population. So, it's not logical to assume we have more because we have immigrants as part of the statistics and they somehow wouldn't.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> My point was that both countries will have a refugee load whose got different vaccination practices from the native population. So, it's not logical to assume we have more because we have immigrants as part of the statistics and they somehow wouldn't.


You would be mistaken, since the numbers aren't anywhere close


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

It appears any attempt to determine the efficacy of vaccines by looking at the mortality rates of children under 5 is pointless, since most aren't dying from diseases :

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/MaternalInfantHealth/InfantMortality.htm



> What are the Causes?
> 
> Fortunately, most newborns grow and thrive. However, for every 1,000 babies that are born, six die during their first year.1
> 
> ...


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You said you were done about 10 posts back, but that wasn't true.
> 
> You can't seem to understand you're the one talking about 3rd world countries, when your chart shows a steady decline in deaths here too
> 
> ...



Well if you would like to go back to that chart you will notice we had way less deaths to start with and Third world countries have not seen the same decline we have. Which means something else is as at work here. 


What I actually said was: 



> Third world countries do not have the factors we have here that make the difference in my opinion: *access to clean water, healthy food that is plentiful and not contaminated, clean homes, excellent healthcare where children can get things like antibiotics and IVs for hydration. The lack of the last 2 things are the number one killer of children in Third world countries.* If they never get the illness they are vaccinated for then *they won't die due to diarrhea and dehydration or the other things people die from when they get measles or pertussis or diphtheria: secondary illnesses like pneumonia or the toxin that diphtheria bacteria create.*


Why do you keep ignoring the important part of what I am saying?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Why do you keep ignoring the important part of what I am saying?


I'm not ignoring it

You keep saying they die from complications they won't have if they never contract the diseases

You keep ignoring the fact the vaccines are *why* they don't contract the diseases.

Continued vaccinations prevent further outbreaks.

No one here dies of complications from Smallpox because vaccines eradicated the disease. They still give the vaccinations in other parts of the world.

Reality remains there has been a steady decline in child mortality all over the world in the last 50 years, and vaccines have played a huge part in those declines.

There doesn't have to be a "massive epidemic" causing an increase in the death rates to justify vaccines for new diseases, and not all countries suffer from the same diseases at the same rates, so vaccine schedules will vary.

What they have been doing here has worked, and predictions are the declines will continue the more people are vaccinated, even if a small percentage suffer allergic reactions

No one is saying vaccines are the *only* cause for declines, but taking them out of the equation will not improve anything, and could allow a resurgence of diseases we don't even think about now


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> These sort of comparisons are always misleading, since you want to balance the numbers from a country with a population that is very close to the number of illegal aliens here.
> 
> I suspect that one fact alone could account for the higher death rates.
> 
> ...


I am sorry, but I really don't understand the comparison to the number of illegal aliens. Most countries in the world are dealing with illegal immigration. 

While in the US most illegal immigrants are from Central and South America, in the Czech Republic most illegal immigrants come from Ukraine, Middle East and Africa. Just compared to last year, the number of illegal immigrants from Syria and Afghanistan in the Czech Republic went up 40%. Do you think that most people coming from Middle East and Africa are fully vaccinated?

The one country in Europe probably worst hit by waves of illegal immigration from Africa is Italy (I am sure everyone has seen it on the news). Yet their statistics on child mortality are lower than the US (actually exact same number as the Czech Republic if you look on the list of countries).

And *if* you are saying that we need to pump American children full of vaccines without parents having any say in it because we are allowing millions of illegal aliens into the country ... well, that is a whole another can of worms. And I am going to stop right there because I am going to get too worked up. Hehe.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not ignoring it
> 
> You keep saying they die from complications they won't have if they never contract the diseases
> 
> ...


I am saying here in America they wouldn't die period. The small number that would contract the diseases would not die because we can now successfully treat the secondary illnesses that actually cause death. That's what you are missing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I am sorry, but I really don't understand the comparison to the number of illegal aliens. Most countries in the world are dealing with illegal immigration.


Our illegal population equals their total.
We have no idea if they were ever vaccinated

I also have shown the majority of childhood deaths have nothing to do with disease, so the figures are meaningless


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I am saying here in America they wouldn't die period. The small number that would contract the diseases would not die because we can now successfully treat the secondary illnesses that actually cause death. That's what you are missing.


You're saying you're fine with them getting sick since they might not die

"Small number" is a guess.

