Should state mandate immunizations? N...

Should state mandate immunizations? New requirements effective in July

There are 9769 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.

WTH

Knoxville, TN

#9569 Jun 19, 2014
Fail wrote:
Arthur Reingold at UC Berkley. UC Berkeley.
While media outlets blame non-vaccinators for spreading whooping cough, PBS and UC Berkeley 's Reingold speak the truth: pertussis vaccine cannot be relied upon to provide immunity.
Reingold admits that you can still carry the disease in your nose and throat or still get a mild case and infect others despite being fully vaccinated.
"You can be immunized and protected against getting the disease, pertussis, but still have the organism in your nose and throat and spread it to others. Or you can have a very mild illness that is caused by pertussis that causes you to cough, and thereby infect others. So the immunity is not 100 percent from the pertussis vaccine. And what it means is any kind of herd immunity—the way we see, for example, much more powerfully with measles—really can’t be relied upon."
"the reality is the organism [pertussis] circulates freely in the U.S. despite high levels of vaccination."
http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazin...
No you're the failure here. "You can be immunized and protected against getting the disease, pertussis, but still have the organism in your nose and throat and spread it to others. Or you can have a very mild illness that is caused by pertussis that causes you to cough, and thereby infect others." OTHERS WHO ARE NOT VACCINATED, genius. I have never heard anyone say a disease like Polio is gone because we are now "immune" due to vaccines. I don't think I have read anything here where someone is claiming vaccines create immunity. So in my opinion you FAIL.
mommyof5

Cookeville, TN

#9570 Jun 22, 2014
Top Mod 8 wrote:
Should the state should mandate immunizations for your children? Do you feel they are safe for all children. Do they cause other health issues like autism? Should the state also pay for them as well if they are requiring them?
If the government says that your child is required by law to have shots of any kind then they should give them out free of charge. I do however think they keep down the spread of the disease but, I don't believe in getting them. I have religous beliefs that you should not get a lot of medical procedures But, my children have all had their shots because by law they need them for school. I could not opt out because I do not go by any specific religion, I just have my beliefs from what I have read and researched in the bible. BOTTOM LINE--- They should not make somthing mandatory unless they are going to provide it free of charge. aaaaaaalso this is the land of the free but they want to tell you what to do and punish you if don't comply... They should say it the land of the free to do what we say for you to do.
Ehhh

Gatlinburg, TN

#9571 Jun 22, 2014
Lisa wrote:
Why should I have to worry about non vaccinated /infected and diseased kids getting around mine at a public school! Shouldn't have to ever. MEASLES IS AT A 20 YR HIGH, ALL KINDS OF DISEASES OF OLD , LONG AGO ERADICATED ARE COMING BACK, DUE TO DUMMIES.


They are back because our borders are wide open and illegals aren't bound by the laws that the US citizens are bound by. I don't have a source or any other way to prove this but my gut says that the cases of diseases are from people who are here illegally. Notice that the rate of "old disease returns" increased as our illegal aliens did. I think if we allow illegals to call our shores home that they should be bound by the same laws. Laws that include a child being up to date on their shots before entering a daycare/school or any sports related activity, or any type of work force,

It amazes me that people aren't allowed to travel from other countries with any form of vegetation or plant that could possibly infect our crops, but anyone can cross the border and stick their child in our schools/daycare without even a health exam. And we are to believe that the government is looking out for our best interests?
Felix

Paris, TN

#9572 Jun 23, 2014
Ehhh wrote:
<quoted text>
They are back because our borders are wide open and illegals aren't bound by the laws that the US citizens are bound by. I don't have a source or any other way to prove this but my gut says that the cases of diseases are from people who are here illegally. Notice that the rate of "old disease returns" increased as our illegal aliens did. I think if we allow illegals to call our shores home that they should be bound by the same laws. Laws that include a child being up to date on their shots before entering a daycare/school or any sports related activity, or any type of work force,
It amazes me that people aren't allowed to travel from other countries with any form of vegetation or plant that could possibly infect our crops, but anyone can cross the border and stick their child in our schools/daycare without even a health exam. And we are to believe that the government is looking out for our best interests?
You are simply full of crap. If you don't have a source then you have no idea as to whether your claims are true or simply nonsense.

