Should vaccinated have right to sue unvaccinated? - Page 17

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by amnesiac 

Let's assume the best of each other - that we have good intentions of having a thoughtful discussion, examining all sides of the issue. As far as the nature of this forum is concerned, we embrace all parents, regardless of their vaccination choice.

Well, then maybe the vax forum needs to be moderated better, b/c it certainly doesn't feel that way to me.  It seems like its Vaxers vs. Non-Vaxers, and non-vaxers are convinced that I'm poisoning my child.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

Well, then maybe the vax forum needs to be moderated better, b/c it certainly doesn't feel that way to me.  It seems like its Vaxers vs. Non-Vaxers, and non-vaxers are convinced that I'm poisoning my child.

Give me a break.  I could just as easily say that Vaxers are convinced that non-vaxers are putting their children at risk and ignoring the "greatest achievement in human history", oh, and that anyone who loves their family would surely vaccinate. 

[MamaofLiam]

I think you are taking the opinions of others in regards to their own situation way too personally. No one here is out to get you. No one here is on a mission to tell you you are a bad mother. I don't think anyone is judging you one way or the other - I believe most people are primarily concerned with their own children, not yours. And last time I checked this thread wasn't called "SSM is poisoning her child", it was called "should the vaccinated have a right to sue the unvaccinated." I'm beginning to believe that you may just be doing this to incite people to tell you otherwise, for attention, validation, who knows. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, including vaxers and non-vaxers. So just deal with it.

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

Well, then maybe the vax forum needs to be moderated better, b/c it certainly doesn't feel that way to me.  It seems like its Vaxers vs. Non-Vaxers, and non-vaxers are convinced that I'm poisoning my child.

[MamaofLiam]

formatting error - I don't know why the font is so large in my response. oops

[PlayaMama]

Originally Posted by Calm 

Of course!  I know we all love the idea that we are all "unique" and all that, but really, we ain't.  I get asked this question all the time so I've refined the answer over time to this: would you ask the same thing about dogs?  No, in fact, it would be patently absurd to suggest that some dogs do better with vegan food and other dogs do better with cooked meat and yet another (he's such a radical, that Fido) does best with raw foods.  It just isn't a fact.  ALL dogs do best with BARF - Biologically Appropriate Raw Food.  

People shift uncomfortably in their seat at the idea that all of us are the same in any area... we feel we are different to all the other animals in this regard.  All other animals have a biologically perfect diet, uh, except humans?  That makes no sense. 

Oh, and regarding teeth again, dogs fed BARF don't need to have their teeth brushed.

"The results are in and it's obvious that dog's fed a raw diet have much cleaner teeth. The processed or cooked foods eaten by dogs today are high in two substances; soluble carbohydrates and soluble calcium. These two nutrients attack a dog's mouth at every meal. In addition, processed foods do not contain the naturally occurring enzymes found in  raw foods so necessary for clean teeth. Through the use of raw bones and a healthy BARF diet, your dog can have a sparkling smile!"

i have sevaral comments:

1- i find it interesting that you would posit that all humans are the same on the vaccine forum, where it is very common to suggest that some children are more sensitive to vaccine ingredients than others, leading to reactions in some children and not in others.

2- i am, unfortunately for your assertion, quite familiar with both the BARF diet for canines, and a raw diet for humans, having gone so far as to both feed my dog and myself diets following those guidelines. this was about five years ago, and i no longer follow those guidelines due to the negative affects on my own health (i must have been doing it wrong!) and the lack of benefit that i saw for my dog when compared to the expense of the BARF diet. i also am aware that some dogs function better on different diets (duck and potato anyone?) than others.

3- my current dog is fed a dried grain-free diet and my cat isfed a dried regular food that is not grain free. neither of them have teeth issues including tartar or smell. my cat is fifteen and my dog is about four. she does get chewies, which i've found to be very effective at keeping her teeth clean.