Vaccines are about stopping the disease before it happens at all


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're saying you're fine with them getting sick since they might not die
> 
> "Small number" is a guess.
> 
> Vaccines are about stopping the disease before it happens at all



Nope I am saying I don't think many would get sick at all. And when having to make the choice of if I give my kid these shots I may be wilfuly injecting them with something that could kill them or or leave them permanently maimed and not giving them the shots and keeping them healthy and sheltered from the vectors that spread the those possibly deadly diseases I chose the latter.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Nope I am saying I* don't think many would get sick at all.* And when having to make the choice of if I give my kid these shots I may be wilfuly injecting them with *something that could kill them or or leave them permanently maimed* and not giving them the shots and *keeping them healthy and sheltered* from the vectors that spread the those possibly deadly diseases I chose the latter.


That's still just a guess, since if lots of people were not being vaccinated, there could be a resurgence of some diseases.

That's a big part of the reason CA passed the law they did

Again, you're talking about something that is a tiny percentage of those vaccinated

You really can't keep them "sheltered".
Ask the folks who got Measles at Disney Land


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's still just a guess, since if lots of people were not being vaccinated, there could be a resurgence of some diseases.
> 
> That's a big part of the reason CA passed the law they did
> 
> ...


Mine never got a single illness they were not vaccinated for. It's possible.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Nope I am saying I don't think many would get sick at all. And when having to *make the choice *of if I give my kid these shots I may be wilfuly injecting them with something that could kill them or or leave them permanently maimed and not giving them the shots and keeping them healthy and sheltered from the vectors that spread the those possibly deadly diseases I* chose *the latter.


And in the words I've bolded is the crux of the matter which makes me object to this law and hope it doesn't spread here. The big issue isn't whether or not vaccines are good or whether or not children should be vaccinated. The issue to me is who should be making the decision. I believe parents should be the ones making the choice for their children not the state. This law strips parents of the right to make that choice.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> Mine never got a single illness they were not vaccinated for. It's possible.


Only works if they are not in contact with those who are sick. If everyone choses not to vaccinate, then they will be. The term for those diseases was childhood illnesses. In other words virtually all children were expected to get them. 
I bet you haven't seen many people with the circular vaccination scars on their arms. The ones that drove small pox out of existence. My mom had one but, due to her generation's diligent vaccination policy, I didn't have the need for it.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's still just a guess, since if lots of people were not being vaccinated, there could be a resurgence of some diseases.
> 
> That's a big part of the reason CA passed the law they did
> 
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Mine never got a single illness they were not vaccinated for. *It's possible*.


It's possible because enough other people *were* vaccinated that the spread of the diseases were stopped


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If vaccines worked, people whose receive them shouldn't come down with those illness when exposed. *But, they do*.


Show us the Smallpox and Polio victims that prove that claim


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Show us the Smallpox and Polio victims that prove that claim


If people are interested the info is out there for many of the vaccines that discusses their effectiveness.

I don't need to show you anything. I ain't your mama.

I've availed myself of all kinds of information over the years. It's catalogued for my family's use for being responsible when making informed choices that are rightfully only ours to make.

If you value facts and links so much, you're free to hunt them up for yourself and post them here or wherever. But, I'm not wasting my time playing a game with you where you think your job is to cut apart whatever other people bring up to let people know what should be dismissed as rhetoric or factually incorrect.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If people are interested the info is out there for many of the vaccines that discusses their effectiveness.
> 
> I don't need to show you anything. I ain't your mama.


You always seem to resort to such an answer when asked to verify your claims

That tells me you know you can't back them up, so you get hostile



> But, I'm not wasting my time playing a game with you where you think *your job is to cut apart whatever other people bring up *to let people know what should be dismissed as rhetoric or factually incorrect.


Like you just did with my post? 

Anyone can easily see which posts are filled with rambling emotional rhetoric, and which posts contain actual data and information

[PDF]Vaccines Work! CDC statistics demonstrate â¦
www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4037.pdf
Vaccines Work! CDC statistics demonstrate dramatic declines in vaccine-preventable diseases when compared with the pre-vaccine era.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You always seem to resort to such an answer when asked to verify your claims
> 
> That tells me you know you can't back them up, so you get hostile


It is a pattern I have noticed.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You always seem to resort to such an answer when asked to verify your claims
> 
> That tells me you know you can't back them up, so you get hostile


Nah, I freely share info back and forth with family and friends and our healthcare providers. Those are the people I work through these real life issues with in real life.

