Growing up unvaccinated: This is what happens when your parents refuse

reply to post by thedeadtruth


At least you didn't miss quote me this time! I don't need to prove to you weather I'm smart enough to choose weather I should vaccinate my children. Although YOU clearly don't need to PROVE that YOU are not only smart enough to decide what best for MY family, but suitable superior to me to forcefully remove my free right to choose. Huh? Figure that one out.

Do you have any evidence to support you standpoint or was "I'm right and you're wrong" your entire argument.

I was hoping that if you intended to remove my Civil Liberties that your argument would be stronger than that?

reply to post by thedeadtruth


I have a 20 year old who was actually harmed by the MMR. It was a bad reaction that landed her in the hospital the same day as her immunization with seizures, fever, brain swelling.. etc. We did fill out several VAERS reports concerning this reaction. She has been labeled "high functioning autistic".. but I think its more of a label for insurance purposes Her neurologist determined that she has severe/profound processing issues in certain areas and other things as far as sensory problems similar to autism, but not convinced its "autism". Blah blah... in any case, she is never going to be neurotypical.

Most people who claim they have a child or know someone who has autism from a vaccine dont know what a VAERS is.. and this makes me wonder if they are full of beans... or truly grasp the severity of a child effected by a vaccine or the real issues surrounding vaccination ( pros and cons... truly and not from a slanted blog). It was never a huge hush hush thing when we did these reports and the cdc was involved. No one denied it was due to the vaccine as it really was an undeniable, severe, and immediate reaction.

Now, I am NOT a pro or anti for vaccination. I am pro for certain vaccines and anti for others only because of their track record and higher incidence of reaction/ingredients/manufacture. I firmly believe that some folks have a predisposition to reacting adversely to certain things... including ingredients in certain vaccines or by these hybrid vaccines. My daughters are immunized on a delayed schedule.. but the 2 younger ones DID NOT get the MMR. Thats only due to my oldest having this particular reaction.. and we dont know the cause or if they too are predisposed. Pediatricians who dont "get it" dont get a second visit from us. There are as many zealot pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine folks in the med profession as in the general population. You have to find the sensible and knowledgeable. Especially when dealing with school systems that dont "get it" either when you have a definite medical reason to bypass the MMR due to adverse sibling reaction. Our second daughter was born with a more rare liver disease which required a transplant several years ago. SHe is 15 now, but she couldnt be around my oldest when they demanded to give her the oral polio vaccine... which was another headache with school. She can be around those wth the shot flu vaccine.. but not the nasal mist vaccine.. etc. There is just as much dis and misinformation in school and medicine as the general public.. so Im not so harsh on those who just havent grasped it all yet.

The knee jerk hysterics, cries of autism over everything, and lawsuits by many are what is holding back proper investigations into this and perhaps future screening for predisposition to react to certain vaccines. We have NEVER sued or even hinted at it for this injury which WAS due to the MMR in our oldest daughter. We cooperated with reporting and CDC, etc in order to hopefully provide data so they may one day determine why this happens to a small percentage of the children vaccinated. It being a small percentage doesnt matter when its YOUR child.

( Oh and since you are in the profession that you are.. you may be interested: the liver disease she has is called Caroli's Disease... they diagnosed her with Biliary Atresia and she had a Kasai procedure due to a glob of malformed tissue that was supposed to be her biliary tree shortly after birth.When she had the liver transplant and they did a necropsy on the original liver.. they discovered it was actually an even more rare presentation of the already very rare Caroli's with congenital hepatic fibrosis. )

reply to post by thedeadtruth

VeritasAequitas ....... Calling everyone who stands up for certain vaccines a shill, is disrespectful to the extreme if you are talking to people who have spent considerable effort maintaining a balanced view on such a deadly topic.

I never said you are a shill for standing up for vaccines; but saying it should be mandatory is just stupid and suspicious..

GetHyped

VeritasAequitas
reply to post by GetHyped

 

For your information, Mike has stated several times he doesn't get paid to do reviews, or endorse anything. But nice try..

His website is a STORE for his products and advertising revenue. By your measure, he has a conflict of interest therefore his opinion is invalid.

I highly suggest you look up the definition of straw man argument because this isn't it... It involves a misrepresentation of a certain person's position; usually done on purpose based on dishonest intentions.

Dismissing all scientific evidence as being part of some Big Pharma conspiracy is a strawman argument. perhaps you should review your own sources on logical fallacies.

All medical reseach must have funding from somewhere so where does it come from? Can you be sure that the people or firms that donate the money, sometimes like the DOH, doesn't have connections to Big Pharma?

edit on 7-1-2014 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

Speaking of logical fallacies, this is known as the affirming the consequent fallacy. It also conviniently avoids you having to actually present scientific evidence so it's all good, right?

