What rights do non-vaxers want? - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 125Likes
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-20-2014, 10:49 AM
 
Viola P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 893
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
I'm wondering what the patients wanted in the posts that talk about being deemed having no chance. What if the patients have a directive that states that life is to be continued as long as possible, even of chances of recovery seem very remote? They would still do the morphine induced coma? That is so disturbing. Really? Just some random nurse gets to decide who lives or dies? Where is this? Please tell me so I remember to never get sick there.
Viola P is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-20-2014, 04:45 PM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,667
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viola P View Post
I'm wondering what the patients wanted in the posts that talk about being deemed having no chance. What if the patients have a directive that states that life is to be continued as long as possible, even of chances of recovery seem very remote? They would still do the morphine induced coma? That is so disturbing. Really? Just some random nurse gets to decide who lives or dies? Where is this? Please tell me so I remember to never get sick there.
it happened to my mother in Md, and my mother in law in Co...the 'hospice' care my MIL received was some of the worst i had ever seen in my life. No compassion, no real help for the family, and very shoddy end of life care, imo.
My mother in Md, was living with sis who is pro medical everything, and believed whatever the nurse would say. So many times that nurse had us believing mom would be gone the next day - and she wasn't. Mom hung on til they denied her liquids, and she languished within a week. She basically went into a coma, per se, for the week before she passed.
emmy526 is online now  
Old 07-20-2014, 06:32 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,590
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Good heavens!

I'm in Vermont and the area where I live has a very high quality hospice program. Some of my library volunteers also volunteer for hospice.

Scary that people are being "disposed of" in that manner. Horrifying might be a better word.
Deborah is online now  
Old 07-20-2014, 07:20 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,410
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
There are lots of post here about individual preferences, but I think the real issue is public policy.

Do you want to right for you kids to go to public school regardless of their vaccine status without having to file an exemption? Yes

Do you want the right for the non-vaxed to never be selectively quarantined during an outbreak? Again, you are confusing non-vaccines with not immune.

Do you want to right to exposure yourself and your kids to anyone, anytime in spite of their vaccine status, disease status, whether they are infectious or not? Happens all the time in life! ALL THE TIME!

Do you believe that governments should have no powers whatosever to promote the general welfare?
I think you got this all mixed up and because of this, that question is moot-IMO



Do you realize vaccine status does not mean immunity status?
Testing for immunity vs just getting vaccines is being done with medial personnel, why isn't that what you really should want to asking for?

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 


Last edited by serenbat; 07-21-2014 at 04:01 AM.
serenbat is offline  
Old 07-21-2014, 12:19 PM
Administrator
 
cynthia mosher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Arabia!
Posts: 38,773
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
I have removed a post from this thread and issued a warning. Please keep posts respectful. If you find questions insulting please report them or ignore the discussion and participate in one that is more to your liking. Posting accusations and personal attacks is not acceptable no matter what the discussion is.

cynthia mosher is online now  
Old 07-21-2014, 02:03 PM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Do you want to right to exposure yourself and your kids to anyone, anytime in spite of their vaccine status, disease status, whether they are infectious or not? Happens all the time in life! ALL THE TIME!
The question was not how common it is. The question is do you want the right to do this? By that I mean do you want everyone to have a inalienable right to do this? By "right" I mean a freedom that cannot be abridged in any circumstance.
tadamsmar is offline  
Old 07-21-2014, 03:14 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,410
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
The question was not how common it is. The question is do you want the right to do this? By that I mean do you want everyone to have a inalienable right to do this? By "right" I mean a freedom that cannot be abridged in any circumstance.
You feel this is a "right" I do not - No one gives or implies it. I can be exposed all the time, all over the place. I can be exposed to insects just like I can to humans.
I don't see this they way you do.

I have the right to an exemption, but that is not what you asked.

I'm finding those who vaccinate don't know if they are immune so how can they know if they are or aren't exposing themselves at any given time? Why should there be a different set of standards?
My child (not vaccinated) is not a germ bomb ready to blow at any minute. I do know his status and most who vaccinate seem not to know. How do you identify who is who?