I have no interest in wasting time debating it online with people who just like to troll around and beef up their ego claiming victory and superior wisdom on a never ending list of subjects.

Your Achilles heel is that you make the assumption that when people don't want to meet you demands it's because you're right and they're wrong.

Lots of people disengage from discussions because they don't enjoy bantering back and forth with contrary people.

The worst part of this change in California is it is attempting to usurp parent's and citizens the freedom to choose their own medical care. That is a huge mistake, because once you're at the mercy of the state for such decisions, you will forever be treated at the whim of the ever changing power players in govt.

Think what you want of me and my posts. Have the final word on it for all I care in thread after thread we are both in. Other readers will come to their own conclusions supporting whatever sides in a debate.

But, I won't regret the points I make, because chances are at some point someone will read something I wrote and it will help them. And, I will be glad that I took the time to write it here for however it may help them.

It's cute that you think I'm hostile, too. Real hostility never exists online. And, it usually requires anger. Anger requires an emotional investment in something. I'm not emotionally invested in you at all, so you can't hurt me or make me angry, so I feel no hostility. You are no threat at all. Online, people are sometimes entertaining, sometimes helpful, sometimes annoying, but really hostility is not an issue I find cropping up often.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

painterswife said:


> It is a pattern I have noticed.


I think you might be wasting too much time keeping track of me then.

If you truly think I don't belong here or break rules, then go ahead and report me to a moderator.

I'm certainly not attempting to fly in the face of rules or standards here. 

But, since you keep repeating complaints about me on threads, I gather you think you have assigned yourself the job and f moderating me.

Either becone a moderator so you can gave your way with me and others here. Or report me to one of them and let them contact me with instructions and explanations for what they decide.

Your pattern of reprimanding me isn't the most effective way to get the change you seek. Either, handle it with them so they can let me know something. Or handle yourself.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> I think you might be wasting too much time keeping track of me then.
> 
> If you truly think I don't belong here or break rules, then go ahead and report me to a moderator.
> 
> ...


Reprimanding? Reporting? Who said you were doing something against the rules and needed to be moderated? Lots of assumptions running wild there.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Reprimanding? Reporting? Who said you were doing something against the rules and needed to be moderated? Lots of assumptions running wild there.


Oh you've done it to me two or three times in the last several days on other threads.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> Oh you've done it to me two or three times in the last several days on other threads.



I said it directly to you when I believed you were making personal attacks. That is how I roll. No rules against that. Looks like others agree that is what you do. Put me on ignore if you don't like my opinion.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I said it directly to you when I believed you were making personal attacks. That is how I roll. No rules against that. Looks like others agree that is what you do. Put me on ignore if you don't like my opinion.


Hey all I'm saying is if you really believe there is a problem, do something real and involveva moderator.

Cause if you just want to pop off at me and enjoy the people on the thread as an audience, then it's not really about me being a problem, its about you trying to grow your ego through bullying.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> Hey all I'm saying is if you really believe there is a problem, do something real and involveva moderator.
> 
> Cause if you just want to pop off at me and enjoy the people on the thread as an audience, then it's not really about me being a problem, its about you trying to grow your ego through bullying.


Your post is out in left field. I agreed with someone. Again you are making it personal.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Your post is out in left field. I agreed with someone. Again you are making it personal.


:goodjob:

Thanks for making my point for me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> Oh *you've done it to me* two or three times in the last several days on other threads.





> I think you might be wasting too much time *keeping track of me* then.


Ms. Pot, I'd like you to meet Ms Kettle:

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/general-chat/540405-no-gays-allowed-8.html#post7489704



> Originally Posted by gibbsgirl View Post
> I find it Terribly ironic that you seem you want to demand that people walk in lock step harmoniously in conducting business with any interested clients, yet you seem to spend an awful lot of time trying to poke holes in some people's posts on HT, and don't (at least from what I've read) spend much time at all trying to find any common ground with even acknowledging what portions of those posts you might agree with.





> Your posts frequently read to me as though you have a laser focus on dissecting the law and the words of others in a rather *unproductive* way if you're interested at all in actually* contributing a list positive to the discussions.*


Why is it OK for you to do it to me, but others pointing out your obvious patterns is supposed to be a justification for such a hostile response from you?

Don't play the victim card when it's no different than your own behavior.