There are so many things wrong with this post I'm not sure I even know where to start... Not to mention that you have yet again failed to apply a proper definition of strawman argument to your big pharma nonsense. Dismissing scientific evidence paid for by big pharma to promote their agenda is not a strawman argument; it's called understanding conflicts of interests. I think this is about the last time I will reply on this thread.. Thank Thoth, that half you people commenting this nonsense don't run or live in our country.

I would also like to point out that the entire article in the OP is nothing more than anecdotal evidence, and is NOT a scientific study. As such, it should be taken with a grain of salt.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

I would also like to point out that the entire article in the OP is nothing more than anecdotal evidence, and is NOT a scientific study. As such, it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Whereas "both my room-mates got the flu vaccine and got sick" is a properly controlled scientific study?

six67seven
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

That's fine. It just makes me uneasy when a child/baby is given 20 vaccines (exaggeration) in a short amount of time.

Yep! And until they come up with vaccinations that does not require me to sign a waiver stating that if my child dies, they are not responsible, then I won't be getting them at all.

They are GOING to be responsible if my child dies for their vaccines! They will not put that on me. So, until then, they can keep their shots.

reply to post by Advantage


I know of three people right now who got sick right after taking this years flu shot. One of them spent Christmas in ICU.

We need to start seeing data from CDC on people who are getting sick or dying from their shots. They should be mandated to provide it, however, the numbers would be fudged of course.

reply to post by Taissa

We need to start seeing data from CDC on people who are getting sick or dying from their shots. They should be mandated to provide it, however, the numbers would be fudged of course.

The data can be found here:

vaers.hhs.gov...

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Dismissing someone's argument because it's all part of some Big Pharma conspiracy IS a strawman argument. So let's recap:

* You won't present any scientific evidence because it's all clearly part of the grand conspiracy.

* You'll credulously accept nonsense from naturalnews and other conspiracy blogs/sites that have a vested interested in trashing the field of medicine because they have their own snake oil they're trying to sell you.

* You'll dismiss the OP as "anecdotal evidence" yet according to you, actual scientific evidence is "part of the conspiracy".

So not only are you a hypocrite for holding other people's evidence to a higher standard than your own (remember your own anecdotal story you tried to use to justify how sick flu shots make people?), you are also breathtakingly closed minded in your approach by refusing to accept any evidence that hasn't come from one of your biased conspiracy sources with their own blatant conflicts of interests.

Unbelievable.

VeritasAequitas
reply to post by GetHyped

 

For your information, Mike has stated several times he doesn't get paid to do reviews, or endorse anything. But nice try..

A straw man would be insinuating that ALL medical research is performed by "Big Pharma" when it clearly isn't.

I highly suggest you look up the definition of straw man argument because this isn't it... It involves a misrepresentation of a certain person's position; usually done on purpose based on dishonest intentions.

All medical reseach must have funding from somewhere so where does it come from? Can you be sure that the people or firms that donate the money, sometimes like the DOH, doesn't have connections to Big Pharma?

edit on 7-1-2014 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

"Mike has stated several times he doesn't get paid to do reviews, or endorse anything."

If Mike told me the sky was blue I'd still look up to make sure.


Adams is a scammer.
That's what he does and that's what he's very good at.
He has no experience and very little knowledge of medicine, conventional or otherwise.
All of "his" articles are pulled from elsewhere and the more controversial the better as it brings more gullibles in.

Did you not read what I posted about him and the Y2K scam he was pulling or did you just put your hands over your eyes and hoped it would go away?
www.zdnet.com...

Taissa
reply to post by Advantage

 

I know of three people right now who got sick right after taking this years flu shot. One of them spent Christmas in ICU.

We need to start seeing data from CDC on people who are getting sick or dying from their shots. They should be mandated to provide it, however, the numbers would be fudged of course.

Yeah, I agree this years shot is a doozy. One of our good friends is in the hospital ( no longer in ICU) for some complications after the shot. Her main Dr ( I THINK he is a cardiologist) said that she was probably sick or getting sick when she got the shot.. but that doesnt explain why she got so severely sick so quickly.
Personally Im not a fan of the fast push vaccines for flu.. IMO the flu shot is a different issue than immunizations.

The cdc DOES have flu death stats.. and vaccine reaction stats. The problem its that each year the shot is changed, so the data on any particular shot isnt and cant be compiled until AFTER that season.