4- finally, i've seen plenty of older cats with few health problems that were fed the cheapest purina cat chow you can find. it really isn't as straight forward as you'd like it to be.

with this, i think i'm done, as it seems that this should probably be in pets? or maybe food? either way, i don't think that it belongs in a vax thread!

Edited by PlayaMama - 4/9/11 at 11:50am

[amnesiac]

Yes, those are tremendously interesting discussions - please do feel free to start new threads in Pets or Nutrition & Good Eating as appropriate to the topic you'd like to discuss further.

Also feel free to PM any of the Vax moderators or our administrators if you have any questions or concerns about the forum. We are always more than happy to hear from you.




So regardless of our personal vax choices, it looks like our discussion in this thread has shown that we have quite a lot of uncertain feelings about legal liability in relation to vax choices. I was really interested to read some of the specific legal language and explanation of how that language is applied in court provided in the early pages of the thread since that's not something I have a lot of personal experience with.

[pers]

Originally Posted by Calm 

As mentioned, it only recently dawned on me that so many people don't know this stuff.  

That explains a lot.

There were 14 pertussis deaths in 2009, btw, so I change it from zero to 14.  Interestingly, in the same year there were 15 deaths from the pertussis vaccine reported by doctors and in 2010 there were 773 death claims filed against the vaccine with total of 1371 injury and deaths awarded compensation - all for pertussis alone.  (includes the multiple vaxes DTP and DTaP)

What is your source for 15 deaths from pertussis vaccine?

Actually, there were not 773* death claims or 1371* injury/death compensations for 2010, those numbers cover the entire period from when the program started in 1988 through 2010, so about 22 years. 

*or numbers very close to those, but I think that your math may have been slightly off. 

Also, comparing numbers of deaths attributed to vaccines to deaths from disease does not show which is the more dangerous option.  It fails to take into consideration that one of the reasons deaths from VPD are so rare is because we live in a highly vaccinated society - vaccines keep people from getting the disease, and people can't die of diseases they don't even get. 

[Calm]

Originally Posted by Jugs 

ETA: its also inaccurate to compare the number of disease-related injuries and deaths to the number vaccine-related injuries and deaths; a more accurate risk-assessment would be to compare the rate of disease- and vaccine-related injuries and deaths. As the number of vaccine doses administered far outweighs the number of reported cases of VPDs, the rate of vaccine-related injuries and deaths is significantly lower, even when under-reporting is accounted for.

I know that's what is commonly done, and you can find that kind of comparison anywhere.  

Hence why I do a different comparison, which splits the whole issue wide open.  

Most are shocked to learn there are no deaths from most VPD, and almost no deaths from all VPD, yet there are deaths from vaccines.  No matter how you fumble with the facts of "are vaxes safe" or "do vaxes work", there's that elephant in the room that won't be ignored.  I don't care how you want me to compare, to make it look less horrific than it really is.... I'll continue to keep parents informed of the truth of the situation as it is where we are and the situation as it is currently.  We are not in Africa.  And we are not in 1960 anymore, nor 1980, nor even 2000.  We must adjust decisions for our children based on current, applicable information.  So you continue keeping all that antiquated, manipulated, irrelevant information alive if you like.  I, however, will not.

[Calm]

Originally Posted by PlayaMama 

i have sevaral comments:

1- i find it interesting that you would posit that all humans are the same on the vaccine forum, where it is very common to suggest that some children are more sensitive to vaccine ingredients than others, leading to reactions in some children and not in others.

2- i am, unfortunately for your assertion, quite familiar with both the BARF diet for canines, and a raw diet for humans, having gone so far as to both feed my dog and myself diets following those guidelines. this was about five years ago, and i no longer follow those guidelines due to the negative affects on my own health (i must have been doing it wrong!) and the lack of benefit that i saw for my dog when compared to the expense of the BARF diet. i also am aware that some dogs function better on different diets (duck and potato anyone?) than others.