If you are truly interested in "contributing a list positive to the discussion" why not just attempt to verify some of the claims you make?

That's all anyone has asked from you.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

If I could do so conveniently and felt it was something you genuinely were interested in, I might make the effort.

And, I contribute all kinds of ideas and thoughts. I also like others thoughts I agree with and write posts to say, I agree or well said as an encouragement. As a way to be positive, not just negative.

You're very presumptive. If you knew me at all, victim is one of the last things anyone has ever labeled me as, myself included.

I don't bother adding many posts with links for two reasons. 

I. I can't from my phone. I have to get on a computer. And, me tinkering on a laptop with y'all is way less important than giving my kids as many hours a day as I can to share what laptops we gave for them to do schoolwork.

2. Many requests/demands/etc for links seem to be challenges not genuine interest. So what's the point. Besides science, statistics, facts, polls, etc are not nearly as objective and useful as some would believe. My thoughts are based on reading as much as I can track down on a topic to compare and see where it all shakes out. So even just one or two links occasionally on a subject is a pretty weak way to prove a point on a thread.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

It is written........

Matthew 7:6New King James Version (NKJV)

6 &#8220;Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Besides science, statistics, facts, polls, etc are not nearly as objective and useful as some would believe.


But rhetoric and emotional hype are?

LOL


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

painterswife said:


> It is a pattern I have noticed.


That would be because when we finally do trot out our statistics, articles, studies, charts etc. they either get ignored or misconstrued. I am not fond of wasting my time are you? 

BFF asked me multiple times to back up my assertion that there was not a spike in childhood deaths here in the 70s. I finally posted a chart that proved it and he promptly changed the subject. So Gibbsgirl is just smarter than me by not getting sucked in.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I have often thought that Gibbsgirl is one of the more diplomatic posters I have read here on ht. I don't always agree with her but her well thought out responses are a pleasure to read. The girl makes a lot of sense even when she disagrees with me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *BFF asked me multiple times* to back up my assertion that there was not a spike in childhood deaths here in the 70s. I finally posted a chart that proved it and he promptly changed the subject. So Gibbsgirl is just smarter than me by not getting sucked in.


I never asked for that at all, since no one but you mentioned any "spikes".
If I "asked multiple times", it shouldn't be hard for you to show an example.

I said you hadn't proven it , and you insisted you could

I also didn't "change the subject"
I told you *it didn't matter* that there were no "spikes", because there were still deaths from diseases for which new vaccines were developed


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have often thought that Gibbsgirl is one of the more diplomatic posters I have read here on ht. I don't always agree with her but her well thought out responses are a pleasure to read. The girl makes a lot of sense even when she disagrees with me.


Yes, she often makes sense.

That doesn't change the typical "look it up yourself, I'm not your mama" response to a request that she prove some of her claims, nor exhibiting the same behavior complained about when others do it.

It's a double standard to complain about insults or "bullying", then immediately "like" a post that was nothing but a blatant insult, even though it was disguised as a biblical quote.

As always, it seems things come back to taking sides instead of making any attempt to be intellectually honest.

Cliques over rule intellectual honesty, just like the old days


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, she often makes sense.
> 
> That doesn't change the typical "look it up yourself, I'm not your mama" response to a request that she prove some of her claims, nor exhibiting the same behavior complained about when others do it.
> 
> ...


Just as a heads up, I bet a dozen people on here could read the exact same post and come up with an assortment of descriptions about "what the post meant".

Also, I don't feel I have to like everything said in a post to click the like button. If something in a post even only part of it makes sense according to my interpretation of the text, and would be similar to my thoughts I have no issue liking it rather than just restating what someone else already said.

Using rhetoric, anecdotal stories, citing information or just fun stuff with links doesn't bother me. The absence of them doesn't bother me either.

I find it interesting that many people seem to make use of all of them, but then are critical of others for doing the same. When I have pointed it out it's because I find it ironic, and silly that it even needs to be pointed out as some critical part of a discussion.

I prefer to justattempt to always say what I mean and mean what I say. I'm not perfect, but I try for that standard if I'm gonna jump into a thread.

But, I get a vibe in some threads that people want to be passive aggressive and insinuate things rather than just say what they want. Our words should be able to stand on their own merit more often than needing to discount other people's contributions first.

And, everyone's experiences are their own and could be quite different. That's why I'm so supportive of just trying to make the best of things freely with those we all interract with, instead if under duress by the govt. 

What's best for me and mine could be the opposite of what s right for another person and there's.

I don't care for many things to be mandated by the govt because that slowly squashes the opportunity for people to find their own way and how to get don what they need within their own community and family. People are much more likely to make positive long lasting changes when they've worked through them willingly with others. Govt enforcement only breeds contempt and entitlement and further dependency on a corrupt bureaucracy.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have often thought that Gibbsgirl is one of the more diplomatic posters I have read here on ht. I don't always agree with her but her well thought out responses are a pleasure to read. The girl makes a lot of sense even when she disagrees with me.


I think a lot of people on here would find some surprising lists of things they have in common and agree on, if they would be willing to spend a little less effort on playing offense and defense. All kinds of people have interesting things to say.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gibbsgirl said:


> I think a lot of people on here would find some surprising lists of things they have in common and agree on, if they would be willing to spend a little less effort on playing offense and defense. All kinds of people have interesting things to say.


Yeppers, I know I have learned a lot from the folks here, not counting the stuff I have learned by researching various things being discussed. The head games are kind of a put off for me, but the good discussions more than offsets that minor annoyance.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, I know I have learned a lot from the folks here, not counting the stuff I have learned by researching various things being discussed. The head games are kind of a put off for me, but the good discussions more than offsets that minor annoyance.




Very true, I posted earlier in this thread that significant differences in the types of vaccines, it really should not be overlooked. It makes a difference in effectiveness, longevity, symptoms and side effects.
BTW, the source of the info is the CDC.
Polio and Smallpox are two of the best, notice I said best, not perfect.
Perfect, you won't find on this earth.

But for those that ARE interested, here are is a little more.....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696658/

It is sometimes said that smallpox and polio are distinct diseases and that lessons cannot be carried over from one eradication program to the other. That is partially true&#8212;symptoms of infective polio and smallpox are quite different and therefore necessitate distinct means of identification and reporting; there are also very specific technological questions of vaccine production and deployment to consider when studying efforts to control the 2 diseases in a comparative frame. And yet, diseases and plans to eradicate them cannot be treated as entities that are purely defined by medical science. Significant elements of both are deeply influenced by a range of social and political conditions, as people in different walks in life often perceive causes of&#8212;and possible cures for&#8212;illness in widely varied ways. Public health officials are therefore forced to navigate complex administrative and societal terrains, where knowledge gleaned from scientific and medical journals can only be partially useful. From this perspective, one can argue that all immunization campaigns are deeply social and political phenomena, whose complexities require careful study and understanding by all stakeholders.


This link is from a doctor, but clearly one that takes issue with vaccines as the magic bullet...
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/08/18/vaccine-myths.aspx

But as far as whether anyone has died after being vaccinated for either of these *from* the disease itself, don't be intimidated or misled. As the earlier post provided, there's a REASON they are so good at eliminating the disease. Most vaccines do NOT use a live form of the virus. Which brings you back to the admission by all medical experts in the field, your natural immunity, assuming you survive of course, is better and lasts longer.
It's a gamble, and one shouldn't tell the gambler how to bet with his own money.......or life.






Japan experienced yearly increases in small pox following the introduction of compulsory vaccines in 1872. By 1892, there were 29,979 deaths, and all had been vaccinated.

In the early 1900's, the Philippines experienced their worst smallpox epidemic ever after 8 million people received 24.5 million vaccine doses (achieving a vaccination rate of 95%); the death rate quadrupled as a result.

Before England's first compulsory vaccination law in 1853, the largest two-year smallpox death rate was about 2,000; in 1870-71, England and Wales had over 23,000 smallpox deaths. In 1989, the country of Oman experienced a widespread polio outbreak six months after achieving complete vaccination.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> It is written........
> 
> Matthew 7:6New King James Version (NKJV)
> 
> 6 âDo not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.


Oh, if only...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, I know I have learned a lot from the folks here, not counting the stuff I have learned by researching various things being discussed. The head games are kind of a put off for me, but the good discussions more than offsets that minor annoyance.


You oldies, like YH & many others, might remember when I 1st joined...pretty much leaned left or maybe just in 'recovery'.

Yes, lots to be learned.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I never asked for that at all, since no one but you mentioned any "spikes".
> If I "asked multiple times", it shouldn't be hard for you to show an example.
> 
> I said you hadn't proven it , and you insisted you could
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Silly pictures don't replace facts


----------

