Indianapolis Schools kick out 1,622 kids without vaccines

[rambone]

GOOD LORD! Here we go again with the Bill Gates bashing and the vaccine conspiracies.

LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

DEJA VU

Chill out, Bill Jr. This thread is about Indiana schools & bulls**t laws.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

How about all the people who go get the flu vaccine and then spend the next 2 weeks with the worst flu of their lives?

+1


I remember for years I was told to get those flu shots, and everytime I was spitting up peices of my lungs for half a year afterwards, and then in my last year I outright refused all the shots, and was as healthy as could be while my fellows were heading to the emergency room.

Our daughter has zero vax and is healthy, while her cousins have recieved everything in the book are always getting sick.


As for the "vax conspiracy" fella, read up on it, the CDC even readily admits that vax are only effective against that strain, and wont protect you against another, rending them useless, disgusting part is what is put in those vax, wifey looked up all that stuff and it's disgusting.

But hey, Big Pharmacitical is looking out for you, riiiiiiight

 

[Timjoebillybob]

As to chicken pox... why? I WANT my children to contract chicken pox! Lifelong immunity to varicella is well worth the risk of a few pox marks.

The problem with the chicken pox vax is that for the rest of your childs life they will be REQUIRED to get the booster for it... every tens years. Till they die. DO you know what happens to an adult who gets chicken pox for the first time? Shingles is nothign to laugh about. It can KILL.

Actually shingles is caused by having chicken pox before. If as an adult you get the varicella virus without having chicken pox before you'll get chicken pox. Shingles is a re-emergent form of the disease. You can't have it without having chicken pox before. I've known several people who have had chicken pox as a child and later had shingles. Among them an aunt of mine, my sons ex-gf and my at the time 3 yr old daughter Although to be fair my daughter had chicken pox at about 1-2 mo old, she caught it from her brother and had some immunity passed down and only had literally 2 or 3 pox.

ETA my daughter also had the chicken pox vaccine, the DR was worried that because of her very mild case originally that she may not have received full immunity from it. So she was given the vaccine.

 

[DagerOne]

My kids (4.5 and 6 y/o) both got their second chicken pox vaccines this morning. We'd hoped they'd simply get chicken pox and wouldn't need the vaccine, but damn it...no other kids get chicken pox any more for us to send our kids over there to play and contract it the old fashioned way. Seriously. We tried and failed to actively infect our kids with chicken pox.

 

[BigMatt]

My aunt was screwed up by a DPT vaccine when she was a baby. She is 45 now and has the mental capacity of a 5 year old.

 

[rambone]

Among them an aunt of mine, my sons ex-gf and my at the time 3 yr old daughter Although to be fair my daughter had chicken pox at about 1-2 mo old, she caught it from her brother and had some immunity passed down and only had literally 2 or 3 pox.

ETA my daughter also had the chicken pox vaccine, the DR was worried that because of her very mild case originally that she may not have received full immunity from it. So she was given the vaccine.

Vaccines failed to provide immunity for you too? This must not be such an isolated phenomenon.

My kids (4.5 and 6 y/o) both got their second chicken pox vaccines this morning. We'd hoped they'd simply get chicken pox and wouldn't need the vaccine, but damn it...no other kids get chicken pox any more for us to send our kids over there to play and contract it the old fashioned way. Seriously. We tried and failed to actively infect our kids with chicken pox.

This is an honest question: If you would like your kids to have chicken pox, then why expose them to the risks associated with the vaccine? Just let them get the chicken pox whenever they encounter it. Just wondering.

My aunt was screwed up by a DPT vaccine when she was a baby. She is 45 now and has the mental capacity of a 5 year old.

That is really sad.

 

[88GT]

Thanks for the jabs.

You only took it that way because you wanted to. But if it pleased you, you're quite welcome.

As for downplaying the toxins that exist in vaccines, let me reiterate the following list: mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, carbolic acid, acetone, glycerin, and more!

