Anybody on here with a legit reason this law shouldn't be passed Nationwide?
Anybody on here with a legit reason this law shouldn't be passed Nationwide?
It's crazy that we have become so in favor of individuals making their own choices about their lives that we cannot even recognize public health threats when we see them. What right do individuals have to expose other people's children to a deadly disease because they believe reports of a faked study from the 1990s? And requiring vaccination only for public school admission is inadequate, because in many parts of the country, like the south, many children are placed in private schools or home schooled.
Vaccines are dangerous.
Blah Blah Blah wrote:
Vaccines are dangerous.
but the diseases are dangerouser
Blah Blah Blah wrote:
Vaccines are dangerous.
So is Polio
Based on what?
Blah Blah Blah wrote:
Vaccines are dangerous.
Junk Science wrote:
Based on what?
Blah Blah Blah wrote:Vaccines are dangerous.
According to the judges in the Vaccine Court. Those injured by vaccines have received $3 billion in compensation.
The situation is more complicated than just saying "everyone should be vaccinated". You have to weigh the potential risk of each vaccine against the reward to the child and society.
For example, doctors tried to vaccinate each of my 3 children for Hep B immediately after birth. Hep B is an STD / blood born illness. My children are not going to be sexually active anytime soon and their mother has tested negative for Hep B throughout her pregnancy. There is absolutely no benefit to having that vaccine as a 7 lb infant since there was a 0% chance of our kids getting Hep B. The additives to vaccines are usually an unsavory list of metals and toxins, but are considered safe in such low doses. Just like I refuse dental x-rays since my teeth are in perfect shape, I refused unnecessary vaccines for my kids.
The same may be asked of non-life threatening diseases such as chicken pox. The lines blur between public health and social order when the focus on chicken pox vaccination is to ensure kids go to school 180 days each year instead of 175 days one year.
The number of vaccinations given to children has quadrupled since the people reading this board were children. Most of you probably received the 10 important ones when you were kids. Now the vaccination schedules have 30 - 40 vaccines within the same time period, many of which are combined.
All that being said, I vaccinated my children on a normal schedule for all the life-threatening or debilitating diseases such as Mumps and Tetanus, so don't go thinking I am some crazy anti-vaxer. I understand and expect parents and society to value the herd immunity we have cultivated in the States. At the end of the day, it comes down to parents using their brain.
I hope that was able to articulate why some intelligent parents may be cautious of SOME vaccines and be hesitant to forced health choices.
If such a thing as individual differences exist, then why do we ask the same vaccine to work the same for 330 million people?
Why shouldn't parents ask their health provider for a vaccine that is designed for the individual differences of their child?
At the minimum would not it be progressive if there was at least a vaccine for each distinct blood type (O, O+, A+, AB, etc)?
As a parent, I want to have choices for my child; and the more choices I have the better I will feel.
sloinnorcal wrote:
At the minimum would not it be progressive if there was at least a vaccine for each distinct blood type (O, O+, A+, AB, etc)?
Yeah, and separate vaccines for kids with brown eyes vs. kids with blue eyes.
If you don't want your children susceptible to diseases, vaccinate them. Problem solved, now they won't catch what about one in a million of the non vaccinated kids. You are aware that one of the mandatory vaccinations is for a disease they didn't start vaccinating for until the 90s right? It's amazing our society survived thousands of years without that "necessary" vaccination.
Alcohol consumption is a far greater risk than non vaccination. Why not refuse to let people into school if their parents drink? Shoot, bad driving is a greater risk. Maybe no kid whose parents have a moving violation should be allowed in school. What about diabetes and obesity? If a kid brings a sugary snack to school, he could share it with your child, starting them on their way to an early grave. Let's ban everyone from school who eats candy.
Out of control wrote:
If you don't want your children susceptible to diseases, vaccinate them. Problem solved, now they won't catch what about one in a million of the non vaccinated kids. You are aware that one of the mandatory vaccinations is for a disease they didn't start vaccinating for until the 90s right? It's amazing our society survived thousands of years without that "necessary" vaccination.
Alcohol consumption is a far greater risk than non vaccination. Why not refuse to let people into school if their parents drink? Shoot, bad driving is a greater risk. Maybe no kid whose parents have a moving violation should be allowed in school. What about diabetes and obesity? If a kid brings a sugary snack to school, he could share it with your child, starting them on their way to an early grave. Let's ban everyone from school who eats candy.
The problem is that when your unvaccinated kid catches a disease that has otherwise been nearly eradicated in the developed world, they create the potential for the virus to mutate into a form that the current vaccination does not protect against. I'm sorry you missed the day of high school biology class where this was discussed.
