Should state mandate immunizations? N...

Should state mandate immunizations? New requirements effective in July

There are 9724 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.

Humor

Knoxville, TN

#9229 Apr 11, 2014
On the plus side, he has demonstrated he can count to at least THREE! Looks like that home-schooling is really paying off.
Humor

Knoxville, TN

#9230 Apr 11, 2014
Oh, and I do know the meaning of antics. I also know the meaning of Antidisestablishmentarianism. Nobody talks that way though unless they are weird.
Armadillo

Paris, TN

#9231 Apr 11, 2014
Humor wrote:
Oh, and I do know the meaning of antics. I also know the meaning of Antidisestablishmentarianism. Nobody talks that way though unless they are weird.
You don't get around much do you?
Armadillo

Paris, TN

#9232 Apr 11, 2014
Humor wrote:
I think possum-on-the-half-shell protests too much, huh? Now he's fantasizing about an 8 yr old. Notice he didn't deny anything, he just asked if I enjoyed alcohol. No, I don't drink, but that seems to be on his mind a lot, as well.
If you don't drink you must be on drugs.

Who mislead you into believing that you can think? Who did so was trying to be kind or was playing a cruel joke on you.
Armadillo

Paris, TN

#9233 Apr 11, 2014
Humor wrote:
On the plus side, he has demonstrated he can count to at least THREE! Looks like that home-schooling is really paying off.
Pray for me when you go to church this weekend.
Get Real

Lexington, TN

#9236 Apr 12, 2014
Armadillo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response here is more reasonsble than others i have seen here.
Are you suggesting that the risks of the vaccine outweigh the benefits for the majority?
Do you understand this vaccine is given on the day of birth to infants who are not at risk for the disease?
Do you understand the 17 billion $$$ motive?

Do you understand a 9 month old SUFFERED & DIED?
Armadillo

Paris, TN

#9237 Apr 12, 2014
Get Real wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand this vaccine is given on the day of birth to infants who are not at risk for the disease?
Do you understand the 17 billion $$$ motive?
Do you understand a 9 month old SUFFERED & DIED?
The first statement needs to be clarified. Which disease is being discussed here? How does one know about the risk--and when the infant will be at risk.

The money issue is a red herring. It is an example of the poison well fallacy.

The last statement is an instance of arguing from anecdotal evidence. Are you suggesting that the vaccination is harmful for everyone because it of that one 9 month old?

I ask again: are you arguing that the practice of immunization does more harm than good?
REO

Cookeville, TN

#9238 Apr 12, 2014
Armadillo wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears that you have nothing of substance to offer here.
Sure I do!!

You gave me fortune, you gave me fame! You gave power all in your god's name! I'm every person, you need to be! I'm.... an..... Arm-....a....dill....oooo....! !!
Armadillo

Paris, TN

#9239 Apr 13, 2014
REO wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure I do!!
You gave me fortune, you gave me fame! You gave power all in your god's name! I'm every person, you need to be! I'm.... an..... Arm-....a....dill....oooo....! !!
If only a sane person could take you seriously.
Question

Johnson City, TN

#9240 Apr 13, 2014
Leave it up to the family or the state?
1. IFNO, it should be left up to the family to pay all the hospital bills fot any illness.
2. IF YES, then the insurance company should pay all the bills.
Get Real

Lexington, TN

#9241 Apr 13, 2014
I thought you could follow our conversation.
Obviously, I overestimated your ability to follow the thread.
1. Do you understand this vaccine is given on the day of birth to infants who are not at risk for the disease?
Hep B vaccine
2. Do you understand the 17 billion $$$ motive?
Profit, shielded from any and all liability
3. Do you understand a 9 month old SUFFERED & DIED?
From Lupus, which is a "table injury" established by medical evidence recognized as being triggered by the Hep B vaccine.
That's what table injuries are....medically accepted vaccine injuries.

Armadillo,

You can't even figure out how to turn on the spell check option in your browser, much less follow the "reply's" I've quoted to help you keep up.

If you can't stay on topic, spell or follow a simple thread, perhaps this isn't the thread for you.
Armadillo

Paris, TN

#9243 Apr 13, 2014
Get Real wrote:
I thought you could follow our conversation.
Obviously, I overestimated your ability to follow the thread.
1. Do you understand this vaccine is given on the day of birth to infants who are not at risk for the disease?
Hep B vaccine
2. Do you understand the 17 billion $$$ motive?
Profit, shielded from any and all liability
3. Do you understand a 9 month old SUFFERED & DIED?
From Lupus, which is a "table injury" established by medical evidence recognized as being triggered by the Hep B vaccine.
That's what table injuries are....medically accepted vaccine injuries.
Armadillo,
You can't even figure out how to turn on the spell check option in your browser, much less follow the "reply's" I've quoted to help you keep up.
If you can't stay on topic, spell or follow a simple thread, perhaps this isn't the thread for you.
I asked you a simple question and you get nasty, and you neglected to answer the question.

