Mandatory Vaccinations

My kids not going to catch "fat" from the kid next to him. It's not about the right to choose what's healthy for your own child. It's a social responsibility.

Out of control wrote:

Mumpy wrote:

Basically after 3 pages of rambling the science still supports immunizing children.

And the science supports not eating refined foods or sugars. Do you agree any kid who eats refined foods or sugar should be denied an education?

The science does not support non immunized children being any greater risk to their classmates than foreign visitors at, oh let's say...Disneyland are.

If the kid next to your kid shares half of his copious amounts of sugar, your kid could develop diabetes and obesity after developing an addiction (either physical or emotional) to sugar that he will then carry forth in his own life.There is a higher chance of this happening than your non child catching a disease almost no one has after being immunized for it.

Mumpy wrote:

My kids not going to catch "fat" from the kid next to him. It's not about the right to choose what's healthy for your own child. It's a social responsibility.

Out of control wrote:

And the science supports not eating refined foods or sugars. Do you agree any kid who eats refined foods or sugar should be denied an education?

The science does not support non immunized children being any greater risk to their classmates than foreign visitors at, oh let's say...Disneyland are.

Out of control wrote:

If the kid next to your kid shares half of his copious amounts of sugar, your kid could develop diabetes and obesity after developing an addiction (either physical or emotional) to sugar that he will then carry forth in his own life.

There is a higher chance of this happening than your non child catching a disease almost no one has after being immunized for it.

Not even close. Not immunizing kids and throwing them into the social mix is the same as second hand smoke.

Mumpy wrote:

My kids not going to catch "fat" from the kid next to him. It's not about the right to choose what's healthy for your own child. It's a social responsibility.

Not even close. Not immunizing kids and throwing them into the social mix is the same as second hand smoke.

Out of control wrote:

If the kid next to your kid shares half of his copious amounts of sugar, your kid could develop diabetes and obesity after developing an addiction (either physical or emotional) to sugar that he will then carry forth in his own life.

There is a higher chance of this happening than your non child catching a disease almost no one has after being immunized for it.

No way. Eating a sugary snack during school lunch is not going to cause type 2 diabetes if the rest of his diet is healthy. It's not ideal, but it's not going to cause diabetes. Heck, I lived on fast food and sugar sodas from college through my 20's and never gained weight. Now that I'm in my 40's I've got to start being more careful.

Moreover, the degree of risk of catching a disease from an unvaccinated kid is entirely dependent on the current degree of herd immunity in the general population. And there are threshold effects with herd immunity.

As the final ironic and selfish twist, there are always spikes in vaccinations after an outbreak of TB or measles. What that tells me is that the unvaccinated kids are simply free-riding on society's herd immunity.

You're not exactly impressing with your rationality here. What exactly do AIDS and Ebola have to do with vaccination?

Jefe, immune compromised kids should probably lead a sheltered life, but much more because of unvaccinated kids than of any theoretical risk from a vaccinated person. The key, however, is that we hardly ever get any people catching the stuff people are vaccinated against, except when there are significant pockets of non-vaccinators.

People can be influenced by, say, easy, cheap availability of sugary food, without any physical causation. The latter is the kind of thing we are talking about. You don't catch yellow fever because your neighbor tells you that it is a tasty disease.

Jefe in the CO wrote:

I'm glad to see more people putting vaccinations under the spotlight to see if it stands up to the rigors of science. Because, where we are today, the science is not yet finished and it may be awhile before science even gets to see the light of day if the vaxers have any say in the matter.

I love when people post statements like this. "The science isn't finished!" Science is never truly finished, but the overwhelming consensus amongst scientists, researchers, and doctors is that vaccines are effective and safe.

You will never see anyone on the pro-vaccine side say that vaccinations do not have risks. However, the risk of negative side effects from vaccinating your child is much, much smaller than the risks of non-vaccination. Tens of thousands of studies prove this. It's a lot like global warming. To the vast majority of those who study this on a daily basis, there's no debate because the data is so blindingly obvious.

People today have no concept of life before vaccinations.

Perhaps there was a reason they felt the Hep B vaccination was necessary.They may have come into contact with someone at the hospital who had Hep B. Perhaps a staff member or physician came into contact with Hep B and unfortunately their vaccination had lapsed.There's a number of reasons your children may have been single out for a Hep B vaccination and I don't think you should simply rely on your opinion when determining whether to vaccinate your children for something.

No, it wouldn't. Just like an immunized child being exposed to a non immunized child won't cause measles. Great job picking that up!However, one kid has probably the same likelihood of becoming addicted to sugary snacks and abandoning a healthy lifestyle from exposure to a twinkie at school as he does from picking up measles from exposure to a non immunized child. (Just a little help here: not all non-immunized children have measles. In fact, pretty much none of them do!) The initial exposure to measles comes from outside of schools in 99% of cases so choosing schools as your battle ground is stupid. And the exemption for kids with immune deficiencies is ridiculous too. They aren't any less likely to pass diseases.

