or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › I put my foot in my mouth...come and let me have it!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I put my foot in my mouth...come and let me have it! - Page 3

post #41 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post

I think there is a huge, huge difference between "a risk I was unable to take" and "a risk I was unwilling to take."  A person whose child is immunocompromised has to live with risk every day that the risk of vaccination pales in comparison to.  So, I can't get worked up about their level of selfishness. 

If both immunocompromised children and children predisposed to vaccine reaction face risks, what makes you think you have the right to determine who is more important?

My children are not immunocompromised, but they have had severe reactions to vaccines. Their pediatrician has exempted them from further vaccines.

I don't ask anyone to vaccinate to protect them from "vaccine-preventable diseases." The known risks of vaccines have been massively downplayed, while the benefits for many vaccines (such as the flu shot) have been exaggerated to the point of outright lies. There are indications that vaccines play a causal role in autoimmune disorders, which can be devastating; there is still much that is not yet known about autoimmunity, which means that there is much that remains unknown about long-term adverse effects from vaccines. And, even though some risk factors for vaccine reaction are known, there are NO screening processes whatsoever.

Vaccination is a wonderful idea on paper, but the system has serious flaws, ranging from human error to conflict of interest to unknown/unacknowledged harms to ethical issues.
post #42 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

I think there is a huge, huge difference between "a risk I was unable to take" and "a risk I was unwilling to take."

Not really.  You think "herd immunity" cares whether someone can't or simply doesn't get a vaccine?  Nope.

 

 

" I can't volunteer because I work all day, but I expect you, as a SAHM, to volunteer"  I have actually heard this one.

 

"My son has really bad vision, so he can't go to war…yours can, though"

 

"I can't climb that rickety ladder…I expect you to though"

 

This may be one of those agree to disagree areas.  I am not mad at those who do not vaccinate for medical reasons.   I don't put the expectation to vaccinate on anyone.  I just think it is really rich (and not in a good way) when someone who is unable or unwilling to take a risk expects others to.  

 

(ETA:  it would be interesting to post this on TAO or something : Do people who cannot do something have the right to expect others to pick up the slack?"  My suspicion is no; I am not sure why vaccines should get a pass in this.)


Edited by kathymuggle - 12/22/13 at 7:50am
post #43 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Not really.  You think "herd immunity" cares whether someone can't or simply doesn't get a vaccine?  Nope.

 

 

" I can't volunteer because I work all day, but I expect you, as a SAHM, to volunteer"  I have actually heard this one.

 

"My son has really bad vision, so he can't go to war…yours can, though"

 

"I can't climb that rickety ladder…I expect you to though"

 

This may be one of those agree to disagree areas.  I am not mad at those who do not vaccinate for medical reasons.   I don't put the expectation to vaccinate on anyone.  I just think it is really rich (and not in a good way) when someone who is unable or unwilling to take a risk expects others to.

 

(ETA:  it would be interesting to post this on TAO or something : Do people who cannot do something have the right to expect others to pick up the slack?"  My suspicion is no; I am not sure why vaccines should get a pass in this.)

 

I don't get your logic at all.  I'm not talking about whether herd immunity cares, it obviously only wants enough people to get vaccinated, it doesn't matter which ones or for what reasons.  I'm talking about relative risk and civic responsibility.  Healthy people take on risk all the time for the sake of society at large, that's a normal and proper part of life.
 
The more I think about this, the more I think you are wrong to the point of being offensive.  If a disabled person whose house is burning down not expect the fire department to come put it out, because that's a risk they are unable to take on themselves?  OF COURSE we help people who are limited in their abilities to take on the same kind of risk. 
post #44 of 81
 

 

I think is entitled and offensive to expect others to take risks for you.  I do not get your logic at all. 

 

"The more I think about this, the more I think you are wrong to the point of being offensive.  If a disabled person whose house is burning down not expect the fire department to come put it out, because that's a risk they are unable to take on themselves?  OF COURSE we help people who are limited in their abilities to take on the same kind of risk."  Moderatemom

 

Right.  It is the fire departments job to save the person.  It is not my job.   I might, if it does not pose a unacceptable risk to myself, but I will not if it poses a significant or unknown (as defined by me) risk to my life. This goes doubly for my children.  My life is not worth less than another persons life.

 

Have you taken First Aide?  You help when you do not put yourself in danger.  

 

ETA: Personally, I think we have run our course on this topic.  Ta-ta.