This whole "take our pills or injections whether your want it or not" reminds me of how the US wants to bully the rest of the world because it thinks itself the most moral and able. The pharma companies and medical people in general believe they stand on the side of science and can do no wrong, but corruption knows no such limits. Science might be the closest thing to truth and vaccines might be better than no vaccines, but FORCING it on people is stretching tolerable limits too far. Even with drinking water if I don't like the tap water I can filter it or buy bottled water. If I don't like what Obama is saying I can ignore him. If I don't like what the newspapers say, I don't read them. IF I don't like the political parties, I don't have to vote. Anytime something is forced I think it makes us vulnerable to institutional corruption - the kind which cannot be corrected from the inside. Why would we tie ourselves up like that? Science is good, but it ain't perfect and we shouldn't kill individual rights on the assumption corruption can be contained.

Maybe if they can show ALL anti-vacc people are mentally ill they can get away with this, but otherwise it's just too pushy I think to ever be enforced without threatening our sense of confidence in our country's ideals.

I hate how my country feels more and more institutional. It feels more and more hostile. Everything feels controlled. Everything feels monitored. 9/11 really freaked us out and made us enact all sorts of rules to protect ourselves. The pharma industry has exploded in response to the perceived threat of mental illness. Cops are in our schools and protestors are sectioned off from others. Kids are watched and given pills when they deviate from what's considered healthy. More and more camara's everywhere watching everything. The standards are getting tighter and it's harder for a person to feel free. The neck tie doesn't fit anymore. In general, there's a feeling telling me we're becoming like a collective or some such.

I grew up in a school without cops. Generally, we all worked together to maintain the peace. We tried to know each other. We tried to do the right thing. Sometimes we made mistakes. It felt human. But now as I watch my society seemingly become militarized and afraid, there's a non-human feeling. A fear wells up inside me and I think of robots and machines merging with humans. The human inside us is being handcuffed and removed from the playing field and replaced by .... a human-machine hybrid. Maybe it's not literally, but maybe it's figuratively.

Maybe I am becoming increasingly irrational and increasingly distant and all of my inner struggle is projected onto my country. Maybe a psychiatric evaluation says I am projecting my flaws onto my country. So in fact I am the thing which needs to change in order for me to be satisfied. Still, I grew up in a school without cops... Why do we need cops now? We think we're safer? THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS PERFECT SAFETY. So maybe we did get a little bit safer, but in exchange we lost some of our humanity. Human-machine hybrids will do the same thing. We will be more friendly to the idea after a couple more decades of computers and knowledge and more rules and protectionism. They will offer us control and safety we don't have now. And just like how we embrace cops in schools, we'll embrace them.

See, I'm wearing a chip and have a neuro-mechanized arm, yet I am human! (That's how it will start) The human-machine hybrids will seem human and we'll embrace it, not realizing we're not as human as we once were. Not realizing all through the many decades and centuries we were coming to this point in time. We're already hybrids, at least in thought. Moving to the real thing will just be a few more steps. Call me crazy or paranoid, I don't care: this is what I think.

More control. More safety. That's what we want. Maybe we're right. Maybe all advanced civilizations become this way to thwart the threat of extinction or collapse of major populations. Rome collapsed, so can we?

My suggestion to pro-vac people is continue to put people on a guilt trip. Make them feel guilty about not getting it. That's fine. It's even noble, if you're right. However, don't support enforcement of vaccination. Talk all you want and it might do good, but enforcement is something I can't stand with you on.

I'm kind of free wheeling. I also support legalization of marijuana. I'd rather we be free and live with some risk then be safe yet in chains. I'm not saying we can't be safe and feel free too, but I do think there's no such thing as freedom without risk. As a society, we have to determine how much risk we can afford, but if zero risk is our aim then my feeling is it's unattainable and ultimately destructive.

jonnywhite
My suggestion to pro-vac people is continue to put people on a guilt trip. Make them feel guilty about not getting it. That's fine. It's even noble, if you're right. However, don't support enforcement of vaccination. Talk all you want and it might do good, but enforcement is something I can't stand with you on.

I'm kind of free wheeling. I also support legalization of marijuana. I'd rather we be free and live with some risk then be safe yet in chains. I'm not saying we can't be safe and feel free too, but I do think there's no such thing as freedom without risk. As a society, we have to determine how much risk we can afford, but if zero risk is our aim then my feeling is it's unattainable and ultimately destructive.

edit on 8-1-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

Those are two separate arguments. One can think that vaccinations are helpful and that the benefits of getting them outweigh the risks without wanting them mandated by law.

I disagree with those who think they are dangerous and part of a big pharma conspiracy because the scientific evidence does not support that mindset.
I disagree with those who would mandate vaccinations because I think that people should not be forced to take any sort of medical intervention (assuming they are of sound mind, otherwise it should be up to the caretaker, not the state) against their will.

You know what I see with some of the posters. Just anti being told what to do "because". Like a teenager.

Even if the person telling them what to do is clearly smarter and was able to comprehend factors well beyond their own personal sphere. They would rather label that person as evil or a shill rather than admit that standard is beyond them.