3- my current dog is fed a dried grain-free diet and my cat isfed a dried regular food that is not grain free. neither of them have teeth issues including tartar or smell. my cat is fifteen and my dog is about four. she does get chewies, which i've found to be very effective at keeping her teeth clean.

4- finally, i've seen plenty of older cats with few health problems that were fed the cheapest purina cat chow you can find. it really isn't as straight forward as you'd like it to be.

with this, i think i'm done, as it seems that this should probably be in pets? or maybe food? either way, i don't think that it belongs in a vax thread!

Hi Playamama 

1) I didn't say all humans were the same.  I said all humans have the same biological dietary needs and potential for vital health.  To preempt the inevitable reactions to that I do an automatic comparison to dogs, which usually cuts that reaction down by quite a margin.  It is much easier for a conditioned people to acknowledge all of one particular species thrive best on one particular diet than it is to imagine the same for humans.  Due to the many emotional, spiritual and physical environments, plus the many diets and almost endless factors playing on all humans at all times, there are perceivable differences between us.  Studies show the same in animals, for example, primates.  Primates in zoos behave differently to wild ones, and they also exhibit different dietary issues.  These issues are eradicated when they revert to a wild environment and diet.

2) With respect to the forum and topic, I won't go further in this particular issue other than to say that yes, it is common to do a raw diet wrong.  Dogs were not meant to eat cooked or processed food, wild dogs can't cook... simple.  ETA - we used to feed our dog raw food that we put together ourselves but it can be expensive and time consuming.  So we now buy from a company that does BARF.  It is cheaper by about 30 cents a feed than cooked pet food.  I'll admit I was surprised by that myself.  Perhaps it is just my local supplier.

3) You seem like a very caring pet owner.

4) I've known people to live to 90 who smoked a pack a day and ate McDonalds regularly.  I don't believe those things added to their longevity, however.  

I agree, the animal topic has served it's purpose and I'll leave it to rest now.
 

Edited by Calm - 4/9/11 at 2:38pm

[pers]

Originally Posted by Calm 


 I'll continue to keep parents informed of the truth of the situation as it is where we are and the situation as it is currently. 

So, if you are telling them the truth, you are informing them that their kids are unlikely to encounter most vaccine preventable diseases thanks to high vaccination rates, right?  And that should vaccination rates fall below what is needed to maintain herd immunity, then their kids will be at risk after all?  And that this is no protection against tetanus since that is not a communicable disease so herd immunity is not applicable?  

If you really want them to do what is absolutely best for their child, then perhaps you should tell them to keep quiet about their choice not to vaccinate and encourage everyone else to vaccinate since it is everyone else's vaccines that are keeping them safe...

Also, not sure if you saw my post just above the two you just posted or not, since we posted at the same time. 

[Calm]

 

Perhaps I wasn't being transparent enough, but I was challenging you to show me how you figured your statistics; I am quite familiar with VAERS and NVICP, as well as the CDC's morbidity and mortality surveillance system, which is why I knew that 35 vs 0 figure was incorrect. Also, if you read the NVICP footnote carefully, you will find that 773 death claims and 1371 claims awarded for pertussis vaccines is actually from 1986-2010, not 2010 alone.

If you knew the pertussis stat, why didn't you link your data or at least tell me when I asked for corrections several pages back?  Are we not here to help each other?  If you "knew" it was incorrect, was that in your gut, or do you have data?  Could you link your data for me?  If you would like to check my source of 35 deaths, you will have to call these lawyers.  Not all data is easily linked, esp when the figures are so well hidden behind things like percentages, global numbers and "number of deaths per case".  

And yes, that was for the 22 year period so about 35 a year.  I thought that figure was too high for one vax!  I was initially happy (for want of a better word) with the 15 reported by doctors, as that is quite high enough, esp considering 1 to 10% is all that is reported.  

