Vaccine/autism CT discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
ladmo said:
You are reversing the argument. I asked you for proof and you turn it around to ask me.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

I gave you proof. You rejected it, stating that the exemptions didn't exist at the time. Burden of proof for your assertion is on you, not me. That's how this works.

Why don't we forget this two step dance and agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
What two step dance? You're the one avoiding the discussion. Either provide evidence for your assertion that an exception did not exist or admit you were wrong. I'll happily eat my words if you can show me that the FDA mandated administering vaccines to people who will have a severe allergic reaction to them (which would be an extraordinarily unethical thing to do, and many, many doctors would object to this). I provided proof that the opposite is the case. Your turn.

My initial gripe was the mandated vaccine. Emphasis on mandated.
Click to expand...
That was not what I objected to. You're free to believe whatever you want.

Ironically, just yesterday I received tetanus and pneumonia shots... as preventive measures.
Click to expand...
Congratulations, want a cookie?
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
Words of wisdom.

It's always the owner/controller of the boobs you have to watch out for not the boobs out front.

It's always the owner/controller of the _____ you have to watch out for not the _____ out front.
Click to expand...

So you returned to reply to a completely irrelevant post. (no offense, Polaris).

There are a lot of unanswered questions and points still on the table waiting for your replies....
 
Tomblvd said:
So you returned to reply to a completely irrelevant post. (no offense, Polaris).

There are a lot of unanswered questions and points still on the table waiting for your replies....
Click to expand...

There a lot of givens in a normal conversation. If each one has to be explained you shouldn't get involved.
 
Tomblvd said:
So you returned to reply to a completely irrelevant post. (no offense, Polaris).

There are a lot of unanswered questions and points still on the table waiting for your replies....
Click to expand...

None taken. I'll cease the booby derail and get back to watching CM squirm.
 
Travis said:
You know what's also not always safe? Water. Pure water.



:eye-poppi Wow. So you want those with young children to remain trapped in their homes just so you can go around without being vaccinated.
Click to expand...

Wow. Being cared for by a parent is being trapped? :jaw-dropp
 
Clayton Moore said:
Wow. Being cared for by a parent is being trapped? :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

I'm confused by this: (1) Why do you think it is appropriate for children to be locked up at home rather than be part of the world outside? They shouldn't go to a zoo, or a museum, or the park, or their friend's house? What of their older siblings- should they not go to school lest they bring back a disease into the house? Their fathers and moms shouldn't go to work for the same reason? Oh, I forgot, you aren't open to their mom's working- you don't even think they should leave the house… (2) Hidden at home, how will a child ever become immune to the diseases you are protecting them against? You realize that when they finally exit their jails into the greater world, these diseases will still be waiting for them?

Please read how the immune system really works from a textbook, not from an anti-vaccination website. Vaccination is in fact one of the most "natural" ways modern medicine has to fight disease. It's not poison! It's not putting a disease in someone. Instead, it's the only form of homeopathy that actually works: a little bit of exposure now protects you from disease and death later! You suggest that parents should gamble, as people did for 100,000s of years, and hope that when their child first encounters a disease, they will survive it, so that they will be immune later. Unfortunately the odds aren't very good- historically so many children died in their first 12 months that many cultures didn't bother to name their babies until their first birthday. Or you can vaccinate your children using non-infectious pieces of pathogens, or enfeebled strains, and protect them at a fraction of the risk of them catching the disease.

I'm no fan of "Big Pharm" when it comes to many of their profit generating policies. But what angers me more is how a group of anti-vaccination fanatics have attempted to re-write history and the facts in an effort to negate one of the greatest medical successes in history. One by one the sound bites are learned from the ant-vax literature and mindlessly repeated: "Measles, mumps, chickenpox never hurt children; they're no worst than the sniffles." "We live longer only because of improved hygiene, not because of vaccination." "Do you want to be injected with MERCURY and dead human cells?" "I'm okay with a few vaccinations, but how can you deny that these is much more autism since we began all these vaccinations?" All lies, or intentional distortions of the truth.
 
Around 40,000 thousand people a year are killed in car accidents, yet we continue to use them...because we need them. Vaccination may injury or kill a tiny percentage of people but they protect hundreds of millions from early death.
Click to expand...
A better analogy is seatbelts, which supposedly kill 30 000 people a year.
 
