Jasperstone Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I find it amusing that someone can tell you he cured himself of cancer with juice and you just accept it as true, but actual research on these topics is dismissed by you. I find it amusing that you find it *so hard* to believe.....when there are plenty of examples of healings, using alternative medicine and foods. Oh, that's right! only poison, and toxic chemicals can heal and cure the body making it whole again...... Gee, I'm being stupid here again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 No, it means that I'm clever enough to learn from mistakes, and not repeat it no matter how much so- called science is thrown at me. If having a high IQ renders logic, than I wouldn't want it- is what I'm saying. Ah, thank you for clarifying. Are you suggesting you glean information from various sources as it correlates with your personal experiences, and that's how you know to trust information? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I find it amusing that you find it *so hard* to believe.....when there are plenty of examples of healings, using alternative medicine and foods. Oh, that's right! only poison, and toxic chemicals can heal and cure the body making it whole again...... Gee, I'm being stupid here again! Depends on what you claim they are healing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanM Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Yep, here, you can't go by personal experience. They are treated as though you are delusional. I'm just glad I'm stupid enough to workout what has harmed my family. If having a high IQ means missing that, then I'll stay 'stupid' anyday of the week.... Please don't take this as an attack - I'm really trying to understand your point of view. I understand that you've said that your family member(s?) have been injured by vaccine(s?). I have read your posts, and it's totally possible that I've missed something, but I'm still not really sure what outcome you are hoping for. Are you taking the position that given the experiences of your family, you feel that vaccines are too risky for all people, and nobody should be vaccinated? Or are you trying to recommend that most people should be vaccinated, but those who have known risk factors should not? There is honestly a huge difference between those two positions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Ah, thank you for clarifying. Are you suggesting you glean information from various sources as it correlates with your personal experiences, and that's how you know to trust information? When you find a loved one is damaged by a *thing* they say is good and safe... and you find out 'others' have had the same experience, or even worse... And when you research further, and you find out that anyone that comes out with *proof* that it can be problematic, gets oust by the trillion dollar industry etc... Should one keep having blind faith there? Or would it be wise to become a skeptic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Please don't take this as an attack - I'm really trying to understand your point of view. I understand that you've said that your family member(s?) have been injured by vaccine(s?). I have read your posts, and it's totally possible that I've missed something, but I'm still not really sure what outcome you are hoping for. Are you taking the position that given the experiences of your family, you feel that vaccines are too risky for all people, and nobody should be vaccinated? Or are you trying to recommend that most people should be vaccinated, but those who have known risk factors should not? There is honestly a huge difference between those two positions.First, I'm tired of people blaming us non vaccers for diseases. My dc aren't full of nasty viruses or bacteria. Far from it. They are very healthy..... Second, I would like people to know that there's another side to this. So, do your own research (both sides) before you just blindly follow along one that the majority do. We learned the hard way unfortunately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted February 19, 2015 Author Share Posted February 19, 2015 Jasperstone, you quoted JeanM's post but as near as I can tell didn't answer her question. Did you hit "save" too early? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Jasperstone, you're the only one saying you have a low IQ. None of the rest of us think you're stupid, most of us probably only have an average IQ, we just want you to exercise your critical thinking skills. Instead, every time somebody asks you to apply some logic or scientific thought, you seem to shut down and metaphorically cover your ears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 My dc aren't full of nasty viruses or bacteria. 1. Being sick isn't a moral failing. However, since vaccines against whatever-it-is help you become immune to whatever-it-is, most people spreading whatever-it-is were not vaccinated against it. Sooner or later, your kid will come down with a disease they could've been vaccinated against but weren't. They will most likely make others sick prior to showing symptoms. It is possible that your children are medically contraindicated against getting vaccinated - but if not, then your choice not to do so IS a failing. 