You need a refresher course in reading comprehension. Not only did I not downplay the additives, I specifically addressed the fact that those are the likely culprits in the majority of adverse reactions to the vaxes.

Vaccines do not deserve the full-blown credit they receive for elimination of every modern disease. Diseases eventually die out on their own. This is why we don't have the Black Plague and Leprosy in America; it didn't die out because of vaccines. The disease ran its course and is, for all intents and purposes, gone. With modern sanitation, running water, anti-bacterial soaps, waste management, hospital cleanliness and and understanding of how germs spread; What disease stands a chance?? Besides some kind of Hollywood airborne plague, its just not going to happen.

What a total crock. Those diseases are still very much around. They simply fail to spread and infect at historical rates BECAUSE of the improvements in sanitation, etc. that were known methods of transmission.

And vaxes are the main reason that infectious diseases are reduced to near wiped-out levels. Or do you think it's just a weird case of coincidence that the implementation of widespread vaxing correlated to the decreased incidence of infection rates?

And please get off the red herring argument that vaxes wiped out diseases. Nobody is claiming that (or nobody should be claiming that). They are not wiped out. Their incidence is reduced to near zero levels, but only a fool would claim that's equivalent to saying the diseases are wiped out. You like to claim it is, erroneously, so you can come back and point to the rare case as proof that it is not. That is one of the most intellectually dishonest discussion techniques. And it shows a lack of strength in your argument if you must resort to its usage.

I snipped your graphs to save space, but I would be curious to know if you acknowledge the limitation of the time frame and the fact that diseases incidence rates are known to cycle. When the infectious agent becomes too good at infecting and destroying the host, it reduces the population of carriers and reduces its own population and therefore its long-term survivability chances. So infection rates go down. Time passes and "new blood" is available for infecting, infection rates go back up. Of course, this model assumes a lack of external influences on infection rates. But nothing in what you presented has any bearing on the efficacy of vaxes or their role in keeping infection rates low for extended periods of time.

​

I support anybody's right to vaccinate, voluntarily, if they are fully-informed about the actual risks of the disease and of the injection. I also think parents deserve to see some long-term studies done on vaccines before they pump their kids full of them. Anybody who wants to take the middle-ground is at least thinking a little more than the folks who take the FDA-recommended route, getting literally hundreds of injections into your body with who-knows-what effects down the road.

And yet you preach and proselytize as if you're the only one qualified to make the decision or if someone doesn't come to the same conclusion, he must be of inferior intelligence.

I agree the full disclosure requirements for vaxing are rarely if ever met. But who the hell are you to tell people they can't have vaxes at all (because if you had your way, nobody would, at least that's what your rantings seem to imply) simply because vaxing doesn't meet your standard of disclosure/safety? You don't support the individual's right to choose unless it's the same choice you make. And you bemoaned my comment about the correlation between anti-vaxers and libtards. Do you see now why I said it? It's the same subjective standard being unfairly applied to everyone because YOU think it's the best standard.

Afraid your vaccinated kid is going to get sick from a wiped out disease?

Say what?

But it's not wiped out. And you know it. And the unvaxed children remain vehicles for the continuance of the virus. If you want to discuss the real issues with modern day vaxing standards, I think you have some legitimate points. This petulant child tantrum only casts a cloud of doubt on your argument.

Why are you afraid of unvaccinated kids? Do you have that little faith in vaccines? What is the point of getting the shots?

Because unvaxed kids are carriers for the disease. They are the means of keeping the disease alive and well. They are also contributing the selective pressure of mutation in theory by creating a bottleneck of genetic hosts. Which would put the vaxed kids at greater threat since the vaxes wouldn't necessarily cover the mutated version.

Somebody must think that way. These laws don't write themselves.

Didn't you just start this thread to point out that the laws don't require anybody to get vaxed. Which is it?

If the entire school is already vaccinated how can they catch such diseases?

So you wanna play the disingenuous discussion game too? Point #1: vaxes don't prevent all diseases 100% of the time in 100% of the vaxed individual to a level of 100% coverage. The math seems pretty obvious.