Note, the school is required to verify that a child has had the required vaccinations. The parent or guardian must provide that proof. Whether the child is legal or not has nothing to do admission to the school
Get Real

Lexington, TN

#9573 Jun 23, 2014
Everyone who pays attention knows that CDC routinely lies, I mean exaggerates, the dangers and deaths from the flu each year in order to make sure to sell more flu vaccines to keep their masters, I mean the pharmaceutical industry, happy.
According to CDC statistics ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.
You see, the CDC has created one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.
Say what??? CDC claimed there were over 60,000 deaths in 2001 from flu and pneumonia but there were really only 18 confirmed deaths from flu.
Sounds like more of the same lies they told around the supposed swine flu outbreak in 2009-10 when they said the swine flu was rampant but state health department records showed that only a fraction (2%-3%) of those diagnosed with swine flu actually had any sort of flu as confirmed by a blood test.
As for citing sources.
Many of the posts from me come from power point presentations from the CDC, FDA & other agencies.I have no way to post a link to these, as they are saved to my hard drive. How did that happen, you ask? I was there, numbnuts.
When you cross check these stats with state agencies, the lies are exposed.
Maybe you could could learn how to think for yourself & investigate these claims, you know, exert some effort.
You little sheep, you.
Felix

Paris, TN

#9574 Jun 23, 2014
Get Real wrote:
Everyone who pays attention knows that CDC routinely lies, I mean exaggerates, the dangers and deaths from the flu each year in order to make sure to sell more flu vaccines to keep their masters, I mean the pharmaceutical industry, happy.
According to CDC statistics ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.
You see, the CDC has created one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.
Say what??? CDC claimed there were over 60,000 deaths in 2001 from flu and pneumonia but there were really only 18 confirmed deaths from flu.
Sounds like more of the same lies they told around the supposed swine flu outbreak in 2009-10 when they said the swine flu was rampant but state health department records showed that only a fraction (2%-3%) of those diagnosed with swine flu actually had any sort of flu as confirmed by a blood test.
As for citing sources.
Many of the posts from me come from power point presentations from the CDC, FDA & other agencies.I have no way to post a link to these, as they are saved to my hard drive. How did that happen, you ask? I was there, numbnuts.
When you cross check these stats with state agencies, the lies are exposed.
Maybe you could could learn how to think for yourself & investigate these claims, you know, exert some effort.
You little sheep, you.
Are you suggesting that you are a disgruntled employee having been "unjustly" terminated?

As two of us have already written, it is you who make the "outrageous" claims, and therefore it is up to you to cite the exact sources of your information.

The reason given--that your sources are private--meaning not available for inspection by the general public--is not acceptable. You have provided an an excuse, not a valid reason for failing to cite specific sources. Perhaps you need to put "exert some effort".

As for your urging the reader "to learn how to think for yourself" and the sheep reference: this is simply a knee-jerk response to those who actually do think for themselves by questioning your claims. Such knee-jerk responses suggest that you are a sheep who cannot think for herself.

Provide the sources--if you can.

Provide evidence that you can understand the sources. Your post thus far provide no evidence that you do understand the sources you have provided.

Do try to refrain from name-calling. Your name-calling simply provides further evidence for your lack of understanding science.

“Trust is earned!”

Since: Jan 12

B.C. MI... lives in dayton

#9575 Jun 23, 2014
The flu vaccines don't cover all flu's. It is made for particular flu's. Whatever types of flus are most common at that time. I have never had a flu shot and the last time I was sick was over 3 years ago and it was jus mild. Lasted like three days and I was over it. In my opinion definitely a no go on the flu vaccine.

“Trust is earned!”