2. The number of bacteria and viral cells in your body outnumber your "own" cells by a factor of about 10 to 1. And a good thing, too! Without them, you couldn't digest your food! Tangentially-related link. Oh, that's right! only poison, and toxic chemicals can heal and cure the body making it whole again...... Gee, I'm being stupid here again! When it comes to cancer, we (often) do indeed use poison and toxic chemicals. The goal is to make the whole body sick in the hopes of killing off the cancerous growth. This frequently works. What mechanism explains your juicer friend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanM Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 First, I'm tired of people blaming us non vaccers for diseases. My dc aren't full of nasty viruses or bacteria. Far from it. They are very healthy..... Second, I would like people to know that there's another side to this. So, do your own research (both sides) before you just blindly follow along one that the majority do. We learned the hard way. I'm sorry, but I'm really not blaming you, I'm trying to understand your point of view. Isn't that your goal here? Why else would you bother posting? So are you advocating that vaccines should not be mandatory, and everyone should research for themselves what vaccines they want their children to receive (or receive themselves as adults)? I'm not sure how well that will work. There is an incredible volume of information on both sides, and reading jargon and evaluating sources is not trivial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Second, I would like people to know that there's another side to this. So, do your own research (both sides) before you just blindly follow along one that the majority do. We learned the hard way. Just because people have not come to your conclusions does not mean that they have not researched the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 There is an incredible volume of information on both sides, and reading jargon and evaluating sources is not trivial. This thread is a case in point. Even the most educated of us have trouble understanding the most technical data. Most people do not have the required background to keep up with every study*, and we don't really expect most people to have that. * And, of course, if we do have that background we probably grasp that single, solitary studies by themselves need back-up before they can be fully trusted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Continuing on ... I don't think that anybody thinks people shouldn't research issues like this and should just blindly accept whatever they're told. What they shouldn't do is use sources that are deliberately manipulating data in misleading ways. This is why I am pointing it out when I see it -- not out of a desire to shame anyone, or to call them names, but because anyone who reads the thread for information needs to be aware of the flaws in arguments as well as the arguments themselves. It does not suffice to just let each person have his/her say and make no attempts to rebut misleading information. These misrepresentations are quite convincing and easy to fool the unwary, and since mathematics is my area of interest, when I see mathematical errors I feel it important to bring them to light. Where I have done so, I have deliberately attempted to avoid emotional arguments, name-calling, and sarcasm, and stuck to factual rebuttals. I am, of course, not perfect, but I have genuinely attempted to do so. I am not a biologist and have no training there, so I am not really qualified to discuss the biological research. But when a site misrepresents the mathematics behind what they are doing, I do not feel that I can trust their assessment of the biology either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 When you find a loved one is damaged by a *thing* they say is good and safe... and you find out 'others' have had the same experience, or even worse... And when you research further, and you find out that anyone that comes out with *proof* that it can be problematic, gets oust by the trillion dollar industry etc... Should one keep having blind faith there? Or would it be wise to become a skeptic? I understand you to confirm that yes, you do glean information from various sources as they correlate with your personal experiences. Those that do, can be trusted. Those that don't, cannot, and so are dismissed. I recall from an earlier conversation Tanaqui offered the following ideas as general guidelines (in addition to some very solid, informative information in general about the scientific method), 1. If the source doesn't have a degree in a relevant field, you should not trust their opinion as much as a source who does. 2. If they do not provide the full information they are working with, or a way for you to easily find it, you should be wary about accepting what they say. 3. If they do not put their name to their work, you should not trust them. When scientists compile information about vaccines, one of the pieces of information they gather is the consequences of the vaccines. Experiences like yours are, in fact, compiled and analyzed and utilized throughout the process. These experiences are not passed off as "delusional," either in the research, or here. As a matter of fact, doctors are required to hand out specific information alerting parents and patients of the risks that exist with vaccines. This illustrates the very practical application of collecting and analyzing this information. Earlier you said people who share their personal experiences are treated as though they are delusional. If you can share a post in which someone is being treated as delusional, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, why would you make such accusations? To what end? To stop people from questioning you? To encourage people to censor their comments to avoid putting you in a position to explain yourself? What's expected here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Quote- SKLToday, 07:53 AM Again, Albeto and others, this site does not require a link to scientific research in order for a poster to state an opinion, memory, observation, or question. The intense attacks are bordering on bullying IMO. Even though you think I am 100% wrong as well as stupid, you can let other readers judge for themselves. End of Quote ↑↑↑↑This↑↑↑↑↑ SKL summed it up well here. Don't you see the way you treat us ( that don't agree)? Putting us through- *prove it by science* every time we state something is very draining. Can't you just accept others sometimes see things differently through personal experience? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 SKL summed it up well here. Don't you see the way you treat us ( that don't agree)? Example of bullying, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Example of bullying, please. By getting pounced upon every time we make a comment, by being made to look stupid by shouting- *prove it* and so not allowing us to have a difference in opinion etc....Just the way you handle us in general with a certain tone. I don't mean *you* alone here. I'm pointing it out in general to the ones that do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Putting us through- *prove it by science* every time we state something is very draining. Can't you just accept others sometimes see things differently through personal experience? So, if I told you I have 3 kids with no vaccine injuries and they have been successfully protected from the diseases they were vaccinated against, and based on that *personal experience* I think we should mandate vaccines for everyone because my personal experience says they are 100% safe and 100% effective...is that a legitimate methodology for reaching a conclusion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 By getting pounced upon every time we make a comment, by being made to look stupid by shouting- *prove it* and so not allowing us to have a difference in opinion etc....Just the way you handle us in general. You should report posts where you feel bullying is taking place. Or at least quote them and address the issue directly and specifically. It can really affect the environment of a message board in a negative way to leave the accusations just hanging out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 So, if I told you I have 3 kids with no vaccine injuries and they have been successfully protected from the diseases they were vaccinated against, and based on that *personal experience* I think we should mandate vaccines for everyone because my personal experience says they are 100% safe and 100% effective...is that a legitimate methodology for reaching a conclusion? No, not at all, so stop mandating that we should get our children vaccinated when we clearly have reasons to be concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 You should report posts where you feel bullying is taking place. Or at least quote them and address the issue directly and specifically. It can really affect the environment of a message board in a negative way to leave the accusations just hanging out there. I have said it before, that, that is not my way of dealing with things. And I think the Mods have enough on their plates wihout dealing with the tone of this thread. We aren't in school, so hopefully we can point it out and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 By getting pounced upon every time we make a comment, by being made to look stupid by shouting- *prove it* and so not allowing us to have a difference in opinion etc....Just the way you handle us in general with a certain tone. I don't mean *you* alone here. I'm pointing it out in general to the ones that do that. This is not an example of bullying. This is a discussion board. Comments invite replies. It's not inappropriate to ask for evidence when claims are made. In no way am I preventing you from having an opinion (how could I?), and in no way am I preventing you from sharing an opinion (again, how could I?). I fail to see anyone else doing so either. If you don't care for someone's "tone," you might consider ignoring their posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 By getting pounced upon every time we make a comment, by being made to look stupid by shouting- *prove it* and so not allowing us to have a difference in opinion etc....Just the way you handle us in general with a certain tone. Jasperstone, if you think being unable to prove your opinions have a basis means you look "stupid" you have nobody to blame for that but yourself. I don't post unsourced factoids and unsupported opinions for precisely that reason - I dislike being publicly wrong, so I make very sure that I know what I'm talking about before I post. There is a very simple solution, and that is for you to make sure whatever you say can be backed up. When discussing medicine or science, the only opinions that have value are those that are fact-based. If something is based in fact, in reality, then there is evidence. If there is evidence, you can show it. Putting us through- *prove it by science* every time we state something is very draining. Can't you just accept others sometimes see things differently through personal experience? No. If your personal experience has any relevance, then the results can be replicated. If not, then it is not fact based and either your personal experience is mistaken or flawed, or your understanding of your experience is. There is exactly one lens with which one can make rational judgments about medicine, and that's a scientific one. There is no other view that will lead you to make good medical decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 This thread has me so confused. If you have a legitimate medical reason (you're children have been hurt or reacted badly to vaccines), I understand you being hesitant. I do not understand how that feeling extends to everyone, including those who have no legitimate reason. One of my dds cannot be fully vaccinated. No doctor I've come across will administer certain vaccines due to her reactions. I am very pro vaccine because I want those that can have them to do so for her protection. I cannot fully vaccinate her but I am not okay with others choosing not to vaccinate for no legitimate reason because it could potentially harm my own child. So, if you have a legitimate reason to be concerned and medical professionals agree with you, then I don't feel most of this thread is directed at you. I understand concerns and fears but I don't understand putting many at risk if those concerns and fears are unfounded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 This thread has me so confused. If you have a legitimate medical reason (you're children have been hurt or reacted badly to vaccines), I understand you being