People against Vaccines

[Yanoda]

good comments yanoda... but I just want to point out that pan already apologized.... just saying.

Correct, I was just pointing out that neither side was innocent.

Yan, welcome back, since I forgot to say it before.

Thanks, I'll check in from time to time and maybe refresh my sabering skills in HA.
Still have a few things to address IRL.

My comment about being a parent was not intended to be a slight, nor a derogatory comment on Mandy. I merely was pointing out that when it comes to taking vaccines, it is easy to say, "ya, I will take the chance. It is my body and I can live with the consequences if something were to happen to me." It is not so easy to say that about giving something unknown and possibly harmful to the child you are raising. If someone took that as a slight, well, you really need to get out more and get some fresh air and thicken up the skin there.

For the record I thought duels comment meant exactly what he just explained. That being objective and scientific when the health of your child isn't at risk represents a much different position than if I had children.

Noted and I retract my earlier comment concerning this then.

When I see people refer to others as "Those people", "These people", or "You people", you are not open to different opinions. You see the world as you and what you believe. The rest of the world that might not hold with your opinion is looked down upon? I find that to be condescending and a little arrogant, to say the least.

I can understand where you're getting at, though I disagree that just by calling a group "Those/These/You People" would imply someone is not open to other opinions. But I agree that they could have used better words and more refined argument to get their view across.
Everyone will have looked down upon someone else or a group. Now, referring to the vaccine issue, the majority of the world would support the pro-vaccine view and research field since scientific studies have been conducted to debunk many of the Vaccine-skeptics' arguments with peer-reviewed journals and information. Now... would looking down at the minority (the vaccine-skeptics) or the majority (pro-vaccine) be considered arrogant? Is looking down on anyone considered arrogant/condescending?
What about a minority (scientific community in the facts on vaccines) vs a majority of consumers being skeptical of vaccines (who do not know everything about vaccines etc.)?

.. and this is why I stay out of these serious discussions.. they never end well. I'm just trying to give a different point of view. After all, nothing is the same from person to person. Individual perspectives on any given subject will always give you different outcome.. regardless of what is true. A terrorist is someone's hero. My point? No one here can say anyone is wrong.. and no one here is an expert in vaccinations. So make your point without stepping on someone else's. toes please.

There is nothing wrong about bringing a different point of view. The only issue is equating opinions as fact comparable to scientific studies/research. Yes, they (the studies) are not perfect but allow the information/data to be as objective as possible.

And Yan.. what do you mean that my point on "truth" is absurd? Truth is not important?

Ummm... I think you should re-read your posts since you are clearly referring to "Trust" several times and not truth. I replied based on the comments concerning trust, which is just the assured reliance on the truth of someone.
Truth is subjective since it is what the person believes to be true or things being true in the current situation (but can change anytime).
Fact is more objective, permanent and can be empirically proven.

Hope that clarifies it. :)

I don't believe vaccines are 'dead' viruses, but a 'sampling' of the virus that your body's immune system can handle and fight on a fair level, so that it can 'remember just how' to destroy a particular virus should it encounter it on an even greater infectious level in the future. If a virus is dead, what is there to fight?

Believing in something or not is irrelevant to what is actually happening or actual facts. An opinion on something does not make it a fact..

No Shiite Sherlock! That's what makes a 'belief' an 'opinion'!...Which, BTW, I'm entitled to have.

Of course you're entitled of the opinion (I never stated you do not have the right to have an opinion), I was just stating that the opinion may not be correct and I explained how vaccines work in an earlier comment. I apologize if that came out as offensive.
Another source: http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ ... ocal+token

[11_Panama_]

My bad.. Yan, trust, not truth.

[(=DK=)Samonuh]

I apologize for anybody I offended, but please do not referred to me as "spoiled," for you truly have no idea what the [m'kay] you're talking about. I'm going to refrain myself from discussing this further. It's not going to get anywhere...

[THEWULFMAN]

I apologize for anybody I offended, but please do not referred to me as "spoiled," for you truly have no idea what the [m'kay] you're talking about. I'm going to refrain myself from discussing this further. It's not going to get anywhere...

For the record I don't assume things about people like being "spoiled." I just don't like 90% of your opinions and generally your attitude, but I won't make assumptions blindly about your life and hardships.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Contrary to what I'd thought possible, I managed to completely miss an interesting scientific-debate thread while perusing the forums.

To insert my two cents, I'd like to make clear that many widely acceptable forms of treatment and/or practice in other areas of life do have failure rates. Assuming that mandated vaccinations would be exempt is simply implausible. In fact, vaccinations have been known to do detriment, however, this occurs only in the vast minority of cases. To suggest we should consider jeopardizing the health of millions by refusing to mandate base vaccinations against contagious fatal diseases is a wrong step, in my opinion.

I feel as though the only issue that can be logically contested here regards the mandate - unfortunately for those who dislike what they perceive as unjust intrusion (pun intended ), the evidence suggests that, for the good of society as a whole, certain disease prevention measures should be taken. As a modern community, we agree we have an obligation to care for the sick, but we must also agree that the best tactic to preventing certain illnesses is vaccination, and, in keeping with our duties, we have to sponsor and implement it.

Granted, there are and will be problems. Dedicating research funds to science and medical labs can help minimize these. As time progresses, we learn and grow, old flaws are rectified and new ones arise. There is a rigorous process behind vaccination and medication approval, and in our country, our regulatory agencies make this even more arduous. What is on the market and available are generally the best and most modern solutions.

Regards,
SirPepsi

[NiteRunner81]

When I was pregnant I had gestational diabetes and had to see a nutritionist weekly (to turn in my glucose testing chart.) In one of those meetings we had a candid talk about mercury content of tuna (because I was limited to 1 can a week.) And she told me that her cousin (who works for the CDC and develops the annual vaccines) and her had a discussion about mercury and she said that regardless of what any flu shot pusher will tell you the multi-dose vials that have thimerosal in them have 5 times the mercury (cause thimerosal is 50% mercury) than the advertised safe (she also disclosed that there is really no safe mercury level in children or gravid women) levels for gravid women. I had yet to get a flu shot for the year but my OB wanted me to have one. I HAD to require that it was a single loaded syringe.

I recently went back to see her (cause I'm trying to get my diet back in line for my next pregnancy) and I mentioned our prior conversation (which happened almost 5 years ago) and I asked her if there was anything about any other vaccines I should know about and she divulged something to me. She said the real reason about the rise in vaccine doses and new vaccines is NOT about discovering that they are not enough. Its because they are failing in children who do not get well balanced diets, formula over breastmilk, and have high chemical exposure. 20 years ago a lot more women breastfed, food safety was a lot better because we weren't putting a lot of chemicals in food for preservatives, and we weren't trashing our kids immune systems with overloads of chemicals. The use of Triclosan and dimethyl benzyl ammonium chlorides, and chloroxylenol have WEAKENED our immune systems. Not to mention unsafe surfactants in our kids body washes, bubble baths, shampoos. The parabens, aluminum in deodorant. She said that her cousin recommends those who use typical household products, formula feed, and show no discretion about how they feed their kids should by all means, use the standard table for vaccinating their children. I will adhere to the standard chart for my son, since I formula fed and used disposable diapers in the first 2 years. If a woman breastfeeds, uses cloth diapers, and uses a very small list of brands for body products (Burts Bees, Honest Company, 7th Generation, Biokleen, Nature's Gate, Jason, Dr. Bronners....there are more but they are escaping my databank) , and don't run to the doctor for every sniffle, a child can get away with using a chart from 20 years ago to vaccinate their child.

And narg never commented on my video I linked... *cries*