I'm personally of the opinion that medical care which is purely preventative should never be forced. I'm in the United States, and I don't see a way to legally obligate people to receive preventative medical care, especially if the crux of the argument is "To protect someone else's health."I'd have no issue with people opting out of vaccines if that decision only impacted them individually. The fact of the matter is, anyone that chooses to not get vaccinated increases the risk of people that can't get vaccines (even if they want to) getting sick and dying.
Notice that the downward trends start prior to the introduction of vaccines? Well done on your honesty for posting a trend that defeats your own argument.
Oh I see youve been to one of Angela Eisenhauer or Tetyana Obukhanych's website as they both throw those articles around. Tetyana claims she has a PhD but that turned out to be a little fib.I'm sorry, but as I see it, you are the uninformed individual. You first falsely claimed that there were no studies with scientists who linked autism to vaccines. Now you demonstrate that you are not aware that the vaccinated are disease carriers & spreaders. Here are just a few examples:
Perhaps it should be the irresponsible, uninformed vaccinators that should be quarantined, and stripped of their freedoms.
- "measles transmission from a twice-vaccinated individual" : Outbreak of Measles Among Persons With Prior Evidence of Immunity, New York City, 2011 | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic
- "measure the shedding patterns of vaccine recipients" : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC228449/pdf/332485.pdf
- "maximum shedding in highly susceptible persons 2–10 days after vaccination" : Comparison of the Safety, Vaccine Virus Shedding, and Immunogenicity of Influenza Virus Vaccine, Trivalent, Types A and B, Live Cold-Adapted, Administered to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-Infected and Non-HIV-Infected Adults | The Journal of Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic
- "transmission from a vaccinated infant to an older, unvaccinated sibling, resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis that required emergency department care" : http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/2/e438
- "Immune-impaired individuals can become long-term shedders of the virus" : Polio vaccination may continue after wild virus fades
- "Asymptomatic/subclinical infections occur infrequently, but may be associated with substantial amounts of viral shedding" : Comparison of Shedding Characteristics of Seasonal Influenza Virus (Sub)Types and Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09; Germany, 2007–2011
- "When considering influenza in humans, viral shedding is often used as a proxy measure of contagiousness. In a recent meta-analysis of volunteer challenge studies, shedding was found to begin within the first day after inoculation" : Animal Models for Influenza Virus Pathogenesis and Transmission
- "vaccinated individuals can act as asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic carriers and contribute significantly to transmission in the population" : http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/787.full.pdf
- Etc. Etc.
If vaccination stopped polio, why was the disease declining prior to the introduction of the vaccine? Did the polio know the vaccine was coming and started to run away a few years early?Huh? Are we looking at the same graph? The solid line is the incidence, or new case rate which is most relevant to this discussion. It is obvious that from the 1930s, it had fluctuated up and down, but the average slope was upward. Until just after 1952, when the IPV (and later the OPV) were released. After which the incidence of new polio cases went into a precipitous and sustained decline. How else would you account for this? What else happened in the 50s-60s that would explain such a large drop in new cases of polio?
I don't know who Eisenhauer or Obukhanych is. I quoted neither, but quoted the studies themselves.Oh I see youve been to one of Angela Eisenhauer or Tetyana Obukhanych's website as they both throw those articles around. Tetyana claims she has a PhD but that turned out to be a little fib.
They both run sites wanting the banning of vaccines. Like you they have taken those articles about viral compnent shedding and made the massive leap to assume that means they are community carriers.
Well I can hardly stop you reading their material and can only state what the CDC and those who actually have qualifications, that atennuated viral component shedding does not mean your going to wreak havoc in your local shopping centre. Unlike you it seems because so far you say:
* You support that those with active and serious communicable dieases eg Ebola, have the choice of doing what they want in the community and do not support imposed isolation, even if that means the individual is infecting an entire local population
* You believe what the campaigners of "no Vaccine" say, which is that if your vaccinated that makes you infectious.
* You support those with active infections taking their children into child care, but you do actually support the right of refusal of that child care (or other instiution) in not allowing the infected person in.
Fortunately the CDC and World Health Organization refute your views and do their best at debunking those attitudes; not because they have some self-inmportant ideology, but because they are seeking to improve the health of all world wide.
One reason I point out Buddhism is the Buddha's core teaching about the necessity for personal knowledge, and not blind faith in the words of others.Lastly youve often thrown the Lord Buddha at me in your rebuttals. You do realise the Prince actually seggreagted those infectious outside of the city walls. Well that was the practice at the time, not because the Prince was uncaring but because his intent was the safety of his community. Mind you once Lord Buddha left his worldly role behind (along with his family responsibilities), I am unsure if his attitude changed towards those infected. He was certainly though the epitome of compassion.
I hold no blind faith in the scriptures of the CDC or WHO or their prophets, or other like-minded tyrannical organizations or individuals.
