Uhm Idk, what about them? I read tons of stuff from them. There is a ton of great research and things being learned. That is awesome. In order to further our growth in learning, you must keep pushing boundaries. However, you must also keep an open eye too.

The problem with your statement is that I actually think immunization is a great tool. I have no problem with using vaccinations for severe pandemics. Yet I think it should come with a word of caution. As with pushing envelopes and boundaries in any new area. We are learning a lot about DNA, genes, etc. BUT we are still learning and do not yet know the full implications of how this will impact things now or down the road.

I also understand where you (and others) have expressed the need that in order for vaccinations to work the best effectively, that most people need to get them. But trying to force that or trying to lie about it and say there are no negatives is not the best or proper way to go. Making everyone see the clear benefits so that everyone wants to get vaccinated is the correct way to do it PLUS making sure everyone has access to do so.

I tried to stay away from the sheep thing, yea I know with my many altercations with mrford I am sure it came up and I did not succeed, it is what it is but it is not something I really want to dwell on.

Anyway, there is plenty of research and evidence that disease can be beneficial to us, sometimes fighting off more dangerous and tougher diseases. So I just think we should only use vaccinations only when absolutely necessary to save millions, use that great tool with caution, but once it is used it should be used everywhere. Until at such time that we fully understand what it is that we are messing with.

MMR (Measles, Mumps) is a great example imho. I really do not know whether MMR is best vaccine to use or not. Sure if it was used back in its hey day (talking late 1800's for measles at least), then most definitely. But when it was first introduced in 1960's, I tend to lean towards probably not. HOWEVER, it was put in use and so I do not have as much an issue with it continuing to be put in use, UNLESS we find out that it really does more harm than good.

This could use repeating, for this topic as well as in general.

I would say I already said couple days ago that increases of autism has nothing to do with vaccinations. That is not news at all, where have you been.

I must say that afer reading thru the spewing herd. Some points of contention.

I heard that if I don't want to b forced to vaccinate my kids, don't send them to our schools that do. The same can b said for folks desiring everyone b forced to vaccinate. Don't send your vaccinated kids to my school where familys have a choice in how to raise thier kids. If you somehow think your family is any better or more important, because you adhere to the practice of libtardism.

Ive heard that not wanting to b forced to have my family vaccinated with live organisms, and the self inherent dangers of those vaccines. That somehow Im not thinking of others, is the same premise. If Im accused of not wanting the vaccines, and being insensitive to others. Than wanting everyone to b forced to getting a vaccine, that isn't specifically made for each individual, and the self inherent dangers of those vaccines. That is the same premise. You cant have your cake and eat it too. I do take OFFENSE to b told I I have to do sumtin because you believe that whatever you believe I HAVE to believe. NO I DONT! Stupid Libtards.


Ive heard that if you don't want to vaccinate your kids. Do not walk amongst us or go to our schools. Whomever typed that. Did you even think before you started typing? Obviously not. If you did, you obviously do not believe in gods {if you believe their is one}. Because if you did you would never have said what you said.

This is a very simple sort of thing. This isn't about vaccinating. This is about someone telling others they have to do what they do, because that's what we think is right, and you have to go along with, or else. vaccines are for the most part all well and good. NOT ALL OF THEM Just because you believe sumthing is right DOES NOT MEAN everyone else has to go along with you.

Your rights right extend to the point where you aren't infringing on the rights of others. By not vaccinating your kids you are putting other kids at danger by allowing them to interact extensively. Thus others, and the system, have every "right" to deny you access to the general populous since you and your choices put them at risk.

The fact that you think putting other people in danger is acceptable as a "personal choice" shows you have no regard for the well being of others. Thus, you are an ass.

My rights extend to gods law that I am the protector of my family. Not for someone else to make family decisions for me. You on the other hand think it is acceptable for YOU to put others in danger, bjut not for me. Hmmmmmmm...and just whom is the ass here.

Ive also spent a large portion of my adult life, working in the medical field, helping others, tirelessly, and thanklessly, so once again, whom is the ass here.

