F111
No jab, no pay?
April 12 2015
Comments
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Would you like to say where this article came from? Its obviously not from the JAMA. I'm guessing it from 'The Peaple's Chemist' site who's aurthor is quoted at the end. Not someone I have a lot of faith in.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Jason_Leslie' According to information from the study presented by California Healthline, as many as 86% of those who caught measles at Disneyland were fully up to date on their MMR vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella. This means that none of them should have gotten measles, if you believe the official story anyway. But in the fantasy reality of so-called "herd immunity," 86% just isn't enough to prevent a disease outbreak, or so goes the myth. In order for full protection to be gained, claims the establishment, a 95% vaccination rate is required for vaccines that are 100% effective -- though these numbers often shift between 90% and 99%, or are omitted entirely, depending on the agenda of a particular media report. "Clearly," maintain the study's authors, "MMR vaccination rates in many of the communities that have been affected by this outbreak fall well below the necessary threshold to sustain herd immunity, thus placing the greater population at risk as well." Most outbreak victims were vaccinated, but the unvaccinated are to blame?Ah yes, the infamous herd immunity scapegoat. It's just too convenient for vax-pimping scientists to claim that their precious vaccines don't work because not enough people are getting them. It couldn't be that these vaccines simply don't work at all, as clearly demonstrated by the fact that most of the people affected during disease outbreaks were jabbed in accordance with government guidelines. No, it must be all those crazy anti-vaxxers spreading measles, even though the unvaccinated typically don't contract measles during outbreaks (and thus don't spread it, since they don't actually have it). In this case, only a very small percentage of those affected hadn't been vaccinated, so to surmise that they somehow triggered the outbreak is an absurd stretch. More than likely, it was a vaccinated individual who triggered the outbreak as a result of live attenuated viral vaccines (LAV) like MMR, which are known to shed vaccine-type viruses following vaccine administration. "The public health community is blaming unvaccinated children for the outbreak of measles at Disneyland, but the illnesses could just as easily have occurred due to contact with a recently vaccinated individual," said Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF). "Evidence indicates that recently vaccinated individuals should be quarantined in order to protect the public." The jig is up: Vaccines don't work, so give it up already!Though it would be loathe to admit it, the vaccine mafia is clearly losing major ground in its failing war on natural immunity. No matter how these charlatans try to spin the issue, vaccines don't work if people who get them are still contracting disease, supposedly because other people around them aren't getting vaccinated. Have you checked out the reviews of this website? They're quite informative, not to mention hilarious. Here's just one example out of many, in Rational Wiki: "Despite presenting itself as a source of scholarly analysis, globalresearch.ca mostly consists of polemics many of which accept (and use) conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and propaganda." Not that I'm claiming Wiki is too reliable, but just saying.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Jason_Leslie' A recent scientific study has allegedly proven that 86% of those who contracted measles as a result of that Disney outbreak, were in fact vaccinated against measles ...... makes one think does it not ? Only six of the people who contracted measles in the Disney outbreak were vaccinated. The rest were unvaccinated either through choice or because they were too young. The 86% figure is an estimate of the percentage of the total people there who were vaccinated at all, as an indication of how far below herd immunity they were.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
This is like trying to tell a Scientologist that Thetans don't exist
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Meander' Quoting 'Jason_Leslie' A recent scientific study has allegedly proven that 86% of those who contracted measles as a result of that Disney outbreak, were in fact vaccinated against measles ...... makes one think does it not ? I think you may have misread, the article states the measles were able to spread because only 86% of people were vaccinated in Colorado. Quoting 'Rick_Blaine'The 86% figure is an estimate of the percentage of the total people there who were vaccinated at all, as an indication of how far below herd immunity they were. You didn't respond to my comment, maybe you could respond to Rick's?
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Here's an open letter from mother Andrea Martin to an on-line paper I read daily, The Onion: "As a mother, I put my parenting decisions above all else. Nobody knows my son better than me, and the choices I make about how to care for him are no one’s business but my own. So, when other people tell me how they think I should be raising my child, I simply can’t tolerate it. Regardless of what anyone else thinks, I fully stand behind my choices as a mom, including my choice not to vaccinate my son, because it is my fundamental right as a parent to decide which eradicated diseases come roaring back. The decision to cause a full-blown, multi-state pandemic of a virus that was effectively eliminated from the national population generations ago is my choice alone, and regardless of your personal convictions, that right should never be taken away from a child’s parent. Never. Say what you will about me, but I've read the information out there and weighed every option, so I am confident in my choice to revive a debilitating illness that was long ago declared dead and let it spread like wildfire from school to school, town to town, and state to state, until it reaches every corner of the country. Leaving such a momentous decision to someone you haven’t even met and who doesn't care about your child personally—now that’s absurd! Maybe I choose to bring back the mumps. Or maybe it’s diphtheria. Or maybe it’s some other potentially fatal disease that can easily pass among those too young or too medically unfit to be vaccinated themselves. But whichever highly communicable and formerly wiped-out disease that I opt to resurrect with a vengeance, it is a highly personal decision that only I and my family have the liberty to make. The bottom line is that I'm this child’s mother, and I know what’s best. End of story. Politicians, pharmaceutical companies—they don’t know the specific circumstances that made me decide to breathe new life into a viral infection that scientists and the nation at large celebrated stamping out roughly a century ago. It seems like all they care about is following unexamined old rules, injecting chemicals into our kids, preventing ghastly illnesses that used to ravage millions and have since been erased from storming back and wreaking mass havoc on a national scale, and making a buck. Should we really be listening to them and not our own hearts? I am by no means telling mothers and fathers out there what to do; I'm simply standing up for every parent’s right to make his or her own decision. You may choose to follow the government-recommended immunization schedule for your child, and that’s your decision as a parent. And I might choose to unleash rubella on thousands upon thousands of helpless people, and that’s my decision as a parent. It’s simple: You don’t tell me how to raise my kids to avoid reviving a horrific illness that hasn't been seen on our shores since our grandparents were children, and I won’t tell you how to raise yours. Look, I've done the research on these issues, I've read the statistics, and I've carefully considered the costs and benefits, and there’s simply no question in my mind that inciting a nationwide health emergency by unleashing a disease that can kill 20 percent or more of its victims is the right one for my child. People need to respect that and move on."
-
RHP User
11 years ago
If you chose not to vaccinate them and that they have no protection against common diseases such as polio. Warn your children before they go on schoolies to SE Asia. Warn them before they take a gap year and go on safari in Africa. Warn your children before they help build orphananges in parts of S American. Warn them before they go to Disneyland And educate them on tge early signs of the most common diseases they might catch while traveling.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'maturecpl52' Quoting 'VWGolfGTIQIK20Z' A number of years ago I was FORCED into taking a vaccination I believed was going to help me for (insert problem). I was given a dirty batch & 2 weeks later, a VERY major side effect flared up. To this day, it will ALWAYS be with me & I’ll NEVER shake it. Barking madI was wondering how long it would take before a tin foil hat brigade member stepped up to the plate. Can we stay respectful and, dare I say it, mature please?
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'maturecpl52' Barking madI was wondering how long it would take before a tin foil hat brigade member stepped up to the plate.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I was going to comment and then changed my objective libran mind...........oh what I missed out on...... Quoting 'PL1963' That is the reason the Gov't is doing this, all this stuff has been avail in the past "free", but ppl still don't get their kids done, some can't be bothered, others disagree with it on Religious or whatever grounds. One of the best forms of immunity for newborns is breastfeeding, but some women refuse because of the "saggy boobs myth". I wouldn't have a child with a woman who refused to breastfeed. Cheers P.L. My god I thought those saggy boobs were from not wearing a bra..........Oh right I did wear a bra.............Oh shit you tell em PL19idiot....................sorry its late............how many of them did you make breastfeed?
-
RHP User
11 years ago
to think immunisations were designed to PREVENT a child or adult contracting the disease..... All they're designed to do(from my understanding) was to build an immuno RESISTENCE.... In other words....Reducing the risk of fatal outcomes that otherwise would've left two parents grieving the loss of a person that should've outlived their parents. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
11 years ago
This is action taken to force those who CANNOT afford to fight it..Those who earn their money and don't NEED the Government handouts, will STILL not vax their children, NOR themselves.IF the Government tried to FORCE them legally to do so, they would fight it in court.. As I would!It would be the largest court case in Australian history possibly, AND the outcomes of that would be terrifying.BUT... these damned RICH people are fckd up and dumb eh!! They know SHIT!!!HERE is the biggest problem we face...Let's say.. there WAS this huge court case, and there was a total win for the NON vaxing side.Let's say that ALL the horrifying information that they sprout was proven beyond doubt to be CORRECT..it would NOT change the ideas of those who declare we ALL MUST be vaxed..."Gwen Olsen" --- "Hero... or Fake" ??What I think is of absolutely no relevance.NOR is what YOU think.As it has already been ascertained..YOUR minds are ALREADY made up.No Study, No comments, no evidence will change it.. "Pro OR Con"
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'S_OnTheLoose' Quoting 'xKiwiBredx' if the nosodes are diluted to the point they have no active ingredient then I think you really should call them by what they are, "placebos". Why? It's the energy memory that provokes the immune system into producing antibodies, not the active ingredient. As an example, we don't run our cars on petrol do we? We run our cars from the energy released by the combustion process of the petrol mixing with air etc. Quoting '50zcool'Quoting 'luvsilver'Quoting 'xKiwiBredx' I strongly believe nosodes are an effective (if not better) alternative to vaccinations The Australian registry of Homeopaths does not recommend nosodes as an alternative to immunisation it actually recommends practitioners follow in part, As outlined in the ‘National Competency Standards for Homoeopathy’ (HLTHOM9A - Provide Specific Homoeopathic Assessment and Care) practitioners are obliged to clarify their patients’ expectations and the potential outcomes, and to provide information on infection control procedures, which include the NHMRC- recommended immunisations and management strategies for acute infections (47 - 53)." That document also recommends that practitioners get everything documented and signed to cover their arse if the patient uses nosodes. It's got more holes in it than a cheap insurance policy and certainly nothing I would hang my childrens health on. Scare mongering? Surely not! LoL In saying nosodes are an effective alternative, I’m not suggestingthey’re a replacement for vaccines - they’re not …they’re not the same. They are used only temporarily and during times of likely exposure with satisfactory results without the side effects and illness associated with vaccine use. For the record …in theory, the concept of vaccinating/immunisation doesn’t phase me at all – it’s the execution or current administration if you like (for want of a better description) that has me raising an eyebrow. Administering a foreign substance by injection, IMHO is a shock to the system for a start, not to mention unnatural in the sense that it bypasses the immune systems first lines of defence. If you consider the body as an ultimate zero sum object, any gain by one part diminishes another part. It stands to reason that artificially stimulating one aspect of the immune system to prevent a particular disease, another aspect is weakened elsewhere at some point does it not? Disclaimer: My reasonably educated opinion is animal related, based on numerous case history’s over the last 25 years by practising holistic veterinarians. Admittedly, it’s a bit extreme and in no way comparable to us given that the schedule of vaccinations given to animals would never under any circumstances be subjected onto us, but their life spans are considerably shorter than ours and the sheer weight of case history’s alone is compelling enough for me.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Great point, but this is 1 of the reasons "Us Povo's" should vaccinate our kids, they can be exposed to other non-vacc'd kids. My son attended a 1wk camp at Rubicon in Vic at age 14, all the kids came from every different socio-economic groups from all round Aust, he most likely 1st kissed a girl at this camp? They all had a ball, did many different things together and learnt a lot about other kids etc. My point is, he was vaccinated and only came home with a "grin from ear to ear". If he'd not been vacc-d, perhaps he may have come home crook. The paperwork never mentioned being vacc-d, we just had to sign the usual stuff to say if he got hurt or killed, they weren't responsible. Each to their own choice. If I have grandchildren, they will be vacc-d. I think someone said earlier about pre-testing kids for allergies to vaccines, great idea. My Ex suffered lots of allergies, she had all the tests on her arms, she then knew what to stay away from. She nearly choked to death on Xmas Day from a peanut that lodged in her throat and made it swell almost shut, my Sister's Boyfriend did the "Hiemlikaen Thing" nearly broke her back, but she was turning "blue" & would have died before an Ambo got there on Xmas Day 30yrs ago. Cheers P.L.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Meander' Quoting 'maturecpl52' Quoting 'VWGolfGTIQIK20Z' A number of years ago I was FORCED into taking a vaccination I believed was going to help me for (insert problem). I was given a dirty batch & 2 weeks later, a VERY major side effect flared up. To this day, it will ALWAYS be with me & I’ll NEVER shake it. Barking madI was wondering how long it would take before a tin foil hat brigade member stepped up to the plate. Can we stay respectful and, dare I say it, mature please? Sorry, old habit of plain speaking. Gets me in to trouble all the time.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'xKiwiBredx' Quoting 'S_OnTheLoose' Quoting 'xKiwiBredx' if the nosodes are diluted to the point they have no active ingredient then I think you really should call them by what they are, "placebos". Why? It's the energy memory that provokes the immune system into producing antibodies, not the active ingredient. As an example, we don't run our cars on petrol do we? We run our cars from the energy released by the combustion process of the petrol mixing with air etc. "energy memory" is pseudoscience at best ... more accurately described I'd say it's bunkum, that isn't how things work. Unless you're going the 'everything is energy' route, no, combustion engines don't run 'on' energy. They run from the gas volume inside the cylinder expanding as a result of combustion. You could put all the infra-red energy you wanted into the cylinder, but it wouldn't cause the piston to move. Melt maybe, but unless there was gas expansion inside the cylinder - no movement. (I'm not including exotic things like momentum imparted by photons ala solar sails in space, casimir effect, or out there things which don't relate to the basics of how an engine works) If you consider the body as an ultimate zero sum object, any gain by one part diminishes another part. It stands to reason that artificially stimulating one aspect of the immune system to prevent a particular disease, another aspect is weakened elsewhere at some point does it not? By that logic the nosode should also weaken the system elsewhere, since it is bolstering the immune system in one way. I don't think the idea of a zero sum object works very well in this case - or you need to change your example to add recovery time, and consider the state of the system after that, when you have a system healed and with a new capability.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
No, that doesn't stand to reason. That's not how the human body or its immune system works. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Thanks folks, I'm bowing out of this discussion, thank you to those who joined in, it's clear to me that minds are made up and that further discussion is futile. Jason Leslie, whichever, Thank you for shedding light on how you came to your view, I really had no idea that it could be so easy to right off a couple of centuries of global scientific rigour with a few pages of emotive rubbish cut and pasted from the internet. I have often wondered just how the lunatic fringe groups like racists, fascists, the extremes of left and right get traction. They push the emotional buttons and critical thinking just goes out the window, it's scary how effective this is. Goodnight and good luck.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
How many people refuse to wear a seat belt these days.......but still expect the hospital system to treat them for their injuries if they're in an accident. Just a thought.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
In a society dominated by mainstream media,governmental and medical bigots. We either respect individual liberty across the board, or we abandon it altogether.As far as I'm concerned, every individual has their own individual right to choose.I may totally disagree with their choice, but it's not my place to demand they adhere to my own personal version of what is correct or ethical. As long people don't shove their agendas in my face, it's really not my business to intervene in their private actions. People should never be coerced or frightened into taking a vaccine. Coercive vaccination policies are unethical and against the doctor's code of good medical practice. Public health policies that include a medical procedure must be completely voluntary (without financial incentives) and they must be promoted with all the medical evidence including the ingredients of the vaccines. Until parents are provided with a list of the ingredients, as well as the risks of vaccines as stated on the package inserts and the studies of the long-term health effects of the combined schedule of vaccines, then government vaccination policies are breaching all international codes for human rights. Questions: In 1991 <71% of Australian children were fully vaccinated and there were only 347 cases of Whooping Cough, while in 2011 with 90% of children vaccinated, we had 38,751 cases an increase of over 11,000%! How can you blame the 1.8% of un-vaccinated children in 2015? If raising already high vaccination rates is the purpose of this part of the legislation and the wealthy areas of Australia have the lowest rates, then how does targeting low income families change the vaccination rates of high income families? If the government was really serious about using payments to enhance our health outcomes, why not deny these same payments to smokers, drug users, alcohol abusers, or the obese? These things will increase your risk of death or illness much more than not vaccinating. Standing up for ALL individual rights, beliefs and lifestyles, regardless of the place they occupy on the political and financial spectrum, seems to be the greatest "crime" of all in today's bigoted society.
-
DynamicCouple36
11 years ago
The solution to a medical problem is not always to be found in a bottle of pills/medicine or at the other end of an injection....... so many GPs these days are just pill pushers. We certainly dont trust them and before we take what they prescribe, its best to do as much research as to the active/inactive ingredients, safety & side effects. Big Pharma are in it for the money and no other reason and sometimes go to great lengths to get their chemicals registered, even if that means bending the truth with regards clinical studies etc. No medication is 100% safe and its best therefore to err on the side of caution and to assume that its not safe until such time as proven to be safe. Look at the wonder drug Thalidomide ... and how years down the line it was discovered to be so dangerous , albeit too late. There are hundreds if not thousands of similar cases , resulting in lawsuits & criminal charges. The DDT adverts of the 50s and 60s made mention that it was a wonder pesticide, so safe to use, that you could even drink it. Anyone who opposed the belief, at the time, was labelled a communist, a tree hugger and a loonie tin foil hat wearer .... DDT is now banned as further studies have proven that its a highly toxic persistent organic pollutant that never breaks down in the food chain . Its designed to kill and it does this extremely well. There is even a Vaccine Damages Court in the USA now - we have some of the High Court Paperwork, re past cases - makes interesting reading. Have a link but not allowed to post in here we seem to recall. Quoting 'Funlover71' You could say that about any medicine a doctor prescribes as nothing is 100 % safe. In fact, the lack of knowledge in regards to the human body is astounding which is why I don't trust them. Quoting 'Funlover71' You could say that about any medicine a doctor prescribes as nothing is 100 % safe. In fact, the lack of knowledge in regards to the human body is astounding which is why I don't trust them.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Nudierudie2' Questions: In 1991 <71% of Australian children were fully vaccinated and there were only 347 cases of Whooping Cough, while in 2011 with 90% of children vaccinated, we had 38,751 cases an increase of over 11,000%! How can you blame the 1.8% of un-vaccinated children in 2015 If you google that whole paragraph you'll find it cut and pasted all over the place, but if you follow the vapour trail you'll find in one of the references (UNSW) that it relates to a discussion of a new genotype (strain) of the virus that caused the outbreak, not the overall failure of the vaccine.Selective quoting used for deception. Google Ottawa mother of 7 hooping cough.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Do you take oral contraception ? Big pHARM or organic farmers market ?
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Why are the majority of anti-vaccination posts in bold type, CAPITALS and over-sized font?
-
RHP User
11 years ago
COS ITS WHAT THE COOL KIDS DO!!!!! DIDN'T YOU KNOW?? Lol Me either 😝 - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
11 years ago
None of my children have been vaccinated/ immunized and they were water births. We have a website dedicated to truth including this topic. Real simple just do clear unbiased/ transparent/ accountable scientific evidence. Prove vaccines do not cause cot death/ autism/ health problems. This means keep the government and pharmaceutical companies out of the laboratories and media. It's all simple prove to me vaccines are safe with out the brainwashing! my children are 5 years and one and a half and tooooooooooooo healthy; cut the crap get to truth.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Unless immunisation is prepared as per hal hal requirements, we will object strongly to the procedure as per personal belief.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Keepitsimple72' Why are the majority of anti-vaccination posts in bold type, CAPITALS and over-sized font? The anti-vaxers like to think they are thinking for themselves, not following the brainwashed herd that have been bamboozled by scientific consensus. It's all very superficial. What they are actually doing it copy and pasting the same mumbo-jumbo from the same fringe dwellers, using all the same tricks. A tiny fringe looks like substance when it's been copied all over the internet in bold type. If you look closely, you'll notice that the pretty font is actually the most compelling part of the argument.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I know it's an emotive issue for some. If you do your "research" you will find a mountain of evidence that vaccines don't work, are unnecessary, and cause more problems than they solve. Dig a little deeper and you will find it all traces back to a handful of smart individuals who have created a niche market for themselves in the anti-vax industry. Chiropractors, homeopaths and other quack medicines were quick to jump on the bandwagon because if they discredit mainstream medicine they boost their own business. There's your vested interests. You will find exactly the same thing looking at climate change, drug policy, environmental issues, politics, economics, and any number of other topics. There's always a tiny minority that take a contrarian view and make a living out of it. They are no less vested than big pharma. Vaccines aren't perfect, so you will always find stories about failures. They are not the norm. No matter how many times they are copy and pasted they are still the exceptions. Scientific research on the other hand is conducted by hundreds of thousands of qualified people the world over. The work is repeated and tested constantly. Some of these people are going to be working for vested interests, others are in it for the advancement of science itself. There are a lot of them though, and when you get a clear consensus on a topic you can trust it. If the anti-vax movement ever comes up with a theory that can be tested and replicated then the consensus will change, but up to now they've done nothing of the sort. In this case the science is clear. While there are a very small number* of exceptions, on the whole vaccines are a very good thing for both the individual and society as a whole. *I'll bet many people here can point to several unfortunate incidents (although most will be friend of a friend or someone they read about). They may well be real, but they are also a minute percentage of the billions of people who have been vaccinated without incident.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I know it's an emotive issue for some. If you do your "research" you will find a mountain of evidence that vaccines don't work, are unnecessary, and cause more problems than they solve. Dig a little deeper and you will find it all traces back to a handful of smart individuals who have created a niche market for themselves in the anti-vax industry. Chiropractors, homeopaths and other quack medicines were quick to jump on the bandwagon because if they discredit mainstream medicine they boost their own business. There's your vested interests. You will find exactly the same thing looking at climate change, drug policy, environmental issues, politics, economics, and any number of other topics. There's always a tiny minority that take a contrarian view and make a living out of it. They are no less vested than big pharma. Vaccines aren't perfect, so you will always find stories about failures. They are not the norm. No matter how many times they are copy and pasted they are still the exceptions. Scientific research on the other hand is conducted by hundreds of thousands of qualified people the world over. The work is repeated and tested constantly. Some of these people are going to be working for vested interests, others are in it for the advancement of science itself. There are a lot of them though, and when you get a clear consensus on a topic you can trust it. If the anti-vax movement ever comes up with a theory that can be tested and replicated then the consensus will change, but up to now they've done nothing of the sort. In this case the science is clear. While there are a very small number* of exceptions, on the whole vaccines are a very good thing for both the individual and society as a whole. *I'll bet many people here can point to several unfortunate incidents (although most will be friend of a friend or someone they read about). They may well be real, but they are also a minute percentage of the billions of people who have been vaccinated without incident.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'bub_chub' Unless immunisation is prepared as per hal hal requirements, we will object strongly to the procedure as per personal belief. What's hal hal?
-
RHP User
11 years ago
typo: halal as in Muslim beliefs and special dispensations for them.......
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'S_OnTheLoose' Quoting 'xKiwiBredx' By that logic the nosode should also weaken the system elsewhere, since it is bolstering the immune system in one way. I don't think the idea of a zero sum object works very well in this case - or you need to change your example to add recovery time, and consider the state of the system after that, when you have a system healed and with a new capability. Quoting 'Rick_Blaine' No, that doesn't stand to reason. That's not how the human body or its immune system works. - Posted from rhpmobile Ahuh, yep, was scratching my own head at that - putting it down to brain fart
-
RHP User
11 years ago
The question of immunisation is not about the parent/carers beliefs it is about the life of a child a child that may grow up to have completely different views to what you had when you decided not to immunise. When you decide not to immunise your child you subject them to many different and debilitating and often deadly deseases not too mention the discrimination they will face in everything from kindergarten to high school to sporting clubs. I cannot imagine going through life knowing that you have not done everything in your power to protect them Vaccinate or not may not be a legal issue but if a child dies from a disease that she/he would not have contracted if they were vaccinated then the parent/parents/guardians she be held accountable and prosucuted to the full extent of the law
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'pyrogirl1969' typo: halal as in Muslim beliefs and special dispensations for them....... Seeing bub_chub misspelled it, should I think they don't know about Halal and were attempting a joke? Bub, were you?
