Immunizations are one of the most efficient and cost-effective ways to protect children against childhood diseases and Tennessee law requires documented immunizations.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chattanoogan.com.
#9838 Jul 26, 2014
Since: Aug 13
#9839 Jul 26, 2014
I think yes shots should be mandated for the health and safety of our children. In the past 2 months children have gone over sea's and come back w/ whopping cough and mumps because those countries don't mandate or can't afford shots. I watched a program that said they did research on shots and autism they said the shots had nothing to do w/ it. I don't know if they do or not but seems to me if they did more kids would get autism especially since the shots now are the shots our parents and we got. When you decide to have children you take on their wants and needs no the government shouldn't have to pay for anybody's kids. The parents should pay for their health care, food, education, etc that's most of the problem w/ government today ppl except the government to pay for everything which is us the tax payers not the government.
If anybody has seen old film footage of kids in iron lungs, they'll get polio shots for,their kids. During the 1970's at least, they stopped giving small pox because they said it had been totally eradicated. Seems the nasty thing was still lurking. Not talking Chicken Pox. Small Pox is like C/Pox n steroids. It used to kill. There was the remnants of an old house wheee I grew up. The story was an old lady got 'The Pox' and died. The men of the community torched the house to get rid of the germ. People were scared that bad of it.
Since: Aug 13
#9840 Jul 26, 2014
Yes, I see that It is a great point!
"For now it is my hope that people will not interpret this study as putting vaccines in a bad light but rather as reflecting the intense attention placed on vaccine safety using all the latest tools. It is only because of cheaper sequencing that these sorts of studies are possible. People should not be alarmed or over-react to every virus detection unless there is concrete evidence of human infection and pathogenicity."
I think what bothers me is that they start tiny little babies on these shots. And, they give them in multiples! MMR is a prime example. Their systems are so new and so delicate, is it possible to spread them out over a greater time frame? Is the immunization that soon, that important? We don't live in a third world country where those diseases are that rampant.
#9841 Jul 26, 2014
I agree Smegma! You nailed that one right on! A very intelligent post!
#9842 Jul 26, 2014
Not really. MMR isn't usually given until the child is a year old. Yeah, we don't live in a third world country where those diseases are rampant. Guess why? Because our children are immunized!! That's one of the things that makes us NOT BE a third world country. Maybe we should stop pasteurizing milk too, huh?
#9843 Jul 26, 2014
#9844 Jul 26, 2014
You are confused about the meaning of the terms "autoimmunization" and "immunization"
Again, you don't understand the science.
#9845 Jul 26, 2014
Autoimmunization and immunization are typically very different, considering the metaphysical controversial manners in which they are given. Philosophically speaking, they are theoretically the same. But I think we'd all agree, they have astronomical differences which we cannot ignore.
#9846 Jul 26, 2014
the process whereby a person's immune system develops antibodies against one or more of the person's own tissues. See also autoantibody, autoantigen, autoimmune disease.
A process or procedure that protects the body against an infectious disease. A vaccination is a type of immunization.
Nothing metaphysical here--medicine, not philosophy
But Geeze seems to have confuse the two.
#9847 Jul 27, 2014
Yes, Geeze seems to believe there's some sort of common transvestational transparency that links the two together. Technically speaking that would be incorrect. But from a purely hypothetical and even more-so fictionally based point of view, there is a chance one could misinterpret the difference between them.
#9849 Jul 27, 2014
Don't think that the state has a right to make vaccinations mandatory... Yes I believe that you should get vaccines for certain things, but to say that you got to do it???
Just my opinion..
#9850 Jul 27, 2014
On what is your opinion based. Why not vaccines?
#9851 Jul 28, 2014
Peruse thru the adverse reaction database before you decide that we should have zero say in what is injected into us or our children. vaccine injuries are real.
#9852 Jul 28, 2014
yes we should its what increased the life span of humans the most .
#9853 Jul 28, 2014
You have something to write, back it up with reputable sources.
If you refuse to do so, or cannot, then you have no reason to expct that any sane person will believe your iniformed, silly claims.
This crap you anti-vac people spin about searching through some database is just that--crap. i suspect you, like Geese, are unable to understand the repoorts you claim to have perused.
#9854 Jul 28, 2014
There is a program that depreciates how much the pediatricians are reimbursed if there are patients not taking immunizations. Follow the money.
#9855 Jul 28, 2014
It's all part of the plan.....The ZOG strikes!! They will do what it takes to control you AND your children!!
#9856 Jul 28, 2014
Did those voices tell you that?
#9857 Jul 29, 2014
(this information was discovered 5 years after the vaccines were put to market)
The lab which conducted the PCR analysis is an independent source, the companies manufacturing the vaccines have done zero post market testing, and why should they? It isn't mandatory. There aren't any consequences, as they have ZERO liability.
