Because you always give exceptions to people who cannot medically do something. When I'm talking about someone exempted from it, I mean someone who will have a bad reaction to it, including a high percentage of death. Allergies or immune system problems. Other people have a less than 1% chance of anything even going wrong, much less bad enough for death.
It isn't discrimination. If you don't want to do it, your kid can be home schooled in my opinion. That is the consequence of your choice.
My stance is based upon science. The first child CANNOT get it based upon medical reasons. The second child CAN get medically. That's science. You can disagree but you are wrong.if a kid goes to public school and gets sick or gets someone else sick
it does not really matter if the kid did not get a vaccination because of allergies or because his parents believed in crack-pot science, the result is the same
that is my point, your stance is not really based on science
it is based on being vindictive against people who you do not agree with
also as I pointed out, it is not just the people who think it is connected to autism
it is also just the fact that a certain number of people die from vaccines every day
if a kid goes to public school and gets sick or gets someone else sick
it does not really matter if the kid did not get a vaccination because of allergies or because his parents believed in crack-pot science, the result is the same
that is my point, your stance is not really based on science
it is based on being vindictive against people who you do not agree with
also as I pointed out, it is not just the people who think it is connected to autism
it is also just the fact that a certain number of people die from vaccines every day
There's a certain number of people who die drinking coffee. Or eating a cake. Or walking to the bathroom.Do you have credible links to back up the claim "it's just the fact that a certain number of people DIE from vaccines every day"? Cause that doesn't sound true at all.
My stance is based upon science. The first child CANNOT get it based upon medical reasons. The second child CAN get medically. That's science. You can disagree but you are wrong.
There's a certain number of people who die drinking coffee. Or eating a cake. Or walking to the bathroom.
Some people will have a negative reaction to the vaccines due to not knowing they have an allergy or some other condition.
true but the effects are the same for both kids
but you think one should be allowed in public schools and the other should not?
that tells me that you do not care about the effects
you just want to punish people who do not think like you
if it really was a concern about the science of the issue, you would exclude both children from public school because both children pose the same threat
Ah, I missed the "everyday" thing. I'm sure some people do die due to vaccines every year, but more people would die due to the illnesses those vaccines cover.That's totally true that ppl die from things that are commonly used every day. I don't think there are that many ppl who have an allergy to the stuff in vaccines or some other condition that is so severe they DIE from it everyday. Cause I've talked about this in class cause of the stuff on here about vaccines making me interested. I go to a school for science & tech and our teachers really know their stuff so I trust them. What Rhamiel said just doesn't add up to what we we learned. That's why I wanted to know if he has a legit source to back that up.
It sounds like there needs to be better screening and less shaming of parents with legitimate worries about whether their child will have an adverse reaction.There's a certain number of people who die drinking coffee. Or eating a cake. Or walking to the bathroom.
Some people will have a negative reaction to the vaccines due to not knowing they have an allergy or some other condition.
It sounds like there needs to be better screening and less shaming of parents with legitimate worries about whether their child will have an adverse reaction.
How would you propose to do this for the small number of people who this might happen to?
Those parents still need to be shamed. If I were a dictator, their children would be stripped from them. Good thing I'm not, eh?
Interesting; sad situation...I am not normally all that big on the idea of shaming ppl but you know I think you're right that sometimes it's what's deserved. Cause the consequences can be huge. Like Ella on here has had problems her whole entire life cause of super bad complications from chickenpox when she was a baby & couldn't be vaccinated yet cause she was too young. She almost died. She's 17 & still dealing with the health problems caused by that. The kid who gave it to her wasn't vaccinated on purpose. I don't understand why ppl even have kids if they're not going to take care of them. It makes me sad & kinda mad too tbh.
I am not normally all that big on the idea of shaming ppl but you know I think you're right that sometimes it's what's deserved. Cause the consequences can be huge. Like Ella on here has had problems her whole entire life cause of super bad complications from chickenpox when she was a baby & couldn't be vaccinated yet cause she was too young. She almost died. She's 17 & still dealing with the health problems caused by that. The kid who gave it to her wasn't vaccinated on purpose. I don't understand why ppl even have kids if they're not going to take care of them. It makes me sad & kinda mad too tbh.
I think a big plus would be that old wisdom many peoples mothers drilled into them as children growing up; if you can't say something positive don't say anything at all. Snarks in threads for snarks sake isn't what makes an article look bad...."...the CDC is still not owning up to Dr. Thompson's charges that they found data that links the vaccine to a spike in autism. "The CDC is still not coming clean," Dr. Brownstein says. "They want to keep it quiet, but it's time the cover-up ended."
http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Headline/CDC-MMR-vaccine-coverup/2015/07/26/id/658993/
In fairness it isn't like they don't forewarn viewers of that or the content of their program via its title.Yeah. I've seen it.
Penn & Teller offer unassailable credibility.
Not at all.I asked my doctor friend and she said vaccines do not cause autism. And also said that even if they did, being autistic is better than being dead from the pox or whatever. But there is no link, so it's a non issue either way.
Well said.I think a big plus would be that old wisdom many peoples mothers drilled into them as children growing up; if you can't say something positive don't say anything at all. Snarks in threads for snarks sake isn't what makes an article look bad....
I remember to this day when I was very young on a vaccine visit to the pediatrician. I'm sitting on the exam table waiting for the shot. I hate needles. The nurse brings the vial over to the doctor and I can see there's still quite a bit left in the bottle. The doctor hands the vial back to the nurse and says, no, I want a new vial for this child.
I thought that was the oddest thing but I still recall that.
I think of the impact that would occur if everyone concerned in this issue, from the pharmaceutical companies on down, admitted to a link between autism and vaccinations.
There's no evidence!
Well no kidding. Not when the evidence sought is tantamount to the police policing themselves. The investigators investigating themselves.
All anyone has to do is watch TV for a day and note all the attorney firm commercials asking viewers if they ever took this or that drug that viewers saw advertised years or even months before.
Those attorney firms are asking those who suffered side effects to call because they could be entitled to a substantial award.
Then, wait for it and you'll see a pharmaceutical advertised. Likely the people touting the drug are actor portrayals. But after they advertise all the so called benefits of that new drug they run down the short and dirty list of potential side effects.
I watched one such commercial. One of the side effects was bleeding in the brain.
Another drug's potential side effects is lymphoma. (Lymphatic cancer)
Impossible for vaccinations to cause autism? When attorney firms can make millions for clients suffering pharmaceutical side effects? Imagine the liability for the thousands that suffer autism.
And what are the numbers of those who are anti-vaccine having autism diagnosis compared to those that were vaccinated and diagnosed as such?
What's the upscale of autism diagnosis over the last say 50 years?
So called, "Big Pharma" , is one of the largest lobbies in politics.
No evidence? What are autism suffers if not evidence of something?
Not at all.
Your doctor friend said what she said because it's the position of the AMA and all concerned. If she wants to keep her license she complies with policy.
How would you propose to do this for the small number of people who this might happen to?
Those parents still need to be shamed. If I were a dictator, their children would be stripped from them. Good thing I'm not, eh?