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'perthmasterdv8' The question of immunisation is not about the parent/carers beliefs it is about the life of a child a child that may grow up to have completely different views to what you had when you decided not to immunise. When you decide not to immunise your child you subject them to many different and debilitating and often deadly deseases not too mention the discrimination they will face in everything from kindergarten to high school to sporting clubs. I cannot imagine going through life knowing that you have not done everything in your power to protect them Vaccinate or not may not be a legal issue but if a child dies from a disease that she/he would not have contracted if they were vaccinated then the parent/parents/guardians she be held accountable and prosucuted to the full extent of the law ... is that parents who don't immunise their kids do believe they're doing everything they can to protect them. Also, raising children is constantly a process of making decisions for them until they're old enough to make those decisions for themselves. So those arguments don't hold. Also, by not immunising children you don't "subject them to many different and debilitating and often deadly diseases", although you do put them at risk of those diseases. This all might sound pedantic, but much of the anti-immunisation rhetoric is guilty of this sort of hyperbole and flawed logic. Pro-immunisation arguments don't need to be.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I stayed away from this thread for a long time but finally I caved, and mostly it has been what I expected. A bit surprised though, at a few of the people who have expressed anti-vaccination sentiments, as they were people whom I would previously have credited with better critical thinking skills. I mean, just in this thread we've seen how the 'evidence' that anti-vaxxers present is always either anecdotal, has been taken way out of context, has been sourced from some dodgy-ass website or journal (note - not all journals are created equal), has been completely misinterpreted and doesn't at all mean what they think it does, or in some cases all of the above. Actually, on that note, one thought I have is that a lot of the hysteria around vaccinations could be addressed if the teaching of basic health / medical and scientific literacy was compulsory in schools, starting in primary school. So many of the arguments against vaccinations are based in a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the human body works, the way that science works, and an inability to discern proper science from all the utter bunk out there on the internet. For example, the harping on about vaccinations not being '100% safe' and how doctors won't guarantee that no harm will come to someone from them. That's because there is NO medical intervention or drug that can ever be claimed to be 100% safe and no sane doctor would ever guarantee that they are. ALL medications have potential side effects. You can die from taking paracetemol. A child can die from taking too much iron and an adult can seriously damage their liver by doing so. So of course vaccinations come with an insert listing potential side-effects (if you've noticed, quite a lot of medications come with one of those), and of course a doctor is not going to sign a bloody form saying that a vaccination will be completely harmless. Those things are not proof of some big pharma / government conspiracy. What really gets me here is that the same people who have issues with these things, no doubt are quite happy to take any number of other medications that have the same if not more potential for side-effects and complications. The whole 'proof' thing in science in general is an area where the wider public needs to be much better educated. There is no such thing as being able to 100% prove for or against something in (legitimate) science. Anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about there can google ''scientific method'' if they want to know more. But I really do think that the basics of this and other science and health concepts should be taught in schools as it would greatly improve people's ability to make properly informed decisions and be able to sort the legitimate science from the crap. Particularly now with the internet being such a big source of info, and having almost no restrictions on who can post what. I could go on forever about this and all the other problems I have with the anti-vax arguments but I'd better stop myself there
-
rupamohan
11 years ago
Should people be made to vaccinate their children because they are endangering the lives of others by not doing so? Yes if there is no other option to avoid danger. I guess since we can avoid the danger to ourself by self immunisation there is no need to force immunisation on others, who are happy to get sick but can't pass to you if you are immunised. Or is this yet another "Nanny state" example, telling people what they can and can't do? I don't think state is forcing immunisation. It is only removing no immunisation and payments combination choice. I agree with it.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Mhmm. Aside from the questions of vaccination, I'd actually be questioning the motives and validly of this particular piece of policy. From Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Under heading: Australia's health 2014 "In 2012, there were 7 deaths reported in young children due to VPDs" VPDs = vaccine preventable deaths. If this was purely about public health, this is pretty lousy support for an unprecedented policy. Death of a child is devastating, but if this policy was about preventing death and harm in children, surely surely surely, there are a 1000 better options then punishing non-vaccinators. Keep calm, and question everything, especially science : it's not set and forget - that's religion. The beauty of science is that it constantly evolving, and that comes from questioning and critquing methodology and assumptions.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'HennaJay' Mhmm. Aside from the questions of vaccination, I'd actually be questioning the motives and validly of this particular piece of policy. From Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Under heading: Australia's health 2014 "In 2012, there were 7 deaths reported in young children due to VPDs" VPDs = vaccine preventable deaths. If this was purely about public health, this is pretty lousy support for an unprecedented policy. Death of a child is devastating, but if this policy was about preventing death and harm in children, surely surely surely, there are a 1000 better options then punishing non-vaccinators. Keep calm, and question everything, especially science : it's not set and forget - that's religion. The beauty of science is that it constantly evolving, and that comes from questioning and critquing methodology and assumptions. I agree. Science however is constantly questioning itself. There's no need to just make stuff up, and most of the anti-vax material is blatantly false. There could however be some discussion around the requirements for vaccinations for non-communicable diseases, for example tetanus. There are others like Hep B that are highly unlikely to bother children in Australia. These vaccinations are good for the individual, but not having them does not risk the rest of the community. And from this particular government I wouldn't be at all surprised if the legislation was more about money than health. By all means keep on questioning, but it's also prudent to follow the best advice available at the time in most cases. Particularly when it has been rigorously and thoroughly tested over generations like the vaccination programs. It's also prudent to be very careful taking the advice of "doctors" who believe you can solve all of life's problems with a click of the neck, or the modern witch-doctors who can fix what ails you with magic water. There's no science to be questioned there.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Simon, the whole topic is a question about the policy, no? As I said in my post, I'm not questioning the efficacy of vaccination. What I am questioning is the reasoning behind the policy. Looking at the governments own data: 7 attributal deaths to non-vaccination, I am questioning the evidence used to support a polarising piece of policy. I'm clearly not negating science, nor am I siding with these voodoo doctors you unncessarily mention; but instead asking a question, without buying into the emotion of the debate. Prudence indeed.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'HennaJay' Simon, the whole topic is a question about the policy, no? As I said in my post, I'm not questioning the efficacy of vaccination. What I am questioning is the reasoning behind the policy. Looking at the governments own data: 7 attributal deaths to non-vaccination, I am questioning the evidence used to support a polarising piece of policy. I'm clearly not negating science, nor am I siding with these voodoo doctors you unncessarily mention; but instead asking a question, without buying into the emotion of the debate. Prudence indeed. Indeed, and I did agree with you. I added the rest because I mistakenly thought you had posted previously, sorry about that. There is clear evidence that the mass vaccination programs have worked and provided enormous benefit to society. It's questioned only by a minority, and the industries built on quackery. But there are some legitimate questions to be asked of the new blanket and punitive policy. I pointed out a couple. I have a lot of trust in scientific consensus, not so much in our current government.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
There's pro's and con's to both sides.But for the Government to withhold benefits from families that rely on those payments is immoral. How about approach the subject by educating the population and at least trying to convince people why it's necessary, instead of dividing people one way or the other. In our westernised society it seems immunisation is necessary because of our environment, but if we lived in a "green" utopia with natural food, medicine and the like, there would be absolutely no need for immunisations. I would say have them when you're young to prevent things like the whooping cough but when the kids grow up avoid them at all cost, they serve no purpose and don't prevent much at all - and that's science and statistics talking.
-
DynamicCouple36
11 years ago
Quoting '50zcool' Do you take oral contraception ? Big pHARM or organic farmers market ? Both our kids were vaccinated in their early years. We are not tree hugging greenies - but we prefer to ask questions, do as much research as possible and to then make an informed decision. No, dont take oral contraception anymore - as we have had 2 kids and Jason has had the snip. We would prefer to eat organic fruit, vegetables & meat where possible - hard to get and bloody expensive ... but if one thinks about the high levels of pesticides in fruit & veggies and the high levels of hormones & antibiotics in supermarket meat, it would be much better, in the long run, to invest in and take responsibility for ones own health & well being, by trying to eat as much natural, chemically free food as possible ......
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Miss_xx'In our westernised society it seems immunisation is necessary because of our environment, but if we lived in a "green" utopia with natural food, medicine and the like, there would be absolutely no need for immunisations. I would say have them when you're young to prevent things like the whooping cough but when the kids grow up avoid them at all cost, they serve no purpose and don't prevent much at all - and that's science and statistics talking. The places which have benefited most from vaccinations have not been westernised societies... but third world countries where diseases like smallpox were devastating.... and now... for the most part... eliminated. Vaccination of adults is of lesser importance to adults as a general rule of our stronger immune systems in adult life.However, if an adult is vaccinated, the benefit to the children who come into contact with that adult..... is significant.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
whooping cough for months early last year before it was finally diagnosed and because of that I'm certainly not impressed with the trendoid dumbarse's in inner Sydney that are anti immunisation and there are so many around me too, most likely I picked it up from one of the filthy pigs. I was sitting with one mum at a kids birthday picnic listening to her spouting known internet myths as gospel about children being turned into vegetables and so on when its been disproved time and time again all linking back to worthless posts from an idiot American forum poster. All the other mums all nodded in agreement - so sad. If we can eradicate diseases permanently through vaccinations like this then you would have to be a bit slow not to take it up and you certainly shouldn't receive a cent otherwise regardless of any BS religion/cop-out excuse for not doing so.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
That's a bit harsh hey? do you mean those particular trendoid dumbarse people in Sydney or adults who don't vaccinate in general? I don't vaccinate, if I get the flu I get over it, I had all the regular childhood diseases when I was younger, I had a good immune system and it was just uncomfortable, so I dont need to vaccinate for them now, sure if I think I need the tetanus shot every how many years, especially after I've almost cut the tip of my finger off with garden tools.. I sit on the fence with vaccines, some may be necessary, others aren't, children should be getting chicken pox and the other mild diseases at the right time, generally school age, they can get over it easily with much more often then not no side effects of that disease. The main reasons there are side effects from these mild diseases are malnourishment and low immune systems, more often then not in third world countries, poor sanitation doesn't help either. Children/girls who recieve natural lifelong immunity from chicken pox, measles etc can carry the antibodies which is passed on through mothers breast milk and can give their newborn child protection against those same diseases, that coupled with a parent being careful about where their child is taken and who they are around isn't a bad type of immunity is it? What about the vaccines that shed because they are made with a live virus? Measles to name one of them, if an adult has not had measles whilst young they will suffer more from it as an adult, if they would like to vaccinate against that that is their choice but they have to realise they may also spread the disease unknowingly for a period of 4-6 weeks I think it is, because they have the live virus in their body which their immune system is supposed to be fighting off. Vaccines arent %100 percent effective or safe, and yes neither are almost all medications, but the difference is people still have a choice with all other medications, their choice is slowly being taken away with vaccinations. There are many other ways to help prevent the more serious diseases, better diagnosis, better quarantine, and yes even better nutrition to help support the immune system, better education as to how to prevent 'catching' it and to help identify its symptoms, better research on how to cure it once caught. Why can't this education etc all be pushed on the public as much as vaccinations are being pushed? There are a lot more vaccine damaged children, teens and adults out there then what is reported in the media, there are certain vacs more 'dangerous' then others, Gardasil is one of them, not sure if that's in aus tho.. But there were a lot of problems with that one. Why do they have to have combination of vaccinations? Why can't they space them out so a child's developing body/immune system can handle them better? Why do they even need a vac for chicken pox!! Why can't they educate parents on better diagnosis and prevention against these diseases? Why do kids need the hep B vax as soon as they are born? It's sexually transmitted or via blood I think? Oh and I believe there are some ingredients that I'm sure could be removed and replaced with better alternatives. And there are more that I could say here but it's already a loonng comment Also there are money connections and other ties between pharmaceutical company's and people in government and media, things aren't always black and white there. So no I don't think vaccinations is something that should be forced on people, like all medical procedures it should be a choice.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
First ever post and I thought I had paragraphed everything!!