hesitant. I do not understand how that feeling extends to everyone, including those who have no legitimate reason. One of my dds cannot be fully vaccinated. No doctor I've come across will administer certain vaccines due to her reactions. I am very pro vaccine because I want those that can have them to do so for her protection. I cannot fully vaccinate her but I am not okay with others choosing not to vaccinate for no legitimate reason because it could potentially harm my own child. So, if you have a legitimate reason to be concerned and medical professionals agree with you, then I don't feel most of this thread is directed at you. I understand concerns and fears but I don't understand putting many at risk if those concerns and fears are unfounded. YES! Many of us have said this, many times over. If someone legitimately has a medical contraindication for vaccination, I would never say they were being silly for choosing not to get one, nor would I tell them that science says they should. No one on this thread who is pro-vaccine would say that. If their personal experience tells them that they are allergic to a vaccine component or have a life threatening reaction that is the same as scientific, medical evidence that their bodies cannot handle vaccines. No one is denying that is the case for some people. Case in point, my son cannot have the nasal flu mist because of his egg allergy. If that is what TranquilMind, SKL, and Jasparston mean by personal experience (that there is a specific person they know that can't get a vaccine because of a specific medical issue), then that is totally different than what they have been saying about vaccines in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I have said it before, that, that is not my way of dealing with things. And I think the Mods have enough on their plates wihout dealing with the tone of this thread. We aren't in school, so hopefully we can point it out and move on. The problem is that you aren't pointing anything out. No one knows what, specifically, you are talking about because you aren't quoting or asking for an apology for anything specific that is said. If you quote someone responding to you and say, "This is bullying because x, y, or z," I think you would get a much more satisfactory resolution to the problem you are having with the conversation. No one can do anything about general feelings of frustration or being discontent with responses in a discussion. Most of us are here for the quick repartee. I disagree with alberto on a great many things, and I know how frustrating conversations like this can be. But if you really feel that bullying is occurring, that's a serious accusation and offense to leave out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 No, not at all, so stop mandating that we should get our children vaccinated when we clearly have reasons to be concerned. Okay, so why is your personal experience an any more valid methodology of reaching conclusions about vaccines and making sweeping statements about their safety and efficacy? Why should we rely on your personal experience and not mine? (by the way, I don't think vaccines should be mandated in all cases, so there's that) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaceyinLA Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I haven't been able to read this entire thread, but I am just curious; are there really people here who believe vaccines should be mandatory? I find that a serious violation of rights that could start us down a super slippery slope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 This thread has me so confused. If you have a legitimate medical reason (you're children have been hurt or reacted badly to vaccines), I understand you being hesitant. I do not understand how that feeling extends to everyone, including those who have no legitimate reason. One of my dds cannot be fully vaccinated. No doctor I've come across will administer certain vaccines due to her reactions. I am very pro vaccine because I want those that can have them to do so for her protection. I cannot fully vaccinate her but I am not okay with others choosing not to vaccinate for no legitimate reason because it could potentially harm my own child. So, if you have a legitimate reason to be concerned and medical professionals agree with you, then I don't feel most of this thread is directed at you. I understand concerns and fears but I don't understand putting many at risk if those concerns and fears are unfounded. Of course if you have a medical reason not to get vaccinated, you should not get vaccinated. Nobody will deny that. And, as we have all told Jasperstone many times, we (and, by extension, medical science) are aware that sometimes vaccinations can have side effects, some of which are quite serious. Despite her claims, nobody in this thread - much less in the wider world - has denied this. However, since the serious side effects are much rarer than the deadly complications from the diseases the vaccines prevent, and since many of the people who are not vaccinated against various diseases cannot be vaccinated and are also specially at risk from illness, more than the general public, it is good for society if every person who can be vaccinated is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Of course if you have a medical reason not to get vaccinated, you should not get vaccinated. Nobody will deny that. And, as we have all told Jasperstone many times, we (and, by extension, medical science) are aware that sometimes vaccinations can have side effects, some of which are quite serious. Despite her claims, nobody in this thread - much less in the wider world - has denied this. However, since the serious side effects are much rarer than the deadly complications from the diseases the vaccines prevent, and since many of the people who are not vaccinated against various diseases cannot be vaccinated and are also specially at risk from illness, more than the general public, it is good for society if every person who can be vaccinated