Since: Jan 12

B.C. MI... lives in dayton

#9576 Jun 23, 2014
George Carlin - Germs, Immune System: http://youtu.be/X29lF43mUlo
Felix

Paris, TN

#9577 Jun 23, 2014
Billy Woods wrote:
George Carlin - Germs, Immune System: http://youtu.be/X29lF43mUlo
So George is a medical trained authority?
WTH

Knoxville, TN

#9578 Jun 23, 2014
Get Real wrote:
Everyone who pays attention knows that CDC routinely lies, I mean exaggerates, the dangers and deaths from the flu each year in order to make sure to sell more flu vaccines to keep their masters, I mean the pharmaceutical industry, happy.
According to CDC statistics ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.
You see, the CDC has created one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.
Say what??? CDC claimed there were over 60,000 deaths in 2001 from flu and pneumonia but there were really only 18 confirmed deaths from flu.
Sounds like more of the same lies they told around the supposed swine flu outbreak in 2009-10 when they said the swine flu was rampant but state health department records showed that only a fraction (2%-3%) of those diagnosed with swine flu actually had any sort of flu as confirmed by a blood test.
As for citing sources.
Many of the posts from me come from power point presentations from the CDC, FDA & other agencies.I have no way to post a link to these, as they are saved to my hard drive. How did that happen, you ask? I was there, numbnuts.
When you cross check these stats with state agencies, the lies are exposed.
Maybe you could could learn how to think for yourself & investigate these claims, you know, exert some effort.
You little sheep, you.
These alleged presentations would need footnoting and reference material in order to be presented at either organization. Scientists have a habit of referring to studies, data compilations and the like. Just extract the references from the power point presentations that exist somewhere in your mind and cite them here. That's the biggest loiad of crap so far, man. You GOT to have a better story than that.
justice

United States

#9579 Jun 23, 2014
Ha and this shouldnt have to be said but state needs to mandate county fire departments.
Get Real

Lexington, TN

#9580 Jun 23, 2014
So.
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.

Here's how it's done.

Suppose you want to find out what kinds of kids are included in vaccine clinical trials evaluating vaccine safety and effectiveness. Is it an accurate representation of the population of kids that will be receiving the vaccines? What was used as the placebo?

One option for finding this information is going over to clinicaltrials.gov and using their search function. If you were wondering about Prevnar, you’d want to use the search words:

pneumococcal conjugate vaccine safety

That search takes you here:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results...
The second study down is this one http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT0036634...
an evaluation of the “new”(13 valent) Prevnar that will soon be released, where you can see that the “placebo” is the “original Prevnar”, and the “inclusion and exclusion criteria” for the study are described as:

Inclusion Criteria:

Healthy 2-month-old infants.
Available for the entire study period.

Exclusion criteria:

Previous vaccination with any vaccine before the start of the study.

Known contraindication to vaccination.

Since the placebo being used is a different version of Prevnar, you then might wonder what the trials were like for the “original” version of the vaccine. Now you need to jump over to Google Scholar to search for older trials, and using the keywords “randomized controlled” with the name of the vaccine (pneumococcal conjugate vaccine) as your search terms. Do that, and this is where you will end up
.http://scholar.google.com/sch olar?hl=en&lr=&q=pneum ococcal+conjugate+vaccine+%22r andomized+controlled%22&bt nG=Search
The first study listed is a dead end, but the second one, when you click the “all of X versions” button, takes you here,
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx...
and when you click through the options you find that the second to last one listed is this, a full-text version of the article.

In addition to finding that the placebo used in this trial was a meningococcal type C conjugate vaccine (an experimental vaccine) you find that that the inclusion/exclusion criteria was defined like this:

Healthy infants were randomized 1:1 to receive either the heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate or the meningococcus type C conjugate vaccine at 2, 4, 6, and 12 to 15 months of age. Children with sickle-cell disease, known immunodeficiency, any serious chronic or progressive disease, a history of seizures, or a history of either pneumococcal or meningococcal disease were excluded.

You just have to understand how they play the game. Then link the pieces together.
Is it time consuming? Of course it is.

How wicked is it these guys will use an experimental vaccine as a placebo?

