Along with a lot of other information in this thread.
Along with a lot of other information in this thread.
True but a lot of people against vaccinations believe it and the faked study that go along with it. Most do not know that the study was retracted or that the whistleblower says that vaccinations are safe.
LOL, he was probably threatened if that is the case...but if it is the case, I want to know more and the truth and I will look into it Rick. I would also remind you that snopes is run by a left-wing "crazy cat lady" and has been challenged for inserting their agenda into their opinions. The man & woman that own it are nobody...me and you could start a site like that and get people to use our information as fact. They have dispelled myths and I'm not saying everything they say is wrong.
I thought of another analogy on the mandate of vaccines that might strike a nerve for people who are objectively trying to understand the for/against arguments. As you know driverless cars are on the rise and are being pushed by the progressive elite. Any bad or risk is ignored and we are told that they will make us all safer. At some point int he near future, there could be an argument for a mandate that you MUST use a computer-driven car and those who want to drive their own car are putting us all at risk. Nevermind those responsible drivers that have not hurt anyone, if they dare to want the freedom to travel as they see fit, they must be punished in some way. I suspect many people on this board who would support a vaccine mandate would be against a driverless car mandate...it is the same principle and I thought was a good way to help those who are trying to make up their mind on a vaccine mandate see this principle applied elsewhere. You can encourage and support vaccines without wanting to use the police state to force your fellow citizens into it. If it is such a good, safe thing, then it should stand on its own merit and not have to be forced. Dennis, Rick, what are your thoughts on this analogy?
Vaccine do cause injury/reactions and the first step to showing you are intellectually honest is to acknowledge the gov't has paid out billions in damages, as well as the fact that the drug companies list possible side effects on their own websites. Even if you think the risk is small, you are still asking other people to take that risk with the most precious thing in their lives for YOU...would you use a driverless car if you had concerns if someone else demanded it? You and I both know that the negative stigma on vaccines has some merit and I don't think y'all are arrogant enough to dismiss thousands of parents who believed in vaccines and their children had side effects. Your postion I'm hoping is that you acknowledge the risks but you still think it is a good idea for the greater good. Even though I do not agree, it is a respectable position more-so than to dismiss all those parents, the gov't, and the drug companies own findings. Again, if people we being asked to give their kids an apple per day, then it would be more reasonable to dismiss any concerns. But I still would not want the gov't to force my child to eat apples; that is my decision.
vaccines
chemtrails
glyphosate
artificial sweeteners
radio waves
...so many delicious conspiracies from which to choose
The only problem is that people are living longer now. A curious contradiction, don't you think? The simplest explanation is that some unethical folks have figured out how to make money off FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt)
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=195
chemtrails
glyphosate
artificial sweeteners
radio waves
...so many delicious conspiracies from which to choose
The only problem is that people are living longer now. A curious contradiction, don't you think? The simplest explanation is that some unethical folks have figured out how to make money off FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt)
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=195
Dale, we have technology...we may live longer, but they didn't have dialysis machines back in the olden days...Quality of life also matters and our cancer and diabetes is telling the story. There are plenty of animal studies on the sweeteners and the glyphosates...maybe even human but those are not flag ship issues for me and this thread isn't really about that so I'll let you look into it for us and report back.
The biggest risk factor for cancer is age. With people living much longer lives, the incidence of cancer will be larger. Also about the technology factor, we are able to detect and treat cancer now as opposed to even just 60 years ago many people just died without warning from cancer or any number of unknown conditions. Trying to link incidence of cancer to any vaccination or some other modern practice that improves quality of life is just plain foolishness. You have to ignore the tremendous progress and improving of the human condition of the past century.
no, that is over-simplified....first, if you are a real doctor and you are willing to even acknowledge vaccine risks I appreciate it. My position for this thread is that parents should have the right to choose what is injected into their kids; I believe the gov't mandate is oppressive. Especially when you take into account WI-38 & MRC-5. The fact those are used to develop vaccines are a clear case for religious exemption. When you couple that with the published side effects and known ingredients (such as carcinogens like formaldehyde, etc.), I just do not see how the gov't can force people to violate their conscience or do something they perceive could be harmful.
I think the better approach is to encourage it and let it stand on its own merits. Here in 2015 Oklahoma, we do not have a problem that warrants emergency action such as "forced vaccination". Of course I think vaccines lower disease rates over a population. But this is a very complicated issue because you are asking people to go against their own religious beliefs and inject without question all the shots that they are told to. And when you take that postion, then certainly it is even more important for us to discuss the individual vaccines and even number shots to determine those which the risk/benefit can justify it. I've covered this ad nauseum previously doctor; we have the highest infant mortality rates in the world vs the most shots. When we had fewer shots say in the 1970's our rate was better. Currently, there are other westernized nations that do half the shots we do and they rank better than us in infant mortality.
Being a doctor, I know you want to help people and part of that is using your intellect; not just following the AMA/CDC scripts. Some of these shots are not as beneficial as others and we should not treat them equally. In my opinion, there should be a main set of shots similar to the 1970's that are recommended and encouraged. Then the others would be a second "optional" schedule that explains to parents that the main schedule is to cover the really bad diseases and the "optional" schedule is for things like Rotavirus which doesn't pose a significant threat in the USA like say polio could. The hope would be a tiered approach where parents and doctors were better educated on these tiers and could choose what is best for their child/patients. Perhaps we could also learn something from other 1st-world nations and reduce the total number of actual shots for those vaccines that require multiple injections; if of course our own studies warranted it.
But to answer your question further, is I do not consider any and all vaccines/diseases they put on the schedule as equal. But generally, I think that vaccines lower disease rates but just like prescription drugs, affect some people worse/better than others. Having a kid's IQ decreased by 5pts is hardly detectable vs. a child who gets encephalitis and goes into a coma or something. But then again, using the Rx example, some people will take statins and have a few liver cells die enough to increase enzymes a few pts; and others will get liver failure...we are all different but of course much less will get encephalitis than will have minimal effect that might not even be able to be attributed to the shots. So, I think that for the population as a whole, vaccines have been beneficial vs. the risk, but they have still come with a price for some people and again, not all vaccines on the schedule are of equal benefit in my opinion. This is what we are supposed to do...question, discuss, challenge and think for ourselves. It leads to better quality in many areas of life.
And there is still the religious issue; you and I both know that if all Oklahoma Christians knew about some of the live virus vaccines being grown on WI-38 & MRC-5, then we'd probably have a 50% childhood vaccine rate instead of 99%. The only way to get this corrected is to make it known. I'd think that vaccine advocates like yourself would lead the charge for change in this area, so-as to take away another excuse people have not to vaccinate? But it should always remain a choice under normal times...we simply do not have the numbers to warrant mandatory vaccines in Oklahoma; close the border and it would be even less. Thanks again for engaging me instead of just attacking me; as mentioned, I understand why your side holds the opinion it does. I used to hold the same opinion when I was uninformed about some of the things we've discussed here.
