Forced Vaccinations: Stepping into Eugenics? - Page 8

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I'm not making assumptions. You said you assume we both find them to be a credible (or reliable, whatever) source. I was letting you know that was not the case, and why I don't find the, to be credible. That's all. Your opinion of the, doesn't enter into it.

Mea culpa, rachel. I did not read the wiki thing you posted when I hit post last time.

If a person is not aware of exemptions, and those in power withhold that information from them, is that mandatory vaccines?   

[Rrrrrachel]

I've already addressed how I feel about what happened in Maryland. No one was forced, though, they were able to submit or file for an exemption.

I was responding specifically to Kathy's assumption that we all see aaps as credible. I don't. I said why. I don't care if you agree I was only Sharing my point of view, not trying to change anyone else's.

And OF COURSE the credibility of the messenger influences the credibility of the message. It's not the be all end all, but it absolutely has an influence.

[Rrrrrachel]

I don't see any evidence information on exemptions was withheld. I think parents who choose not to vaccinate have some responsibility to educate themselves on what's involved.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I don't see any evidence information on exemptions was withheld. I think parents who choose not to vaccinate have some responsibility to educate themselves on what's involved.

Did they tell them?

You could argue  it is "buyer beware" but that is pretty scuzzy when it comes to such a serious issue involving children.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

"In addition, the parents were not being informed of the Maryland state exemption laws, which allow for families to refuse vaccinations on the basis of religious beliefs or medical contraindications."
 

from an earlier post.

[Rrrrrachel]

Again, according to NVIC.

I won't get into the semantics of what I think withheld means.

[kathymuggle]

Not just NVIC:

"Among them was Charles Frohman, who represented the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a group opposing mandated vaccinations. Mr. Frohman said the county should have done more to make parents aware of their options. “Reports are that very few folks are really hearing about exemptions,” he said"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18vaccine.html

I know you do not like them, but do you actually think they are making this up?  And NVIC? (although I think whether or not buzz said this or NVIC is up for debate)

btw - I do not think "withheld" is a semantics issue.  It might (I don't really know) be legal for doctors , schools and health departments to not disclose exemptions exist - but it is unethical.  It is preying on ignorance or lack of availability to access resources in a health matter that affects children.  It is not in keeping with informed consent - it is stacking the deck so the outcome you (general you) want is more likely to be achieved.

[Rrrrrachel]

That's a very vague comment and I don't think it's the same at all as saying the information was withheld. I think someone from the aaps has a political agenda and is going to put a spin on things, yes.

[Rrrrrachel]

Here's an interesting tidbit from the nytimes article I was just readin (not sure if its the same one)

"The county winnowed the number of children needing documentation to 1,111 as of Thursday, from 2,643 in October. By the end of Saturday officials believe that number was 939, with 101 children receiving shots and 71 having their records updated."

So 101 out of 1111 got vaccinated tht day. Hardly seems like much force was involved.

[United We Stand]

What about the fact that it has been admitted that vaccines are used to reduce the population? There is no denying or arguing what " we can reduce the worlds population by 10-15% with vaccines" means. And remember Bill Gates has said we need to reduce the world population to around 1 billion people. So how do they intend on reducing the population that much? They would have to do it secretly, without people knowing.

[Rrrrrachel]

Thanks for reminding me about that I meant to look into it.

[Rrrrrachel]

Here's the more complete quote: "“The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”"

It's from his Ted talk here: http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html

It seems obvious to me that reproductive health services can lower population increase. Better health care in general, including vaccines, can help combat poverty which leads to smaller family sizes. Seems pretty clear he's not talking about eugenics.

[SweetSilver]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I don't see any evidence information on exemptions was withheld. I think parents who choose not to vaccinate have some responsibility to educate themselves on what's involved.

Reminds me of some of the reasons behind the Miranda v. Arizona ruling.  The background covers coercion and knowledge of one's rights.  I know there have been a lot of rulings, especially recently, regarding Miranda rights, but I feel the spirit of the original arguments are still relevant here.  

Background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona#Background

Doesn't relieve people of the importance of educating oneself, I'm not suggesting that, but at the same time it does not excuse the government or any agent of the government from not educating people on their rights.  People are not solely to blame if they do not understand or know about their options.

