Forced Vaccinations: Stepping into Eugenics? - Page 10

[chickabiddy]

double post format error

[chickabiddy]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 


i requested a link. Rrrrachel said she provided a link.

 She clearly referred to "the buzzle article", which is linked in post #125.

[Rrrrrachel]

Yeah sorry I guess I provided a reference to a link already posted. Not a link.

I'm not sure what all the exemption options are in Maryland, but I would start with find a new doctor.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

 She clearly referred to "the buzzle article", which is linked in post #125.

That issue here is whether the parents were ever INFORMED that they had the option of seeking a medical exemption.

The buzzle article does not say that the letters to the parents informed them of this option. The way it is worded does not suggest that the letters contained this information.

[chickabiddy]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 


Please explain what working parents with no family support are supposed to do if they believe that their child's health would be at risk if they were to be vaccinated, but if their doctor is in error--and remember, physician error is common--and refuses to write a medical exemption?
Please give us a reasonable explanation of exactly what the parents' options are.

Maryland also allows religious exemptions.  Whether a parent should claim a religious exemption because s/he cannot get a medical exemption is a matter of debate, but many non-vaxers do consider it an option.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Yeah sorry I guess I provided a reference to a link already posted. Not a link.
I'm not sure what all the exemption options are in Maryland, but I would start with find a new doctor.

For many parents, this is not a reasonable option, due to insurance limitations as well as the fact that parents might not be able to afford multiple copays--or paying out of pocket--as they see doctor after doctor in hopes of finding one who will go against what (s)he was taught in medical school by professors who were paid "consultants" with pharmaceutical companies.

[Rrrrrachel]

So what's the acceptable amount of inconvenience to go through in order to insure your child's well being? I'm just curious.

I already did the whole "I make a suggestion and it gets shot down on te grounds that it might not work for someone somewhere" thing. You have options. It was not forced vaccination. I have no interest in rehashing it again. Feel free to re read my posts from earlier.

[emmy526]

Originally Posted by erigeron 

Either that, or it's selecting "against" those who are prone to vaccine reactions that we don't know about. Which, since we don't know about it until it happens, hardly is on the level of eugenics targeted at actual visible groups. 

I really, really don't think vaccine manufacturers or the CDC or the government are sitting there rubbing their hands together and saying "oh, goody, we will cleanse the population of all people who might react to vaccines, even though we don't know who they are". But then I don't buy the vast conspiracy notion to begin with. How many people would have to be involved in a conspiracy to lead to widespread vaccination if vaccines weren't really safe and effective on a population level? The mind boggles. 

i would think a certain amount of people bought into this theory as it evolved, and then went on to sell it to others, and so on and so forth, with pharma getting involved and now getting their piece of the pie in the health industry.....(just like they used to say cigarettes weren't harmful.  Someone probably claimed they did a study, sold it to the general public that cigarettes are safe and can be safely smoked by all.)  I am not saying cigs were used as a health marketing tool, but the appeal to the public is similar, in that it appeals to people's general sense of well being.  That's why a lot of useless health remedies are sold, by propanganda  and heavy advertising as something good and beneficial.  

[kathymuggle]

nm - OT

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

So what's the acceptable amount of inconvenience to go through in order to insure your child's well being?

You think that there is an acceptable amount of inconvenience to go through in order to prevent your child from being subjected to an invasive procedure against your wishes?

Do tell.

Let's remember this: http://www.dailypaul.com/242689/mother-who-questions-vaccine-at-hospital-has-newborn-taken-away

Mother Who Questions Vaccine at Hospital Has Newborn Taken Away

[chickabiddy]

No child was vaccinated without parental consent; in fact, the parents had to bring the children to the courthouse.  If it was "against their wishes" but with their consent, that seems like a personal issue to resolve.

[Rrrrrachel]

Uh yes, I do, I think seeing a doctor and filling out a form is an acceptable amount of inconvenience for skipping a procedure that protects your child and the rest of society from vaccine preventable diseases. Mystery solved.

That case you linked is terrible and Shouldn't happen, but it is in no way the norm.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Uh yes, I do, I think seeing a doctor and filling out a form is an acceptable amount of inconvenience for skipping a procedure that protects your child and the rest of society from vaccine preventable diseases. Mystery solved.
That case you linked is terrible and Shouldn't happen, but it is in no way the norm.

So the resulting immunity potentially gained from vaccines is an important facet of public health?

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

So what's the acceptable amount of inconvenience to go through in order to insure your child's well being? I'm just curious.
 

It is an exemption - a piece of paper.  It does not in and of itself ensure your child's well being.  It does not ensure other people's well being either - it might minimize spread of VAD if there is an outbreak (rare)  and non-vaccinated children are excluded from school.  That requires registering kids as non-vaxxed, though, not exemptions.  Exemptions are nothing but a way to exert control and try and increase the vax rate as far as I can tell.  I doubt many pro-vaxxers would be happy if they researched a procedure for their healthy children, decided to decline it, and had to ask for an exemption from the state  for their legal parental decision if they wanted their kids to attend school.  

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by emma1325 

So the resulting immunity potentially gained from vaccines is an important facet of public health?

In my opinion, yes.  That's not why I vaccinate, but yes.

[chickabiddy]

Originally Posted by emma1325 

So the resulting immunity potentially gained from vaccines is an important facet of public health?

Is this a trick question?  (I'm guessing yes.)  Isn't most of this discussion, and even this forum, predicated around the idea that pro-vaxers believe vaccine immunity is an important facet of public health?

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

It is an exemption - a piece of paper.  It does not in and of itself ensure your child's well being.  It does not ensure other people's well being either - it might minimize spread of VAD if there is an outbreak (rare)  and non-vaccinated children are excluded from school.  That requires registering kids as non-vaxxed, though, not exemptions.  Exemptions are nothing but a way to exert control and try and increase the vax rate as far as I can tell.  I doubt many pro-vaxxers would be happy if they researched a procedure for their healthy children, decided to decline it, and had to ask for an exemption from the state  for their legal parental decision if they wanted their kids to attend school.  

I like to think if I were in that position I would understand the public health issues involved and, perhaps while rolling my eyes, just get the exemption and call it a day.

If I thought for one second vaccination was harmful for my child I would move heaven and earth to avoid it.  I think most people would. I"m kind of surprised so many people who actually DO think vaccines are harmful think such a low bar for avoiding them insurmountable.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

In my opinion, yes.  That's not why I vaccinate, but yes.

So why do you think vaccines are pushed through the school system, and not titer testing?  It seems testing the blood would be a more accurate way to determine who is immune and who is not.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

Is this a trick question?  (I'm guessing yes.)  Isn't most of this discussion, and even this forum, predicated around the idea that pro-vaxers believe vaccine immunity is an important facet of public health?

There is a simple way to confirm immunity, and yet that test is ignored in favor of a complied-to shot list.  I'm wondering why those who are pro-"required"-vaccine (for the benefit of public health) don't put more emphasis on titer testing.

[Rrrrrachel]

I'm trying to imagine the advantage of titer testing vs vaccinating . . . for one having titers without vaccination requires natural infection, which is what we're trying to avoid.  For another if you're vaccinated, in the overwhelming majority of cases you're immune, and if you're not there's not much you can do about it, so titer testing is irrelevant.

I guess submitting titer results in lieu of vaccine records would be reasonable enough, though.  I would have to think about it some more before I could really provide a strong opinion.