You have yet to offer anything beyond "nope" or "so you have nothing"
Go back in journals... to the 1950's, back before doctors were spoon feed pharma reps & paid to promote drugs. read doctors concerns of autoimmunity post vaccine.
I'm old enough to have lived & worked in the industry for decades.
Polio is a great example of the misdirection you have swallowed.
We never had a polio epidemic, there are dozens of paralytic viruses, now that we can properly identify those viruses they are now properly named.
In the 1950's any paralytic virus was called polio.
Don't you find it a bit odd that those viruses didn't appear until after polio was eradicated?
In 1954 most health departments worked with the WHO definition:
Signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart.
How were polio cases counted in 1955?
In 1955 the criteria were changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the 1954 field trials: residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and again 50 to 70 days after onset.
Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used. At the same time, the number of nonparalytic cases was bound to increase because any case of poliomyelitis-like disease which could not be classified as paralytic poliomyelitis according to the new criteria was classified as nonparalytic poliomyelitis. Many of these cases, although reported as such, were not non-paralytic poliomyelitis.
It was after the SALK vaccine was introduced, when fully vaccinated people continued to get polio, that doctors started looking a lot more carefully at the viruses in individuals. Many viruses were found to cause paralysis, for example coxsackie B, enterovirus, along with a dozen other viruses now know to have been lumped in the "polio" criteria.
#9858 Jul 29, 2014
By 1960, in order to be defined as poliomyelitis, virus tests on stool samples were required. If polioviruses were not seen, additional tests to find other viruses were run, and sometimes, no virus could be found at all. Whatever the cause, paralysis following sickness was no longer automatically classified as polio.
It was now re-classified under many different diagnoses, with Acute Flaccid Paralysis as the loose umbrella heading under which paralysis caused by poliomyelitis viruses was a sub-category.
The history of polio in the U.S. is presented with numbers like this:
in seven years the Salk vaccine reduced the incidence of polio in the United States by more than 96 percent, from 38,476 reported cases in 1954 to 1,312 in 1961.
These statistics are simply not accurate. The 1954 polio data includes all paralysis. While some of this may have been from polio, in reality, much of it was from other causes. With the change of diagnostic criteria in 1955 that reduced case numbers, followed by laboratory testing that excluded vast numbers of other causes, the 1961 data only includes the small subgroup of paralysis caused by poliomyelitis. This is then compared with the catch-all 1954 definition.
Because it was impossible to know what proportion of 1954 data were really caused by poliomyelitis viruses, the 1954 data was left as it was, and nothing of the back story is revealed to the readers. When people say:we know the polio vaccine saved us from huge epidemics of this devastating disease they are basing their knowledge on misinformation.
If polio is wiped out, will that mean the end of infantile paralysis?
How was the prevaccine data from developing countries collected, before they implemented vaccination programmes?
Doctors used lameness surveys as a means to look for people with deformed or shrivelled legs, on the presumption that such problems were causes by the polioviruses, and then multiplied that data to cover the surrounding areas which werent directly surveyed.
Lameness surveys demonstrate that polio is widespread in many developing countries, leading to the introduction of routine immunization with OPV in almost all national immunization programs.
What was the case definition used for these lameness surveys?
The case definition used most frequently consists of (1) flaccid paralysis with atrophy,(2) no decrease in sensation, and (3) a history of acute onset with no subsequent progression of disease. This definition assumes that the sequelae of residual paralytic poliomyelitis are observable and distinctive enough to be reliably attributed to poliomyelitis; however, the sensitivity and specificity of the definition have not been evaluated.
Were the surveys conducted with consistent methodology around the world and throughout the 10 year process?
The percentage of all lame children who are categorized as having paralysis due to poliomyelitis has varied markedly from one survey to another Some variation is to be expected, but the specificity of the case definition is a reasonable concern. Also, the case definition has not been applied uniformly.
How can we be sure lameness surveys were accurate?
We cant be. Lameness surveys were essentially a look and guess exercise. Even though poliomyelitis researchers knew from the U.S experience that large numbers of polio cases had other causes, lameness surveys were used as factual evidence that poliomyelitis viruses were the sole cause of lameness around the world.
The Global Polio Laboratory Network is formally established to facilitate high quality virologic investigation in all countries.
This process appears to parallel what occurred in the U.S, whereby a loose definition of polio is used to collect the pre-vaccine incidence of the illness.
Add your comments below
|Best vet for furbabies||5 hr||Kloie||5|
|Staci McGrady||7 hr||John||1|
|Alexis singleton||12 hr||over it||43|
|Kelsey Light (Jul '13)||13 hr||Malissa||58|
|Best looking fat women in Henry County||14 hr||Really was just a...||26|
|David Sager||14 hr||sue-sue||8|
|Amber Benham a.k.a amber ann in jail for drugs?||Wed||Trick||4|
Find what you want!
Search Buchanan Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC