Australian nurses who spread anti-vaccination messages will now face prosecution

a reply to: TerryDon79

It's the difference between using cells and the actual fetus. It's akin to when a doctor scrapes your mouth/throat and makes a culture from that to see what's up with you.

If the Dr. had to kill me first to scrape my mouth, then it would be a fair comparison.

a reply to: seasonal

Ah. Are you anti abortion by any chance? Is that where this whole issue is?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Ah. Are you anti abortion by any chance? Is that where this whole issue is?

I can never see killing a baby. And I would love to see no abortions ever. But we live in the real world and the decision is ultimately up to the women/people involved and God.
I think companies should really not be involved in using the "products" of the medical/abortion industry. And that include vaccines.
I'm not militant about it, but I do let people know how I feel and why.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: bigal7997

It's the difference between using cells and the actual fetus. It's akin to when a doctor scrapes your mouth/throat and makes a culture from that to see what's up with you.

But even in your example, the culture they make doesn't reproduce human cells, it cultures the bacteria present. Not the same thing...

a reply to: seasonal

Why not though? If abortions are legal and happening, why not let science use what it can AFTER the fetus is aborted to help the living?

a reply to: bigal7997

Fine. Skin grafts are the same type of thing.

Tired of semantics.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: bigal7997

Fine. Skin grafts are the same type of thing.

Tired of semantics.

And Hitler didn't kill Jews, he assisted them in reaching Heaven sooner. Semantics...

a reply to: bigal7997

Are you seriously equating taking cell samples to the systematic extermination of an entire race of people??

a reply to: TerryDon79

Because I can't bring myself to say it's OK. Using parts of aborted babies is wrong. Much the same as doing unspeakable things to a dead body is bad.

If a vaccine needs that, I would imagine there are plenty of times babies die in utero, and the lungs can be donated. I imagine it is easier to by from a planned parent hood, but #1 it's cheaper. Again I can't be certain, I'm not in the "Industry".

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: bigal7997

Are you seriously equating taking cell samples to the systematic extermination of an entire race of people??

No, I'm saying the semantics excuse is BS.

a reply to: seasonal

The problem with naturally terminated fetus' vs aborted fetus' cells is they have a shelf life. They're only viable for a short amount of time. Naturally terminated fetus' can be "dead" for longer than the cells are viable before it's even noticed.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Well sometimes a man has to work hard for his "fetal" lung tissue.

You know the old adage,
If you give a man a fetal lung he will make products for a day, you teach him to harvest it himself he makes $ forever.

originally posted by: chuckk
a reply to: NerdGoddess

Go get your Garasil for yourself and children, then let us know.
We are being forced to take that garbage even though it is outlawed in many other countries it is banned such as Japan, Spain, Denmark, etdc.

I had received all the Gardasil shots when I was in.... Middle school? High School?

I am a proponent for Vaccinations so I'm not sure why you would have even assumed that I HADN'T received it.

In fact, Gardasil is safe, as shown by the CDC PDF I will Link you- which also contains many links to studies that were done to back the claim of safety up.

Gardasil Is SAFE!

There are at LEAST 8 studies in this link that you can find and read for yourself.

These are facts, not claims made out of fear, or because, the rest of the CT world told me so! Research, research, research. You get to pick and choose what vaccines you want, no one is forcing you to take every vaccine that is available, but Nurses and Doctors should not be spreading false fears about vaccinations.

-Alee

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: NerdGoddess

I like you...

If, as a medical professional, you give unsubstantiated advice that leads to the death of a patient you should be held accountable.

People don't get to make up their own facts because they watched a YouTube video and called it "research".

That is exactly how I feel.

-Alee

a reply to: seasonal

The time will come whent that happens

a reply to: NerdGoddess

Herd Immunity: Flawed science


www.vaccinationcouncil.org...

“Herd Immunity.” The flawed science and failures of mass vaccination, Suzanne Humphries, MD – JULY 5, 2012 POSTED IN:

The oft-parroted sound bite – “we need herd immunity”- implies that if ninety five percent of the population can become “immune” to a disease via vaccination, target immunity levels will be met and diseases will either be eradicated or controlled. This sound bite is the most commonly pulled weapon used by the vaccinators, only second to “smallpox and polio were eradicated by vaccination.” “Herd immunity” is the trump card for the defense of vaccination on TV, Internet, medical journals and newspapers as to why we should be vaccinated over and over throughout our lives, with an ever-increasing number of vaccines. Paul Offit smiled and PLAYED THE CARD while peddling his book on the comedy central channel as Steven Colbert jokingly said, “if the vaccines work so good for you, why do I need one?” Dr. Mark Segal PULLED IT on fox news as Mary Holland, JD eloquently described the issue of vaccine injury and loss of legal recourse in an era of forced and mandated vaccines. In addition to flaunting several false allegations and sound bites, Dr. Segal’s well-rehearsed rant brushed right over the issue at hand, the fact that victims of vaccine injury have no legal right to sue – and instead launched into his agenda of scaring the listeners by parroting the “herd immunity” dogma. The hype about herd immunity unfortunately creates a wall of hostility between those who vaccinate and those who delay some vaccines, avoid certain vaccines, or quit vaccinating altogether.
Since the beginning of vaccination, there is little proof that vaccines are responsible for eradicating disease even when herd immunity vaccination levels have been reached. Yet celebrity doctors rattle on about your unvaccinated neighbor being the biggest threat to your child – as if vaccination was the only way to avoid an illness or stay healthy. To make matters worse, this intimidation to vaccinate is played out in an environment where WHO and vaccine manufacturers have been accused of scandalous misrepresentations of disease risk or vaccine safety and effectiveness. If the allegations against these entities are true, which I believe they are, we are being systematically altered, sickened and manipulated by powerful governing bodies that either don’t understand the risks of vaccination, or don’t care. We are told that the health of the herd is more important than any single life, and you now have no conventional legal recourse when your little sheep is wounded by any type of vaccine, no matter how it happened.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Your source is an anti-vaccine site. Regardless of who the members are, it's obviously biased.

This souce says otherwise.
And here is a scientific article that proves otherwise too.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Wouldn't your sources be considered biased as well?

In the Who We Are statement from Vaccines Today:

Vaccines Today is sponsored by Vaccines Europe, which consists of the following companies: Abbott Biologicals, AstraZeneca, CureVac, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline Vaccines, ImmBio, MSD, Novavax, Pfizer Vaccines, Sanofi Pasteur, Sanofi Pasteur MSD, Seqirus, Takeda, and Vaxeal.

In the Mission Statement from NCBI:

maintains collaborations with several NIH institutes, academia, industry, and other governmental agencies

I would think that pharmaceutical companies would be pro-vaccine, since they make money from them.

Of course, I support everyone's right to choose who they want to believe. Just as I support everyone's right to choose what drugs they put into their bodies.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Wouldn't your sources be considered biased as well?

That was kind of the point I was trying to make. I can post just as many biased sources favouring vaccines as they can being against them.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Sorry I didn't pick up on that. Trying to cut back on the caffeine.