Edited by kathymuggle - 12/22/13 at 12:10pm
post #45 of 81
Quote:
 
I don't get your logic at all.  I'm not talking about whether herd immunity cares, it obviously only wants enough people to get vaccinated, it doesn't matter which ones or for what reasons.  I'm talking about relative risk and civic responsibility.  Healthy people take on risk all the time for the sake of society at large, that's a normal and proper part of life.
 
The more I think about this, the more I think you are wrong to the point of being offensive.  If a disabled person whose house is burning down not expect the fire department to come put it out, because that's a risk they are unable to take on themselves?  OF COURSE we help people who are limited in their abilities to take on the same kind of risk. 

quote doesn't seem to be working correctly

 

IMO-The more I think about what you wrote the more I find it offensive. I do not have to cause myself (nor my child) harm for your sake (or the herd) I do not have a civic responsibility to do so, in fact I have a legal right not to vaccinate and you basically want to remove my rights - that is illegal and offensive! 

 

It has nothing to do with a fire at a disabled persons home either - that is irrelevant and many clear examples can be found that disprove this misguided logic. Many employers will fire people from work for doing what is caused risk at their expense. If your job is a firefighter that is TOTALLY different, it is not the job of a sewer worker to fight fires, they are to do what their department mandates. You seem to want to "lump" things that are unrelated together. Lumping vaccines into civic responsibility is not accurate - I have legal rights, one day you maybe "mandated" to do a medical procedure you feel is unwarranted, how would you like if I forced it upon you (want to make the law that you should be forced against your will)? 

post #46 of 81
I agree with Serenbat on this one.

It is totally unethical to expect someone to undergo an invasive medical procedure that may or may not cause harm, in order to protect someone else.

We don't mandate blood donation for that very reason.

It's a dangerous door to open. It leads from mandated vaccination to mandated blood donation to mandated organ donation.
post #47 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post



It is totally unethical to expect someone to undergo an invasive medical procedure that may or may not cause harm, in order to protect someone else.
:yeah
We don't mandate blood donation for that very reason.

It's a dangerous door to open. It leads from mandated vaccination to mandated blood donation to mandated organ donation.

 

I want to add to all those so rabid on vaccine - mandates (for your civic duty!) are what many "professionals" want - Paul Offit for example, as Taxi said, it's opens the floodgates - and think vaccines are not a "risk" think again, ALL (so called-simple) medical procedures carry risks, you sign a waiver to vaccinate - telling others to RISK it is OFFENSIVE! 

post #48 of 81
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

quote doesn't seem to be working correctly

 

IMO-The more I think about what you wrote the more I find it offensive. I do not have to cause myself (nor my child) harm for your sake (or the herd) I do not have a civic responsibility to do so, in fact I have a legal right not to vaccinate and you basically want to remove my rights - that is illegal and offensive!

 

It has nothing to do with a fire at a disabled persons home either - that is irrelevant and many clear examples can be found that disprove this misguided logic. Many employers will fire people from work for doing what is caused risk at their expense. If your job is a firefighter that is TOTALLY different, it is not the job of a sewer worker to fight fires, they are to do what their department mandates. You seem to want to "lump" things that are unrelated together. Lumping vaccines into civic responsibility is not accurate - I have legal rights, one day you maybe "mandated" to do a medical procedure you feel is unwarranted, how would you like if I forced it upon you (want to make the law that you should be forced against your will)?

 

 

When did I say I wanted to remove your rights?  You have the RIGHT not to vaccinate.  I happen to think that people have the civic RESPONSIBILITY to do so.  I'm not in favor of forced, mandatory vaccinations, and never said I was.

 

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

I agree with Serenbat on this one.

It is totally unethical to expect someone to undergo an invasive medical procedure that may or may not cause harm, in order to protect someone else.

We don't mandate blood donation for that very reason.

It's a dangerous door to open. It leads from mandated vaccination to mandated blood donation to mandated organ donation.

 

I think you guys are using a different definition of "expect" than I am.  I expect people to do all kinds of things that I don't think we can or should FORCE them to do.  I'm using the word "expect" in the sense that I consider it reasonable that people should comply.

post #49 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 I'm talking about relative risk and civic responsibility.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

 

When did I say I wanted to remove your rights?  You have the RIGHT not to vaccinate.  I happen to think that people have the civic RESPONSIBILITY to do so.  I'm not in favor of forced, mandatory vaccinations, and never said I was.

 

 

I think you guys are using a different definition of "expect" than I am.  I expect people to do all kinds of things that I don't think we can or should FORCE them to do.  I'm using the word "expect" in the sense that I consider it reasonable that people should comply.

so when did the meaning of "civic responsibility" change for you? Now it means "expect" in your point of view, not duty?

 

I have a civic responsibility to serve on a jury, not to vaccinate! - BIG difference. I can not just choose not to go to jury duty if called, I face consequences for not following my civic responsibility to go.

post #50 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

 

so when did the meaning of "civic responsibility" change for you? Now it means "expect" in your point of view, not duty?

 

I have a civic responsibility to serve on a jury, not to vaccinate! - BIG difference. I can not just choose not to go to jury duty if called, I face consequences for not following my civic responsibility to go.

 

I don't think a civic responsibility is necessarily something that is a legal mandate.  It's something that you do because it's the right thing to do as a member of society.

post #51 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

That's not proof, that's just a rant. 

My proof is different from your proof. You want some peer reviewed studies im assuming? Those for me aren't proof because they are full of fraud and conflicts of interest. My proof results from my research on the factors that contribute to a healthy robust strong immune system and overall superb health vs. what are the factors the lead to a weak damaged immune system and overall diseased body. Vaccines' toxic putrid diseased filth is a factor that leads to damaged immune system and diseased overall health.
post #52 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

I don't think a civic responsibility is necessarily something that is a legal mandate.  It's something that you do because it's the right thing to do as a member of society.

according to your own will - :rotflmao

post #53 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLilPwny View Post


My proof is different from your proof. You want some peer reviewed studies im assuming? Those for me aren't proof because they are full of fraud and conflicts of interest. My proof results from my research on the factors that contribute to a healthy robust strong immune system and overall superb health vs. what are the factors the lead to a weak damaged immune system and overall diseased body. Vaccines' toxic putrid diseased filth is a factor that leads to damaged immune system and diseased overall health.

we do not track those who have received vaccines vs those who have not  for the long term - same way we do not track for other health issues either - many wonder about the long term effects of IVF and cancer - who's tracking that?

post #54 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

I don't think a civic responsibility is necessarily something that is a legal mandate.  It's something that you do because it's the right thing to do as a member of society.

But we keep running into that annoying little fact: we disagree on what is "right" to do as a member of society.


I believe that it is WRONG to expect people to submit to an invasive medical procedure that carries both known and unknown risks, especially when much of the current understanding of the supposed benefits of this procedure is based on half-truths, twisted truths, sales gimmicks and marketing ploys.

post #55 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

But we keep running into that annoying little fact: we disagree on what is "right" to do as a member of society.


I believe that it is WRONG to expect people to submit to an invasive medical procedure that carries both known and unknown risks, especially when much of the current understanding of the supposed benefits of this procedure is based on half-truths, twisted truths, sales gimmicks and marketing ploys.

 

See, we do agree!  Cause I certainly wouldn't expect that either.

post #56 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

I don't think a civic responsibility is necessarily something that is a legal mandate.  It's something that you do because it's the right thing to do as a member of society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

But we keep running into that annoying little fact: we disagree on what is "right" to do as a member of society.


I believe that it is WRONG to expect people to submit to an invasive medical procedure that carries both known and unknown risks, especially when much of the current understanding of the supposed benefits of this procedure is based on half-truths, twisted truths, sales gimmicks and marketing ploys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

See, we do agree!  Cause I certainly wouldn't expect that either.

Well, if you agree that it's  wrong to expect people to submit to an invasive medical procedure that carries both known and unknown risks, then you should also agree that it's wrong to consider it one's "civic duty" to vaccinate, because vaccination is an invasive medical procedure, and carries both known and unknown health risks.

post #57 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

But we keep running into that annoying little fact: we disagree on what is "right" to do as a member of society.


I believe that it is WRONG to expect people to submit to an invasive medical procedure that carries both known and unknown risks, especially when much of the current understanding of the supposed benefits of this procedure is based on half-truths, twisted truths, sales gimmicks and marketing ploys.

Well, if you agree that it's  wrong to expect people to submit to an invasive medical procedure that carries both known and unknown risks, then you should also agree that it's wrong to consider it one's "civic duty" to vaccinate, because vaccination is an invasive medical procedure, and carries both known and unknown health risks.

