Dude, I answered your questions. You want me to repeat my answers; I see no need. If thinking I'm being uncivil helps you sleep, so be it.
New Law in California
- Thread starter Dannyalcatraz
- Start date
- Status
Homicidal_Squirrel
Adventurer
Good night, DA. When you feel up to continuing the discussion, you can send me a private message. I'm sure the rest of the people coming to this thread would rather this particular train of discussion stop. Have a good night.
Sweet dreams, HS.
Predictibly, a legal challenge is being contemplated.
http://patch.com/california/alisovi...-disobedience-after-ca-vaccination-law-signed
http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Health-News/vaccine-california-law-challenge/2015/07/02/id/653200/
It will be interesting, not just on the basis of what the outcome will be, but also HOW the outcome will be reached. It is entirely possible that the legal challenge could fail based on a Frye or Daubert junk science ruling (I don't know which standard California uses) by the court. If the anti-vaccine activists get a bunch of their evidence tossed that way, they're going to howl even more.
http://patch.com/california/alisovi...-disobedience-after-ca-vaccination-law-signed
http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Health-News/vaccine-california-law-challenge/2015/07/02/id/653200/
It will be interesting, not just on the basis of what the outcome will be, but also HOW the outcome will be reached. It is entirely possible that the legal challenge could fail based on a Frye or Daubert junk science ruling (I don't know which standard California uses) by the court. If the anti-vaccine activists get a bunch of their evidence tossed that way, they're going to howl even more.
There are two options here. (1) Danny has answered your question, in which case you are badgering him; or (2) Danny doesn't want to answer your question, in which case you are badgering him. Either way: stop badgering people. Please don't post in this thread again.
Ok, I've spent the time to read through just about every comment in this thread. Some of you will probably call me "anti-vaxxer" but, whatever; I've vaccinated all of my children, though I have chosen to delay or remove several vaccinations (I see no point in vaccinating for Varicella if my child has already had it, nor am I convinced of the safety or long-term effectiveness of the HPV vaccine). So, if you think I'm an anti-vaxxer because of this, or if you think that it's sport to insult and belittle people who think differently than you do (as someone said earlier in the thread...shame them...as if bullying will persuade anyone to change their minds) then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. This is a fundamentalist mentality that has no place in a reasonable and intelligent discussion. This is the core of the problem being discussed here...how to change minds.
Many people who are being accused of being "anti-vaccine" are not...they choose to selectively vaccinate, or to delay vaccination. Due to my son's vaccine reaction, my doctor and I discussed spreading out my youngest child's vaccinations. This was an informed choice that was discussed with a medical professional who was taking my family's medical history into account when helping us make this decision. After mentioning this on another forum (not this one), I was accused of being an "anti-vaxxer" and generalized as a kook. That's fundamentalism; if you do not agree with the Vaccine Fundamentalists, then you are a heretic/infidel/anti-vaxxer. Fundamentalism, whether it be vaccines or religion, has no place in science.
I tried to approach much of the conversation in this thread with the understanding that this is an online text forum, and some comments could seem insulting, but are not meant that way. However, after reading through the entire thread, I realized that yes, some people were being deliberately insulting. I will try my best to refrain from insulting or demeaning anyone here. I'm not going to get drawn into an argument or discussion...I will say my piece and then move on.
That being said, someone (I'm not naming names because I don't want anyone to think that I'm singling anyone out) made a comment that vaccine injury was a term that was flagrantly used. This implies that they believe that vaccine injury is not real. If vaccine injury was not real, there would be no need for the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), a program that was created to remove liability from the Pharmaceutical companies for vaccines (this is the only company that has this form of liability protection). The NVICP has paid out billions of dollars since the mid 80's to children and adults injured by vaccines, including my son. So saying that vaccine injury "isn't real" (this wasn't actually said, but it was most certainly implied) is, quite frankly, extremely insulting. Do I think that some people mistakenly think that their child(ren) may be vaccine injured? Most assuredly.