I think Rambone provided some pretty solid evidence that vaccines had little to do with the diseases going away. You should go back and read it, then if you disagree, provide some evidence to the contrary. I'd love to hear both sides if there is actual evidence to prove it.

Hardly. His graphs cover DEATH RATES, not infection rates. They aren't even addressing the discussion point about whether vaxes affect infection rates.

Let them Vaccinate the "herd" and leave your kids vacc' free, if "herd" vacc'ing works so well no one will be harmed by it.

Once again, intellectual dishonesty rears its ugly head. A perfect example of the all-or-nothing attitude I mentioned in my first post. You people can't seem to separate the science of vaxing and the perversion of the vaxes themselves for the secondary goals of saving money or vaxing more people. Additives to vaxes make them dangerous. Very few vaxes of pure infectious viral agents are going to come even close to the adverse reactions rates that are associated with the vax cocktails administered today.

If your argument could distinguish between that, you might avoid sounding like the lunatic fringe AND make some headway in getting some much needed changes made.

Mercola.com Search vaccines

Amish and Autism this is the most interesting and thought provoking argument for not getting vaccines there is. If you disagree then you are too close minded to get it at all.

Mercola is a borderline quack. I find him useful for keeping the one-sidedness of government backed "science" in check, but he's clearly got an agenda and it doesn't ring true.

Chalk that up as more evidence that vaccines are a scam. If I am going to put my body at risk of brain-damage and catastrophic nervous disruption I want to be positive I'm getting something that actually works. Clearly they will just give you a pat on the head and tell you that you are special when you inquire why vaccines don't actually work.

Okay, let's clear the air. Do you really have a problem with the science behind vaxing? That innoculating an individual with a known infectious agent will provide immunity. Or do you have a problem with the perversion of the vaxing process in an effort to expand its coverage/make it more cost-effective/etc?

VAXING IS NOT THE PROBLEM. POLLUTING THE VAX IS.

When the discussion starts to center around THAT point and not the "oh my gosh the sky is falling" attitude towards vaxing in general, we might actually make some strides in improving the outcomes while keeping the benefits.

 

[Lucas156]

Because unvaxed kids are carriers for the disease. They are the means of keeping the disease alive and well. They are also contributing the selective pressure of mutation in theory by creating a bottleneck of genetic hosts. Which would put the vaxed kids at greater threat since the vaxes wouldn't necessarily cover the mutated version.

Is this a theory or is it true? Are you a doctor?

So you wanna play the disingenuous discussion game too? Point #1: vaxes don't prevent all diseases 100% of the time in 100% of the vaxed individual to a level of 100% coverage. The math seems pretty obvious.

not playing any games. so do you support forced vaccinations?

 

[rambone]

88GT, what is your position on the schools kicking out students, and on Congress making laws coercing people to vaccinate?

 

[steveh_131]

And vaxes are the main reason that infectious diseases are reduced to near wiped-out levels. Or do you think it's just a weird case of coincidence that the implementation of widespread vaxing correlated to the decreased incidence of infection rates?

You've provided no evidence of a correlation between vaccinations and decreased infection rates. The statics that he provided simply shows a continuation in an already downward trend of fatalities after the introduction of vaccinations.

You don't support the individual's right to choose unless it's the same choice you make.

This is BS. He's protesting the fact that school systems are forcing parents to vaccinate their children or lose access to the public school that their taxes pay for. I don't remember him saying that vaccines should be banned or be made unavailable to those who choose to use them.

Because unvaxed kids are carriers for the disease. They are the means of keeping the disease alive and well. They are also contributing the selective pressure of mutation in theory by creating a bottleneck of genetic hosts. Which would put the vaxed kids at greater threat since the vaxes wouldn't necessarily cover the mutated version.

Source please?

Hardly. His graphs cover DEATH RATES, not infection rates. They aren't even addressing the discussion point about whether vaxes affect infection rates.

This is a valid point, but there is no denying that there is at least a correlation between death rates and infection rates. The numbers may be skewed, but there's no doubt that the infection rate must have been on a downward trend by the time vaccines were introduced, and I see no large dip in the incidence of fatalities when they were.

Okay, let's clear the air. Do you really have a problem with the science behind vaxing? That innoculating an individual with a known infectious agent will provide immunity. Or do you have a problem with the perversion of the vaxing process in an effort to expand its coverage/make it more cost-effective/etc?

VAXING IS NOT THE PROBLEM. POLLUTING THE VAX IS.

This I can possibly agree with. It boils the argument down to what really matters. However, I'd still like to see some solid evidence showing the efficacy of vaccinations in modern times.

 

[rambone]

You only took it that way because you wanted to. But if it pleased you, you're quite welcome.

I took it that way because I started the thread and I've been the most outspoken person on my side. And you said "there is a little truth and a lot of crap" to what was being said. Then you tried to associate vaccine critics with "libtards." I don't see this as an argument that stems from any political ideology. People of every belief system are being hurt by vaccines and bullied by their government.

You need a refresher course in reading comprehension. Not only did I not downplay the additives, I specifically addressed the fact that those are the likely culprits in the majority of adverse reactions to the vaxes.

It seemed to me you were downplaying the people who oppose those toxins more than anything, and explaining why those toxins must be in there.

It doesn't help that the majority of people who jump on the anti-vaxing bandwagon are granola-crunching liberal panty-waists who think anything not automatically in their body is a toxin.

And please get off the red herring argument that vaxes wiped out diseases. Nobody is claiming that (or nobody should be claiming that). They are not wiped out. Their incidence is reduced to near zero levels, but only a fool would claim that's equivalent to saying the diseases are wiped out. You like to claim it is, erroneously, so you can come back and point to the rare case as proof that it is not. That is one of the most intellectually dishonest discussion techniques. And it shows a lack of strength in your argument if you must resort to its usage.

I was responding to my intellectually honest opponent who said my disease ridden brats were going to infect his vaccinated kids with mutant viruses. How do you really respond to that?

I snipped your graphs to save space, but I would be curious to know if you acknowledge the limitation of the time frame and the fact that diseases incidence rates are known to cycle. When the infectious agent becomes too good at infecting and destroying the host, it reduces the population of carriers and reduces its own population and therefore its long-term survivability chances. So infection rates go down. Time passes and "new blood" is available for infecting, infection rates go back up. Of course, this model assumes a lack of external influences on infection rates.

I would be interested in seeing these models about the rise and fall of human disease. As you noted, external influences like all the sanitation advances are going to throw a monkey wrench in that theory.

But nothing in what you presented has any bearing on the efficacy of vaxes or their role in keeping infection rates low for extended periods of time.

I did mention vaccine inefficacy. I posted this article: Two-thirds of whooping cough cases were vaccinated

I don't think a lot of studies of the efficacy of vaccines has even been performed. If it has, then I would like to see the studies. Looking at a population and saying "See I told you so," is not proof. Has there been studies of controlled groups of vaccinated people being sneezed on by people sick with the flu? How about a brave bunch of people ready to test out their polio vaccine by being closely exposed to a bunch of polio carriers? Where are the studies?

Not only that, there have been multiple members posting stories about how the vaccine made them sick. So yeah, I have big questions about the efficacy of vaccines. And when a vaccinated person does get sick, the doctors just make excuses for their wonder-drug.

And yet you preach and proselytize as if you're the only one qualified to make the decision or if someone doesn't come to the same conclusion, he must be of inferior intelligence.

I'm not claiming superior intelligence. And I'm not qualified to make your health care decisions; If I were, I'd be in Congress making laws bossing you around. (Ha ha). No really, I am here to let people know what they are getting in those needles and how the government is turning into our nannies and how the schools are turning into vaccination clinics.