I never voted for it, nor do I recognize that the WHO possesses any inherent authority. I see no reason to trust it, and have reason to not trust it.Oh come on - look I know your sticking to your point (thats fine - we dont agree and so be it) - but its a bit much to suggest that the World Health Organisation causes tyranny.
Can you explain why you believe it to be a tyrannical organisation and why you think it fails to be a credible authority (albeit an advisory authority as opposed to an administrative authority)I never voted for it, nor do I recognize that the WHO possesses any inherent authority. I see no reason to trust it, and have reason to not trust it.
Did you understand the issue in the article? Just in case you weren't aware, the article expressed concern over WHOs collaboration with pharmaceutical companies with the outbreak of H1N1 in hmmmm was it 2009? Anyway that opinion piece adequately addressed. Tens of thousands died in that epidemic and it rapidly spread across the world. WHO led the way coordinating CDCs in an international response aimed at containing the spread. Of course it also worked with pharmaceutical companies to escalate production of a vaccine.I already have, with a link, in the post you quoted.
I would say I understood the article better; I did not, after all, propagate false claims about "no studies/scientists linking autism to vaccines", or imply erroneously that "vaccinated are [not] carriers".Did you understand the issue in the article? Just in case you weren't aware, the article expressed concern over WHOs collaboration with pharmaceutical companies with the outbreak of H1N1 in hmmmm was it 2009? Anyway that opinion piece adequately addressed. Tens of thousands died in that epidemic and it rapidly spread across the world. WHO led the way coordinating CDCs in an international response aimed at containing the spread. Of course it also worked with pharmaceutical companies to escalate production of a vaccine.
I'm sorry, but you do not know me or my situation, so please refrain from speculating about either, as you've done repeatedly in this thread. Your credibility has already worn thin in this thread, as demonstrated by your numerous false claims.So..... This is why you call the WHO tyrannical. You and I have very different views on what tyranny is. A view such as yours can only come from someone who has led a relatively privileged life Free from political tyranny and war. Indeed
It is a definition of tyranny, as I demonstrated.count your blessings if you think a health agency is the definition of tyranny
'First Ever' Study Comparing Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children Shows Harm from Vaccines?"Vaccination ... remained associated with NDD [neurodevelopmental disorders], while the interaction of preterm birth and vaccination was associated with a 6.6-fold increased odds of NDD ... vaccination remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors" (Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children, Journal of Translational Science, 5/2017)
Also from the paper's data:
- "Vaccinated children were significantly [30.1x, OR] more likely than the
unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with ... allergic rhinitis"- "Vaccinated children were significantly [3.9x, OR] more likely than the
unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with ... other allergies"- "Vaccinated children were significantly [2.9x, OR] more likely than the
unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with ... eczema/atopic dermatitis"- "Vaccinated children were significantly [5.2x, OR] more likely than the
unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with ... learning disability"- "Vaccinated children were significantly [4.2x, OR] more likely than the
unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with ... ADHD"- "Vaccinated children were significantly [4.2x, OR] more likely than the
unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with ... [Autism]"- "Vaccinated children were significantly [3.7x, OR] more likely than the
unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with ... any neurodevelopmental disorder"- "Vaccinated children were significantly [2.4x, OR] more likely than the
unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with ... any chronic illness"- Etc. re: otitis media (3.8x), pneumonia (5.9x), etc.
Huh? Are we looking at the same graph? The solid line is the incidence, or new case rate which is most relevant to this discussion. It is obvious that from the 1930s, it had fluctuated up and down, but the average slope was upward. Until just after 1952, when the IPV (and later the OPV) were released. After which the incidence of new polio cases went into a precipitous and sustained decline. How else would you account for this? What else happened in the 50s-60s that would explain such a large drop in new cases of polio?
Anti-virals just aren't good enough for people to rely upon them as an effective treatment. Vaccines are our best defense against a variety of viral diseases, and whether you like it or not, they are a preventative measure.I'm personally of the opinion that medical care which is purely preventative should never be forced.
It protects EVERYONE'S health. The people that get vaccines benefit, as well as the people that can't get vaccines. But it only works if a large enough portion of the population gets vaccinated. If more and more people choose not to get vaccinated, even though they physically could, it puts populations on the whole more at risk of epidemics.I'm in the United States, and I don't see a way to legally obligate people to receive preventative medical care, especially if the crux of the argument is "To protect someone else's health."
Think of it as like a civic duty to everyone else in the country as well as yourself.I fully support requiring it for public school students and other people who wish to enroll in government services. But I cannot support a mandate that would require it by virtue of being a resident of the U.S.
-_- did I not say that immuno-compromised people often can't get vaccinated?Couldn't your grandmother get vaccinated?
You'll notice up and down trends for polio in general looking at that graph prior to the introduction of the vaccine. However, in case you couldn't tell, the massive nosedive that followed the vaccine is nowhere to be seen prior to its introduction, and ever since, there hasn't been a massive spike in polio. Not in the US, anyways.Notice that the downward trends start prior to the introduction of vaccines? Well done on your honesty for posting a trend that defeats your own argument.