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I wonder how many people are against vaccination... referencing the 'proof' via internet articles..... ....but.... they are actively religious...... basing their live around their "faith". BOOM.(I'll check my mailbox for the angry rants tomorrow ;-)
-
AnnieWhichway
11 years ago
Quoting 'Bridgette00' First ever post and I thought I had paragraphed everything!! Yes phones are a pain. You need to add a line break to start a new line which is <br> Pain in the arse......... Annie
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Thanks :-)
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Mpowered'I'm certainly not impressed with the trendoid dumbarse's in inner Sydney that are anti immunisation and there are so many around me too, most likely I picked it up from one of the filthy pigs. And that's how discussions turn into arguments turn into fights. We're on the same side, however I lost interested in everything you said after this sentence. Way to get your point across.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
yeah a bit over the top and after posting I realised that I too became one of those filthy pigs myself for a time. I also probably qualify for the inner west trendoid category myself - didn't mean to go and attack the innocents so to speak I'm really only for vaccination of the diseases we know we can eliminate not all the usual cold and flu chicken pox or whatever you an easily build up an immunity without damage. They're not in the same category.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Not only can this disease kill children as well as leaving others with ongoing problems, it sits dormant in the spinal fluid and can cause shingles in older people. It's not like catching a cold.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
What about other people you guys ? The newborns, the elderly, people with no immune system from disease, surgery, chemo ? Not everybody has good health and a perfect diet, there are plenty of people in our country in poverty or worse who cannot maintain optimum health. They are the people who suffer and die from preventable disease. It's a much bigger picture than your mirror.
-
AnnieWhichway
11 years ago
Meant to say nice first post. Welcome aboard!
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I read a lot but never contribute, maybe that will change now!
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Funlover71' Not only can this disease kill children as well as leaving others with ongoing problems, it sits dormant in the spinal fluid and can cause shingles in older people. It's not like catching a cold. I just read an article comment from a strident anti-vaxxer which included the line about these being 'mild' childhood diseases, and went on about how the commenter and her friends had all of the diseases (yes she said all of them) when they were kids and they were just fine. Which of course is evidence enough of that being the case for everyone *eyeroll*. Of course, it's not like we're still hearing about babies dying of whooping cough, or that there are still adults alive today who have permanent disabilities due to contracting polio as kids. I didn't get chickenpox when I was a kid so you can bet your arse I went and got myself vaccinated for it once I'd started my degree in a health field. Considering it's usually worse when you contract it as an adult, and with possible complications including pneumonia, encephalitis, cellulitis, shingles, and post-herpetic neuralgia, it was pretty much a no-brainer for me.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Seems to me that if all the people expressing such distrust of the medical science that has produced vaccinations were actually consistent with their views, they would also be forgoing all other forms of medical treatment and preventive measures. After all, those other medical interventions have been developed using the same research processes, would also contain many ingredients that have scary-sounding names and hence must be bad (they'd better not look at the chemical composition list of an egg or a banana), and which have just as much if not more risk of side-effects and death. So, no other pharmaceuticals, no x-rays or other scans, and certainly no surgical procedures for them or their families. Funny...most of them don't forgo those other things though...
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Just posted a link to an article on the sciencealertdotcom website. Google: "Study of 95,000 children finds no link between MMR vaccines and autism" to read the article and make up your own mind.
-
luvsilver
11 years ago
Quoting 'Luck_Dragon' Seems to me that if all the people expressing such distrust of the medical science that has produced vaccinations were actually consistent with their views, they would also be forgoing all other forms of medical treatment and preventive measures. After all, those other medical interventions have been developed using the same research processes, would also contain many ingredients that have scary-sounding names and hence must be bad (they'd better not look at the chemical composition list of an egg or a banana), and which have just as much if not more risk of side-effects and death. So, no other pharmaceuticals, no x-rays or other scans, and certainly no surgical procedures for them or their families. Funny...most of them don't forgo those other things though... This little gypsy is putting it out there.. I'm part of that 1% (or there about as presumed) I refuse to subscribe to any form of mainstream medical science, pharmaceuticals, x-rays, scans, chemicals in any form. My family and myself have absolutely no need for it as we have an organic immune boosting lifestyle and actively engage in holistic preventative measures -under the guidance of trained complimentary therapists- If we become sick or injured the GPs office and hospital are the last places I would turn to. No contradiction here... Mrs. Luvsilver
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'luvsilver'This little gypsy is putting it out there.. I'm part of that 1% (or there about as presumed) I refuse to subscribe to any form of mainstream medical science, pharmaceuticals, x-rays, scans, chemicals in any form. My family and myself have absolutely no need for it as we have an organic immune boosting lifestyle and actively engage in holistic preventative measures -under the guidance of trained complimentary therapists- If we become sick or injured the GPs office and hospital are the last places I would turn to. No contradiction here... Mrs. Luvsilverinteresting. Can you clarify what you mean by "chemicals", given that unless you're eating individual atoms, you're eating/drinking/breathing chemicals; or where the line is drawn between pharmaceuticals based on extractions from 'natural' substances (e.g. plant extracts, penicillin) What is the basis for not having x-rays/scans? Does that include ultrasound as well? (I agree with not getting them willy nilly - there is an issue with the increased frequency of adults and children getting large CTs done at request by chiropractors) How would you handle diagnosis of complex bone breaks? or something like a torn ACL? Why do you reject ALL mainstream medical science and not cherry-pick based on research as it comes out?
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'luvsilver' chemicals in any form. So you don't drink water? Or breathe air? Or eat anything at all? Amazing... Once again, I refer back to my point about basic science education needing to be compulsory in schools. This 'chemical' hysteria is so bloody ridiculous. Oh well, unlike 'big pharma' and those greedy doctors, at least all those complementary therapists aren't trying to sell you anything or get any money out of you, so you know they really have your best interests at heart....
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Luck_Dragon' Quoting 'luvsilver' chemicals in any form. So you don't drink water? Or breathe air? Or eat anything at all? Amazing... Once again, I refer back to my point about basic science education needing to be compulsory in schools. This 'chemical' hysteria is so bloody ridiculous. don't forget "toxins" (and that they never be more specifically defined than that) I was pretty sure that you can't get past even year 8 of highschool without encountering some very basic education on chemistry, atoms, molecules, etc. I just hate the way people throw out these very generic terms and as a result their statement really isn't very clear. e.g. "dont eat chemicals" "no water?" "I mean unnatural chemicals" (usually followed by saying MSG... which is actually an incredibly common naturally occurring amino acid)"don't let my kids have any preservatives" "but they have salt in their food" I don't think any adult out of highschool has never encountered either of those concepts - one is early science, the other one is Piracy and High Seas survival 101 ;) I'd like to see higher scientific literacy, but people don't seem to apply even basic literacy they must surely have learned... (and then ignore or promptly brain dump).
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I know that basic science is compulsory in the early high school years, but I suppose I'm thinking of something that relates more specifically to health and some of the components of that (food, pharmaceuticals, some basic human anatomy and physiology). Of course it's been a long time since I was in high school and there could well be some sort of info like that included now, I have no idea what school curriculums are like now. But I think it's never too early to start giving people proper health information, and also preventive / public health measures are where the real savings in health costs can be made (too bad our esteemed leaders either don't see that or just ignore it).
-
RHP User
11 years ago
*curricula
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Is it science/health information needed or merely critical thinking skills ? Most of the cut and past drivel that goes around like that waiver form earlier have no author, no references and yet get swallowed hook line and sinker. Supposedly as "evidence". My son in primary school has to learn the difference between primary and secondary sources of information as they use google as "research" constantly. I think some people just get swept up in the rebelliousness of it and I agree with the earlier comment, it has become cult like.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
The Spanish flu epidemic of 1919 was, apparently, a legacy of WW1. It was a particularly virulent strain that took too many lives on top of the war, just think what difference vaccination could have made. We could well have over populated even sooner..I'm surprised that with this being RHP no one has mentioned Ian Fraser and his vaccination for protection from cervical cancer. Our daughter got this vaccination at school a few years ago, only time will tell the difference this will make.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
People that do not want to vaccinate should be given that option. There should be special schools solely available for the children of parents who are against vaccination, thereby protecting vaccinated children who can attend normal schools. This way anti-vaccinators will not be burdened by the immorality of relying on the herd immunity that exists in normal schools to prove their anti-vaccination argument. If the risk of vaccinations truly exceeds the risk from the diseases then they cannot argue that their children will be less safe in these unvaccinated schools. If they are right their children will be safe. If they are wrong then they will learn the error of their ways as their children are killed and maimed by ancient preventable diseases. If they are right their children will thrive and promulgate their argument. If they are wrong they will cease breeding.
-
DynamicCouple36
11 years ago
FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE ANTI-VAXERS Earlier this year, I spent a few days at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center with my daughter, who was having an EEG done. On our way home, I learned that there had been an outbreak of an antibiotic-resistant bacteria while we were there, that it had infected seven people and killed two of them. My daughter and I were fine, the infection having been limited to people using a particular kind of duodenoscope.When the story hit the news, I fully expected nationwide outcry similar to that inspired by the recent measles “epidemic” that began at Disneyland. That outbreak killed no one, yet set the country on fire with calls for mandatory vaccination and even prison sentences for parents who choose not to vaccinate their children. Drug-resistant “superbugs” kill nearly 15,000 people a year in the U.S., and a recent report predicts that they could kill as many as 300 million people by 2050. Surely this far more deadly health threat would lead to similar widespread outrage and calls for those even remotely responsible to be held accountable.I expected to see editorials calling for anyone who engaged in the overuse of antibiotics to beshunned by society, doctors who prescribed them unnecessarily (about 50 percent of all prescriptions by some estimates) to be censured and perhapslose their licenses, parents who asked for antibiotics every time their child had an ear infection — despite the fact that the vast majority are not bacterial and are unaffected by antibiotics — to be thrown in jail forendangering the rest of us. But I saw nothing along these lines. Why not?The manipulation of the conversation around vaccines in the mainstream media has been nothing short of a tour de force. If you read only mainstream publications, you might come away with the impression that outbreaks of measles are the most serious public health crisis since the Black Death. You might think that those who do not vaccinate are uneducated, superstitious, “anti-science” zealots who get their information from daytime talk shows. You might even start to feel outrage at these people who — for no good reason at all — have decided to endanger everyone else by refusing to do what every doctor knows is perfectly safe, effective and the socially responsible thing to do.The presentation of this issue has been a study in just how easy it can be to generate mass hysteria around a particular threat — even while much more serious threats inspire no such response. It’s as if every mainstream reporter has been given the same playbook to use in putting together articles about vaccines — a playbook designed to elicit the above response from the public. I’ve tried to imagine what this playbook must look like, and I think I’ve come up with a pretty decent facsimile. Here it is, along with my own annotations:No. 1: Make it clear that parents who choose not to vaccinate their children are only getting their information from Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carey and other celebrities with absolutely no scientific credentials.Pretend that doctors and scientists who are critical of vaccines — doctorslike Dr. Suzanne Humphries, Dr. Robert Sears, Dr. Kenneth Stoller, Dr. Robert Rowen, Dr. Janet Levatin, Dr. Stephanie Cave, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny,Dr. Meryl Nass, Dr. Jay Gordon, Dr. Jane Orient, and many of the members of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, CDC researcherDr. William Thompson, and all of the doctors and scientists listed here andhere — don’t exist. Because really, if you don’t write about them, they don’t.No. 2: Always equate the views of the CDC, medical journals and pharmaceutical company spokespeople with “science.” Some people will try to tell you that science is a method, not a conclusion, and that scientific truths cannot be determined by consensus or by appeal to authority, but you can just ignore them.As one (self-proclaimed) scientist put it:I am going to sound derogatory, but if you don’t have formal education in at least biology, you have no role to talk about the way vaccines should be done. (sic)In my personal and scientifically backed opinion, the war against disease is a hundred fold more important than the mum-led war against vaccines. Do you want your child to die a slow, painful, agonizing death? If not, then shut the f*** up with your so called “facts” you got from Yahoo Answers and get your kid vaccinated.In other words, if you don’t have the same training we do, you don’t get to be part of the discussion — even when the topic of that discussion is whether or not we get to forcibly inject things into your bodies and the bodies of your children. Just shut up and trust the scientists. But not thesescientists; they are all anti-science scientists. Only trust these ones.No. 3: Remind your readers that, however heart wrenching or tragic, anecdotal accounts are just that. They are not scientific; they don’t say anything about relative risk; and they should play no role in influencing your opinion about vaccines — until you want to tell them the heart-wrenching story of how author Roald Dahl lost his daughter to measles or about the death of a young girl from rotavirus that inspired Dr. Paul Offit to develop a vaccine for that disease.Anecdotal accounts of people suffering from vaccine-preventable illnesses are fine. Anything else though is just irrational. Take for example the thousandsof stories from parents whose children were perfectly healthy until they received one or more vaccines and then suddenly lost the ability to speak, to walk or to feed themselves or who started having seizures, stopped breathing or died. Many of the parents in these cases report that their doctors insist the vaccines had nothing to do with their children’s injuries, even when no other explanation is apparent. Indeed, the vaccine manufacturers and the CDC insist that most such cases are simply coincidences and have nothing to do with the vaccines. But given the well-documented degree of conflict of interest and fraudulent practices within the CDC and the medical research community as a whole, many parents are understandably skeptical of such claims.No. 4: Remind your readers that “correlation is not causation.”Unless you want to show them this graph and tell them it proves that vaccines save lives:Source.Whatever you do though, make sure you don’t accidentally show them this graph instead:Source.To listen to the mainstream media, one would think that measles was a deadly affliction on a par with Ebola or the plague. Vaccine advocates distort the dangers of measles by pointing to adverse effects experienced by populations in underdeveloped countries, where even the mildest of diseases can be deadly due to things like poor nutrition and sanitation.By the 1950s in the United States, though, measles was considered a mild childhood disease that nearly everyone caught before adulthood and lived through with no serious consequences. Said Dr. Donald Miller:With good sanitation and nutrition, the pre-vaccine mortality rate of measles in the U.S. was less than 1 in a million (compared with 14 deaths per 100,000 in 1900); seizures occurred in 1 in 3,000 people; and encephalitis, 1 in 100,000, with full recovery in 75 percent of those cases.It is also worth noting that the CDC’s statement that “(f)or every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it” relies on reportedcases of measles. A more accurate estimate puts the death rate at closer to 1 out of 10,000 cases.Meanwhile, in the past 10 years there have been only a handful of measles deaths in the U.S., but VAERS data report 109 deaths associated with the measles vaccine since January 2004, and the U.S. Court of Federal Claimshas settled 111 claims related to harm from the MMR vaccine in that same time.Not only is measles a relatively benign illness for healthy people living in developed countries, contracting and surviving the disease confers benefits to the immune system — as well as strengthening herd immunity — in ways that vaccines cannot.Far from protecting the most vulnerable demographic groups, widespread vaccination has increased the risk of serious harm from measles in some of these populations: infants and very young children, as well as adults. Normally, measles wouldn’t appear in these age groups. But now it does,thanks to the vaccine. Lawrence Solomon reported in the Financial Post last year:Factors such as these increased the death rate for adults and the very young, helping to reverse the decline in deaths seen in previous decades, according to a 2004 study in the Journal of Infectious Disease, authored by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.… The danger extends to babies, whose bodies are too immature to receive measles vaccination before age one, making them entirely dependent on antibodies inherited from their mothers. In their first year out of the womb, infants suffer the highest rate of measles infections and the most lasting harm. Yet vaccinated mothers have little antibody to pass on — only about one-quarter as much as mothers protected by natural measles — leaving infants vulnerable three months after birth, according to a study last year in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. [Emphasis mine.]Also importantly, measles during pregnancies have risen dangerously because expectant mothers no longer have lifetime immunity. Today’s vaccinated expectant mothers are at risk because the measles vaccine wanes with time and because it often fails to protect against measles.In the pre-vaccine era, when the natural measles virus infected the entire population, measles – “typically a benign childhood illness,” as Clinical Pediatrics described it — was welcomed for providing lifetime immunity, thus avoiding dangerous adult infections. In today’s vaccine era, adults have accounted for one quarter to one half of measles cases; most of them involve pneumonia, one-quarter of them hospitalization.As discussed below, childhood illnesses like measles and mumps can help to develop the immune system in ways that help to protect against things like asthma, autoimmune disease and even cancer. So the proposition that eliminating measles — rather than simply reducing its deadliness — is a worthy public health goal is a questionable one.No. 5: Whenever possible, present the debate as if there are no legitimate reasons to choose not to vaccinate — only “personal beliefs” and “irrational fears.”The reality is that there are legitimate and documented concerns about vaccine safety. Nobody denies this; all that is in dispute is the magnitude of the harm caused by vaccines. Vaccine manufacturers and their institutional supporters of course insist that any harm from vaccines is minuscule and easily outweighed by the benefits. However, this claim is suspect for a number of reasons, not least of which is the stunning degree of conflict of interest and outright fraud within the world of medical research. Leaving aside these issues though, there remain good reasons to distrust the manufacturers’ claims.Numerous studies fly in the face of the manufacturers’ claims, showing connections between vaccines and autoimmune disease, asthma, allergies, cancer, encephalopathy and, yes, autism. And even assuming integrity in the clinical trial process, these are not sufficient to demonstrate vaccine safety, as they typically look only at reactions that occur within a few weeks of vaccination and compare only the adverse events experienced with one vaccine against those experienced with another vaccine — not against an unvaccinated sample. Even the CochraneReview of the literature on the MMR vaccine, for example, came to the conclusion in 2012 that “(t)he design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate.”Studies that purport to demonstrate the safety of vaccines are similarlyflawed and limited in their scope. Indeed, of the list of 42 studies put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics, with an invitation to parents to “examine the evidence,” none compare vaccinated against unvaccinated populations, and most look only at either the MMR vaccine or at Thimerosal.Meanwhile, because of a law that removes any liability from the makers of vaccines for any harm caused by their products, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has paid out nearly $3 billion in damages to the families of those who claim they have been injured by vaccines since its inception in 1988. This is despite the elimination by the DHHS of most of the original adverse events from the “Table of Compensable Events,” and what NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher called “…a highly adversarial, lengthy, expensive, traumatic and unfair imitation of a court trial for vaccine victims and their attorneys.”And every year, about 30,000 reports are made to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), which records adverse reactions immediately following vaccination, as reported by doctors, other medical professionals, pharmaceutical companies, patients and parents. Thirteen percent of these are classified as “serious” (including death).Of course, these numbers don’t mean very much without a comparison to the background rate of such adverse events in the general population, notimmediately following vaccination. Some studies have shown no increased adverse events after vaccination as compared to the general population.Other studies (including some that use post-vaccination data for other vaccines for comparison, rather than population-wide background rates) show higher rates of adverse events immediately post-vaccine.Vaccine proponents argue that the VAERS numbers are not an accurate reflection of vaccine damage, because each case reported has not been conclusively proven to be caused by a vaccine. It is a legitimate point — and is largely due to the fact that in most cases there is no way to confirmvaccination as the cause of the event.The much bigger problem, though, is the degree to which the VAERS numbers suffer from significant underreporting. Said Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center and advocate for parental choice regarding vaccines:There have been estimates that perhaps less than 5 (percent) or 10 percent of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting [via VAERS]; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences.Indeed, one study found that while 68 percent of cases of vaccine-associated polio were reported, only 4 percent of MMR-associated thrombocytopenia were reported. An earlier study found that only 1 percent of adverse events following prescription drug use were reported. And in 1994, a survey found that only 18 percent of 159 doctors’ offices made reports when children suffered serious health problems following vaccination. In New York, this number was 1 out of 40.Some argue that adverse events are also over-reported to VAERS, presumably by distraught parents; but this charge is less credible. All the evidence shows that doctors and other healthcare providers are extremely reluctant to report events to VAERS. Healthcare providers account for 36 percent of all reports to VAERS, with vaccine manufacturers accounting for another 37 percent. Vaccine recipients and their parents or guardians account for only 7 percent of reports.So what is the real risk of overall vaccine injury? The only honest answer is that nobody knows. The number of genuine vaccine injuries is likely much higher than what is reported in VAERS, but how much higher nobody can reliably say. The science on vaccine safety is conflicted, it is insufficient and it is badly corrupted by special interests. It is anything but “settled.”But there’s more.There is evidence that vaccines may cause harm well beyond what would show up in an adverse events report — harm that may manifest over many years, rather than in the days and weeks immediately following vaccination. Vaccines have been connected to increased rates of cancer, severe allergies and autoimmune disease:Dr. Donald Millerexplained:Measles (and other viral childhood diseases) stimulate both the Th1 and Th2 components. The MMR vaccine stimulates predominately the Th2 side. Overstimulation of this part of the adaptive immune system provokes allergies, asthma, and auto-immune diseases. Since the Th1 side thwarts cancer, if it does not get fully developed in childhood a person can wind up being more prone to cancer later in life. Women who had mumps during childhood, for example, have been found to be less likely to develop ovarian cancer compared with women who did not have mumps.Once past the immunologic barriers of skin and mucosa, our (2-trillion-cell) immune system has two components: An innate system, which all animals have; and an evolutionarily more recent adaptive system that vertebrates have. The childhood diseases — measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox — play a constructive role in the maturation of the adaptive immune system. Two kinds of helper T-cells (Th) manage this system: cellular T-cells (Th1); and humoral T-cells (Th2), which make antibodies. The Th1 cellular T-cells are especially important because they attack and kill cells in the body that run amok and become cancerous. And they also kill cells that become infected with viruses.Measles helps a child’s immune system grow strong and mature.(The study can be found here.)According to the CDC, food allergies in children increased by about 50 percent between 1997 and 2011. Asthma rates have also been on the rise, with an increase of 28 percent between 2001 and 2011. And childhood cancer rates have been increasing since the 1970s. The National Institutes of Health reported in 1996 that the incidence of childhood cancer had increased by 10 percent between 1973 and 1991, and a 1999 report in the International Journal of Health Services said:From the early 1980s to the early 1990s, the incidence of cancer in American children under 10 years of age rose 37 percent, or 3 percent annually. There is an inverse correlation between increases in cancer rates and age at diagnosis; the largest rise (54 percent) occurred in children diagnosed before their first birthday.There are no definitive explanations for these dramatic increases in potentially life-threatening conditions among children, and in all likelihood there is no single cause responsible for any one of them. However parents have good reason to be concerned about harmful environmental factors, including vaccines. Indeed, several studies show increased rates of immunological problems associated with vaccination.A study in New Zealand found a higher rate of asthma among those who had been vaccinated (Kemp et al., 1997); Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Study in the U.S. showed that children vaccinated with DTP or Tetanus vaccines were twice as likely to develop asthma as unvaccinated children (Hurwitz and Morgenstern, 2000), and another study showed that the MMR vaccine can cause human white blood cells to develop IgE antibodies — one of the main characteristics of asthma (Imani and Kehoe, 2001). A 2008 studyfound that delaying DPT vaccination was associated with reduced risk of childhood asthma.Other studies have found a link between vaccines and allergies and autoimmune disease. A 1996 study in Africa found higher rates of allergies among those who had been vaccinated against measles than among those who had survived the disease. The study concluded that “(m)easles infection may prevent the development of atopy in African children.”A 2001 study confirmed “[a] causal association between measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) …”;a study in 2014 found a strong correlation between hepatitis B vaccination and higher rates of multiple sclerosis; a 1999 study in Japan found that “… gelatin-containing DTaP vaccine may have a causal relationship to the development of this gelatin allergy”; and in 2009, a Japanese study that gave mice repeated immunizations with antigen found that “(s)ystemic autoimmunity appears to be the inevitable consequence of over-stimulating the host’s immune ‘system’ by repeated immunization…”In the journal Autoimmunity, Vared Molina and Yehudi Shoenfeld wrote:Vaccines, in several reports were found to be temporally followed by a new onset of autoimmune disease. The same mechanisms that act in infectious invasion of the host, apply equally to the host response to vaccination. It has been accepted for diphtheria and tetanus toxoid, polio and measles vaccines and GBS. Also this theory has been accepted for MMR vaccination and development of autoimmune thrombocytopenia, MS has been associated with HBV vaccination.Those who would force vaccinations on the rest of us are fond of repeating bromides like “your right to be sick ends where public health begins.” But who gets to decide what constitutes “public health?” Who decided that the eradication of every childhood illness is in the best interests of “public health?” Why aren’t increased rates of childhood cancer and life-threatening allergies relevant to “public health?” Why can’t I demand that everyone else stop vaccinating their children because doing so directly threatens the ability of mine to contract childhood diseases that might help strengthen their immune systems.No. 6: If you must acknowledge that critics of vaccines have actual reasons for their concerns, restrict the discussion to the fear that vaccines may cause autism; and be sure to stress that the only basis for this concern is the retracted 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield.You can also mention some of the studies that “prove” there is no causal link between vaccines and autism. Just be sure not to mention any of the ones that do show aconnection, like this one, this one or this one. Be especially careful not to mention this one or this one or any of these, these or these.At all costs, never ever mention any of the concerns listed in No. 4 above.For bonus points, see if you can create the impression that the only potential problem with vaccines is thimerosal, and then declare that thimerosal has been removed from all vaccines. (It hasn’t.)No. 7: When in doubt, pepper your stories with some of the following affirmations. Remember: The more you say them, the truer they become: “Vaccines save lives”; “Parents who don’t vaccinate are selfish” (“ignorant,” “anti-science” and “hippies” all work well, too.); and above all, “The science is settled.”You may have to repeat this last one many many times before your readers come to understand and accept it.No. 8: Don’t even address vaccines directly. Simply include somemention of vaccine skepticism as an example of the kind of irrational thinking some people (especially, strangely, well-educated ones) still engage in despite “everyone knowing” how foolish it is.This is perhaps the most powerful tool you can use to sway your audience. Nobody wants to be seen as foolish, and most people don’t have the time or inclination to look closely at the evidence for and against vaccine safety. If people keep hearing that “everyone knows” vaccines are safe and effective, most of them will tend to go along with that position even if they don’t know much about the topic — if only to avoid being seen as crackpots. Fear of public humiliation can be a beautiful thing in the right hands.No. 9: If the icky topic of conflict of interest or corruption of the research by vested interests comes up, just laugh it off. Remember: Writing in a derisive tone about other people’s claims or concerns is exactly the same as refuting them.Amy Wallace, who wrote this Wired piece, handled this especially well. And not only did she fail to interview a single critic of vaccines for the article, she cunningly created the impression that she had included their views by visiting an Autism One conference and mentioning and briefly quoting — but never actually speaking with — NVIC president Barbara Loe Fisher. Well done, Wallace!Be sure to quote Offit and to cite him as a “vaccine expert”. Don’t botherdisclosing that he has made millions of dollars from the rotavirus vaccinehe developed. The whole notion of disclosing conflicts of interest within a story is so passé. Also anti-science.Vaccine advocates like to point to studies that show no increased risk ofharm from vaccines. They assert that these studies invalidate the findings of other studies that do show a link between vaccines and asthma, allergies, autism and other conditions. In a world in which scientific institutions could be trusted to conduct honest, objective research and produce credible results, this might provide some comfort. In the real world, though, there is little reason to give credence to much of the research that gets produced on vaccines — and much less so to results that in any way favor the manufacturers of those vaccines.Lest anyone suspect that this kind of cynicism about the scientific establishment is confined to anti-vaccination activists, here is what Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine,wrote in 2009:… (C)onflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine. [Emphasis mine.]Angell adds:No one knows the total amount provided by drug companies to physicians, but I estimate from the annual reports of the top nine US drug companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars a year. By such means, the pharmaceutical industry has gained enormous control over how doctors evaluate and use its own products. Its extensive ties to physicians, particularly senior faculty at prestigious medical schools, affect the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even the definition of what constitutes a disease.Likewise, in his 2013 book “Bad Pharma,” physician (and vaccine advocate) Ben Goldacre wrote:Overall, the pharmaceutical industry spends around half a billion dollars a year on advertising in academic journals. The biggest — NEJM, JAMA — take $10 or $20 million each, and there is a few million each for the next rank down.Goldacre added that “(a)dvertising is not the only source of drug company revenue for academic journals” and cited “supplements” — special editions sponsored by drug companies — and reprints of individual academic papers that can bring in up to a million dollars each. And he cites a 2009 study demonstrating that industry-funded studies are more likely to be accepted by journals.The real-world impact of this control has been well documented, from theFDA concealing fraud in medical trials, to built-in biases in studies, to pharmaceutical companies misleading practitioners as to the safety and efficacy of their products, to allegations of fraudulent misconduct brought by scientists-turned-whistleblowers.Recently, two former Merck scientists charged that the pharmaceutical giant “… fraudulently misled the government and omitted, concealed, and adulterated material information regarding the efficacy of its mumps vaccine…” And in August, senior CDC scientist William Thompson came forward with the statement that he and other researchers had omitted statistically significant data from a 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. (It is worth noting that Thompson’s earlier studies at the CDC were hailed as “definitive” in refuting the Thimerosal-autism link by none other than Offit.)According to Thompson’s statement, “(t)he omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.”In a secretly recorded conversation, Thompson told Dr. Brian Hooker, “I have a boss who is asking me to lie. The higher-ups wanted to do certain things and I went along with it.” He told Hooker that “… the CDC has not been transparent, we’ve missed ten years of research, because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism. They’re not doing what they should be doing. They are afraid to look for things that might be associated…”Put simply: The scientific establishment has lost any right to be taken at its word on this issue.No. 10: “Muh Herd Immunity!”Remind your readers of our long-treasured right to herd immunity: The right to demand — at gunpoint if necessary — that others take every possible precaution against contracting communicable diseases, regardless of the risks to themselves of doing so. This is a right our forefathers fought and died for, and we’re not about to give it up now.Actually, no.Those who support imposing vaccines by force argue that those who do not vaccinate threaten herd immunity for the entire population. The idea that vaccines can successfully provide herd immunity is already questionable, as — unlike many childhood diseases — they do not confer lifetime immunity.Nor do they offer 100 percent immunity to those vaccinated. But more importantly, this argument presumes that “herd immunity” is something anyone has a right to in the first place.For centuries, people have been aware that being out in public carries certain risks — among them, the risk that one might contract a disease from another person. Never before have people widely asserted that they have the right to demand that everyone around them take all possible precautions at whatever cost to themselves to make this environment absolutely risk free. If, as the mandatory vaccination proponents contend, we can demand that everyone around us take every conceivable precaution against every communicable disease, what else can we demand of them?For starters, the recently vaccinated (with live-virus vaccines) should be excluded from all public property. And if not, why not? They pose far more of a risk than does anyone who has simply not been vaccinated. What are some other risky practices Americans should no longer tolerate from each other? Going out in public with a cold? Being a poor driver? Being in possession of any substance that might cause a severe allergic reaction in someone else?How about superbugs? What are we going to do about all those people who abuse antibiotics, ultimately leading to the creation of superbugs. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are responsible for nearly 15,000 deaths in the U.S. each year, far outstripping pre-vaccine deaths for measles, mumps and whooping cough combined. Can we not hold accountable for this the irresponsible people who take antibiotics every time they have a minor infection?Personally, I avoid antibiotics for myself and my family as much as possible. I have never given them to a child with an ear infection (and yes, we’ve had some). Should my preferences be imposed on everyone else? Doing so would clearly strike a blow against the propagation of superbugs. So why not?Here’s why not: Because your right to protect “public health” — whatever you think that may be, given the interest-driven media hysteria of the moment — ends where my body begins.Herd immunity is not something anyone has a “right” to. It is a positive externality. And like other such externalities it is not something you have a right to demand that your fellow human beings provide for you. More to the point, you do not have a right to demand that other parents impose risks on their children that they are not comfortable with, in order to protect your child or anyone else’s children.The forced vaccination threat: A tragedy of the commonsCan there ever be a point where spreading a disease becomes “assault?” Of course, there can. A person who knows that he is infected with Ebola, for example, stepping into a crowded subway car and proceeding to cough all over the other passengers, could easily be considered guilty of assault. But measles is hardly Ebola (it is not even on the federal government’s list of quarantinable diseases), and — contrary to the media frenzy that insists otherwise — not being vaccinated does not equate to being infected with a disease, far less to knowingly infecting others. Failure to take every precaution against getting a disease is hardly “assault.”Even in the case of a truly deadly illness like Ebola, there is no justification for forcing a particular method of prevention on those who have not contracted it, or forcing treatment on anyone who has. All that anyone has a right to do is demand that those people not infect others.It should be obvious by now that none of this would even be an issue if we lived in a society that honored self-ownership and private property. In the event of an outbreak of a truly dangerous disease — or even a disease that posed a serious risk to only a small segment of the population — each property owner could make their own decision about whether to exclude those who were infected or indeed, even those who chose not to be vaccinated against the disease, presuming there was a vaccine for it.Economist Robert Murphy wrote:Private businesses aren’t stupid; they don’t need the government to order them to keep lepers away. And if a particular church, say, wants to open its doors to such a person, that’s perfectly within their rights. (As a matter of courtesy, we would hope this policy would be announced to others who might not want to visit the same building.) Indeed, the final repository for such people would be buildings where the owners thought they could safely contain the disease. And the common name people would use for these buildings is “hospital.” In a free society, to be “quarantined” would simply mean that most owners (of roads, sidewalks, malls, hotels, factories, etc.) would refuse access, and so a contagious person would have few choices outside of treatment facilities.Rather than having a one-size-fits-all solution imposed upon everyone by some authority, everyone would make choices based on their own perception of the risks. Businesses that responded to the risk sensitivities of their customers would do well, and those that did not would suffer. And because not all people have the same perception of or sensitivity to the same risks, there would be a wide variety of choices: Schools that allow unvaccinated children and schools that do not; restaurants that cater to those with severe allergies and those that do not; parks, libraries, cinemas and other establishments that specialize in serving immuno-compromised and other medically fragile individuals and those that do not.In the absence of a “commons” — property that is used by everyone but owned by no one (or, more realistically, owned by the state) — there would be no calls for anyone to have vaccines forced upon them at gunpoint. Those who believe vaccinations are absolutely necessary would frequent businesses and venues that enforced strict vaccination policies, and those who did not would frequent places that had more relaxed policies.My own guess is that, for the most part, the issue would simply go away. People would come to realize that the real risk to themselves and their families posed by those who do not vaccinate is in fact minuscule — particularly in comparison to other risks we all expose ourselves to daily. In the absence of a “commons” managed by people who do not have to earn the costs of their operation, most business owners would find that they stood to lose more by excluding “non-vaxxers” than they did to gain by allowing them in.It is only in a world where property rights are not clearly defined, where there are great swathes of “commons” (either “public” property or nominally private property over which owners do not have genuine decision-making powers), that there can be a conflict between “public” health and individual rights. Eliminate the commons and you eliminate that conflict — replacing it with myriad voluntary solutions to meet the differing wants and needs of diverse individuals.Whatever your views on vaccines, the prospect of forced vaccination ought to make you very very afraidDo those who believe in mandated vaccination really want to establish the precedent of granting a government body the power to compel people to be injected with substances against their will? You may support the forced vaccination of other people’s children because you think vaccines are undeniably beneficial and problem-free. But you may not be so thrilled about the next substance the state decides everyone should have forced into their veins.Do you really want to establish the precedent of being able to demand from your neighbors that they pose no risk to you at all? The corollary of course being that they may then demand the same of you? If as a society we decide that we have the right to demand a 100 percent risk-free environment in which to live, then the potential intrusions into our lives are infinite.Even if the manufacturers’ claims are correct and the risk of serious injury from vaccines is infinitesimal, for most people it is impossible to know ahead of time whether or not they will be injured by a vaccine. Nobody has the right to force another person to choose that risk — however small it may be — over the risks of the diseases the vaccines are intended to prevent.The state already controls vast swathes of what we can do with our lives: what professions we may enter, how and where we may conduct business, what substances we cannot ingest, how much of the money we earn we are allowed to keep, how we may travel and what indignities we must tolerate in order to do so, when and where we may protest, and the list goes on and on. If you do not believe that individuals have the right to control what goes into their own bodies then I have to wonder what rights — if any — you dobelieve people still have.It seems to me that, save choosing our mates for us, the last remnant of our self-ownership lies in our right not to be directly assaulted, not to have unwanted drugs or other substances forced into our bodies. If you believe that the state has the right to do this, then there is essentially nothing left that it does not have a right to do.The pro-vaccine lobby has done a phenomenal job of inciting fear among the American public in a way that happens to serve its interests: fear of little children who may not have been vaccinated; fear of other parents who may make choices different from yours; fear of a disease that in the developed world is far less deadly than lightning strikes. But they’ve left out one of the most frightening specters of all, one that has a truly horrifying historical record of death and destruction: an all-powerful state that can literally do whatever it wishes to those living under it. If that prospect frightens you less than the remote possibility that you might contract measles from my 5-year-old, then, quite frankly, you scare the hell out of me.–Bretigne Shaffer
-
DynamicCouple36
11 years ago
Gardasil & Ceravix dont claim to prevent or cure cervical cancer, but instead state that it may be able to prevent some HpV strains that may cause it. The safest and most effective way to prevent cervical cancer is to go for regular checks up / pap smear examinations so as to detect abnormal cells long before they become cancerous. Also consider this quote taken from the manufacturers website : Gardasil will not protect against sexually transmitted diseases such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes, HIV, syphilis, and trichomoniasis. Gardasil will not treat active genital warts or HPV-related cancers, and it will not cure HPV infection.Gardasil will not prevent diseases caused by HPV types other than types 6, 11, 16, and 18. There are over 100 different types of HPV. Quoting 'Jack_Denials'.I'm surprised that with this being RHP no one has mentioned Ian Fraser and his vaccination for protection from cervical cancer. Our daughter got this vaccination at school a few years ago, only time will tell the difference this will make.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
If you truly think that your child will form a disability or have other problems due to the immunisation no amount of money would make you change your mind. If $15000 would make you change your mind about your kids health then you are not really a believer in anti-vaccing. i know if someone came up to me and said hey ive got $15000 but if you take it there is a chance your kid might form something i wouldnt take it. (i dont have kids)
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Imagination, and facsimile are the key words there, no facts no data, just imagination.
-
DynamicCouple36
11 years ago
Where does one draw the line ? Send all vegans, vegetarians, kids of smokers, kids of drug addicts etc to different / segregated schools ? There is absolutely no proof that vaccinated kids are the ones spreading diseases and so it would be totally unconstitutional and against all reasonable human rights to start excluding them from society. There is more than enough evidence that vaccinations dont work 100% of the time, and that when they do work, they work only for a limited time period. For example the measles vaccine (provided that it works) will only protect you for 10 to 13 years. This means that as an adult you wont be immune to the disease, unless you have had follow up boosters / vaccinations. However if you got measles as a kid, then not only will you be immune for life, but your newly born child will enjoy some limited immunity (weeks/months) as a result of his/her mothers immunity if that makes sense. In other words in all probability the majority of the people speading measles could very well be adults who were vaccinated as kids, but who never got their follow up shots / boosters. How many adults in here have had their follow up boosters since age of 13 ? So really not fair to take this out on the so called un-vaccinated. Again, for the record, our kids were both vaccinated in their early years as per the prescribed schedules. Quoting 'CapeDiem' People that do not want to vaccinate should be given that option. There should be special schools solely available for the children of parents who are against vaccination, thereby protecting vaccinated children who can attend normal schools. This way anti-vaccinators will not be burdened by the immorality of relying on the herd immunity that exists in normal schools to prove their anti-vaccination argument. If the risk of vaccinations truly exceeds the risk from the diseases then they cannot argue that their children will be less safe in these unvaccinated schools. If they are right their children will be safe. If they are wrong then they will learn the error of their ways as their children are killed and maimed by ancient preventable diseases. If they are right their children will thrive and promulgate their argument. If they are wrong they will cease breeding.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Posted today on website The Conversation: ''Inoculating against science denial'' Science denial has real, societal consequences. Denial of the link between HIV and AIDS led to more than330,000 premature deathsin South Africa. Denial of the link between smoking and cancer has caused millions of premature deaths. Thanks to vaccination denial,preventable diseasesaremaking a comeback.Denial is not something we can ignore or, well, deny. So what does scientific research say is the most effective response? Common wisdom says that communicating more science should be the solution. But a growing body of evidence indicates that this approach canactually backfire, reinforcing people’s prior beliefs.When you present evidence that threatens a person’s worldview, it can actually strengthen their beliefs. This is called the “worldview backfire effect”. One of the first scientific experiments that observed this effect dates back to 1975.A psychologist from the University of Kansaspresented evidence to teenage Christiansthat Jesus Christ did not come back from the dead. Now, the evidence wasn’t genuine; it was created for the experiment to see how the participants would react.What happened was their faith actuallystrengthenedin response to evidence challenging their faith. This type of reaction happens across a range of issues. When US Republicans are given evidence ofnoweapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they believemorestrongly that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When you debunk the myth linkingvaccination to autism, anti-vaxxers respond by opposing vaccination more strongly.In my own research, when I’ve informed strong political conservatives that there’s a scientific consensus thathumans are causing global warming, they becomelessaccepting that humans are causing climate change.Ironically, the practice of throwing more science at science denial ignores the social science research into denial. You can’t adequately address this issue without considering the root cause: personal beliefs and ideology driving the rejection of scientific evidence. Attempts at science communication that ignore the potent influence effect of worldview can be futile or even counterproductive.How then should scientists respond to science denial? The answer lies in a branch of psychology dating back to the 1960s known as “inoculation theory”. Inoculation is an idea that changed history: stop a virus from spreading by exposing people to a weak form of the virus. This simple concept has saved millions of lives.In the psychological domain, inoculation theory applies the concept of inoculation to knowledge. When we teach science, we typically restrict ourselves to just explaining the science. This is like giving people vitamins. We’re providing the information required for a healthier understanding. But vitamins don’t necessarily grant immunity against a virus.There is a similar dynamic with misinformation. You might have a healthy understanding of the science. But if you encounter a myth that distorts the science, you’re confronted with a conflict between the science and the myth. If you don’t understand the technique used to distort the science, you have no way to resolve that conflict.Half a century of research into inoculation theoryhas found that the way to neutralise misinformation is to expose people to a weak form of the misinformation. The way to achieve this is to explain the fallacy employed by the myth. Once people understand the techniques used to distort the science, they can reconcile the myth with the fact.There is perhaps no more apt way to demonstrate inoculation theory than to address a myth about vaccination. A persistent myth about vaccination is that itcauses autism.This myth originated from aLancet studywhich was subsequently shown to be fraudulent and was retracted by the journal. Nevertheless, the myth persists simply due to the persuasive fact that some children have developed autism around the same time they were vaccinated.This myth uses the logical fallacy ofpost hoc, ergo propter hoc, Latin for “after this, therefore because of this”. This is a fallacy because correlation does not imply causation. Just because one event happens around the same time as another event doesn’t imply that one causes the other.The only way to demonstrate causation is through statistically rigorous scientific research. Many studies have investigated this issue and shown conclusively that there is nolink between vaccination and autism.The response to science denial is not just more science. We stop science denial by exposing people to a weak form of science denial. We need to inoculate minds against misinformation.The practical application of inoculation theory is already happening in classrooms, with educators adopting the teaching approach of misconception-based learning (also known asagnotology-based learningor refutational teaching).This involves teaching science by debunking misconceptions about the science. This approach results insignificantly higher learning gainsthan customary lectures that simply teach the science.While this is currently happening in a few classrooms, Massive Open Online Courses (orMOOCs) offer the opportunity to scale up this teaching approach to reach potentially hundreds of thousands of students. At the University of Queensland, we’re launching a MOOC thatmakes sense of climate science denial.Our approach draws upon inoculation theory, educational research into misconception-based learning and thecognitive psychology of debunking. We explain the psychological research into why and how people deny climate science.Having laid the framework, we examine the fallacies behind themost common climate myths. Our goal is for students to learn how to identify the techniques used to distort climate science and feel confident responding to misinformation.A typical response of scientists to science denial is to teach more science. But that only provides half of what’s needed. Scientific research has offered us a solution: build resistance to science denial by exposing people to a weak form of science denial.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
There go my paragraphs...
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Formatting went completely crap...probably best going to the original article if you want to read it.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I'm not reading all that!Your rant on Gardasil was amusing, I'm sure it also if of no use as a fluvax either!First they came for the anti vaxers, paranoia or a well founded persecution complex? You tell me.I do think there might be two separate issues here;1 The attempt by government, who by the way are trustworthy and here to help us, to influence people who are not inclined to vaccinate to do so. This is an ethical issue and separate to the pros and cons of your views on vaccination.2 The argument for or against vaccination which it seems is polarising people and their views. Personally I'm pro-vaccination both for people and live stock. I won't attempt to impose my views on those opposed to it and will not allow such an imposition upon me for holding another view point. My son and a few of the kids at his school did have an adverse reaction to a Hep B vaccine once but you get that. Statistically we all safer due to vaccination, my view unlikely to be changed just as yours is unlikely to be changed.I hope we don't see a situation where an epidemic or pandemic causes mass casualties.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
A worthwhile endeavour, but with this lot they have a a self sustaining critical mass, they are special and don't want to understand, in their cut and paste world were all plotting against them. I'm afraid the only thing that will put this into perspective is dead babies.
-
DynamicCouple36
11 years ago
Our comments re Gardasil were not a rant - its a pity you see it that way. Instead we simply quoted the facts as found on the manufacturers and government website . And that is that it is not a cure but rather than it may help protect one from certain HpV strains. A number of children (boys and girls) at our sons school were given shots of it last year and again this year. An alarmingly high number of them fell violently ill within hours - fever, vomiting etc. There have been admissions, by one of the scientists who developed it, that not only does it not work, but also is dangerous ... One wonders why the local city council would be so pushy about wanting all kids (boys and girls) to get the Gardasil shot ? Paid to do so by the manufacturers ? Its not as if HpV is as serious as Polio & Smallpox - hardly life threatening. Just where does one draw the line ? The next thing we will all be forced to also have flu shots .....