They did that with the HPV vaccine. France & Japan have pulled those from the shelves btw.
simple

Asheville, NC

#9581 Jun 23, 2014
Just don't have kids. That way you don't have to worry. Plus you aren't responsible for someone's death.
WTH

Knoxville, TN

#9582 Jun 24, 2014
Get Real wrote:
So.
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.
Here's how it's done.
Suppose you want to find out what kinds of kids are included in vaccine clinical trials evaluating vaccine safety and effectiveness. Is it an accurate representation of the population of kids that will be receiving the vaccines? What was used as the placebo?
One option for finding this information is going over to clinicaltrials.gov and using their search function. If you were wondering about Prevnar, you’d want to use the search words:
pneumococcal conjugate vaccine safety
That search takes you here:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results...
The second study down is this one http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT0036634...
an evaluation of the “new”(13 valent) Prevnar that will soon be released, where you can see that the “placebo” is the “original Prevnar”, and the “inclusion and exclusion criteria” for the study are described as:
Inclusion Criteria:
Healthy 2-month-old infants.
Available for the entire study period.
Exclusion criteria:
Previous vaccination with any vaccine before the start of the study.
Known contraindication to vaccination.
Since the placebo being used is a different version of Prevnar, you then might wonder what the trials were like for the “original” version of the vaccine. Now you need to jump over to Google Scholar to search for older trials, and using the keywords “randomized controlled” with the name of the vaccine (pneumococcal conjugate vaccine) as your search terms. Do that, and this is where you will end up
.http://scholar.google.com/sch olar?hl=en&lr=&q=pneum ococcal+conjugate+vaccine+%22r andomized+controlled%22&bt nG=Search
The first study listed is a dead end, but the second one, when you click the “all of X versions” button, takes you here,
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx...
and when you click through the options you find that the second to last one listed is this, a full-text version of the article.
In addition to finding that the placebo used in this trial was a meningococcal type C conjugate vaccine (an experimental vaccine) you find that that the inclusion/exclusion criteria was defined like this:
Healthy infants were randomized 1:1 to receive either the heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate or the meningococcus type C conjugate vaccine at 2, 4, 6, and 12 to 15 months of age. Children with sickle-cell disease, known immunodeficiency, any serious chronic or progressive disease, a history of seizures, or a history of either pneumococcal or meningococcal disease were excluded.
You just have to understand how they play the game. Then link the pieces together.
Is it time consuming? Of course it is.
How wicked is it these guys will use an experimental vaccine as a placebo?
They did that with the HPV vaccine. France & Japan have pulled those from the shelves btw.
These are voluntary clinical trials which has ZERO to do with any of the discussion here. You keep trying to re-direct the subject away from the pure speculation and conspiracy theories you post. If you were to have ANY real, documented facts about this subject, people might read and discuss them. Since you really have no facts about the stuff you post, you seem to think that any old link to any study will do. It won't. You just don't have any credibility.
HPV door knob

Johnson City, TN

#9583 Jun 24, 2014
I say just say know its Gods will if you get it what ever it turns out to be so your death will be Gods will lets just hope it isn't a born fetus who dies because of the parents decision .
Get Real

Lexington, TN

#9584 Jun 24, 2014
WTH wrote:
<quoted text>These are voluntary clinical trials which has ZERO to do with any of the discussion here. You keep trying to re-direct the subject away from the pure speculation and conspiracy theories you post. If you were to have ANY real, documented facts about this subject, people might read and discuss them. Since you really have no facts about the stuff you post, you seem to think that any old link to any study will do. It won't. You just don't have any credibility.
Most of the answers you seek can only be found in journals which require a paid subscription.
Even if I linked the cited studies, unless you have a paid subscription, you couldn't view it.

You accuse me of dishonesty & the inability to digest the information in those studies.
You, on the other hand, obviously lack the internal fortitude or financial means to access the information.
In my last post, I proved an experimental vaccine was used as placebo in a clinical trial. It's done all the time. This practice flies in the face of honest scientific method. You aren't even phased, so your level of understanding is suspect.
Let me give it to you in a simple mathematical equation even a middle school child could understand.
The exclusion criteria + a reactive placebo = big profits for a vaccine industry which is shielded from liability.