is. That's what I was saying. I'm confused by you quoting me and your response to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I haven't been able to read this entire thread, but I am just curious; are there really people here who believe vaccines should be mandatory? I find that a serious violation of rights that could start us down a super slippery slope. Vaccines are mandatory for admission to school in Mississippi (except for medical reasons). Some vaccines, such as against polio, are mandatory in Belgium. In fact, half of all EU countries have at least one compulsory vaccination. Whatever criticism one can level against Mississippi or Western Europe, you cannot claim that these places are not free. In general, I find vague slippery slope arguments to be an uncompelling method of spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. If you say exactly what you fear will happen, we can determine whether your position is reasonable. If you just say "some bad stuff will happen, this is a dangerous precedent, it's a violation of rights that I won't bother to spell out", we can't do that. This strikes me as unfair, and somehow cheating. Joker, I just wanted to say "I agree" but in a wordier fashion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I haven't been able to read this entire thread, but I am just curious; are there really people here who believe vaccines should be mandatory? I find that a serious violation of rights that could start us down a super slippery slope. If you're referring to my post above, I was exaggerating to make a point about how far the previous poster was willing to use "personal experience" as some sort of metric for making broad pronouncements about vaccine safety and efficacy as it relates to the general public. ETA: for my personal views, I have come to think that vaccines should be mandatory for children entering public schools except for kids who medically cannot get vaccines. I think that "personal belief exemptions" for public school children are ridiculous. Either a kid can get a vaccine or he can't, medically speaking, personal beliefs don't really enter into it, especially if you're talking about being philosophically opposed to vaccines but just fine and dandy with sending your kid to school in a veritable disease incubator for 6hrs/day 5days/week. Other than that, I haven't fleshed out my views totally wrt adults and others who choose not to vaccinate but also opt out of public school and such as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I haven't been able to read this entire thread, but I am just curious; are there really people here who believe vaccines should be mandatory? I find that a serious violation of rights that could start us down a super slippery slope. No, I don't think you should be forced to vaccinate your children. I also don't think schools, doctor's offices, churches, etc. should have to allow you to bring those children into their buildings. You should be free to make a choice for your family but if you have no legitimate medical reason for choosing to not vaccinate then I don't think you should be allowed to bring your children anywhere you like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 By getting pounced upon every time we make a comment, by being made to look stupid by shouting- *prove it* and so not allowing us to have a difference in opinion etc....Just the way you handle us in general with a certain tone. I don't mean *you* alone here. I'm pointing it out in general to the ones that do that. I don't understand, I really don't. People responding to your comments is bullying? If you want them to be ignored, why are you posting them? People asking for proof is bullying rather than people who want to verify information? It seems that you expect people here to trust your research without doing their own, which is rather the opposite of what you said before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Putting us through- *prove it by science* every time we state something is very draining. Can't you just accept others sometimes see things differently through personal experience? You are not being singled out. This board is populated by a wide variety of people with broad educational and occupational experience. If you make a medical or scientific claim without citing medical or scientific sources, expect to be asked to back it up. People will call you (or anyone else) on anecdotalism or faulty logic. It's happened to lots of us here. If you can't accept that, don't throw your hat in the ring. And don't make a string of posts about how unfair it is not to be allowed to post unscientific opinions without being challenged. If you want people to just pat you on the back and give you warm fuzzies for your unvalidated opinions, you're in the wrong place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Also ... I believe that people can have bad reactions to vaccinations. I seriously doubt there is any medical treatment or intervention that is 100% safe for all people at all times and in all places. Every medical intervention carries risk. I am allergic to penicillin, which is a lifesaver for the vast majority of the planet. I get that these things happen. But never have I mounted a campaign to convince people that Big Pharma is bad, bad, bad and that there is a huge conspiracy going on simply because I happen to have a bad reaction to a common drug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingiguana Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 No, not at all, so stop mandating that we should get our children vaccinated when we clearly have reasons to be concerned. I believe you may have missed the point of what JodiSue was saying: JodiSue, on 18 Feb 2015 - 9:32 PM, said: "So, if I told you I have 3 kids with no vaccine injuries and they have been successfully protected from the diseases they were vaccinated against, and based on that *personal experience* I think we should mandate vaccines for everyone because my personal experience says they are 100% safe