I am a strong critic of the over-zealous legislators, the lazy and coercive doctors, the pushy and dishonest school administrators, the complicit media, the brainwashed medical workers, the vaccine-injury excusers, the immoral pharmaceutical companies, the willfully uninformed parents, the jack-booted bullies who push for forced vaccinations, the frightened sheep that want my kids excluded from school, and the apologists for all this tyranny.

Did I forget anybody?

I agree the full disclosure requirements for vaxing are rarely if ever met. But who the hell are you to tell people they can't have vaxes at all (because if you had your way, nobody would, at least that's what your rantings seem to imply) simply because vaxing doesn't meet your standard of disclosure/safety? You don't support the individual's right to choose unless it's the same choice you make. And you bemoaned my comment about the correlation between anti-vaxers and libtards. Do you see now why I said it? It's the same subjective standard being unfairly applied to everyone because YOU think it's the best standard.

I never said you shouldn't be able to vaccinate. I absolutely oppose bans, on anything. Drugs, guns, Cuban cigars, fireworks, etc. I'm all for your choice, so just cool it. But I will do my darndest to expose vaccines for what they are. I'm not imposing my standards on you. Excuse me, I believe it is the pro-vaccine busy-bodies who are doing that.

If you really opposed people forcing choices on other people you would quit making excuses for pharm companies putting poisons in their shots, and say something about the BS that is being imposed on children through schools and government.

Because unvaxed kids are carriers for the disease. They are the means of keeping the disease alive and well. They are also contributing the selective pressure of mutation in theory by creating a bottleneck of genetic hosts. Which would put the vaxed kids at greater threat since the vaxes wouldn't necessarily cover the mutated version.

As someone else pointed out, diseases mutate in vaccinated people. If a virus can grow inside an "unvaccinated" host, then it has no need to mutate.

And until you show me a vaccinated person who never gets sick, I'm tired of being labeled as one of the "carriers." Vaccinated people, with their weakened immune systems, get sick just as much - or probably even more - than someone without all those neurotoxins in their body.

Didn't you just start this thread to point out that the laws don't require anybody to get vaxed. Which is it?

I started this thread to offend you. Just kidding. I started it to expose the tyranny growing in America (touchy subject I know). There are school vaccine exemptions, but they are loathed by people on the pro-vaccine side who wish to impose their way on me by force. There are places where vaccines are totally forced on people, like in the military. Forced vaccinations are a real threat to society, just like gun confiscation. If we don't educate people about what our government is doing, then it will keep creeping up on us until it is too late. So yeah, there are some really dangerous, anti-freedom, social-engineering tyrants writing the laws like these.

If your argument could distinguish between that, you might avoid sounding like the lunatic fringe AND make some headway in getting some much needed changes made.

In your view, what should change? All I am hearing is criticism for informing people of the law and the real dangers coming from these shots. Do you work for Eli Lily or something?

 

[rambone]

Very few vaxes of pure infectious viral agents are going to come even close to the adverse reactions rates that are associated with the vax cocktails administered today.

Okay, let's clear the air. Do you really have a problem with the science behind vaxing? That innoculating an individual with a known infectious agent will provide immunity. Or do you have a problem with the perversion of the vaxing process in an effort to expand its coverage/make it more cost-effective/etc?

Do I have a problem with the theory of vaccinating? I don't really know. I haven't seen the evidence proving that they really work. And I have heard many many stories of people who get diseases from the vaccines themselves. Their efficacy has never been very obvious to me. And then you have the whole thing where diseases are mutating in vaccinated people and becoming stronger.

So - forgetting all the neurotoxins and carcinogens in real, modern-day, FDA-approved vaccines - I have no idea if the science is good or not. I do know that the real-world administration of vaccines is frightful and has killed and maimed a lot of people.

I agree the full disclosure requirements for vaxing are rarely if ever met.

VAXING IS NOT THE PROBLEM. POLLUTING THE VAX IS.

You people can't seem to separate the science of vaxing and the perversion of the vaxes themselves for the secondary goals of saving money or vaxing more people. Additives to vaxes make them dangerous.

If you believe that (1) vaccine makers willingly pollute vaccines with harmful chemicals, (2) that additives in vaccines do cause cancer and harm peoples' nervous systems, (3) that the government approves these dangerous products, and pushes people to buy them by law, (4) that the vaccine makers purposely sacrifice safety for money-savings, (5) that vaccines do harm and kill, (6) parents rarely get full disclosure about the dangers; then why do you get so offended when I call them out for it???

If you are a "middle-ground" person who supports liberty and choice, you should be right on board with me, calling these b*stards for what they are... and telling people where they can get these organic vaccines that have no potential of killing your child in a horrible and painful death.

 

[Security122]

Wow! This is a real discussion. I can only add that my doctor offers me flu shots and I decline. Of course I've had every other shot out there, and a tetnus shot every few years after I step on a rusty nail! I sure don't want my jaw locking up! It is interesting that I see flyers in my chiropractors office warning against vaccinations.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Vaccines failed to provide immunity for you too? This must not be such an isolated phenomenon.

Nope and I didn't say that. I said my daughter had the vac. The vac is not for shingles.

 

[rambone]

Nope and I didn't say that. I said my daughter had the vac. The vac is not for shingles.

That's what I meant, your daughter. The vaccine is for the Varicella virus, the same virus responsible for Chicken Pox and Shingles. Same vaccine.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

That's what I meant, your daughter. The vaccine is for the Varicella virus, the same virus responsible for Chicken Pox and Shingles. Same vaccine.

The vac doesn't protect against shingles. Shingles is a re-emergence of the virus. Same as lets say a cold sore. The vac is supposed to keep you from getting it in the first place, it doesn't do squat to keep it from re-emerging.

 

[rambone]

The vac doesn't protect against shingles. Shingles is a re-emergence of the virus. Same as lets say a cold sore. The vac is supposed to keep you from getting it in the first place, it doesn't do squat to keep it from re-emerging.

If you are supposed to be immune, how will it "re-emerge"?

Its like saying I am immune from Polio, but it could re-emerge any time. I'll just take my chances without the vaccine, if that's the sales pitch.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

If you are supposed to be immune, how will it "re-emerge"?

Its like saying I am immune from Polio, but it could re-emerge any time. I'll just take my chances without the vaccine, if that's the sales pitch.

Simple, the vax is supposed to keep you from getting it in the first place. If you have already had it, the virus is in your body and can re-emerge and cause shingles.

Think of it sorta like herpes simplex. Once you have been infected it can re-emerge and cause sores. Here is an article that explains it.
http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/shingles/shingles-topic-overview

 

[Silvertree]

I am not sure what you are arguing about, government or vaccination effectiveness. I know my opinion as a lefty liberal commie socialist bastard surely won't matter so I will refrain from commenting on the government. As far as vaccinations? Please.

Formaldehyde is a natural byproduct of digestion and metabolism. You have more in your body right now than is contained in vaccination. Any formaldehyde in the immunization is easily filtered out by your body. Any biology textbook will serve as a source.

Ethylmercury is found in thimerosal, but that is not the same as elemental mercury. When mercury is bound with an organic, the body easily filters it out. Either way, as a precautionary measure and to assuage the public's paranoia, they are not using it in scheduled childhood vaccines. Janeway, C., Travers, P., Walport, M., Shlomchik, M.J. Immunobiology. New York: Garland Publishing, 2001. 582-583.

Aluminum acts as an adjuvant. Its purpose is to serve as an irritant, to help the vaccine be more effective. Ribeiro C., Schijns V. "Immunology of vaccine adjuvants." Methods Molecular Biology. 1 Jan. 2010, 626: 1-14.

There is no current scientific research that has provided any empirical evidence that links autism to vaccinations. Andrew Wakefield wrote a paper in 1998 that suggested there was a link, and lay people latched onto it. His research has been discredited. Here is one scientific review Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism - Institute of Medicine. There are others to be found.