The funny thing is. To get this far in life, 99% of their everyday activities was using other peoples inventions. Some of them dangerous and easily argued against ( electricity is a classic example ). I can almost guarantee that no object they use. Or food they eat. Was invented or discovered as safe , by them. Their "right" to chose was fought by someone else less selfish than them.



Some people literally sacrificed their own personal and family lives to bring us protection. Not because they were evil or greedy. But quite simply because they were smart and wanted to help humanity. And not sit back and have a big whinge like all the hangers on do.

My right to do this. My right to do that. Blah blah blah...

How about your responsibility to earn those rights every day you get out of bed. In the dry walled bedroom someone else invented so you didn't get bronchial pneumonia and die before the age of 5.

By first of all appreciating all the wonderful choices you have thanks to other peoples effort.




Seriously , the sense of self entitlement displayed by some people today is both repulsive and destructive to society.

So today was blissfully slow and I was able to get the numbers I promised. So my pharmacy did 76 flu shots in September, 148 in October, 54 in November, and 20 in December (technically it would have been more but Tamiflu went on backorder at the end of the month). In contrast we dispensed four boxes of Tamiflu in September, two in October, one in November, and 16 in December. So if the flu shot causes the flu why did only two people need Tamiflu even though we gave 148 flu shots? Why did 16 people need Tamiflu in December when it was our slowest month for flu shots?

thedeadtruth
You know what I see with some of the posters. Just anti being told what to do "because". Like a teenager.

Yes Dad... In the future I will ALWAYS do as YOU SAY!!! BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Your treating us like CHILDREN and than complaining that we are behaving like children. NOW THAT"S CLASSY!!!

Even if the person telling them what to do is clearly smarter and was able to comprehend factors well beyond their own personal sphere. They would rather label that person as evil or a shill rather than admit that standard is beyond them.

Yes clearly you are smarter than all of us! You have yet to disprove a single anti vaxxers post or for that matter, provide one shred of evidence that vaccines do as you claim.

The funny thing is. To get this far in life, 99% of their everyday activities was using other peoples inventions. Some of them dangerous and easily argued against ( electricity is a classic example ). I can almost guarantee that no object they use. Or food they eat. Was invented or discovered as safe , by them. Their "right" to chose was fought by someone else less selfish than them.

Clearly you are the exception to this statement. Surely you must only use items invented by yourself that are completely safe and for your information sunshine I am STILL fighting to preserve peoples right to choose. The only thing that you've said here is that YOU would gladly. Forcefully. Remove from us the rights that so MANY of our loved ones have DIED for.

Some people literally sacrificed their own personal and family lives to bring us protection. Not because they were evil or greedy. But quite simply because they were smart and wanted to help humanity. And not sit back and have a big whinge like all the hangers on do.

My right to do this. My right to do that. Blah blah blah...

How about your responsibility to earn those rights every day you get out of bed. In the dry walled bedroom someone else invented so you didn't get bronchial pneumonia and die before the age of 5.

By first of all appreciating all the wonderful choices you have thanks to other peoples effort.




Seriously , the sense of self entitlement displayed by some people today is both repulsive and destructive to society.

Your a disgrace. You should listen to yourself and take your own advice. Take your self righteous guilt else where.

I apologize to all for my post being off topic. However... Nothing about the post I'm responding to is on topic either. So there aint much I can do now is there?!?

Hello there, I was just browsing this thread and I thought I'd add this. I am a 32 year old that lives in Country Australia and I had all the childhood immunisations that was required, the last time I had a shot was when I was in High School around 1997 - 1999 and haven't had a shot since, and I hardly have been sick. Also my housemate is 68 and the last time he had a shot was when he was in the Army in the 60's and he is fit as a fiddle.

I also like to add that we (my housemate and I) have not had the H1N1 shot as we chose not to have it.

logankale
Hello there, I was just browsing this thread and I thought I'd add this. I am a 32 year old that lives in Country Australia and I had all the childhood immunisations that was required, the last time I had a shot was when I was in High School around 1997 - 1999 and haven't had a shot since, and I hardly have been sick. Also my housemate is 68 and the last time he had a shot was when he was in the Army in the 60's and he is fit as a fiddle.

I also like to add that we (my housemate and I) have not had the H1N1 shot as we chose not to have it.

I'm willing to bet you live in a low population density area, reducing your exposure to infected individuals. Immunization is geared towards larger populations where infectious diseases can spread rapidly unless contained.

DJW001

I'm willing to bet you live in a low population density area, reducing your exposure to infected individuals. Immunization is geared towards larger populations where infectious diseases can spread rapidly unless contained.

I'll have to agree yeah there is a low population area where I live but it over the last 3 years or so it is growing though.