and 100% effective...is that a legitimate methodology for reaching a conclusion?" Conclusion spelled out: 1-3 data points is no basis for a population wide policy. That's all that personal experience is -- the several data points that that single person has run into in their life. As others have pointed out, the one or two vaccine reactions that a few people may have seen are incorporated into the statistics that drive the recommendations. The few incidents there have been haven't been ignored. They've just been overwhelmed by the much larger number of cases where there was only a positive outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingiguana Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I haven't been able to read this entire thread, but I am just curious; are there really people here who believe vaccines should be mandatory? I find that a serious violation of rights that could start us down a super slippery slope. I didn't used to believe that. Then I started reading some of these threads. Unfortunately, most of the non-vaccination arguments have had the effect of pushing me more towards a belief that vaccines should be mandatory. If the non-vaccination arguments were backed up with logic or data, they would not have had this effect on my thinking. However, I'm willing to concede that my personal experience with illogical, unsupported non-vaccination arguments are only a couple data points that don't tell the whole story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBlossom Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 I didn't used to believe that. Then I started reading some of these threads. Unfortunately, most of the non-vaccination arguments have had the effect of pushing me more towards a belief that vaccines should be mandatory. If the non-vaccination arguments were backed up with logic or data, they would not have had this effect on my thinking. However, I'm willing to concede that my personal experience with illogical, unsupported non-vaccination arguments are only a couple data points that don't tell the whole story. I have heard several people recently say things like "I think vaccines should be mandatory" and in the next breath say "Except the flu shot. I would never get the flu shot." Do people not realize that once you hand over your right to decide if your child gets vaccinated, you also hand over your right to decide which vaccines they get? With the measles scare, I'm sure that's mostly what they are thinking about. But what if schools/churches/doctors decide to refuse you if you don't have a yearly flu shot too? What if they decide that the HPV shot is mandatory for school? What other not-yet-invented vaccines will they make mandatory? This whole thing reminds me of the phrase "never let a good crisis go to waste." People are terrified of measles so we're going to allow the government to decide what should be injected into our bodies? Hell no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Do people not realize that once you hand over your right to decide if your child gets vaccinated, you also hand over your right to decide which vaccines they get? And yet, other nations which have made some vaccinations compulsory have managed to restrain themselves from making any and all vaccinations compulsory. But what if schools/churches/doctors decide to refuse you if you don't have a yearly flu shot too? What if they decide that the HPV shot is mandatory for school? If that happens, then the sky will fall and the Dodgers will move back to Brooklyn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBlossom Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Since this thread started out with Benjamin Franklin it's appropriate to post the following quote by him. "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither safety nor liberty." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Since this thread started out with Benjamin Franklin it's appropriate to post the following quote by him. "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither safety nor liberty." http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Since this thread started out with Benjamin Franklin it's appropriate to post the following quote by him. "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither safety nor liberty." I would wager most normal people don't consider the right to spread disease as an essential element of liberty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Every nation, including the US, has laws on the books about state authority to vaccinate or quarantine any citizen in the event of an epidemic. I daresay this has been true since the advent of immunization capability. I first learned it when I made the decision to be a selective vaxer, back in the mid-90s. Public health safety trumps personal freedom in populated areas. This doesn't mean that the court of public opinion should bully everyone into accepting medical treatments against their will, or that a physician may disregard legal requirements for a parent's signature on a routine vaccine in the office. It does mean that when the tide turns, and smallpox or polio are sweeping the nation, the state may enforce these laws and we will find ourselves vaccinated, relocated, or quarantined as deemed necessary to halt the epidemic. It's been true, and reasonable, through every era of America's reassertion of personal liberty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBlossom Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 I would wager most normal people don't consider the right to spread disease as an essential element of liberty. However, we know that certain people are going to have severe adverse reactions to vaccines. Currently, there is no way to know who those people are until after they are severely injured. I don't believe the government has any right to force a potentially dangerous vaccine on every individual, while treating the victims as collateral damage. It's one thing to quarantine sick people. Mandating vaccines is entirely