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 07-21-2014, 03:35 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,590
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
The question was not how common it is. The question is do you want the right to do this? By that I mean do you want everyone to have a inalienable right to do this? By "right" I mean a freedom that cannot be abridged in any circumstance.
I think that people should not have an absolute right to expose others to illness. A perfect example would be a hospital that does not maintain reasonable standards of cleanliness and infects patients with antibiotic resistant illnesses.

What I don't agree with is the silly idea that the dividing line should be vaccination status. Vaccines just don't work well enough, and the assumption that they do work well enough is spreading a lot of pertussis and mumps these days.
Deborah is online now  
Old 07-21-2014, 03:44 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,410
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
I think that people should not have an absolute right to expose others to illness. A perfect example would be a hospital that does not maintain reasonable standards of cleanliness and infects patients with antibiotic resistant illnesses.

What I don't agree with is the silly idea that the dividing line should be vaccination status. Vaccines just don't work well enough, and the assumption that they do work well enough is spreading a lot of pertussis and mumps these days.



Should it not be immune status instead of vaccine status?

The part about the hospital, that I view as a deliberate act and thus "rights" are involved. Going on a bus and you think you are one that the vaccine "took" in but reality is it didn't, and you expose another person IMO is different.
That (on bus example) happens all the time, all over the place.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 07-21-2014, 07:39 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 668
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
The question was not how common it is. The question is do you want the right to do this? By that I mean do you want everyone to have a inalienable right to do this? By "right" I mean a freedom that cannot be abridged in any circumstance.
Who is asking for a "right" to expose people to disease/illness? I think we all can agree that would be weird.
samaxtics is online now  
Old 07-21-2014, 08:36 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,590
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Yes, the right we are after is the right to turn down a medical intervention which involves the injection of a biological ( http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic...om/biologicals ) into our own body or the body of our child.
Deborah is online now  
Old 07-21-2014, 11:10 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
I'm curious now if there's any country in the world which does not grant that right.

I get that it's complicated in the US and might involve loss of access to public school in some states - but it's still an allowed choice.
prosciencemum is online now  
Old 07-22-2014, 06:27 AM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Yes, the right we are after is the right to turn down a medical intervention which involves the injection of a biological ( http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic...om/biologicals ) into our own body or the body of our child.
The right to turn down a life saving blood transfusion for your child, for instance? You don't have that right in the US:

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nat...s/201308270123
tadamsmar is offline  
Old 07-22-2014, 06:55 AM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
I'm curious now if there's any country in the world which does not grant that right.
There are a number of countries were vaccination is mandatory:

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/183/16/E1167

"Slovenia has one of the world’s most aggressive and comprehensive vaccination programs. Its program is mandatory for nine designated diseases."
tadamsmar is offline  
Old 07-22-2014, 06:58 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,590
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
The right to turn down a life saving blood transfusion for your child, for instance? You don't have that right in the US:

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nat...s/201308270123
Good point. Can you see a difference between an emergency situation involving an immediate choice between life and death and a preventative treatment which may or may not have any results within the lifetime of the person involved?
Deborah is online now  
Old 07-22-2014, 07:00 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,590
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
There are a number of countries were vaccination is mandatory:

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/183/16/E1167

"Slovenia has one of the world’s most aggressive and comprehensive vaccination programs. Its program is mandatory for nine designated diseases."
I don't think Slovenia or Croatia, for that matter, are countries that the US should be choosing as models.

In fact I find it very scary when people applaud that sort of use of government power involving medical "care". Where will it end?
Deborah is online now  
Old 07-22-2014, 07:02 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,410
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
The right to turn down a life saving blood transfusion for your child, for instance? You don't have that right in the US:

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nat...s/201308270123
You do have the right to challenge! But this is not about transfusions but about vaccines.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 07-22-2014, 07:41 AM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Good point. Can you see a difference between an emergency situation involving an immediate choice between life and death and a preventative treatment which may or may not have any results within the lifetime of the person involved?
Yes, it's not based on a clear-cut right of non-intervention by the government. It's a matter of weighing competing principles, striking a balance.
tadamsmar is offline  
Old 07-22-2014, 08:06 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 668
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
The right to turn down a life saving blood transfusion for your child, for instance? You don't have that right in the US:

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nat...s/201308270123
But you can sue when that blood product turns out to be contaminated with diseases such as HIV.

