Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

California Bill Taking Away Parental Freedoms regarding Vaccines--ACT NOW

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Saoirse View Post
    regardless of how a person feels about vaccines in general, the issue here is one of children getting medical treatment without parental consent. i am 100% in favor of teens having access to condoms and information about safe sex without parental consent. if my kids felt too afraid to talk to me about safe sex, i would hope that they would have access to resources like those. however, we are talking about medical treatments being administered by personnel who have no knowledge of the patient's medical history or allergies. as pointed out by rosegin, children have died because of this vaccine, and there's no proof that it's actually effective at preventing cervical cancer. i would never allow my daughter to get this particular vaccine, even if she was sexually active.
    +10000

    For those interested in learning about Gardasil related injuries: Gardasil Injuries | Gardasil Side Effects | Damage and disease from vaccinations | Dangers of Gardasil | Gardasil Vaccination side effects | Gardasil can ruin your health | health risks of Gardasil | The Truth About Gardasil
    My Before/After Pics
    Are you new here? Be sure to check these links FIRST, before reading anything on the forum! Succeed & PB 101

    "I am a work in progress." -Ani DiFranco

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by davem View Post
      You need to thank Jonas Salk.

      Polio
      let's talk about Polio then... according to your source... most cases of polio not only go unnoticed, but if they do express symptoms they are mild and flu like. The most sever type, Paralytic polio affects 0.1% to 2% of cases. This is when the immune system (your gut) allows the virus to enter the bloodstream and attacks the brain.

      how contagious is polio: well.. you have to eat fecal matter contaminated with the polio virus...

      the first vaccine (OPV) used a true, contact immunity that sometimes resulted in a case of Paralytic Polio and was discontinued in 1979 in favor of IPV. IPV produces antibodies but (your site does NOT mention this fact) you are still capable of contracting "wild" polio if you decide to travel in Asia/Africa or if you encounter the virus in this country from a foreign source. To me... this says that IPV does not truly provide any immunity at all... and just reinforces my belief that we have no "cure" for polio at all. The oral vaccine... developed by Albert Sabin used the real virus and was just a fancy and controlled way of introducing the entire population to the virus... which then used the bodies natural defense mechanisms to develop true immunity... how is this any different than having a measles/chick pox party to infect all your playmates and spread the "love?"

      Comment


      • #33
        I think the anti-vax woohoo threads should get dumped into the odds and ends section of the forum.

        Comment


        • #34
          My aunt had polio. Got it as a child and was crippled, using crutches, braces or a wheelchair her entire life.

          I'm not sure if you can only get it from eating contaminated fecal matter, but you do realize how incredibly easy it is to eat fecal matter and not even know it, right?
          Durp.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by RitaRose View Post
            My aunt had polio. Got it as a child and was crippled, using crutches, braces or a wheelchair her entire life.

            I'm not sure if you can only get it from eating contaminated fecal matter, but you do realize how incredibly easy it is to eat fecal matter and not even know it, right?
            Anti-vaxers were born after polio was eradicated through vaccinations and don't know about the large hospital wards filled with row after row of iron lungs for polio victims. And once admitted to an iron lung, children remained there for the rest of their lives.

            Comment


            • #36
              Another reason to move out of California. This is so Big Brother. Soon they'll require your children to attend public nursery school at two years of age so indoctrination can start earlier. They can call it Kibbutz.
              Positively Radical Pigeonholes are for Pigeons!

              Comment


              • #37
                From the link posted by the OP:

                "HELP STOP COERCED VACCINATION OF CHILDREN BEHIND THE BACKS OF THEIR PARENTS

                California just passed a bill into law, AB499, which permits minor children as young as 12 years old, to be vaccinated with sexually transmitted disease vaccines without parental knowledge or parental consent."


                It permits this, there is no coercion, no requirement going on here.

                There is a fuzzy line between "children" and "adults". When a teen is sexually active they do, at least in California, have the right to health care services including birth control and abortion without parental notification or consent. I don't see why a vaccine should be any different.

                If you have really cool parents with whom you can discuss the pros and cons of such things, great. But not everybody does. Some people have narrow minded, old fashioned parents who think that even discussing such things is giving their tacit approval for their child to (Gasp!) have sex! Get a clue folks. The kids are going to be doing it anyway.

                All this bill does is give teens the right to make those decisions for themselves. I don't see how that is a bad thing.

                My parents always said, "Be good and if you can't be good, be careful." The risks of Guardasil are minimal and the benefits are huge. A girl should have the right to weigh those risks and benefits for herself.

                Comment


                • #38
                  The forced vaccination of anybody is the issue I have with bills such as these. I do most of my work overseas and yes, I get vaccinations. Not all of them but I do get the ones to help prevent the stuff that will kill you, I even keep my rabies up to date (in case I bite somebody). I have a very robust immunity system that could kill small animals by itself but reality is that I work in some pretty nasty places and get exposed (probably) to some pretty nasty things that the locals usually have a degree of resistance to, such as malaria.

                  When I was a kid, a long, long time ago, that was the things we used to get vaccinated against, the really nasty stuff that would kill you or at least, majorly f*ck you up for a long time. But now it seems like there is a vaccine for everything. Kids grow up either vaccinated against childhood diseases that we used to get (that likely helped build our immunity system) and guess what, we got over the measles or chickenpox or whatever and did just fine.

                  Bottom line, some vaccines are probably a good thing if there is a likely hood of being exposed to the disease you are being vaccinated against. Nobody should be forced by law to vaccinate their kids and failure to vaccinate your kids should not null and void your medical insurance as was suggested earlier, unless eating CW or smoking would null and void your medical insurance or any number of other lifestyle related ailments.

                  We also should not, blindly, accept all vaccines as being a good thing or advocate vaccination someone against their wishes (or their kids) just because the medical profession is trying to scare us into compliance by saying that this disease is out to get us. How can we blindly accept things such as this when we dispute about everything else CW related that we hear from that profession?

                  Kids get sick, they make other kids sick and they get well and likely have a more robust immunity system because of it. Forced vaccination of things like the measles makes as much sense as forcing prophylactic administration of antibiotics to prevent upper respiratory in kids so that they don't get sick and spread it around.

                  Do your research, assess your risk and decide for yourself if getting vaccinated is right for you and/or your kids but please don't support laws that force this on everybody else.
                  Randal
                  AKA: Texas Grok

                  Originally posted by texas.grok
                  Facebook is to intelligence what a black hole is to light
                  http://hardcoremind.com/

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                    From the link posted by the OP:

                    "HELP STOP COERCED VACCINATION OF CHILDREN BEHIND THE BACKS OF THEIR PARENTS

                    California just passed a bill into law, AB499, which permits minor children as young as 12 years old, to be vaccinated with sexually transmitted disease vaccines without parental knowledge or parental consent."


                    It permits this, there is no coercion, no requirement going on here.
                    Obviously the original link is a biased source hoping to persuade anyone and everyone to take action against this.

                    For me, the concern is not that a couple of kids here and there who have researched the issue can choose to get vaccinated without letting their parents know. My concern (and maybe I'm a paranoid conspiracy theorist) is that a law such as this would make it possible for children to be 'coerced' into vaccinations without parental knowledge or consent. I do think there could come a time when large groups of kids getting yearly physicals/scoliosis checks (etc.) at school might be casually offered this (and other) vaccination(s) without having researched it or discussed it with their parents. If, in any way, the people offering the vaccination were to share only the positive impact of the vaccine, and perhaps even tried to persuade the students to get it, I personally would see this as coercion and would think many students (esp. children as young as 12) would choose to get them on the spot without really being aware of what they were deciding. There are ways an authority figure can present 'choices' without there seeming to be a real choice in the matter. I just think children are so impressionable and may have a great deal of trust in and/or fear of authority that they might not question such a thing in the moment, and actually feel like they were doing something wrong if they were to decline it. That is my real concern over this issue--the *possibility* of coerced vaccination (esp. without parent awareness). I also think that by saying 'yes, it is permitted to give this to children without parental consent' to one major medical intervention might open the door for more of the same...
                    Last edited by FairyRae; 09-03-2011, 04:24 PM.
                    My Before/After Pics
                    Are you new here? Be sure to check these links FIRST, before reading anything on the forum! Succeed & PB 101

                    "I am a work in progress." -Ani DiFranco

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      If they want to make a law allowing teens to choose whether or not to get a vaccine, then they need to provide complete information--both pro and con--about that vaccine. Isn't that what clinics have to do when a female wants an abortion?

                      And for those wanting everyone to be forced into taking vaccines, where do you draw the line on personal liberties? Do we force everyone to take statins if the gov't says they may prevent heart attacks?
                      I'm retraining and strengthening my taste buds, one primal meal at a time.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                        From the link posted by the OP:

                        "HELP STOP COERCED VACCINATION OF CHILDREN BEHIND THE BACKS OF THEIR PARENTS

                        California just passed a bill into law, AB499, which permits minor children as young as 12 years old, to be vaccinated with sexually transmitted disease vaccines without parental knowledge or parental consent."


                        It permits this, there is no coercion, no requirement going on here.

                        There is a fuzzy line between "children" and "adults". When a teen is sexually active they do, at least in California, have the right to health care services including birth control and abortion without parental notification or consent. I don't see why a vaccine should be any different.

                        If you have really cool parents with whom you can discuss the pros and cons of such things, great. But not everybody does. Some people have narrow minded, old fashioned parents who think that even discussing such things is giving their tacit approval for their child to (Gasp!) have sex! Get a clue folks. The kids are going to be doing it anyway.

                        All this bill does is give teens the right to make those decisions for themselves. I don't see how that is a bad thing.

                        My parents always said, "Be good and if you can't be good, be careful." The risks of Guardasil are minimal and the benefits are huge. A girl should have the right to weigh those risks and benefits for herself.
                        Thank you, voice of reason. No coercion.

                        Sexy time for humans starts at 14, 15, 16, 17, etc: its a nightmare to require parental consent with sexual health-related issues. The fear that doctors are trapping babies in schools and forcing syringes into their arms is just bizarre. Let's get real. This thread annoys me to no end.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Orchid View Post
                          Thank you, voice of reason. No coercion.

                          Sexy time for humans starts at 14, 15, 16, 17, etc: its a nightmare to require parental consent with sexual health-related issues. The fear that doctors are trapping babies in schools and forcing syringes into their arms is just bizarre. Let's get real. This thread annoys me to no end.
                          Very true.
                          I think sometimes peoples' tinfoil hats slip forward and get in the way of their vision. Again. It permits vaccination, it does not require it.
                          Everybody just take a deep breath and calm the fork down.
                          Last edited by Paleobird; 09-03-2011, 04:49 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                            Very true.
                            I think sometimes peoples' tinfoil hats slip forward and get in the way of their vision. Again. It permits vaccination, it does not require it.
                            Everybody just take a deep breath and calm the fork down.
                            I am not against teenagers making decisions about their sexual health. I am against them being lied to about a "cervical cancer" vaccine.
                            ~Sandy

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I'm a bit confused as a non-American. Is this a libertarian issue, i.e. I should be able to leech off of the herd immunity conferred by general vaccinations as a political principle or is this about the fear that if your prepubescent girl is vaccinated against cervical cancer as a life/cost saving measure by the state she'll turn into a out-of-control whore just...because I guess.

                              What if she meets and marries a nice guy who just happens to carry the virus because he slept 15 years ago with a girl who was infected? And she draws the short straw statistically speaking and gets cervical cancer?

                              Are you guys for real?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Rosegin View Post
                                I am not against teenagers making decisions about their sexual health. I am against them being lied to about a "cervical cancer" vaccine.
                                Well, hopefully any controversy about the HPV vaccine can be resolved elsewhere, and not on the backs of a teenager's access to health care services (not to mention their freedom to make up their own mind on the issue).

                                Being a legal adult and/or someone who procreated doesn't make one a non-moron on these matters anyway.
                                Last edited by Orchid; 09-03-2011, 05:47 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X