Vaccination is the price to pay to live in society; like taxes. You must contribute to public health like you contribute to the public treasury for the benefit of those in society.

Nothing stopping you guys from moving to a country that doesn't have vaccines. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out -- because the door is rusty and if it hits you you'll need a tetanus shot and that's the same kind of thing you're trying to avoid! Don't put life saving things in my body to make me better! :p

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too; that's why the majority of the people here thinks folks with that mindset are equivalent to the scum of the earth.

Like rationalize it, say "hey, I agree with you [in this small case] so we're basically on the same side!", pretend that you're actually correct and everyone else is crazy.... but I hope when your kids grow up they learn about this sort of stuff and come back and tell you how ignorant you are.

Your rights do not extend to "gods law". "gods law" has no bearing on actual law.
In no way does my stance on vaccination put your or other people's children at risk. Your stance, however, does.

You want to argue that god is anti-vaccine, fine. But once again your right to practice your religion does not give you the right to endanger other people through that practice.

So don't vaccinate your kids if you don't' want to, but keep them away from the rest of us. Send them to a religious school with a bunch of other non-vaccinated kids (and watch the pandemic at their school ensue).

http://personalliberty.com/...r-given-immunity-testify/

Yes your stance does. You want my kids to b "forced" to take a vaccine that isn't safe for them. Now how is that not putting folks at risk.

i've just contacted my lawyer to subpoena pang/EE for your personal information. my lawyer and i will be filing suit for medical bills, lost wages, and emotional distress as a result of the massive facepalm I just did after reading your thread.

see you in court!

a) your source is BS, it is from a fringe anti-vaxxer website. Legitimate sources (such as time magazine) have published articles that have thoroughly discredited this CDC whistleblower story. There is a reason why the only places reporting it are unreliable BS websites like the one you just posted.

Links to stories from legit stories that completely discredit the story you posted above:

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/...cdc-autism-vaccine-study/
Time Magazine: http://time.com/...wing-vaccine-autism-link/

There is no actual, legitimate evidence that vaccines hurt people. Not from the CDC or anywhere else. Every link that supports the claim in the article you posted comes from equally junk blog sites and special interest group sites. no legitimacy what so ever. The CNN article does a good job showing what "evidence" from the CDC those articles clung to, and exactly how it is BS (I'll give you a hint: they extrapolated a conclusion that was inappropriate based on the actual evidence from the CDC).

b) I didn't say your kid should be forced to be vaccinated. I said that if they aren't vaccinated, they shouldn't be allowed into public schools or other public places where they place other children at risk of exposure.

Please develop some reading comprehension.

CNN state run media

PS look in the news bud, not all those people "debunking" your argument can b wrong man. Im not understanding why you think its right, you can tell me that I have to get my family vaccinated. But its not fine for me to say no. What makes your point any more important than mine. Nothing. So you tell me? And not allowing them in "public" schools is discriminating against the child. and you are wrong, it is legitamte doctors and experts in the field of immunizations that are raisng uestions. Your just upset that you aren't able to run my life. Thats what all this is about. Local govts, and people that feel they need to run other peoples lives, because they think what they think is all encompassing. WRONG!!!

Its obvious in every statement you made that you haven't even considered my point of view, or any other material facts out there. Reading comprehension, I don't believe you have any, as you haven't comprehended yet.

Liken it to this. germany said a few years ago, all jews must die. So for the well being of Germany they rounded up the jews and massacred them. Similar to the US and the Indians. I suppose thatis ok with you since it was for the betterment of the German people. Not to mention not so good for the Jews. But hey, I said it s ok. so it b law. really?

And yes it is a valid likening, that is exactly what you and every other libtard out ther eis trying to do. Project your own thoughts and desires upon others. At regardless of the cost. Yall don't care about the kids. All you care about is making sure that whatever it is yall want to happen, happens. Because if you think that requiring kids to get vaccines ,that have more side affects, and problems associated with them than the diseases they are supposedto b protecting against.