To take this one step further and make it my personal opinion, *if* information is intentionally withheld, then that becomes practically the same as mandatory.  (To muddle metaphors, .99999....=1.)

Sorry if this response took so long and by the time I post this, it might be even more irrelevant to the course of the thread, but I post anyway.

[United We Stand]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Here's the more complete quote: "“The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”"
It's from his Ted talk here: http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html
It seems obvious to me that reproductive health services can lower population increase. Better health care in general, including vaccines, can help combat poverty which leads to smaller family sizes. Seems pretty clear he's not talking about eugenics.

You are joking right? I am not going to argue reproductive health with you. I will also add education to reproductive health. But you explain how we can reduce the population with vaccines and health care? That is the exact opposite of what those 2 are supposed to do.

I understand it is hard to believe. I had a hard time believing it too. I started researching foods to prove my wife wrong, what I found out was we are all being slowly poisoned and medicated by the foods we eat, and what we drink. During my now hundreds of hours of research it is clear to me that the FDA,CDC,usda, and for the most part all other government agencies, have failed the people of this country.

So Merck was fined $3 billion, part of that fine was because they were using a 45 year old strain of mumps. So for 40+ years the mumps vaccine has done nothing to stop mumps, since it is always mutating, you must keep up. But when we look at the records we only see random outbreaks, and the vaccines themselves may play a role in those symptoms.

I can go on and on about vaccines. Please ladies avoid gardasil, If you get a yearly pap smear you have a .002% of dieing from cervical Caner. And if we eat more healthy, live more healthy, and get back to the way cavemen did it thousands of years ago, I give you my word we will be fine.

Now I cannot promise that people, and even kids, some maybe my own, will not die for one reason or another. But I promise injecting them with these things does not help.

Please stop for 10 seconds......., think outside the box. Julie Gerberding who used to work for Merck, now works for the CDC. So while she was in charge merck was fined a lot money.

[emmy526]

better health care, access to clean water and nutritious foods,  schooling and education, along with birth control education,  will go much farther to reduce population than simply supplying vaccines and inadequately supplied health clinics, which really do not meet the needs of the people being open only once a month.  

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Here's the more complete quote: "“The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”"
It's from his Ted talk here: http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html
It seems obvious to me that reproductive health services can lower population increase. Better health care in general, including vaccines, can help combat poverty which leads to smaller family sizes. Seems pretty clear he's not talking about eugenics.

[Rrrrrachel]

I agree with you, Emmy. Vaccines was only one thing in a long list he mentioned, in the middle of a long talk that was about something else.

United, I already explained better health care helps reduce poverty which leads to smaller families.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by United We Stand 


You are joking right? I am not going to argue reproductive health with you. I will also add education to reproductive health. But you explain how we can reduce the population with vaccines and health care? That is the exact opposite of what those 2 are supposed to do.
 

In general in 3rd world countries:  the more likely it is for child to survive into adulthood co-relates to the number of children a family has.  People have lots of kids because they do not expect all of them to make it to adulthood.  

Increasing the health of children in 3rd world countries will probably decrease (somewhat) the number of children born.

OTOH, increased health in 1st world countries will not lead to a decrease in family size.  If anything, it will lead to the opposite.  People who have a sick child are less likely to produce more offspring, as their sick child can take a lot of attention.  

[Rrrrrachel]

The gates foundation work and the comments before and after that quote in the Ted talk were about third world countries.

[emmy526]

True, but what about the 3rd world mama who knows her sick child isn't going to make it, and thus produces more children in hopes that one will survive?  She really isn't thinking of her sick kid, she's thinking more of which kids will make it to adulthood.   

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

In general in 3rd world countries:  the more likely it is for child to survive into adulthood co-relates to the number of children a family has.  People have lots of kids because they do not expect all of them to make it to adulthood.  

Increasing the health of children in 3rd world countries will probably decrease (somewhat) the number of children born.

OTOH, increased health in 1st world countries will not lead to a decrease in family size.  If anything, it will lead to the opposite.  People who have a sick child are less likely to produce more offspring, as their sick child can take a lot of attention.  

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by emmy526 

True, but what about the 3rd world mama who knows her sick child isn't going to make it, and thus produces more children in hopes that one will survive?  She really isn't thinking of her sick kid, she's thinking more of which kids will make it to adulthood.   

Agreed.