Quote:
In Arizona, a 5-year-old boy whose parents claimed that he was given an unnecessary blood transfusion recently was awarded $28.7 million--
articles.latimes.com/1990-09-16/news/mn-1224_1_blood-bank
samaxtics is online now  
Old 07-22-2014, 08:57 AM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Fine I'll play nice and re-write (which would have been easier if I'd just been asked to edit in the first place...):

Oh I duuno, the same rights as anyone else, to not be labeled with a scarlet letter, to not be harassed or persecuted for my personal medical decisions, to be able to walk around in public and send my child to public school (unless visibly ill in which case anyone should be home, but we know that doesn't always happen)....
sassyfirechick is offline  
Old 07-22-2014, 10:05 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,590
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
Yes, it's not based on a clear-cut right of non-intervention by the government. It's a matter of weighing competing principles, striking a balance.
Yes, and I think that in non-emergency situations, forced injections or denial of normal public engagement are inappropriate.

The situations are not comparable. At all.
Deborah is online now  
Old 07-22-2014, 01:28 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
I think the question raised in the OP raises some very disturbing issues.

What rights do non-vaxxers want?

Seriously, tadamsmar, do you think any of us WANT to give up rights? We want the same rights that we are all assured of in the US: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We don't want to be deemed second-class citizens, with fewer rights, just because we don't allow an invasive, medical procedure done on our healthy children or healthy selves.

Think about it. What happens when you tell people, "Oh, you have a choice--you can choose to let us inject you/your child, or else you can choose to lose your right to
1) send your child to daycare
2) send your child to school
3) send your child to school-related activities, such as sports, music, theatre, clubs, and camps
4) attend college
5) work in ANY job in the health care industry
6) work for a school
7) work for a restaurant or food service industry
8) work in the hotel industry
9) work for the government"

Congratulations. You've just created a class of citizens who do not have access to education and jobs. Yeah, that's going to go well.

And you're trying to pretend it was their choice.

I call BS. Nobody has the right to take away rights afforded others, simply because they refused injections, especially when almost all of the injections required on the official vaccination schedules are not life-threatening or even serious for the vast majority of the people who contract them.

NOBODY should have the right to curtail anyone's opportunities for refusing an ineffective, potentially dangerous flu shot.

NOBODY should have the right to curtail anyone's opportunities for refusing a vaccine for a disease that, for most people, is not dangerous.

NOBODY should have the right to force invasive procedures developed and marketed by a heavily-profiting, corrupt industry that has partnered with an equally corrupt government.
Taximom5 is offline  
Old 07-22-2014, 02:21 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,590
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Taximom, excellent post! You removed the "frame" beautifully.
Deborah is online now  
Old 07-22-2014, 02:35 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 668
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Quote:
NOBODY should have the right to force invasive procedures developed and marketed by a heavily-profiting, corrupt industry that has partnered with an equally corrupt government.
Medical intervention is the third leading cause of death.

Billions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost looking for weapons of mass destruction even though they had intel indicating that there were none. (one example)

You have to hand it to corp./govt for how successful they are in convincing citizens that they (gov't agencies/corporations) should be able to dictate what citizens can/not put in their body. Not only do these citizens give up their rights, but in essence they are doing those agencies' work by trying to convince/bully others to give up their rights. (and a few are even doing it for free!)

Saw a photo today that contained a MLK Jr. quote: "those who love peace must learn to organize as effectively as those who love war".

The same goes for people who want to retain their right to autonomy over self.
samaxtics is online now  
Old 07-24-2014, 07:00 AM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
I think the question raised in the OP raises some very disturbing issues.

What rights do non-vaxxers want?

Seriously, tadamsmar, do you think any of us WANT to give up rights? We want the same rights that we are all assured of in the US: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We don't want to be deemed second-class citizens, with fewer rights, just because we don't allow an invasive, medical procedure done on our healthy children or healthy selves.

Think about it. What happens when you tell people, "Oh, you have a choice--you can choose to let us inject you/your child, or else you can choose to lose your right to
1) send your child to daycare
2) send your child to school
3) send your child to school-related activities, such as sports, music, theatre, clubs, and camps
4) attend college
5) work in ANY job in the health care industry
6) work for a school
7) work for a restaurant or food service industry
8) work in the hotel industry
9) work for the government"

Congratulations. You've just created a class of citizens who do not have access to education and jobs. Yeah, that's going to go well.

And you're trying to pretend it was their choice.

I call BS. Nobody has the right to take away rights afforded others, simply because they refused injections, especially when almost all of the injections required on the official vaccination schedules are not life-threatening or even serious for the vast majority of the people who contract them.

NOBODY should have the right to curtail anyone's opportunities for refusing an ineffective, potentially dangerous flu shot.

NOBODY should have the right to curtail anyone's opportunities for refusing a vaccine for a disease that, for most people, is not dangerous.

NOBODY should have the right to force invasive procedures developed and marketed by a heavily-profiting, corrupt industry that has partnered with an equally corrupt government.
The OP had nothing to do with choice, it in no way implied that it was a matter of choice. As it said, it was asking about your views concerning public policy, rights, and governmental powers.
tadamsmar is offline  
Old 07-24-2014, 08:00 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 668
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
The OP had nothing to do with choice, it in no way implied that it was a matter of choice. As it said, it was asking about your views concerning public policy, rights, and governmental powers.
But aren't rights intrinsically about choice?

The right to vote encompasses the right to not vote. Or which candidate to vote for.

The right to education provides access to public primary education. But people still have the choice to send their children to public or private schools.
samaxtics is online now  
Old 07-24-2014, 08:01 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,590
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
There are lots of post here about individual preferences, but I think the real issue is public policy.

Do you want to right for you kids to go to public school regardless of their vaccine status without having to file an exemption?

Do you want the right for the non-vaxed to never be selectively quarantined during an outbreak?

Do you want to right to exposure yourself and your kids to anyone, anytime in spite of their vaccine status, disease status, whether they are infectious or not?

Do you believe that governments should have no powers whatosever to promote the general welfare?
Since you mention the OP, I thought it would be helpful to bring it back, front and center.
Deborah is online now  
Old 07-24-2014, 08:07 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,590
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
I'd say that "disease status" is MUCH more important than vaccination status in terms of controlling the spread of illness. And proper etiquette can help reduce the spread of illness. Here is an example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17765565

Quote:
After the introduction of the modified "Cover Your Cough" campaign, the number of employee exposures declined significantly to 37 in the next 4-week period. Notably, the number of patients tested for pertussis during the second 4-week period was 290 compared to 162 in the first 4-week period, indicating continuation of the epidemic.CONCLUSIONS:

Availability of PPE along with posters regarding cough etiquette at entry points of the hospital interrupted employee exposure to patients/personnel with pertussis symptoms significantly, when an employee educational initiative alone was unable to achieve this outcome.
I think a proper focus on the control of illness rather than vaccination status would accomplish quite a bit. When you add up all the money spent on promoting vaccines, buying and distributing vaccines, administering vaccines, collecting and administering money for taking care of vaccine injuries, writing journal articles about how great vaccines are (not to mention the research that underlies such articles) and the time and money spent managing media coverage of vaccines, a fraction of the money pulled and spent instead on actually controlling outbreaks of illness would do wonders.

Last edited by Deborah; 07-24-2014 at 08:15 AM. Reason: to add quote
Deborah is online now  
Old 07-24-2014, 08:20 AM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
But aren't rights intrinsically about choice?

The right to vote encompasses the right to not vote. Or which candidate to vote for.

The right to education provides access to public primary education. But people still have the choice to send their children to public or private schools.
In the USA if you are a citizen then have rights granted by the Constitution. You have no choice in the matter, you have those rights whether you want them or not. (Excepting the fact that you could choose to renounce your citizenship.)
tadamsmar is offline  
Old 07-24-2014, 08:23 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,590
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
This is an important thread, however.

It clearly outlines the argument that public policy should attempt to control infectious illnesses. The arrival of vaccines actually has muddied the waters on infection control by creating a class of people who can and do spread illness, but are given a free pass to do so because they have received vaccinations. That, of course, makes no sense at all.

The other way in which vaccines have muddied the waters is in relation to exemptions. Requiring vaccines to attend school sort of made sense--but the addition of vaccines that are connected to illnesses that are not spread in school settings (tetanus, Hep B and HPV)--did serious damage to the "disease control" justification for vaccines to attend school.
Deborah is online now  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off