Do you really believe that Bill Gates wants to use vaccines to control the population? The guy left his company to give his money, billions of dollars, away to people in need. If you are doing any type of scientific modeling for projecting future populations, you have to include that the increased availability of vaccinations for people in poverity, largely because of people like Gates, is going to increase the population. If you don't include that variable, your model is worthless. Please refer to basics of conducting scientific research and what happens if you don't control all of the relevant variables. Truth be told, if our population and our resource production both continue at their current rates, we will not be able to sustain life. Callus as it sounds, we would be better off NOT providing immunizations to those who currently don't have access. Seriously. To suggest that Gates is trying to control the population with vaccines is bull**** and the worst kind of dishonesty.

Everyone knows someone who did something and then something else happened after. Anecdotes are not empiricism. Another basic tenant of science is that you try to disprove the null hypothesis. The reason you do this is so try to avoid the confirmation bias. If you go searching for specific evidence, you will probably find it and fail to consider the alternatives. I ate a sirloin steak the other day and then a few days later, I got a cold. That doesn't mean the steak caused the cold.

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Any credible doctor and/or scientist will tell you that there are risks from vaccines. Anyone who says there are not risks are lying. But the benefits outweigh the risks. Grab any undergraduate textbook and look at the citations for any specific research studies if you really want to look. Start calling universities and poll a thousand random PhD level biologists, microbiologists, or chemists.

We are expecting our first child in March and you damn well better believe that as soon the baby is ready it will get immunizations. Will that protect him/her 100%? Hell no. But it is better than nothing. The argument that it doesn't provide 100% protection is not valid. We use protective measures all of the time knowing they are not perfect. I am not going to chuck the baby in the back seat on the way home from the hospital. I am going to put him/her in the car seat, because it is the best I can do to minimize risk.

I can't say if I will read this thread again or not. I wouldn't have posted at all, as I know that those of you with strong anti-vaccination feelings wouldn't change your mind, no matter what. I wrote this post because I saw someone previously refer to the anti-vaccination statements in the thread as "education" and I disagree with that statement with every fiber of my being. I guess I am just posting for my own edification. I will just leave with the wish that none of us ever have to deal with a serious one of our children becoming seriously ill.

 

[rambone]

I am not sure what you are arguing about, government or vaccination effectiveness.

I started this thread about government schools making headlines this week by bullying students. Of course the conversation always leads to explaining my objections to vaccines.

Everyone knows someone who did something and then something else happened after. Anecdotes are not empiricism. Another basic tenant of science is that you try to disprove the null hypothesis. The reason you do this is so try to avoid the confirmation bias. If you go searching for specific evidence, you will probably find it and fail to consider the alternatives. I ate a sirloin steak the other day and then a few days later, I got a cold. That doesn't mean the steak caused the cold.

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

I agree. That's why I don't buy the whole argument that "vaccines are effective" and the only proof is to point at society. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Just because modern 1st world countries aren't plagued with Smallpox and Scarlet Fever doesn't mean vaccines are effective. I hear a lot of people still getting sick even with the vaccine. Where are the controlled studies that vaccinated people have proven immunity to diseases that they are exposed to? Seems like it should be easy to find. I mean, they *do* check that the vaccines work, right???

Any credible doctor and/or scientist will tell you that there are risks from vaccines. Anyone who says there are not risks are lying.

I thought you just explained how your body handles those poisons so well. Pretty pointless to make excuses for the chemicals in the shots when the deadly side-effects are indisputable.

But the benefits outweigh the risks. Grab any undergraduate textbook and look at the citations for any specific research studies if you really want to look. Start calling universities and poll a thousand random PhD level biologists, microbiologists, or chemists.

Whether the benefits outweigh the risks is up to each parent and person to determine for themselves. NOT the government. I don't care how many PhD's tell me I should do what they say. I have rights and I intend to keep them. If the benefits of maybe not getting the flu this year outweigh the risk of brain damage, its your call.