Vaccine/autism CT discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clayton Moore said:
I don't care a freaking tinker's damn about whether Autism causes vaccines.

I care about the children.
Click to expand...

So you don't actually know and certainly don't actually care whether or not vaccines cause Autism. But you rail against vaccination because you, for some reason, think it's bad.

...Even though you don't know or care whether or not they actually harm the children.

Can someone please explain this to me?
 
Tomblvd said:
Let's try this Clayton.

I'll just repost the post you are ignoring, that makes it easier to respond.



I don't understand what point you are making here. Where are you getting these "10 year old girls who haven't already become immune"? And how is this an either/or? Are you saying we are withholding vaccines from an at-risk group to immunize infants?

Your statement makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Rubella is a mild disease in children.

Rubella is a danger to unborn babies carried by mothers who catch Rubella while pregnant.

The people who are in danger, will suffer serious consequences from Rubella, are women of child bearing age.

There is a test to determine if a person is immune to Rubella.

At 10 years old, before child bearing age, girls would be tested.

If they were not immune they would receive the vaccine.

There is no need for every baby or any baby to receive Rubella vaccine.
 
No, Clayton, you give the babies the vaccine so that the babies don't get sick and pass it on to the mothers who might be pregnant.
 
Clayton Moore said:
The people who are in danger, will suffer serious consequences from Rubella, are women of child bearing age.
Click to expand...

Pregnant women (or rather, their fetuses) are most at risk, from what I have read, because the disease passes to the fetus and causes very serious problems.

Immunity for Rubella lasts about 18 years. Pregnant women like me (who were not exactly expecting to get pregnant) might find their immunity wore off 20 years ago, and the vaccine for Rubella will not be given to pregnant women, since it is a live vaccine.

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1104.aspx?CategoryID=54&SubCategoryID=137


And where will pregnant women most likely come into contact with Rubella? Other people's children. More appropriately, other people's unvaccinated children.

So you take your little unvaccinated 6-year-old offspring to the local diner. He's just got a mild rash -- nothing for YOU to be concerned about -- and he sneezes on me. Thanks. You've just put me and my fetus at risk.

As a pregnant woman and a tax-payer I have a right to go to school, work, dinner, the grocery, etc. So don't tell me I should just stay home for 40 weeks or wear a mask and a hazmat suit whenever I step out my door, for fear of all the Jenny McCarthy mommies and their unvaccinated brats. (Although I'm sure with your attitudes towards "women's lib" that's exactly where you'd rather see me.)
 
excaza said:
What caused you to change your mind?


OH WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!? :rolleyes:

Are the children in danger? You haven't established this.
Click to expand...

Think of the old saying "you're going to eat a pound of dirt before you die." I don't know every one of the vaccines a toddler gets before 2 years old but I do know that the MMRV diseases don't present the danger that a disease such as polio does.

The WMD lie proves that the American public can be BLATANTLY lied to in order to fulfill an agenda. And that the American public, including its elected officials will do absolutely nothing to reverse the consequences of that lie EVEN EVEN EVEN as our precious soldiers, our precious children are killed almost daily.

Hasn't the CDC lied to the public many times without consequence? Do you think business hasn't noticed that?
 
AmandaM said:
Pregnant women (or rather, their fetuses) are most at risk, from what I have read, because the disease passes to the fetus and causes very serious problems.

Immunity for Rubella lasts about 18 years. Pregnant women like me (who were not exactly expecting to get pregnant) might find their immunity wore off 20 years ago, and the vaccine for Rubella will not be given to pregnant women, since it is a live vaccine.

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1104.aspx?CategoryID=54&SubCategoryID=137


And where will pregnant women most likely come into contact with Rubella? Other people's children. More appropriately, other people's unvaccinated children.

So you take your little unvaccinated 6-year-old offspring to the local diner. He's just got a mild rash -- nothing for YOU to be concerned about -- and he sneezes on me. Thanks. You've just put me and my fetus at risk.

As a pregnant woman and a tax-payer I have a right to go to school, work, dinner, the grocery, etc. So don't tell me I should just stay home for 40 weeks or wear a mask and a hazmat suit whenever I step out my door, for fear of all the Jenny McCarthy mommies and their unvaccinated brats. (Although I'm sure with your attitudes towards "women's lib" that's exactly where you'd rather see me.)
Click to expand...

It's your body and your responsibility to determine whether you are no longer immune to Rubella.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Think of the old saying "you're going to eat a pound of dirt before you die." I don't know every one of the vaccines a toddler gets before 2 years old but I do know that the MMRV diseases don't present the danger that a disease such as polio does.
Click to expand...
Oh?