My source, for those who asked, for the 15 is VAERS.  I can't link VAERS pages, but if you fill in this search form, select "DTAP" on the vaccine list, then scroll near the bottom and select "yes" next to "died" and then scroll right to the bottom and select 2009.  You'll be able to read about each death in more detail if you scroll down the page, like this little boy's report.  

[Calm]

I meant to add, that law firm's page above is worth reading, as their findings suggest the death rate at 1000 per year.  That figure is more in line with the statistics when you add them all together.  No wonder they are made so hard to find, it would mean the average person would be able to figure these numbers out themselves and few would vaccinate on herd benefit alone.

[Calm]

Pers, I've run out of time, but I wanted to let you know that I have read your posts and I will respond to you some hours from now.  

[Jugs]

Originally Posted by Calm 

If you knew the pertussis stat, why didn't you link your data or at least tell me when I asked for corrections several pages back?  Are we not here to help each other?  If you "knew" it was incorrect, was that in your gut, or do you have data?  Could you link your data for me?  If you would like to check my source of 35 deaths, you will have to call these lawyers.  Not all data is easily linked, esp when the figures are so well hidden behind things like percentages, global numbers and "number of deaths per case".  

As I stated a few pages back, I knew it was incorrect because the CDC's final stats on 2009 haven't been published yet. Again, I questioned your figure of 0 VPD deaths because your link stopped at 2008.

[Calm]

Originally Posted by pers 

So, if you are telling them the truth, you are informing them that their kids are unlikely to encounter most vaccine preventable diseases thanks to high vaccination rates, right?  And that should vaccination rates fall below what is needed to maintain herd immunity, then their kids will be at risk after all?  And that this is no protection against tetanus since that is not a communicable disease so herd immunity is not applicable?  

If you really want them to do what is absolutely best for their child, then perhaps you should tell them to keep quiet about their choice not to vaccinate and encourage everyone else to vaccinate since it is everyone else's vaccines that are keeping them safe...

Also, not sure if you saw my post just above the two you just posted or not, since we posted at the same time. 

I mentioned tetanus earlier in this thread, here: 

"Of most relevance to tetanus is the fact that there are no deaths in the under 35 age bracket Source 

As I am a proponent of free choice, even for my children. I have not made decisions on their behalf if it is a decision that can be left to themselves when they are older such as circumcision, and tetanus falls under that category because even if I had no other reasons, the risk is not in their age bracket."

I believe the lawyers and others that state that the death numbers from vaccinations fall into the thousands.  Inquiries have shown doctors report from 1 to 10% of deaths from vaccines.  Even conservatively, that puts the deaths in the thousands.  

Deaths per case were plummeting long before vaccines and after all it is how fatal a disease is that makes it worthy of worry.  Plus it is mostly the immuno compromised who die or who even have complications and they don't release the stats of "immunocompromised children who died from VPD vs healthy vital unmedicated children."

Babies are now at risk when they rarely used to get these diseases and they are the ones, along with the elderly, who are actually at risk of death.  Mothers who were vaxed do not transfer the immunity to their babies they used to, so now we have a new problem.  The solution proposed?  Vaccinate the newborns.    Basically, even if we all stopped vaccinating and found ourselves back in the middle of regular disease outbreaks, I don't fear that.  Not even the smallest, measurable, tiny little bit because I believe the numbers of deaths we'd see would rival the number of deaths from the vaccines themselves.  And that is without our new found information such as vitamin A which cuts the mortality rate in half.  Medicine is starting to wake up to the fact that VPD are just as tied to general health and nutrition status as any other disease.  If they'd stop for one moment obsessing with vaccines and studied these other areas, we would (and will) find safer, more permanent, more sustainable, free and natural ways to eradicate the diseases or at least decrease severity or deaths per case stats.  Then we can put vaccines on the "lessons learned" pile of arrogant medical history right next to thalidomide, blood letting and refusal to wash hands before surgery.

The last part of my answer I can take from my post on another thread, here:

Like I always say, I don't give my children quinine for malaria just because thousands of kids die from malaria each year.  It would be outright disproportionate manic fear to medicate my children for diseases they are at little risk of even contracting, let alone getting complications for.  It is not relevant to my children, and I am certainly and unequivocally not putting my children at risk of adverse effects for some backwards idea that it protects your kids or keeps the overall disease stats down.  My children are my priority.  There are many ways I can and do help my community become healthy... unnecessarily medicating my children is not on that list.  

Edited by Calm - 4/10/11 at 4:00am

[Calm]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

Calm-  You've met several people who were 130?  Really?  I mean, the oldest living person EVER was 122.  On the list of 10 oldest people, most are 114, max.  And you, personally, have met several over 130?  Wow.  That's all I can say.

Sorry, nice quiet thread and all but I just remembered I saw this post.

When I was in Japan, I visited a healer and he had some people from Okinawa staying with him.  Okinawa has a reputation of one of the places in the world that has the most centenarians living there only I didn't know that at the time.  A couple were said to be in their mid 120's... I did not check their records, I just believed what I was told.  We only hear about the ones who are the absolute oldest, not the very many who are also only a few months or even days younger than that person.  There are many old old people out there, some cultures house more of them than others, and it is those types I look at for secrets... if they have any.  A one off oldy may or may not have health and longevity wisdom to share but a whole culture of it says something.  

I've learned a few things about this since, and one of the things is that there are many people out there with dodgy records or who are said to be a particular age but because it can't be officially proven, don't get noted officially.  Now and again the reverse happens and they discover someone who is older than the oldest person and they are given the title as the oldest because they have tight records... records weren't as easy to come by in the 1800's, and some cultures didn't record births at all (in fact, the more simple the culture, the more chance of longevity, the less chance of records kept... paradoxically).  If they really knew who the oldest person was, this person would hold the title until they died, making the next oldest person move in line.  But with almost 7 billion people on earth, it isn't as easy to find them, and some cultures refuse western contact (very intelligent people, obviously).  To my knowledge the oldest "official" living person is 130 years old and is from a remote mountain village in the Soviet, and they've got a lot of oldies living there.  

Off topic, perhaps, perhaps not, but all the documentaries I've watched, all the things I've studied, there is only one common thread in all people who live long (not necessarily healthy, but live long) and that is they are all underweight in terms of the weight charts we use in the West.  I've checked dietary things (most, probably at least 80% are vegans or if they eat meat, do so at a very small rate) I've checked all kinds of things and there is only that ONE commonality.  Interesting because one of my teachers (who I met in the States, actually) told me well before I learned any of this that if I wanted to maintain my health I should maintain my low weight.  Some say that is because the less you eat to get the nutrients you need, the less stress is on your body.  Hence why raw is helpful for that... eat less, but get more nutrients.

Dat's it.  Dat's all I got.

ETA - before someone gets nit picky... yes, some people are really unhealthy and also thin.  I'm not saying being thin is a miracle cure... you can still get cancer from smoking if you're thin, etc.   But there is a definite correlation.

[Noellecc3]

I think you should be able to sue.  People sue others over a lot crazier claims than that!  I think any mother choosing to vaccinate knows there are dangerous chemicals in the vaccine, they just think the risk of death from the diseases the vaccines help prevent far outweighs the risk from the chemicals. 

Edited by Noellecc3 - 4/12/11 at 12:29pm

[Noellecc3]

They found a special gene in populations that tend to live to 100 or more (the japanese, Jewish, Italians etc).   It's called FOXO gene, and the gene probably plays more of a role in the individual's long life than diet or anything else.   

[Noellecc3]

People sue others over a lot more crazier claims than that!   

Edited by Noellecc3 - 4/12/11 at 12:29pm

[Noellecc3]

I