Judge won’t block strict child vaccination law in California: cbsn.ws/2bNhcXw
We don’t need diseases that have already been near-eradicated coming back. Polio is dead. (At least in the West.)
Forced vaccines full of mercury and other neurotoxin. Glad I don’t live in California.
Children don’t need 50 vaccines before 6 years old.
Yes, but if it actually prevents disease outbreaks (and small pox, chicken pox and polio have not had major, major US outbreaks in years) then it may be necessary for the greater good.
If we have too many non-vaccine people in a particular area or in a particular ethnic group, this is dangerous to those who cannot get vaccines because of medical conditions, putting them at risk.
Do yo know anyone that had polio, whopping cough, mumps, chicken pox, smallpox, etc. If the answer is no, it is because of vaccines.
All of these have side effects which out weigh the side effects of the vaccines. For example, did you know that someone who had whooping cough has impaired heart function, requiring that they take antibiotics before they have a teeth cleaning every six months? People who had polio also end up with heart problems (my grandpa died from thatat 56 which was related to having polio when he was 7). On a more cosmetic level, neither of my daughters have chicken pox scars (unlike me and most of my generation).
If you are willing to expose yourself to these dangers, fine. But you have no right to expose others and their children to your diseases.
My daughter (two years and eight months) has had all of hers.
I wanted her to have them because not only does it protect her against devastating diseases that were once commonplace, but I believe it’s my duty as a member of society to vaccinate so that our herd immunity isn’t compromised.
Older people I know (in their seventies and eighties) remember a time when everyone knew a family that had been affected by polio. They’re absolutely astounded that people choose not to vaccinate their children. They (and I) see vaccinations as one of the pure unalloyed goods of modern science.
I believe that vaccination is one of the areas in which society has a compelling interest, so much so that we have a right to compel (through our government) vaccination.
Yes, and we are very privileged to have it. In some isolated or underdeveloped areas of the world, vaccines are only present through foreign or charitable entities if you’re lucky enough. There are parts of Zambia or wherever like this.
So we should at least be grateful for the very presence of vaccines and that we don’t have to go through what our ancestors went through one thousand or even sixty years ago.
I think the legal argument was weak. The law placed a requirement on education. It did not prevent them from having an education. A parent could still home school, if they are rich, hire a private teacher. The California law only makes group immunity the legal responsibility of everyone in the group.
But who does need them are the immune compromised and otherwise unimmunized children. They need the herd immune because they cannot be immunized even if they want to.
Also the very old and very young who are at risk.
Neurotoxins and bad side effects don’t help the immune system.
How many diseases existed because of poor sanitation and hygiene?
If I had children, I would NEVER let them be injected with poison. These ingredients do NOT prevent disease. A strong immune system does…
Does anyone even ask for ingredients list? And why a newborn needs a vaccine for HepB?
This also means you can’t opt out of the dangerous Gardisil vaccine. That one has terrible side effects.
Germ theory denialism isn’t really compatible with much of what we’ve established: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_denialism
I know you’re probably not advocating that, but it is dangerous to assume that a healthy person is immune from disease just because they are healthy. Yes, thank God, sanitation and living conditions have improved.
What about polio vaccines? Are you against those? I am assuming you had those, along with DPT, German measles, tetanus, etc. You survived these shots and, more importantly, have never suffered the diseases you were vaccinated against. Why would you be willing to subject your children to them. Of course, since you have no children, and are personally protected, perhaps you don’t understand what those of us who had to make the decision considered.
I took the chance of the vaccines side-effects over the guaranteed side-effects of the diseases for my children. They did not need paralysis, heart conditions, scars, impotency, birth defects etc. If you want to subject your future children to that, fine. But you than need to keep them away from all society that might infect them or that they might infect.
Because in the US 1 out of 20 people have been infected with Hepatitis B. 1.25 million are chronically infected with the disease. Out of all of those people it said that 30-40% of those people were infected during childhood. And a baby who gets infected by Hep B has a 15-25% chance of premature death from liver disease.
Yeah and salt is bad because it contains sodium and chlorine, right? I mean sodium explodes on contact with water, and chlorine is poisonous.
Chemistry must not be your strong suit. Pick up a book and learn that vaccines don’t contain straight mercury. :mad:
They contain C9H9HgNaO2S. Which is a compound and not elemental mercury.
Prior to the advent of indoor plumbing, the typical life expectancy was about 45-50 years old.
After indoor plumbing and before vaccinations, people typically lived to be about 60.
Today, people can expect to live well into their 80s, and it’s not uncommon any more to live beyond 100, and 45-50 years old is considered quite young.
No one is suggesting injecting children with poison. Vaccinations are not poison. I know there are some fringe anti-vaccination people out there that would rather believe the sensational rather than the scientific, but they are the reason why California needed this legislation. Let these people home school. If they cannot take reasonable steps to protect the group, they should be excluded from the group. That seems both simple and fair.
As soon as I say I do have one issue with vaccines, people automatically label me as anti-vaccine, which is incorrect. My son is vaccinated with everything except HepB or whatever, though I personally think the Chickenpox vaccine a little overkill.
So, if it ever comes up, I guess my six second soundbite for the problem I have with vaccines would go like this: “My kid is vaccinated, but I have an issue with the unethical sourcing for some of them because some of the cell-lines were sourced via abortions.” And if people question me, I’ll just say, “I have the paperwork from the vaccine companies telling me that I shouldn’t worry about it because that was a while ago. I handwrote letters of complaint.”
Good. It’s irresponsible and dangerous to not only your child but the immune compromised to not vaccinate your kids.
Neurotoxins don’t. Vaccines do.
Bad side effects don’t. The good central effect does.
Lots. How is that an argument against vaccines, which help prevent disease?
Nor would I. Injected with protection against disease, though, that I would want.
Vaccines help make the immune system stronger against the diseases they’re for.
Newborns can be infected with disease like anyone else.
Polio has disastrous side effects. Tuberculosis. Anthrax. Rabies. I’ll take my chances with Gardisil.