The WMD lie proves that the American public can be BLATANTLY lied to in order to fulfill an agenda.
Click to expand...
The 'evidence' used to justify the supposed WMDs was shaky at best but most people were still stupid enough to buy it. Also remember that the 'evidence' used was an admitted forgery. Never mind that UN inspectors found nothing the last time they were there. Regardless, these are not analogous situations. There are documented trials out the wazoo for vaccines before they are approved for public use. Try again.

Hasn't the CDC lied to the public many times without consequence?
Click to expand...
Have they? Show us.
 
Clayton Moore said:
It's your body and your responsibility to determine whether you are no longer immune to Rubella.
Click to expand...

And how, exactly, are you going to determine if this immunity is still strong? And what if she is someone that can't take vaccines? Is she supposed to just never get pregnant?
 
Clayton Moore said:
The WMD lie proves that the American public can be BLATANTLY lied to in order to fulfill an agenda. And that the American public, including its elected officials will do absolutely nothing to reverse the consequences of that lie EVEN EVEN EVEN as our precious soldiers, our precious children are killed almost daily.

Hasn't the CDC lied to the public many times without consequence? Do you think business hasn't noticed that?
Click to expand...

Do you know what a "lie" is?
 
excaza said:
There is no nit and pick here. Your son is allergic, that is a medical reason for an exemption. You said no exemptions were available. Unless you care to show us these facts you're so adamant about us providing showing no exemption was available, you lied.
Click to expand...

The original premise was that vaccines were mandatory for compulsory education. The link shows that it is in NJ and there are only 2 ways to get out of government mandated vaccines in elementary school. plain and simple.

excaza said:
If you don't want to vaccinate your kids for philosophical reasons, don't send them to public schools or move to a state that allows it.
Click to expand...

You sound like the "love or leave it" crowd in the 60's... well thought out argument.
 
ladmo said:
The original premise was that vaccines were mandatory for compulsory education. The link shows that it is in NJ and there are only 2 ways to get out of government mandated vaccines in elementary school. plain and simple.
Click to expand...
No. The original premise was that there were no exemptions. You can't suddenly change your tune and pretend you were right all along. Either you knew about the exemptions and you were lying to me, or you didn't know about them at all. Either way, your post was demonstrably wrong.

You sound like the "love or leave it" crowd in the 60's... well thought out argument.
Click to expand...
Better thought out than most peoples' arguments against vaccinations. At least you have a rational argument in your son's case.
 
Last edited:
AmandaM said:
So you take your little unvaccinated 6-year-old offspring to the local diner. He's just got a mild rash -- nothing for YOU to be concerned about -- and he sneezes on me. Thanks. You've just put me and my fetus at risk.
Click to expand...

Well hey, at the Clayton School Of MedicineTM, all you have to do is wash your hands and you've beaten Rubella.
 
Dave Rogers said:
That's obviously wrong, by definition. If an exemption is universally applied, then the obligation or liability isn't "imposed on others". An exemption can only exist if it isn't universal. A universally applied exemption is simply the absence of obligation.
Click to expand...

Maybe I didn't state it as well I could. The difference of opinion that I have with others is that if a person doesn't wish to have the vaccine given to their child... this is no opt out unless it is against your religious views or you are medically unable to take it. There is no provision, exception, exemption, or whatever one wishes to call it for people who just don't want to take it. That was my original gripe as it became a mandated order.



Dave Rogers said:
Just going back to where this question of exemptions or exceptions started, before your bizarre hissy fit where you claimed you were being ordered to kill your own child, you commented that:


Such a case would obviously be covered by exemption 1), medical.

Dave
Click to expand...

Point taken but the medical exemption was not available then but it is now and was available before the end of the first year of implementation in my state. What sets me off with this entire forum is that certain lackeys get away with calling others "nimrods" without censorship while people who disagree with government mandates gets censored. I understand about "attacking" the person and not the statement but the door does not swing both ways.
 
Ladmo if you look back, nimrod was removed from the comment; you can go check if you would like. Nevertheless I would imagine that is something to take up with forum management and not air out here.
 
ladmo said:
Point taken but the medical exemption was not available then but it is now and was available before the end of the first year of implementation in my state.
Click to expand...
So you're asserting that the government mandated a medication without a provision exempting those who are allergic to it? Care to back this up with some of your precious facts, or are we just going to float on your assertions?

What sets me off with this entire forum is that certain lackeys get away with calling others "nimrods" without censorship while people who disagree with government mandates gets censored. I understand about "attacking" the person and not the statement but the door does not swing both ways.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the forum mafia conspiracy. If the post bothers you, report it. Doesn't bother me one bit. Personally, I wish your hissy fit had been preserved, but oh well.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom