Do you actually know someone who was vaccine injured?

↑ JoyInTheMorning ↓

Sun, Aug 04 2019, 8:19 pm

amother [ Black ] wrote:

I don't understand you at all.
Thousands upon thousands of things have been studied, connections that occur years later.

The reason these two things haven't been studied is not because the vaccine manufacters can't (I don't even know where you took that info from); the reason these things haven't been studied is because they don't think there's a connection. Why are you defending vaccine manufacturers more than they themselves are saying?

Please define the study that you want carried out. What would make you happy? You can't just say that the connection has to be studied. Please be more specific. Or can you not answer because you have you not thought this out carefully enough?

↑ JoyInTheMorning ↓

Sun, Aug 04 2019, 8:31 pm

amother [ Black ] wrote:

We don't have to leave it out, but first we need to get to the point where everyone acknowledges that vaccines carry significant greater risk for known adverse reactions than is officially stated, and that there are still many unknown adverse reactions possibly occuring but we don't know because they haven't been studied.
Once we're on the same page with that, we can agree to the conclusion that it is each individual's right to choose the risk they are willing to undertake. You will definitely vaccinate your kids regardless of mandates. As will JoyInTheMorning and southerbubby. But your conclusions shouldn't be forced upon everyone. I, as a parent, should be entitled to the right to choose to forego a risky possibly preventative medical practice.

Let me respond to the bolded. Why do you think that with respect to vaccines you have a specific right to choose what risk you are willing to undertake? How come you're okay with other mandates that take away choice? Here's an example: car seats for babies; seat belts for adults. Seat belts have absolutely been shown, in general, to reduce mortality in car accidents. But it's also the case that in some cases, a person will do worse with a seat belt on because they can't get out of danger quickly enough. Why is it okay for the government to tell you that you have to wear a seat belt if you're sitting in the front seat? What if you feel that you'll more often be in the group that needs to escape the car quickly than the group that will go through the windshield with catastrophic consequences?

Well, you can say, the government isn't really forcing you to wear seat belts. It's obligatory only if you ride in a car. Well, similarly here. No one is forcing you to vaccinate your children. You just can't get your education from an accredited school. You can still homeschool your unvaxed kids.

Why don't you complain about the seat belt situation?

↑ southernbubby ↓

Sun, Aug 04 2019, 8:36 pm

helene wrote:

I do not live in America and here in Europe you can for sure have MDs who study chiropractic. But that's all not to the point.
If a robber comes into your house and tells you "don't stick your fingers into the plug it might kill you" you don't believe him because he is a robber, how would he tell you anything that's true??? So JoyInTheMorning you can think and say what you want, but when some knowledgeable people say vaccines are NOT safe and need more proper long-term safety studies they are right. You can't just force everyone to be injected with poison. That is dictator ship even if you think it 's for the benefit of others.

You won't find cancer patients fighting for your rights to spread diseases. They don't want to die for your rights. Can you blame them? I see people who are willing to fight for the rights of illegal immigrants to freely enter the US and get jobs that nobody else wants but they are not willing to fight for your rights to infect cancer patients with VPDs. I see people concerned about religious freedoms but are not going to fight for anyone's right to ignore public health.
Basically, looking out for #1 came back to haunt you.

amother

↑ Black ↓

Sun, Aug 04 2019, 8:49 pm

southernbubby wrote:

As you know, infants cannot be adequately protected against some VPDs and the only thing parents can do is isolate them. Why would anyone value someone else's rights over the safety of their babies? I don't know why that would even be an expectation. Of course it would be great to be able to protect them effectively via vaccines but until that happens, we need to look out for ourselves and our loved ones. Everyone is primarily responsible for their own, right?

I'm trying to follow your logic. Is this what you're saying here:
Babies can catch many illnesses. There are vaccines for some of those illnesses but my baby isn't adequately protected by the vaccines he gets for some of theose illnesses. Therefore, everyone should vaccinate themselves in order to protect my baby.

How about, as you suggest so aptly, let everyone be responsible for their own? I keep my babies away from public places for their first few months of life. If you want to take your babies out, that's your risk to take. (Because they are at risk of catching other non-VPDs) If vaccinating them still doesn't confer sufficient immunity to your level of satisfaction, that's your decicison to make.
How do you come to the conclusion that *I* need to vaccinate *my* kids (and expose them to all kinds of potential risks) in order to protect *your* babies (who should be covered by the vaccines they get)?

amother

↑ Black ↓

Sun, Aug 04 2019, 8:57 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

As I said, I'm not a scientist. I'm not a professional researcher. I am not a vaccine manufacturer.

I want them to compare fully vaccinated people with unvaccinated people and compare infertility rates and rates of cancer. To a lesser degree, I would be interested in a study evaluating rates of cancer and infertility comparing fully vaccinated people who received the full series of a specific vaccine versus vaccinated people who didn't receive that specific vaccine. (As was done with MMR in the Danish study.)

amother

↑ Black ↓

Sun, Aug 04 2019, 9:03 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

There are many differences between vaccines and seat belts. I don't see the relevance in debating this side point.

↑ southernbubby ↓

Sun, Aug 04 2019, 9:04 pm

amother [ Black ] wrote:

I don't mind if your ability to spread disease, stops at the schoolhouse door because I might not be able to avoid bringing my baby inside. I can't protect him or her from everything or totally avoid taking the baby out and if the baby lives in a building rather than a private home, there is even a bigger threat. I know of a school that is turning away non-vaccinated children. Some people left and others went ahead and vaccinated so those pregnant teachers with lapsed immunity are protected. Basically some people either vaccinated or moved away and now everyone is safer. What's wrong with that?

amother

↑ Black ↓

Sun, Aug 04 2019, 9:07 pm

southernbubby wrote:

My close relative is currently a cancer patient. She ISN'T GOING OUT in public. Any small germ can be detrimental. Her immediate family members have the choice to vaccinate themselves for her well-being. But nobody (not me and not her) expect everyone else to be vaccinated against every germ out there. She's protecting herself and staying home or in the hospital.

amother

↑ Black ↓

Sun, Aug 04 2019, 9:10 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Therein is your mistake. Vaccinated /= safer. Vaccines cause injuries. Some are visible, immediate, and known. Others are more insidious, long-term, and not known. Vaccine-injured people aren't better off.

amother

↑ cornflower ↓

Sun, Aug 04 2019, 9:12 pm

amother [ Black ] wrote:

Infertility isn’t a specific disease. Can you narrow your study?

amother

↑ Denim ↓

Sun, Aug 04 2019, 9:14 pm

amother [ Black ] wrote:

In order for this study to be accurate all other possible factors must be equal. Meaning: they need to have similar diets, use similar cleaning supplies and technology, and have similar genetics. It's too complicated to isolate just the vaccine factor.

amother

↑ Black ↓

Sun, Aug 04 2019, 9:17 pm

amother [ Denim ] wrote:

Bla bla bla
I already heard all of this baloney

If you can't study it because it's too complicated, allow everyone to decide what works for them. Where there's risk, there must be choice.

↑ southernbubby ↓

Sun, Aug 04 2019, 9:19 pm

amother [ Black ] wrote:

I agree that it is a wise decision but the hospital has to keep illnesses such as measles away from her and have the right to exclude non-vaccinated people from the unit. And although she can't expect people to be immunized for every germ, it looks like everyone recognizes that the risk that they undertake to vaccinate could increase her safety. Not every cancer patient can avoid taxis and other forms of transportation where the passenger that just got out infected the car. Again, why would they or anyone for that matter, advocate for your right to choose if it might negatively impact their family?

amother

↑ Denim ↓

Sun, Aug 04 2019, 9:21 pm

amother [ Black ] wrote:

Is this viable for any family that has a baby under 1 year old (or even 6 months if we go with the early MMR) to never take their baby out. If we go with the frum demographic of a baby approx every 2 years, that means that at any point , approx 1/4 of couples in child bearing years has a baby under 6 months. Who's paying for all those families to have babysitters in the house so the child doesn't leave the front door. Who's going grocery shopping for these families? Who's taking the older kids to the park so they don't wreck the house?
There was 1 case of measles in my community so I couldn't take my newborn anywhere until it was deemed safe. I could only go grocery shopping at 1030 at night once my husband came home. If we didn't have an ingredient I needed for supper- tough luck- no veggies at supper tonight. I was basically on house arrest for those weeks, which almost triggered PPD (Thank Gd my husband noticed and sent me and baby out of the outbreak area for a few days , but this only worked cuz the outbreak was isolated). And this is all without older kids who would have complained about being inside.

↑ nchr ↓

Sun, Aug 04 2019, 9:23 pm

amother [ Denim ] wrote:

And experience the same condition.. IF has no many causes. I don't even understand how someone could even entertain the concept of it being related to vaccines. How can you say endometriosis, pcos, and low sperm count are one condition? They just have one shared symptom - IF. This is so insane it is hard to entertain. When anti vaxxers have clear, coherent suggestions or questions, then science can listen to and try to answer them.

amother

↑ Denim ↓

Sun, Aug 04 2019, 9:23 pm

amother [ Black ] wrote:

Bla bla bla
I already heard all of this baloney

If you can't study it because it's too complicated, allow everyone to decide what works for them. Where there's risk, there must be choice.

If you're calling it boloney, you clearly have never designed or evaluated a scientific study properly. These are the basics of designing an experiment- there can only be 1 variable, even my middle schooler students know that!