Typical runner or sockpuppet wrote:

No way. Eating a sugary snack during school lunch is not going to cause type 2 diabetes if the rest of his diet is healthy. It's not ideal, but it's not going to cause diabetes. Heck, I lived on fast food and sugar sodas from college through my 20's and never gained weight. Now that I'm in my 40's I've got to start being more careful.

Moreover, the degree of risk of catching a disease from an unvaccinated kid is entirely dependent on the current degree of herd immunity in the general population. And there are threshold effects with herd immunity.

As the final ironic and selfish twist, there are always spikes in vaccinations after an outbreak of TB or measles. What that tells me is that the unvaccinated kids are simply free-riding on society's herd immunity.

jjjjjjj wrote:

You're not exactly impressing with your rationality here. What exactly do AIDS and Ebola have to do with vaccination?

Go back and read the whole thing. Maybe ask a friend who has taken a logic class to help you out. It's all explained within the context of the post. Read first...then respond!

jjjjjjj wrote:

You're not exactly impressing with your rationality here. What exactly do AIDS and Ebola have to do with vaccination?

you know what, never mind; you'll never figure it out on your own.

Your premise: People who expose risk exposure to a disease pretty much nobody has are responsible for not only their own exposure but then for exposing others to it as well through them.

My retort.

People pulled the same panic with Aids. They wanted "at risk" groups identified and quarantined so the rest of the population wouldn't catch it after being exposed to a "high risk" person.

People pulled the same panic with Ebola. Wanting to quarantine anyone coming off a plane from Africa until they were tested so that they didn't kill off every American upon getting into the cities.

In general, the panic police have been laughed down enough so that we didn't start taking away people's rights because they had a one in a billion chance of - literally - of infecting the world.

In this case, in California, sensibility lost. A spread that started in Disneyland where no one is screened and is one of the most international spots in the world somehow got blamed on a handful of schoolchildren and their parents statewide. So incredibly stupid. If we let foreigners come to The States without immunization records, if California lets in people from other states without immunization records, those are far greater dangers than children.

And I still can't believe people who get their kids immunized are afraid of kids who don't If immunization works, you won't get the disease! Don't talk to me about babies because they're not in the schools that these kids are being banned from. It is just bereft of any iota of rational thought.

Panic bullies scare me but incredibly stupid panic bullies scare me so much more,

That's it. I'm done. I'm going out into the incredibly dangerous world of possibly unvaccinated children. Needless to say my chances of survival are slim to none. (or 99.99%, but according to you that's reckless abandon, right?)

You smart. Unless that's a joke, your a complete idiot. The Hep B vaccine is given to all children within minutes of being born unless you refuse. You clearly have no idea how the Hep B virus is spread as there is no way a baby is going to get it from a Healthcare worker. Regardless of what side of the fence your on, what you said is utterly ridiculous.

The overwhelming consensus amongst real scientists is that vaccines are extremely dangerous and have killed millions, if not billions of people.

Only big pharma psuedo science tries to promote that their highly toxic drugs are safe.

Fair count wrote:

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.

Sorry if this has already been addressed, but I can't let this one go.

"In the early 1990s, an average of 4 million people got chickenpox, 10,500 to 13,000 were hospitalized (range, 8,000 to 18,000), and 100 to 150 died each year. Most of the severe complications and deaths from chickenpox occurred in people who were previously healthy. [NB: NOT those with "compromised immunity."] Each year, more than 3.5 million cases of varicella, 9,000 hospitalizations, and 100 deaths are prevented by varicella vaccination in the United States."

--That's from the CDC:

Oh, wait--is the CDC part of the worldwide conspiracy to force you to act like an adult member of society, rather than like an only child?

________________________________________________________________________

Here's why I think John Q. Public feels it's okay to weigh in with uneducated opinions on some sciences, but not all:

A lot of people never took physics (or advanced math), not even in high school; but they've seen pictures of physics equations (e.g.

), and they know that it's beyond them. So they hold off on that, or at least restrict themselves to philosophical (rather than scientific) objections to things like big bang theory.

[Similarly, people don't have much to say about chemistry: many took it in high school, but not too many in college--and, again, people can see that it's beyond their ken:

]

But biology, on the other hand? Well, shoot, almost everybody took it in high school, and lots took it in college (and some even got high grades). They've seen plants and animals all their lives, and even looked through microscopes; so regardless of the *actual* complexity of the topics, they feel entitled to "contrarian" positions on things like evolution, and the safety/efficacy of vaccines (especially because almost everyone's had experience with those ow-y shots).

Hint for those uneducated in the requisite fields: your opinions of Schroedinger's Equation (physics) and evolutionary theory (biology) do NOT merit respect, and neither do your opinions about vaccinations. Instead of scouring the Internet, looking for the occasional scientist who thinks vaccinations are a negative, how about taking a few minutes to find abstracts of actual research papers, and seeing what they have to say?

One more time! wrote:

looking for the occasional scientist who thinks vaccinations are a negative

It takes bravery to be that occasional scientist, as you risk the powers that be determining that you having committed "suicide," by a gunshot to the chest, after a local fisherman pulls your body from the river.