You, sir, are the one lacking integrity.
Get Real

Lexington, TN

#9585 Jun 24, 2014
Billy Woods wrote:
The flu vaccines don't cover all flu's. It is made for particular flu's. Whatever types of flus are most common at that time. I have never had a flu shot and the last time I was sick was over 3 years ago and it was jus mild. Lasted like three days and I was over it. In my opinion definitely a no go on the flu vaccine.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm62...

The flu vaccine was effective for only 9% of seniors over 65 years old. In other words, 91% of seniors in the study who were vaccinated still ended up getting the flu.

Overall, the CDC claimed this year’s flu vaccine was “moderately effective” and made the unprovable claim that “influenza vaccination reduced the risk for medical visits resulting from influenza A and B by 56%.”

But since young people generally have stronger immune systems than seniors it’s unclear how many of the younger test subjects would not have gotten the flu whether they were vaccinated or not.

It seems that the figure for seniors is far more accurate as to the actual effectiveness of the vaccine precisely because they have weaker immune systems.

According to their own data, a strong immune system is the best preventative measure against the flu, but Big Pharma doesn’t make any money from that.

Finally, the CDC concludes the report with a recommendation to increase the use of flu vaccines; “This report highlights the value of both increasing the use of influenza vaccines, especially among children and young adults, and continuing efforts to develop more effective vaccines and vaccination strategies.”

If a 91% failure rate is “nonsignificant” to the CDC, what level of failure must be reached for them to disavow vaccines?
Get Real

Lexington, TN

#9586 Jun 24, 2014
WTH wrote:
<quoted text>These alleged presentations would need footnoting and reference material in order to be presented at either organization. Scientists have a habit of referring to studies, data compilations and the like. Just extract the references from the power point presentations that exist somewhere in your mind and cite them here. That's the biggest loiad of crap so far, man. You GOT to have a better story than that.
The CDC has a habit of citing studies by Poul Thorsen.
A fraud, a thief, a liar.

https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/profiles....
Festus

Paris, TN

#9587 Jun 24, 2014
Get Real wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of the answers you seek can only be found in journals which require a paid subscription.
Even if I linked the cited studies, unless you have a paid subscription, you couldn't view it.
You accuse me of dishonesty & the inability to digest the information in those studies.
You, on the other hand, obviously lack the internal fortitude or financial means to access the information.
In my last post, I proved an experimental vaccine was used as placebo in a clinical trial. It's done all the time. This practice flies in the face of honest scientific method. You aren't even phased, so your level of understanding is suspect.
Let me give it to you in a simple mathematical equation even a middle school child could understand.
The exclusion criteria + a reactive placebo = big profits for a vaccine industry which is shielded from liability.
You, sir, are the one lacking integrity.
As usual you are evading the issue. In reputable work one must provide exact sources. Whether the sources are accessible through subscriptiom is not relevant.

You response provides further evidence that you lack understanding.

Your silly equation, itself needs to be referenced.
Festus

Paris, TN

#9588 Jun 24, 2014
Get Real wrote:
<quoted text>
The CDC has a habit of citing studies by Poul Thorsen.
A fraud, a thief, a liar.
https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/profiles....
1. One bad person in an organization is not evidence that the whole organization is corrupt. Again you confuse specific examples (anecdotal evidence) counting as scientific evidence.

2. Provide precise references of the CDC citing studies by Thorson.

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.

Seymour Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Another Fatal Stabbing on Knoxville Greenway :( 1 hr BuildTheWall 34
Is Sonic not opening back up? 2 hr know 13
Government phones 3 hr XXX 2
What is going on with Kenney Ohler murder trial? 4 hr yup 2
Do you smell that? 5 hr BB Board 20
The Knoxville News Sentinel Protest Daily 7 hr Doc Eyebolt 26
what is the best strip club (Nov '11) 8 hr Dale Daley 52

Seymour Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Seymour Mortgages