different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brehon Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Every nation, including the US, has laws on the books about state authority to vaccinate or quarantine any citizen in the event of an epidemic. I daresay this has been true since the advent of immunization capability. I first learned it when I made the decision to be a selective vaxer, back in the mid-90s. Public health safety trumps personal freedom in populated areas. This doesn't mean that the court of public opinion should bully everyone into accepting medical treatments against their will, or that a physician may disregard legal requirements for a parent's signature on a routine vaccine in the office. It does mean that when the tide turns, and smallpox or polio are sweeping the nation, the state may enforce these laws and we will find ourselves vaccinated, relocated, or quarantined as deemed necessary to halt the epidemic. It's been true, and reasonable, through every era of America's reassertion of personal liberty. Indeed. Going back to ancient times there are records of forced quarantines and relocations to try and stop the spread of disease. England, during the various plague epidemics (esp in the 17th century in London), forced families to stay in their houses even if only one member of the family had symptoms. Entire blocks and neighborhoods were cordoned off and no one was allowed in or out, except to collect the bodies. The old phrase/skit "Bring out your dead" is based in historical reality. Public safety and health has *always* trumped personal liberty, especially in times of epidemics/pandemics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 However, we know that certain people are going to have severe adverse reactions to vaccines. Currently, there is no way to know who those people are until after they are severely injured. I don't believe the government has any right to force a potentially dangerous vaccine on every individual, while treating the victims as collateral damage. It's one thing to quarantine sick people. Mandating vaccines is entirely different. Who is doing that? Who is saying you'll not retain a right to remain unvaccinated (just know you might be relocated or quarantined), that you'll be forced to receive that jab as a physical assault? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBlossom Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Every nation, including the US, has laws on the books about state authority to vaccinate or quarantine any citizen in the event of an epidemic. I daresay this has been true since the advent of immunization capability. I first learned it when I made the decision to be a selective vaxer, back in the mid-90s. Public health safety trumps personal freedom in populated areas. This doesn't mean that the court of public opinion should bully everyone into accepting medical treatments against their will, or that a physician may disregard legal requirements for a parent's signature on a routine vaccine in the office. It does mean that when the tide turns, and smallpox or polio are sweeping the nation, the state may enforce these laws and we will find ourselves vaccinated, relocated, or quarantined as deemed necessary to halt the epidemic. It's been true, and reasonable, through every era of America's reassertion of personal liberty. Hey, I'd stand in line for a small pox vaccine if there was an outbreak. But remember that there is a rather lengthy list of vaccines our children are given. And not all diseases are spread the same way. And some of them aren't very scary. I am not going to use the threat of a smallpox outbreak to allow the government to decide what is injected into my body. The only way we can have any kind of helpful conversation is to talk about specific vaccines. I have not heard any pro-vaxxers (specifically those that think they should be mandated) talk about specific vaccines. It appears to be all or nothing in their minds. I think it's rather telling to compare the infant's schedule to an unvaccinated adult's "catch up" schedule. Not only do adults require fewer doses, they require fewer vaccines. From what I have read about vaccines and auto-immune disease and the fact that we have a history of auto-immune disease in my family, I am very selective about the vaccines I am willing to put into my children's bodies. And while I feel there is plenty of research to support me, I know that public opinion seems to be that all people should be vaccinated no matter what. Unless of course they have a medical reason that they can't be vaccinated. Which means they are immuno-compromised or they have already suffered a severe reaction. There appears to be no leeway for people who are looking at their medical history and the vaccine research and deciding to take a more cautious approach to vaccines. And quite frankly, THAT scares me more than measles or smallpox. The idea that the government can decide what to inject in our bodies is disturbing. Not long ago, Texas tried to make gardasil required for school and people went nuts over that. So to say that our government is going to make very limited decisions about what is "mandatory" is not a risk I am willing to take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBlossom Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Who is doing that? Who is saying you'll not retain a right to remain unvaccinated (just know you might be relocated or quarantined), that you'll be forced to receive that jab as a physical assault? I pop in and out of this thread and haven't read it all. But with Facebook and the comments on news articles, there are plenty of people who think calling cps or jailing parents or not allowing unvaccinated individuals to walk freely in public is a perfectly acceptable consequence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Again, chickenpox is proof that the government isn't shy about overstepping its logical bounds. And no, I don't have a link for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.