-
DynamicCouple36
11 years ago
Freedom of Choice is very important in a free, fair and democratic society. We should all be entitled to have our own views, own beliefs and opinions. Some people smoke, others do drugs. Some men are circumcised and others are not. Some people have tattoos whilst others dislike tattoos. Some people prefer to not to eat meat whilst others do. Some people believe that safe sex is important with regards the swinging lifestyle, whilst others take chances. The bottom line is that currently we are all FREE to make our OWN choices. If government takes free choice away from us then democracy fails and we start living under a dictatorship. We wonder how long it will be before we are all forced to get micro chipped ? Look at the weak food labeling laws in Australia - Government controlled. Think of the furore with regards those contaminated berries from China..... Why do manufacturers not come clean and divulge all the ingredients (including origin) that are to be found in their products ? What do they have to hide and why does Government not tighten up the laws ? Surely we have the right to know what is in the food that we are eating? Now some will say that we have the choice as to whether or not we want to eat that food - and that if we are unsure of, or dislike the ingredients, then no one is forcing us to eat that food. What about the ingredients in medication, vaccinations etc ? There have been plenty reports of contaminated medication causing illness. Now, if one was unsure about the ingredients, safety and origin of a medication, one could choose not to take it right ? And that would be ones choice and constitutional right ? Now imagine that Government changes the laws and starts forcing everyone to take the medicines that they dish out ? Do we really want to end up there ? Again, our kids have been vaccinated and so we are not tree hugging , vegan greenies :) We just like to be well informed about what is in the food we eat, and the medication that is dished out to us. Years ago Thalidomide was such a safe, wonderful drug .... until they did more research. There are thousands of lawsuits currently before the Vaccine Damages Court (set up to compensate people for vaccine damage). There are dozens of other courts handling damages lawsuits as a result of reactions to medication. What we are getting at is that often medication/chemicals that were considered safe for us, are found to be harmful, after further tests and lab studies (Thalidomide is but one example - there are plenty more drugs/medications that have been banned and withdrawn following further studies) Big Pharma = big money and unfortunately, money tends to corrupt many a politician .... Its good though, that we are still able to debate in a free and open manner, on sites such as RHP, where our comments and views are not censored and or deleted.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'CapeDiem' People that do not want to vaccinate should be given that option. There should be special schools solely available for the children of parents who are against vaccination, thereby protecting vaccinated children who can attend normal schools. This way anti-vaccinators will not be burdened by the immorality of relying on the herd immunity that exists in normal schools to prove their anti-vaccination argument. If the risk of vaccinations truly exceeds the risk from the diseases then they cannot argue that their children will be less safe in these unvaccinated schools. If they are right their children will be safe. If they are wrong then they will learn the error of their ways as their children are killed and maimed by ancient preventable diseases. If they are right their children will thrive and promulgate their argument. If they are wrong they will cease breeding. If they are wrong, not only may their own kids be killed, others may too. That is the whole point.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Jason_Leslie' Some people smoke, others do drugs. Some men are circumcised and others are not. Some people have tattoos whilst others dislike tattoos. Some people prefer to not to eat meat whilst others do. Some people believe that safe sex is important with regards the swinging lifestyle, whilst others take chances. The bottom line is that currently we are all FREE to make our OWN choices. People who participate in any of your examples don't risk the life of others. Oh wait, smokers do, which is why smoking in public places is banned. And should anyone forego condoms with you without your consent or knowledge, you can report them for sexual assault. Really Jason, this is not about some people liking something that others don't, it's about public health and safety. I think your starting to grasp at straws here. Tattoos? Really?
-
DynamicCouple36
11 years ago
Quoting 'Meander' If they are wrong, not only may their own kids be killed, others may too. That is the whole point.Meander, there is no proof that the unvaccinated have caused any deaths nor that the unvaccinated have spread any diseases - re the latest Measles saga. Its been proven that vaccinated adults may actually not be immune at all (as vaccinations typically only work for 10-13 years) and so it may very well be these vaccinated adults that also spread measles ... so why blame it all on unvaccinated kids ? Witch Hunt ? Really Jason, this is not about some people liking something that others don't, it's about public health and safety.I think your starting to grasp at straws here. Tattoos? Really? No actually Meander, this is about freedom of choice and one being responsible for ones own health, and what one puts in ones own body . Take away that choice and you end up with a police and or nanny state, where people are forced to take medication against their will. We all have our likes / dislikes and opinions ... thank god for that as if not then we would all be like a herd of sheep would we not ? Also thank god that we have not yet got to the stage where we are forced to do things against our will - think of abortion - women have the right to choose do they not ? Can you imagine that a law is passed that we are all only allowed to have 1 child (as in the case of China as its over populated) here in Australia and that if you fall pregnant with a 2nd child then the state will grab you, and force you to undergo an abortion - just for the good of the many ? And then after said abortion sterilise you? One thing for sure, is that vaccinations are an emotive subject - and that they certainly divide people, just as discussions on circumcision, tattoos, beards etc (on here) stir up so many emotions, differences of opinion and arguments. Lets just agree to disagree should we ?
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Is a pre curser to cervical cancer, not serious ? I beg to differ. What bothers me is I think you knew that.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Jason_Leslie' Its not as if HpV is as serious as Polio & Smallpox - hardly life threatening. Just where does one draw the line ? The next thing we will all be forced to also have flu shots ..... 1) HPV causes about 70% of cervical cancer, and can also cause cancer of the pharynx, vulva, vagina, penis, and anus. So yes, it can not only be life-threatening, it has in many cases been life-ending. 2) Nobody is actually 'forcing' you to vaccinate, it's hyperbole to say that. You are still able to exercise your choice not to vaccinate, but will forgo a financial government subsidy by doing so. I am still on the fence about the measure, mainly because I know anti-vaxxers will claim that it's more 'proof'of a massive worldwide conspiracy, but it certainly doesn't amount to 'forced' vaccination.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Why would we agree to disagree? Isn't a forum a place to debate? I'm bowing out here though, you've absolutely lost me by dragging the one-child policy into it. To me you're sounding like you're trying to prove the sky is blue by saying apples are green, sugar is sweet and fire is warm. That's just my opinion though.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
According the MacQuarie dictionary and my understanding you are indeed ranting, as is your right.In WA local government has been saddled with the responsibilty of administering public health vaccination. I can not comment on their enthusiasm for promoting vaccination as a believer I had my umpteenth fluvax today.Major public health issues are entirely forseeable, just how devastating they might be is not that forseeable. If/when this happens it's likely to be from an unexpected angle, if you are religious this will be your cue to bend the knee.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Jason_Leslie' Look at the weak food labeling laws in Australia - Government controlled. Think of the furore with regards those contaminated berries from China..... Why do manufacturers not come clean and divulge all the ingredients (including origin) that are to be found in their products ? What do they have to hide and why does Government not tighten up the laws ? Surely we have the right to know what is in the food that we are eating? Now some will say that we have the choice as to whether or not we want to eat that food - and that if we are unsure of, or dislike the ingredients, then no one is forcing us to eat that food. What about the ingredients in medication, vaccinations etc ? There have been plenty reports of contaminated medication causing illness. Now, if one was unsure about the ingredients, safety and origin of a medication, one could choose not to take it right ? And that would be ones choice and constitutional right ? Now imagine that Government changes the laws and starts forcing everyone to take the medicines that they dish out ? Do we really want to end up there ? ... Its good though, that we are still able to debate in a free and open manner, on sites such as RHP, where our comments and views are not censored and or deleted. was that last one delivered ironically? ;) ingredients in medication? of course you can get that information. But the point about contamination makes no sense - you don't know if there is a contamination in any product. If peanuts fell into my "NoNuts -Allergy Sensitive" muesli while at the factory, there wouldn't be peanuts listed on the sidebar. If you wanted full history of components then even an apple would have a phone book sized info sheet. However, I would take your point as valid there if you talked about the 'filler' in tablets or capsules - as I don't think this is as clearly listed on the packets and can cause problems for certain people with obscure reactions e.g. alpha-gal allergy (red meat allergy) "It has been proven that vaccinated adults may not be immune" - hardly a revelation, it has been stated multiple times in here, and even the vaccination ppl say it isn't 100% effective.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
But I don't believe in being forced to do so. It's up to the individual....or in the case we speaking of .....in the hands of the parents. In a way I think we are only so late back because we feel so safe....and I think we are.....most of the diseases we are talking about are not big issues anymore, in our country. BUT.......should the government forces us to do something then it is for all of us...............no excuse for any religious reasons or anything else. When all have to do it.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Having compiled reports for the Coroner involving kids, it is extremely upsetting for medical staff and emergency personnel to come to terms with a death that could have been avoided/prevented. I say could as nothing is 100%. Is the OCP 100%? But hundreds of thousands of women take it. Could immunisation prevented a senseless death? Or a permanent disability? There is no balance of probability. Immunisation out weighs the risks. I believe in immunisation and agree with the governments stand on this. I also see the side of those who disagree with immunisation. And for those who disagree, that's ok but please keep your distance from my kids and to those kids who have been immunised.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
This is a top-notch idea! I intensely dislike Tony Abbott, but good policy is good policy. The spread of this anti-vaccination rubbish is a blight on the population and has lead to things such as the measles outbreaks in the US, as well as some here. Herd Immunity is damaged by the ill-informed decisions of those who object to vaccinations. The tried and true vaccines such as MMR and tetanus are far less likely to have ANY adverse effect than contraction of the condition is likely to impart. The flu vaccine is still a little touch and go, with cases of Charcot-Marie-Tooth syndrome POSSIBLY being associated w certain brands or batches of the vaccine, and its efficacy has been tenuous in the general population, it is only associated w general accepted efficacy in at-risk populations such as infants and nursing home residents. Some points:1. If children who are allergic to peanuts are a cause for every other child to not be able to bring peanut butter to school, why should non-vaccinated children be allowed to mingle with the vaccinated children, thus lowering general herd-immunity? (If you are going to say "your kids are vaccinated, they shouldn't get sick if my unvaccinated child is near them" go on Wikipedia and search Herd Immunity, so you ACTUALLY know what you are talking about); 2. AUTISM IS NOT LINKED TO VACCINATION IN *ANY* WAY; and 3. This is *NOT* taking away your right to choose whether or not to vaccinate your child, the choice is do you want $15,000, or do you want to have an unvaccinated child? Children who get sick due to their parents ignoring CONCLUSIVE empirical evidence are going to cost their parents more than $15,000 if they should develop complications of Rubella, as well as incurring costs to the health care system at large, possibly by causing an outbreak affecting other children.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
the government is not focussed on looking after the well-being of the citizens, they just want to control us. once upon a time there were people that said smoking was safe....pharmaceutical drugs....genetically modified food....vaccines Just because they say so doesn't mean that it is. the weight of evidence is on the pro side, but is that because anything remotely anti gets suppressed? The more the government gets involved in this the more uneasy I get about this subject.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
That is what bothers me about the lunatic fringe and the deluge of mis-information. Legitimate concerns are swept up in the hysteria and tarred with the same brush. Although one would hope sound scientific evidence would be acted upon.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
let the folks who disbelieve decades of proven science die out....that's the knee jerk reaction. Anti-vccers, a new category for the Darwin awards. But the problem is that this diseased conspiracy belief impacts children, and they have no recourse, no defence for the craziness of their parents. How agonising, how helpless it must be to suffer and die because some parent irrationally believes that vaccines are bad. Some people try to couch this as a case of expression of individual liberty, but that freedom stops at the borders of your inflicting harm on someone else. That applies to children especially. So it is good that the state steps in to protect the children.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Immunisation is not about your life. It is about the lives of your children and the other children they come into contact with. Why would anyone ever object to eliminating a possible cause of death? It is a no-brainer really but, as with most other signs of progress, there will always be someone who opposes the idea, merely for the sake of objecting.
Boards
-
Hot Topics
Topics: 15120 Comments: 88159
-
Girls Ask
Topics: 1417 Comments: 10234
-
Guys Ask
Topics: 2520 Comments: 11666
-
Couples' Corner
Topics: 2506 Comments: 9766
-
Swingers Lifestyle
Topics: 1006 Comments: 5245
-
Fetish & Fantasy
Topics: 1303 Comments: 5783
-
Hot Travel
Topics: 782 Comments: 1992
-
LGBT
Topics: 170 Comments: 867
Forum help
-
Something related with that
-
Going somewhere & want to hook up?
-
Hasn't that topic been posted before?
RHP's popular dating tool
-
Where the heck did that topic go?
Discover what RHP is doing offline
-
RHP member's RL secrets
reply
like
Share