My suggestion is yall go talk to a few doctors and health officials. And see what kind of nonsense yall are perpetrating.

did you just compare the holocaust to vaccinations?

jesus-titty-fvcking-christ.

dont argue with Home Turf. It is like fighting a retarded kid. The dude is literally as stupid as a jar of mayonnaise. besides, he has god in his corner right?

So in your mind it's ok to force your unvaccinated children into society....sickening and reckless.

It's all part of God's plan for his children to make infants contract preventable illnesses. He works in mysterious ways...

don't tell me what to do! you're not my mom!

i will always open a thread when i see last poster: trife

you do as i say and you like it heathen!


i got a question for Home Turf. Why doesnt god heal amputees? he preforms miracles in hospitals daily right? does he hate amputees?

Yes, all those people are wrong. They have an agenda and they are taking facts out of context and misinterpreting data in order to back up that agenda.

The way they reached the conclusion on vaccines being unsafe with the CDC data was to look at a particular racial subset (black people) and the statistical results from that subgroup. However, the sample size was far too small to be statistically significant and as such those conclusions are complete junk. The CDC has confirmed this and so has multiple other people with statistical expertise (FYI: I'm also considered an expert in statistics).

The "whistleblower" was a CDC employee who was being interviewed by an anti-vaccination advocacy group, who asked him about the results from the racial sub-sample and his answer can basically be summarized as "yes that group did show a negative affect, but the sample size was far too small to take those results seriously. Someone would have to do a broader study with a much larger sample for that group in order to reach any conclusions". The interviewer took the "yes that group did show a negative effect" part of the quote, dropped everything else, and ran with a "CDC has a whistle blower on vaccines!" narrative. From there a bunch of other anti-vax groups clung on to the story as falsely reported by the interviewer.

How can you possibly argue that is legitimate reporting? They blatantly left out key parts of the quote to suit their agenda. Those were not the results of the study, they are falsely reporting the results and falsely framing a truncated quote from a CDC employee. How is this legitimate? It isn't.

So yes, all those people reporting it are wrong. They are all re-quoting one original article which was falsified to the point where it should be criminal.

Not letting unvaccinated children in the school isn't discriminating any more than keeping criminals in jail is discriminating. Nice try though.

Liking this issue to the nazi's is despicable, by the way.

http://i.imgur.com/X6Mo27v.webm

i can't stop laughing

i have the maturity level of a 13 year old

I like the concept of anarchy. An honourable brotherhood of the strong and ethical, rejecting the nanny state. But I must admit that some minimal government is needed. Without it we would have armed thugs terrorizing us. We have to protect our communities. We need to build roads. And we need epidemiologists and the will and power to fight plagues.

the faceplant at the end is the best part!

very realistic too, atleast in my experience

This is amazingly stupid.

1. If you don't want to have your kids vaccinated, then, it follows, that your kid(s) might contract whatever the disease it is that the vaccine is intended to combat.

2. If you have your kid(s) vaccinated, then, it also follows, that your kid(s) might never contract whatever disease it is that the vaccine is intended to combat.

Thus, the sole remaining question is "Does the government have the authority to force parents to have their child vaccinated against the parents wishes?"

I would lean towards limiting governmental oversight of this extremely personal decision making process that is the actual province of the family unit.

Yeah, that .gov in the title just lends all manner of credence to the story, don't it? ROFLMAO

If anything, that would make me very much more suspicious.

this.

Are you really that skeptical? A Centers for Diasesse Control site carries a lot more credence (look it up) than these random .com webistes that any whackjob can set up. They have no financial gain to be made from this.

And for fluff sake, this isn't as a personal decision as you people make it to be. Unless there is an underlying medical reason, childern NEED to get basic vaccinaition requirements reccommened by the CDC/WHO in order to enroll in publc school/activities. I understand personal liberty, I tell Michelle Obama to fluff off when she is trying to regulate salt in food. Yes high sality foods aren't heality, but it is my right to consume them. However; Easily communicable (look it up) diseases are a toally different era. Your lack of vaccination puts other people at risk while eating salty foods has no effect on other people.

I personally love seeing stuff like this! So many people complain about the "cancer causing" agents in second hand smoke...if you live in a city with +-50k population, guess what kind of air quality you get....garbage...and that will not change even if or when you get all the dirty smokers to quit...the "fresh" air you have from all the lovely exhuast fumes and chemical plants, business, restaurants, etc is far worse then the little bit of second hand smoke you MIGHT inhale.

On that note smoking in public parks and such is rightly banned for the childrens sake

This completely ignores the rights of the people who can not be vaccinated be it because of age or immune system. It isn't a personal choice when you endanger the lives of others. Your point is invalid based on that premise alone. You are arguing against the entire point of group vaccinations, herd immunity.

Actually, poor eating can have a huge impact on others. Poor eating leads to health problems, some of which can compromise your immune system and possibly your offspring. Also, your poor eating can also lead to increases in medical expenditures, which can affect many things, like increased taxes, increased government expenditures on social security, medicare, and medicaid.

Sure, you may have health insurance, but not everyone who eats poorly has health insurance that is paid for 100% by sources that don't include any type of government funding.

Sugary drinks play a huge role in obesity, which has a huge impact on health and uses tax dollars that could be better spent if those drinks were never consumed in the first place.

Should we completely ban all sugary drinks because they are bad for society as a whole?

guns are a dangerous thing that can lead to instant death, and some guns can kill dozens of people within minutes, yet many states allow people to openly carry guns, or even conceal carry them, anywhere. Should guns be banned from everyone since they can definitely be proven to lead to death? I mean, there is no other reason for them, right?

Cars produce toxins that are killing us, and the planet. We should outlaw the use of cars.

Wait...prayer in churches is brainwashing our children, making them dumber. It forces them to believe in a God that no one has yet to prove actually exists and it makes them hate people who don't believe exactly the same way they do. It also forces them to start wars and kill others. We need to ban religion altogether, because atheists have never started a war for religious reasons, and probably not for any other reasons either.

The government has never lied to us. They should always be believed and never questioned. I mean hell, I believe Nixon...he is not a crook, and Clinton absolutely did not have sexual relations with that girl. There definitely were weapons of mass destruction in IRAQ...invading IRAQ had nothing to do with bush's daddy issues or with the oil, or anything else.

The CDC has nothing to gain by telling us to vaccinate. There is no way possible that anyone from the CDC has ever recieved any kind of gift or bribe of any kind from big pharma. These are good, decent "non-humans" (must be, because all humans lie, cheat, and steal at some point, in some manner).

Yes, I call you sheep when you willingly follow and tell others to follow, without ever questioning. If people are given the ability to question, and they do so, then, and only then, if the answer is sufficient, then we should follow the recommended instructions.

Blindly following without the ability to question leads to power abuse. Take away our right to say no and the government could easily implement a shot that is bad for us without us being able to do anything about it. We need the ability to choose to prevent this type of abuse of power.

The worst thing about the internet is is makes idiots feel like their voice is valid.

He's saying the logic is slightly skewed. If you're child is vaccinated then you have nothing to worry about. Right? Or are you not sure of the integrity of the vaccine? If someone decides not to vaccinate their child then their child is at risk, and not yours. This is not a 'herd' problem, it's an individuals choice and consequence.
If you feel your child is better protected with a vaccine, and that it's less risky to his/her long term/short term health then get the goddamned vaccine. If Mr. and Mrs. Jones decides not to vaccinate little Johnny and he contracts the disease, dies or suffers long term effects, that's on them. On the same coin, if your allegedly protected child contracts same said illness from little Johnny with the undesired effects, that's not Mr. And Mrs. Jones fault. It's Mr. Pharma's fault. Time to crack out the lawyers. Good luck.

false, there are people out there who CAN NOT be vaccinated. like my daughter, and all the other kids with cancer and other illnesses or kids in daycare who are too young to be vaccinated like the 5 kids in chicago. choosing to not vaccinate your kids puts them at risk. i fully understand his point. it is you who do not understand mine.

If Mr. and Mrs. Jones decides not to vaccinate little Johnny and he contracts the disease and then infects my daughter that didnt have a choice, that is infringing upon my rights.

The real problem here is not that people (or idiots) feel their voice is valid. It's when they feel they have the ONLY valid voice.

when you believe that you are so special that you are entitled to risk others lives that dont have a choice then yeah, your voice doesnt mean fluff to me. you are free to do whatever you want as long as it doesnt infringe upon the rights of others. you are infringing upon my rights by thinking it is a choice and not a necessity.

and before you butch about your right to not vaccinate being infringed upon, there is no concrete risk to being vaccinate. that isnt infringing upon fluff other than your right to be ignorant.

Your life was put at risk recently and it's due to something that YOU believe in. But I don't see you going all out to change laws to prevent that from ever happening again.

that was called an accident caused by improper usage of tools. you can not compare the situations. attempting to do so shows your extremely limited comprehension skills.

and i had a choice to not go to that gun range. my daughter doesnt have a choice to not be at risk for the disease. but it was a nice try.

Since a person (including a child) can not be property it would technically be infringing on HER rights. However, she, and by relation, you, have the right to place her somewhere where she would be at less risk.

oh, so i should have to take her out of society because some people think they are better than us and dont need to be protected against preventable diseases? wow

what about all the kids out there under the age of 2. should they not be able to go to daycares? playgrounds? do they all need to be isolated as well?

hopefully all the anti-vax people die out before an epidemic occurs. it is unfortunate that society has forgotten how horrible these preventable diseases are. maybe we need a few hundred kids to die before the light comes back on. i hope my immunocompromised daughter and 1 year old that is too young to be vaccinated arnt among the victims of the selfishness and ignorance of others.

Take her out of society? That's insane. No. I'm saying make decisions to keep her in areas of society conducive to her health. And, yes, quarantining is an effective method of disease control so I would support that, especially if the child was seen to be at an abnormal risk of infection.

areas of society conducive to her health? what does that even mean? and what about the kids too young for vaccines? should all kids be quarantined before the age of 2? you do understand that we HAVE to go to hospitals and doctors offices. and we have to put her into daycare as we both work.

so we need to make concessions because of the ignorance of others. what about quarantining the ones who refuse to get vaccinated? they are the real risk here. yeah. lets do that. oh wait, they already are. kicking them out of public schools and private practices. my wife's private school has banned unvaccinated kids as well. if you wan to endanger not only your life, but the life of others, you shouldn't benefit from the society you do not care about protecting.

http://i.imgur.com/teXdezo.jpg


i just saw home turfs' car

It means if you want your child in a place you feel she's better protected/at less risk then have her placed there. It seems you've found a few places, so you should be all set. Likewise, there will be places that will allow people who are not vaccinated as is their right. You can be well informed of them and stay clear of those establishments as is your right to do so as well.

i don't think you know how epidemics work. i hope you never have to find out. it is cute that you think quarantine is effective.

it shouldn't be anyone's right to keep a preventable disease alive and perpetuate the possibility of outbreaks like we had decades ago. period.

Equally, nobody should be forced to take such a short term risk with long term consequences over something that isn't a certainty.

The epidemics you speak of were in a different time when there was poor sanitation, crowded living and almost zero understanding of the disease. Things (at least on this side of the pond) are different than they were decades ago in those regards. This is a risk/benefit assessment based on current data and it is (much to your chagrin, I'm sure) very open to debate at this time. It will go on for years to come. So, I think it's best you take control of your end of things and leave others to them and theirs.

this side of the pond? you mean England? ironic because you have seen measles cases skyrocket since the mid 2000s when that damned paper came out.

http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/...s/Measles%201996-2013.PNG

and yeah man, times were so different. everyone was so much dirtier in the 60s right?

http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/...files/Measles%20Graph.png

http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/measles

hey! maybe all your anti-vaxers will die out first! lucky bastards. but yeah, times are so different! the only thing different is how fast ignorance and misinformation spreads. and no, i will never give up combating that, if not for society, then for the safety of my children. short term risks with long term consequences? bullfluff. please provide proof of these risks. i suppose you think vaccines cause autism?