I'm sorry you fell asleep while you were in biology class, but that is not how it works. Overuse of antibiotics is one of the strongest drivers of mutating germs, not lack of vaccination. If your argument were the case, we would have many new virulent strains of polio resistant to the polio vaccine you were given as a kid 30 years ago. Also, there is now strong evidence that points towards vaccine induced pathogen mutation:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2405901/here's your problem wrote:
I'm sorry you fell asleep while you were in biology class, but that is not how it works. Overuse of antibiotics is one of the strongest drivers of mutating germs, not lack of vaccination. If your argument were the case, we would have many new virulent strains of polio resistant to the polio vaccine you were given as a kid 30 years ago. Also, there is now strong evidence that points towards vaccine induced pathogen mutation:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2405901/
Antibiotics don't have anything to do with viral infections, which is what this thread is discussing. And to say that non-vaccination creates the risk of mutation does not imply that a specific disease necessarily would have mutated.
more needless differentiation wrote:
Yeah, and separate vaccines for kids with brown eyes vs. kids with blue eyes.
Why not? A whole new industry right there. 1000s of jobs.
Is not the beauty of diversity that there is infinite differentiation?
here's the problem wrote:
The problem is that when your unvaccinated kid catches a disease that has otherwise been nearly eradicated in the developed world, they create the potential for the virus to mutate into a form that the current vaccination does not protect against. I'm sorry you missed the day of high school biology class where this was discussed.
I absolutely promise you that was not taught in my Biology class. If your teacher taught you that, he or she should be fired immediately. Reread what you wrote. Your stance is, a virus is perfectly natural until people become vaccinated against it at which time anyone else catching it has it mutate into a different strain (please break this down on a molecular level) and then it is able to bypass vaccinated defenses. So by your logic, vaccinating causes viruses that are immune to vaccination. (A pretty strong argument against vaccination if not so outlandish.) Also by your logic, the first case of any disease that comes in from another country will wipe out our entire population since they have a strain our vaccination does not defend against.
For the record, I am all for vaccinating my own kids for certain things (polio, mmr). I just recognize that it is a far from perfect system and people should have the right to choose. There are also vaccinations which I know are worthless (shingles, really?) and am frightened by a government that forces indiscriminate vaccination policies and a society that blindly accepts them.
here's your problem wrote:
I'm sorry you fell asleep while you were in biology class, but that is not how it works. Overuse of antibiotics is one of the strongest drivers of mutating germs, not lack of vaccination. If your argument were the case, we would have many new virulent strains of polio resistant to the polio vaccine you were given as a kid 30 years ago. Also, there is now strong evidence that points towards vaccine induced pathogen mutation:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2405901/
Restated for emphasis.
Two things not mentioned:
1. There is no penalty to vaccine manufacturers for making a "bad" vaccine.
2. Vaccines are not tested on children, yet that is who receives them. And the series are administered very young.
3. Polio is the "go to" disease to shame anyone doubting vaccines, but the reality is most of the diseases are an inconvenience, not life altering.
The public is supposed to just accept that there are no risks with vaccines. The medical industry has a long history of bad therapies and this time it is supposed to be different.
The solution in our house was to wait until the child was much older, and do each vaccine separately over several weeks. We were in and out of the office each time and paid cash for the "visits." School started and we were public health compliant in a way we viewed as lower risk. Even this plan had critics for reasons I don't understand.
slippery slope.
how about some laws mandating you can only eat healthy foods mandated by the food industry. If you don't comply, you lose your health coverage.
The vaccine and pro-vaccine people are trying to shut down research on them too:
Why is there so much aluminum in these vaccines? What is the effect of this aluminum? Forget autism, what about the aluminum alzheimer link? Maybe that needs studied? Old people are injected with the most vaccines without their true consent. Maybe that is causing the alzheimer epidemic?
So why can't they research side effects? Academic freedom is paramount and you should have a choice what you put into yourself.
Mandatory vaccinations is nuts in a democratic society not governed by the pharma industry.
Since the pox vaccination chicken pox deaths have dropped from over 100 per year to less than 15. It's not as benign as you make it out to be. 100 is a small number but when it's your kid it matters. We had a kid die when I was a 2nd grader. It's heartbreaking.
pox wrote:
Since the pox vaccination chicken pox deaths have dropped from over 100 per year to less than 15. It's not as benign as you make it out to be. 100 is a small number but when it's your kid it matters. We had a kid die when I was a 2nd grader. It's heartbreaking.
Here's a problem with the rhetoric going around. When someone dies from a vaccination, the doctors say that anything could have caused the death, it wasn't necessarily the vaccine. Yet when a child dies of meningitis as a complication of chicken pox due to compromised immunity, it was because they didn't get vaccinated. You have to decide. Count all the vaccination deaths or don't count every time a kid dies as being caused by chicken pox, measles etc.