Giordano said:
I'm confused by this: (1) Why do you think it is appropriate for children to be locked up at home rather than be part of the world outside? They shouldn't go to a zoo, or a museum, or the park, or their friend's house? What of their older siblings- should they not go to school lest they bring back a disease into the house? Their fathers and moms shouldn't go to work for the same reason? Oh, I forgot, you aren't open to their mom's working- you don't even think they should leave the house… (2) Hidden at home, how will a child ever become immune to the diseases you are protecting them against? You realize that when they finally exit their jails into the greater world, these diseases will still be waiting for them?
Click to expand...

Confused ain't the half of it if you embellished what I actually said below to whatever that nonsense is above.

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore
I would rather if at all possible you remain home with your children as long as possible. Your children deserve you not some undereducated $6 an hour child care worker. Let alone every airborne germ in town.
Click to expand...
 
I still do not understand. Women leave the house. They go shopping, they visit friends, they walk their dog, they go to appointments. Even if they don't have a job (you seem to be opposed to the idea of women, or at least mothers, working, correct me if I'm wrong), they're still exposed to . Not to mention that the working father of the household is just as likely to catch these germs as is the mother. Females don't have some sort of inherent immune system deficiency that makes them more succeptible to infection.

Either way, you're shooting yourself in the foot here. If not vaccinating means the family has to take steps to stay at home as much as possible, then that's an argument in favour of vaccination, not against.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Confused ain't the half of it if you embellished what I actually said below to whatever that nonsense is above.

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore
Click to expand...

Your original argument was that pregnant mothers should stay home to avoid being exposed to rubella. But then, don't their other children have to stay home too, to avoid bringing rubella back into the house? And their husbands? And siblings and friends?

I thought that you recognized this, because you later stated, "I would rather if at all possible you remain home with your children as long as possible. Your children deserve you not some undereducated $6 an hour child care worker. Let alone every airborne germ in town."
 
Giordano said:
Your original argument was that pregnant mothers should stay home to avoid being exposed to rubella. But then, don't their other children have to stay home too, to avoid bringing rubella back into the house? And their husbands? And siblings and friends?

I thought that you recognized this, because you later stated, "I would rather if at all possible you remain home with your children as long as possible. Your children deserve you not some undereducated $6 an hour child care worker. Let alone every airborne germ in town."
Click to expand...

If you're going to say original argument you should quote it.

Please do so. A discussion isn't a one size fits all puzzle where a response connects to every previous post.
 
You are trying to dodge the point that you want other people to lock themselves away so they are safe from germs you will be spreading because of your anti-vaccination stance.
 
Travis said:
You are trying to dodge the point that you want other people to lock themselves away so they are safe from germs you will be spreading because of your anti-vaccination stance.
Click to expand...

Nice fiction. The lies keep coming. Your posts have hit the incoherent list. You're gonna have to earn a response.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Nice fiction. The lies keep coming. Your posts have hit the incoherent list. You're gonna have to earn a response.
Click to expand...

You are the one that said it. Unless you are writing with your words intended for new definitions then that is what you said.
 
excaza said:
:rolleyes:

I gave you proof. You rejected it, stating that the exemptions didn't exist at the time. Burden of proof for your assertion is on you, not me. That's how this works.
Click to expand...

Quite.
And I suspect there is no attempt to show otherwise since the New Jersey Administrative Code (NJ being where ladmo said the problem lay) has had compulsory vaccinations for school admission since 1975, and the medical exemptions part (8:57-4.3) has been a part of that from the start.

You can even dig it out from here (Michie's legal resources). Hopefully the link works. There's a chapter notes section that gives the history of Ch 57.
 
Tolls said:
Quite.
And I suspect there is no attempt to show otherwise since the New Jersey Administrative Code (NJ being where ladmo said the problem lay) has had compulsory vaccinations for school admission since 1975, and the medical exemptions part (8:57-4.3) has been a part of that from the start.

You can even dig it out from here (Michie's legal resources). Hopefully the link works. There's a chapter notes section that gives the history of Ch 57.
Click to expand...
Exemptions are only for medical and religious purposes not for anything else. My comment still stands as being true... vaccines are mandated and there is no way out unless you a medical reason or it is against your religion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom