Should state mandate immunizations? N...

Should state mandate immunizations? New requirements effective in July

There are 9780 comments on the Chattanoogan.com story from May 4, 2011, titled Should state mandate immunizations? New requirements effective in July. In it, Chattanoogan.com reports that:

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.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7740 May 19, 2013
justsoyouknow wrote:
And since you are weakly attempting to be a grammar Nazi I will point out your obvious misuse of the word "farther." The correct use of that word would be further. The form farther is used to denote physical distant. You are welcome.
Luke, I am your farther.
Geeze

Sparta, TN

#7741 May 19, 2013
Page 11:“Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting.”

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVa...
Geeze

Sparta, TN

#7742 May 19, 2013
"Our findings show a positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses administered and the percentage of hospitalizations and deaths."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...
Geeze

Sparta, TN

#7743 May 19, 2013
Judicial Watch announced it has received documents from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revealing that its National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has awarded $5,877,710 dollars to 49 victims in claims made against the highly controversial HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccines. To date 200 claims have been filed with VICP, with barely half adjudicated.

Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighb...
Follow us:@wtcommunities on Twitter
Geeze

Sparta, TN

#7745 May 19, 2013
You would think the UK would learn from the US & Canada, guess not.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8096942
Geeze

Sparta, TN

#7746 May 19, 2013
Vaccine Court Awards Millions to Two Children With Autism

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/pos...
Geeze

Sparta, TN

#7747 May 19, 2013
POUL THORSEN is a wanted fugitive & the researcher who authored 21 of the 24 government studies that the CDC says prove vaccines don't cause autism. He stole over a million of the research money (U.S. tax dollars), was indicted on 22 counts of Wire Fraud & Money laundering, committed forgery, purchased a new home, a Harley, an Audi, an SUV, and fled -- yet the CDC continues to base their claim of no link on his research. He is top on the list of the Inspector General's "Most Wanted" list.
https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/profiles....
Hey

Crossville, TN

#7748 May 19, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem very concerned about radiation of any kind and in any dosage.
I assume this means you never go out during the day.
Am I to surmise that in your mind nothing is toxic? It is only how much of any substance(THE DOSE) one has is what determines that danger?
To compare toxins to doses is rather absurd and puts everything in the same category. To compare sunlight to Chernobyl is absurd.
Will you be getting your DOSE of Vitamin D from Chernobyl?
And, shall I assume you won't be at the pool party?

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7749 May 19, 2013
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
Am I to surmise that in your mind nothing is toxic? It is only how much of any substance(THE DOSE) one has is what determines that danger?
To compare toxins to doses is rather absurd and puts everything in the same category. To compare sunlight to Chernobyl is absurd.
Will you be getting your DOSE of Vitamin D from Chernobyl?
And, shall I assume you won't be at the pool party?
You are clearly trying to make an argument using words with which you are unfamiliar. As a result, your "point" is gibberish.

The _DOSE_ is the _AMOUNT_ of the substance in question.

You can not simply proclaim something toxic if you don't know at what dosage it becomes toxic.

Yes, SOME things have high toxicity at low dosage. SOME things have low toxicity at high dosage.

However, EVERYTHING is fatal at a high enough dosage.

So, when you say "Oh, this vaccine contains formaldehyde and that's toxic" then the FOLLOW UP questions should be:
- How much formaldehyde is in the vaccine?
- How much formaldehyde is considered to be safe?
- How much formaldehyde is naturally occurring in the body?

The problem with your argument is that you are pointing to substances which occur NATURALLY at HIGHER concentrations in the body and claiming that the LOWER concentration in the vaccine is dangerous.

That's fundamentally unsound reasoning.

If you are walking around perfectly fine with 10mg of formaldehyde that YOU produced in YOUR body, then getting an injection with .001mg of formaldehyde is NOT something to be worried about.
Hey

Crossville, TN

#7752 May 20, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You are clearly trying to make an argument using words with which you are unfamiliar. As a result, your "point" is gibberish.
The _DOSE_ is the _AMOUNT_ of the substance in question.
You can not simply proclaim something toxic if you don't know at what dosage it becomes toxic.
Yes, SOME things have high toxicity at low dosage. SOME things have low toxicity at high dosage.
However, EVERYTHING is fatal at a high enough dosage.
So, when you say "Oh, this vaccine contains formaldehyde and that's toxic" then the FOLLOW UP questions should be:
- How much formaldehyde is in the vaccine?
- How much formaldehyde is considered to be safe?
- How much formaldehyde is naturally occurring in the body?
The problem with your argument is that you are pointing to substances which occur NATURALLY at HIGHER concentrations in the body and claiming that the LOWER concentration in the vaccine is dangerous.
That's fundamentally unsound reasoning.
If you are walking around perfectly fine with 10mg of formaldehyde that YOU produced in YOUR body, then getting an injection with .001mg of formaldehyde is NOT something to be worried about.
So BRIGHT BOY which words am I not familiar with?
It appears to me you are throwing out the word DOSE to make toxic seem petty,even quite silly.
How much radiation is safe? As Japans nuke accident (FROM THE SAFE NUCLEAR POWER)unfolds the EPA just keeps on raising the limits.Yep that'll work.That's how one keeps safe-just raise the limits.
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7753 May 20, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Wanna bet on that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxicati...
DOSAGE is important.
Beginning to grasp that you are in over your head?
Oh thou wondrous cranial capacitance, what meaning might you attach to the words "exceptionally rare"? You did not specify a particular quantity, you just said "too much" which can vary from one person to the next, and assuming you meant the vast majority of the population, I responded.

If, perchance, thou seekest to include each and every case of dilutional hyponatremia {yes, I copied that} to prove something against what I've said, then by the same standard should you not be allowing each and every case in vaccines with just as much specificity as you've shown?
awake

United States

#7754 May 20, 2013
did the fda raise acceptable arsonic levels? i heard over the raido that they declined to comment on what products other than rice,have increased.
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7755 May 20, 2013
All things considered, and I mean no insult to those who may already know this, but the above is rhetorical and therefore actually requires no answer, but does, at the same time, apply the standards Nuggin used against me to all other arguments regarding vaccines/immunizations.

After all, fair is fair, right Nuggin?
awake

United States

#7756 May 20, 2013
if the foundation of science is built upon evolution,my limited intellect can pull the rug out from under them. there is a thing as junk science. quacks abound.doctors study for years about drugs but only minets on nutrition.doctors kill more people than cars. will eggs kill you from cholesterol. and yes nuggin i agree if you ingest them till you choke they can be leathel.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7757 May 20, 2013
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
So BRIGHT BOY which words am I not familiar with?
It appears to me you are throwing out the word DOSE to make toxic seem petty,even quite silly.
How much radiation is safe? As Japans nuke accident (FROM THE SAFE NUCLEAR POWER)unfolds the EPA just keeps on raising the limits.Yep that'll work.That's how one keeps safe-just raise the limits.
First of all, the EPA has nothing to do with Japan's nuclear power. They are a US organization. What they say has ZERO effect on what is happening in Japan.

Second of all, you are CONSTANTLY being exposed to radiation. Obviously, there are safe levels of radiation, otherwise NOTHING would be alive.

Third, don't try and change the subject. Your claim is that it doesn't matter if you take 1mg of a substance or 10000mgs of a substance, the effect is the same. That's FUCKING stupid.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#7758 May 20, 2013
Done my homework wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh thou wondrous cranial capacitance, what meaning might you attach to the words "exceptionally rare"? You did not specify a particular quantity, you just said "too much" which can vary from one person to the next, and assuming you meant the vast majority of the population, I responded.
If, perchance, thou seekest to include each and every case of dilutional hyponatremia {yes, I copied that} to prove something against what I've said, then by the same standard should you not be allowing each and every case in vaccines with just as much specificity as you've shown?
I know you aren't terribly bright, so let me bring you up to speed.

The claim was that the amount of a substance is irrelevant to whether or not that substance is dangerous.

I pointed out that the amount is of PRIMARY importance, as even something as innocuous as water can be dangerous in sufficient amounts.

Your response was that it was impossible for water, AT ANY AMOUNT, to ever be dangerous.

I proved you wrong.

Now your response is what? "Oh, you mean at DANGEROUS amounts."

You LOST this point just as you are LOSING this debate.

Yes, vaccines contain substances which, at HIGHER DOSES THAN ARE PRESENT IN THE VACCINE _could_ be dangerous.

ONE of those substances is water.
ONE of those substances is sugar.

You can provide a list of 10,000 other substances, but unless you can show that ANY ONE of them is at a dosage determined to be toxic, their presence in the vaccine does not constitute a danger.

Is there anyone there who graduated from high school who can help you with the concepts involved?
Uhwhat

Ooltewah, TN

#7759 May 20, 2013
Yes
Done my homework

Oak Ridge, TN

#7760 May 20, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you aren't terribly bright, so let me bring you up to speed.
The claim was that the amount of a substance is irrelevant to whether or not that substance is dangerous.
I pointed out that the amount is of PRIMARY importance, as even something as innocuous as water can be dangerous in sufficient amounts.
Your response was that it was impossible for water, AT ANY AMOUNT, to ever be dangerous.
I proved you wrong.
Now your response is what? "Oh, you mean at DANGEROUS amounts."
You LOST this point just as you are LOSING this debate.
Yes, vaccines contain substances which, at HIGHER DOSES THAN ARE PRESENT IN THE VACCINE _could_ be dangerous.
ONE of those substances is water.
ONE of those substances is sugar.
You can provide a list of 10,000 other substances, but unless you can show that ANY ONE of them is at a dosage determined to be toxic, their presence in the vaccine does not constitute a danger.
Is there anyone there who graduated from high school who can help you with the concepts involved?
Fight all you like, but once said it's said. You've been straining out gnats for others, but you just swallowed a camel, so to speak.
Sally

Ooltewah, TN

#7761 May 20, 2013
Yy

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#7763 May 20, 2013
Nuggin, I understand the points you've made and the knowledgable and common sense way you came to your conclusions. I think you are correct in most, if not all, of them.
Narrow-minded People will never consider any evidence that conflicts with their set point of view, so you're wasting your time trying to change that "set" POV they have, regardless of what new evidence comes to light that conflicts with their "set" point of View....and we all know that things are constantly changing and we're learning new things...but they refuse to accept that Fact, too.
It's one thing that is dumbing down Americans...the refusal to acknowledge or accept change, based on new discoveries. But, there is absolutely nothing any of us can do or say, to get that through to them, so again, you're wasting your time even trying.
But, if you want to contine trying , please do...just don't expect to ever change their closed Minds. If it had been left up to them, we'd still be living in the "Cave Man" Era.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lewisburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News New Details Emerge In Tad Cummins Case 1 hr Junkyarddawg 5
LocalHookers (Sep '13) 13 hr country girl 14
Mexicans aren't Spanish! (Oct '13) 14 hr chetedog 85
News Lewisburg pain doctor under federal investigation (Feb '13) Wed Knowstomuch 39
News Calsonic Kansei Adding 1,200 Jobs In Tennessee (Sep '13) Wed Knowstomuch 83
Carrie Hodge/Powell Sep 20 tripod 4
Men Who Can't Fix Things Sep 19 thereturn of some... 4

Lewisburg Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lewisburg Mortgages