 

Oh, sorry, the part I agreed with is the part you left out "...especially when much of the current understanding of the supposed benefits of this procedure is based on half-truths, twisted truths, sales gimmicks and marketing ploys."  since that doesn't apply to vaccines, I don't have an issue with expecting people to vaccinate.

post #58 of 81

Happy Holidays everyone!  

 

Beware of "feeding the trolls" . . . unless they are those cute Nordic ones . . . they like cream and cookies . . . some prefer oatmeal in a hand-painted bowl.

 

: )

post #59 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

Oh, sorry, the part I agreed with is the part you left out "...especially when much of the current understanding of the supposed benefits of this procedure is based on half-truths, twisted truths, sales gimmicks and marketing ploys."  since that doesn't apply to vaccines, I don't have an issue with expecting people to vaccinate.

Bolding mine.  To say that half truths, twisted truths , sales gimmicks and marketing ploys don't apply to vaccine is kind of wild.  They apply to most products, and I would hazard pharmaceutical products are an extra bad offender.

 

I could understand, even if I disagree with "I think the benefits are higher than the risks", or "I do not see the above as significant enough to impact decision making",  but to outrigh deny they apply :eyesroll.

 

From WHO no less:

http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story073/en/

 

"Companies currently spend one-third of all sales revenue on marketing their products - roughly twice what they spend on research and development.

As a result of this pressure to maintain sales, there is now, in WHO's words, “an inherent conflict of interest between the legitimate business goals of manufacturers and the social, medical and economic needs of providers and the public to select and use drugs in the most rational way”. This is particularly true where drugs companies are the main source of information as to which products are most effective."

 

And this, from Cochrane reivew

http://www.cochrane.org/features/industry-sponsorship-and-research-outcome

"Funding of clinical trials by private industry, including pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies, is an increasing source of clinical research sponsorship, accounting for nearly 60% of research funding in the US in 2007, compared with 33% contributed by the US federal government….The Cochrane authors’ findings support those indicated by earlier research: studies sponsored by industry reported greater benefits and fewer harmful side effects compared to studies that were not sponsored by industry. Papers describing industry-sponsored studies presented more favourable overall conclusions, and results and conclusions sections in these papers were less likely to agree."

post #60 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom


Oh, sorry, the part I agreed with is the part you left out "...especially when much of the current understanding of the supposed benefits of this procedure is based on half-truths, twisted truths, sales gimmicks and marketing ploys." since that doesn't apply to vaccines, I don't have an issue with expecting people to vaccinate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Bolding mine.  To say that half truths, twisted truths , sales gimmicks and marketing ploys don't apply to vaccine is kind of wild.  They apply to most products, and I would hazard pharmaceutical products are an extra bad offender.

I could understand, even if I disagree with "I think the benefits are higher than the risks", or "I do not see the above as significant enough to impact decision making",  but to outrigh deny they apply eyesroll.gif .

From WHO no less:
http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story073/en/

"Companies currently spend one-third of all sales revenue on marketing their products - roughly twice what they spend on research and development.



As a result of this pressure to maintain sales, there is now, in WHO's words, “an inherent conflict of interest between the legitimate business goals of manufacturers and the social, medical and economic needs of providers and the public to select and use drugs in the most rational way”. This is particularly true where drugs companies are the main source of information as to which products are most effective."



 



And this, from Cochrane reivew



http://www.cochrane.org/features/industry-sponsorship-and-research-outcome



"Funding of clinical trials by private industry, including pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies, is an increasing source of clinical research sponsorship, accounting for nearly 60% of research funding in the US in 2007, compared with 33% contributed by the US federal government….The Cochrane authors’ findings support those indicated by earlier research: studies sponsored by industry reported greater benefits and fewer harmful side effects compared to studies that were not sponsored by industry. Papers describing industry-sponsored studies presented more favourable overall conclusions, and results and conclusions sections in these papers were less likely to agree."



Thanks, Kathy, well said.

There have been so many half-truths, twisted truths, and outright lies from the vaccine manufacturers and their marketing teams, about the flu shot alone, I hardly know where to start.

The Cochrane Review has spent pretty much the last decade pointing out the clear lack of efficacy of the flu shot in pediatric and geriatric populations (the two major target groups!) as well as the complete lack of evidence of preventing transmission from health care workers.

You also might take note of the whistleblower lawsuit launched by Merck's own virologists, who accuse Merck of engaging in a massive coverup regarding poor efficacy of the mumps portion of the MMR.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › I put my foot in my mouth...come and let me have it!