Moving on, I want to discuss this law and the slippery slope it may signify. All medical procedures have risks. This is a known fact, and not a single person here should be able to deny this. This is why medical procedures are voluntary. Vaccination is a medical procedure. Herein lies the slippery slope...if we remove someone's choice on whether or not they (or those that they are legal guardians of) should have a medical procedure done, then we open the door for the government to remove the choice for all medical procedures. I am not comfortable with that, and neither should anyone else be.
This law is, quite simply, a knee-jerk reaction to fear-mongering. California has one of the highest vaccination rates in the country, at an estimated 95% vaccination rate (above the 93% threshold for herd immunity for Measles). The Disney outbreak was way over-blown...only around 150 people out of 360 million people were infected. The measles death in Washington, while sad, was not a result of the Disney outbreak. Knowing the history of the criminal dealings of the Pharmaceutical corporations (Vioxx, the current whistle-blower suits alleging that Merck lied about the effectiveness and safety of the MMR, Paxil...the list is quite large and sordid), and knowing that Senator Pan received quite a bit of money from the Pharmaceutical industry to push this law, is it any wonder why parents are nervous about this?
Finally, I was accused of being "anti-vaccine" after revealing my story on an online forum, and I was stalked and harassed by a particularly loathsome pro-vaccine fanatic (even going so far as having to press charges, change my phone number and address, and going completely anonymous online), so I have quite a bit of sympathy for these parents. I really appreciate everyone in this thread who were trying to point out that bullying, shaming, and attacking parents with vaccine concerns was not the way to win anyone over. Thank you!
Edit: Something I forgot to add earlier. The crux of the problem with some of the more vocal advocates that may be inappropriately labeled as "anti-vaccine" is that you are asking them to deny what happened to their children. You are asking them to say, "The injury that I witnessed happening to my child did not actually happen." The flimsy "coincidence" excuses coming from the hardcore vaccine defenders is just that; flimsy. They don't convince anyone.
Many people who are being accused of being "anti-vaccine" are not...they choose to selectively vaccinate, or to delay vaccination. Due to my son's vaccine reaction, my doctor and I discussed spreading out my youngest child's vaccinations. This was an informed choice that was discussed with a medical professional who was taking my family's medical history into account when helping us make this decision. After mentioning this on another forum (not this one), I was accused of being an "anti-vaxxer" and generalized as a kook. That's fundamentalism; if you do not agree with the Vaccine Fundamentalists, then you are a heretic/infidel/anti-vaxxer. Fundamentalism, whether it be vaccines or religion, has no place in science.
I tried to approach much of the conversation in this thread with the understanding that this is an online text forum, and some comments could seem insulting, but are not meant that way. However, after reading through the entire thread, I realized that yes, some people were being deliberately insulting. I will try my best to refrain from insulting or demeaning anyone here. I'm not going to get drawn into an argument or discussion...I will say my piece and then move on.
That being said, someone (I'm not naming names because I don't want anyone to think that I'm singling anyone out) made a comment that vaccine injury was a term that was flagrantly used. This implies that they believe that vaccine injury is not real. If vaccine injury was not real, there would be no need for the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), a program that was created to remove liability from the Pharmaceutical companies for vaccines (this is the only company that has this form of liability protection). The NVICP has paid out billions of dollars since the mid 80's to children and adults injured by vaccines, including my son. So saying that vaccine injury "isn't real" (this wasn't actually said, but it was most certainly implied) is, quite frankly, extremely insulting. Do I think that some people mistakenly think that their child(ren) may be vaccine injured? Most assuredly.
Moving on, I want to discuss this law and the slippery slope it may signify. All medical procedures have risks. This is a known fact, and not a single person here should be able to deny this. This is why medical procedures are voluntary. Vaccination is a medical procedure. Herein lies the slippery slope...if we remove someone's choice on whether or not they (or those that they are legal guardians of) should have a medical procedure done, then we open the door for the government to remove the choice for all medical procedures. I am not comfortable with that, and neither should anyone else be.
This law is, quite simply, a knee-jerk reaction to fear-mongering. California has one of the highest vaccination rates in the country, at an estimated 95% vaccination rate (above the 93% threshold for herd immunity for Measles). The Disney outbreak was way over-blown...only around 150 people out of 360 million people were infected. The measles death in Washington, while sad, was not a result of the Disney outbreak. Knowing the history of the criminal dealings of the Pharmaceutical corporations (Vioxx, the current whistle-blower suits alleging that Merck lied about the effectiveness and safety of the MMR, Paxil...the list is quite large and sordid), and knowing that Senator Pan received quite a bit of money from the Pharmaceutical industry to push this law, is it any wonder why parents are nervous about this?
Finally, I was accused of being "anti-vaccine" after revealing my story on an online forum, and I was stalked and harassed by a particularly loathsome pro-vaccine fanatic (even going so far as having to press charges, change my phone number and address, and going completely anonymous online), so I have quite a bit of sympathy for these parents. I really appreciate everyone in this thread who were trying to point out that bullying, shaming, and attacking parents with vaccine concerns was not the way to win anyone over. Thank you!
Edit: Something I forgot to add earlier. The crux of the problem with some of the more vocal advocates that may be inappropriately labeled as "anti-vaccine" is that you are asking them to deny what happened to their children. You are asking them to say, "The injury that I witnessed happening to my child did not actually happen." The flimsy "coincidence" excuses coming from the hardcore vaccine defenders is just that; flimsy. They don't convince anyone.
Last edited:
Kramodlog
Naked and living in a barrel
Why is this vaccine different from others, in your medical opinion?
Who implied it in this thread? I know I specifically said there can be serious side-effects.
Out of curiosity, are you for women being able to abort when they want?
Who said that? What I do know is that even if some people might say, the guvernment fund to compensate victims of said injuries is still there, so at least institutions do recognize those risks.
It's exactly what I said...I'm not convinced of the safety or long-term effectiveness. Several countries outside of the US have stopped using this vaccine because of reported deaths and injuries.
As I said, I hate to single anyone out, but someone mentioned up-thread about vaccine injury, and I quote:
"Whatever that means. Seriously, it's one of those terms people use to try and make it seem as if there was some nefarious plot to hurt their kids. As you can tell, I find it annoying."
I'm not sure what it has to do with this discussion, but yes. I don't like it, but I acknowledge that they have that right.
No one in this thread, particularly, but it is kind of the root of the problem, is it not? You want to convince these parents to vaccinate, right? So if you want to convince them, you need to convince them to deny what they think happened to their children.
tomBitonti
Hero
Hey, the question re: abortion was uncalled for. Address the issue, not the person.
Its pretty well known that flu vaccinations can have side effects:
Not to mention, an injection can cause an infection, and an injection of a foreign substance can cause reactions completely aside from the injection being of a particular substance. I've experienced some of the side effects -- where I work has a program of providing flu vaccinations, which I usually get.
A quick glance at the list of CDC recommended vaccinations for travelers (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/vac-admin/contraindications-vacc.htm) shows a long list of contra-indications.
But, there are all sorts of risk in life: Driving has risk. Driving a big car reduces one's own risk, but increases others. Exercising has risk, but so does not exercising. The question is not about whether there is risk, but how to manage it.
(Notwithstanding the above, I find that folks are often very poorly estimate risk, and alarmism rather doesn't help. I agree with the law in California. I also understand that there are lots of parts to the issue.)
Thx!
TomB
Its pretty well known that flu vaccinations can have side effects:
Not to mention, an injection can cause an infection, and an injection of a foreign substance can cause reactions completely aside from the injection being of a particular substance. I've experienced some of the side effects -- where I work has a program of providing flu vaccinations, which I usually get.
A quick glance at the list of CDC recommended vaccinations for travelers (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/vac-admin/contraindications-vacc.htm) shows a long list of contra-indications.
But, there are all sorts of risk in life: Driving has risk. Driving a big car reduces one's own risk, but increases others. Exercising has risk, but so does not exercising. The question is not about whether there is risk, but how to manage it.
(Notwithstanding the above, I find that folks are often very poorly estimate risk, and alarmism rather doesn't help. I agree with the law in California. I also understand that there are lots of parts to the issue.)
Thx!
TomB
- Status
Similar Threads