Speaking of off topic, The spell checker comment itslf is off topic.

Regarding 1, see
http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/b/bfaq.htm

Hepatitis B vaccination is recommended for:
All infants, starting with the first dose of Hepatitis B vaccine at birth

So, here is a simple question. Does this practice do more harm than good?

You cannot claim, with a straight face that this question is off-topic.

3. Am i suppose to conclude that from one psrson (that is what you have stated twice) that one child has died from a vaccination then the vaccine is does more harm to the population than good.

Yes, there are "medically recognized" injuries that are attributes to vaccinations, but "medically acceptable" has a negative connotations which have no place in a rational discussion.

We are dealing with the same question as in 1. above.

Perhaps I am on the wrong post. But not for the reasons you provided. Rather, it is because your hostility reveals a lack of intellectual honesty and unwillingness to entertain questions about your position. I suspect that you are not clear a out the moral principle upon which your opinion is grounded.
Get Real

Lexington, TN

#9244 Apr 13, 2014
Armadillo wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked you a simple question and you get nasty, and you neglected to answer the question.
Speaking of off topic, The spell checker comment itslf is off topic.
Regarding 1, see
http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/b/bfaq.htm
Hepatitis B vaccination is recommended for:
All infants, starting with the first dose of Hepatitis B vaccine at birth
So, here is a simple question. Does this practice do more harm than good?
You cannot claim, with a straight face that this question is off-topic.
3. Am i suppose to conclude that from one psrson (that is what you have stated twice) that one child has died from a vaccination then the vaccine is does more harm to the population than good.
Yes, there are "medically recognized" injuries that are attributes to vaccinations, but "medically acceptable" has a negative connotations which have no place in a rational discussion.
We are dealing with the same question as in 1. above.
Perhaps I am on the wrong post. But not for the reasons you provided. Rather, it is because your hostility reveals a lack of intellectual honesty and unwillingness to entertain questions about your position. I suspect that you are not clear a out the moral principle upon which your opinion is grounded.
Hostile?
No, not really.
The opinion on the Hep B vaccine was decided decades ago.

It's difficult to take you seriously when simple spelling errors which are easily prevented escape you.

Now, actually go back in the records, cited literature, the Office of Special Masters in VICP and read.....learn.

Read journal studies from the 1950's & beyond, not just the studies printed in English, translate studies.
Gain a more rounded understanding.
Until then. You simply lack the background to speak (or even spell) intelligently on the subject.

<hint>
We know there is a subset of genetically predisposed individuals who should not receive vaccines.
The Hannah Polings & Bailey Banks of the world.
Underlying conditions which are easily identified.
Simply spare them

OR..

Maybe we just have an epidemic of better diagnosticians? <<<(that's a joke, in case you didn't get it)
Armadillo

Paris, TN

#9245 Apr 13, 2014
Get Real wrote:
<quoted text>
Hostile?
No, not really.
The opinion on the Hep B vaccine was decided decades ago.
It's difficult to take you seriously when simple spelling errors which are easily prevented escape you.
Now, actually go back in the records, cited literature, the Office of Special Masters in VICP and read.....learn.
Read journal studies from the 1950's & beyond, not just the studies printed in English, translate studies.
Gain a more rounded understanding.
Until then. You simply lack the background to speak (or even spell) intelligently on the subject.
<hint>
We know there is a subset of genetically predisposed individuals who should not receive vaccines.
The Hannah Polings & Bailey Banks of the world.
Underlying conditions which are easily identified.
Simply spare them
OR..
Maybe we just have an epidemic of better diagnosticians? <<<(that's a joke, in case you didn't get it)
Thank you for confirming my suspicions. As of yet, you have not answered my queation.

You can read all the studies you wish, but unless you have been trained in the interpretation of medical literature then it is hard to for me to take your claims as being well-considered and informed.(In response to you comments about my proofreading.). Your repeated references to individual incidents suggests a lack of understanding of what constitutes scientific evidence. Again: does immunization do more harm than good?

It is to be noted that there are established criteria for being granted exemption from certain immunization requirements.

I repeat, your attitude is hostile. A number of your comments are on the level of calling people who question your pronouncements "[email protected]". That is evidence that you cannot, or are not willing to, distinguish the issue at hand from a person expressing a judgment about that issue.

It is apparent that many on this thread are more interested in stroking each others egos than in furthering understanding of the topic.
Get Real

Lexington, TN

#9246 Apr 13, 2014
Armadillo wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for confirming my suspicions. As of yet, you have not answered my queation.
You can read all the studies you wish, but unless you have been trained in the interpretation of medical literature then it is hard to for me to take your claims as being well-considered and informed.(In response to you comments about my proofreading.). Your repeated references to individual incidents suggests a lack of understanding of what constitutes scientific evidence. Again: does immunization do more harm than good?
It is to be noted that there are established criteria for being granted exemption from certain immunization requirements.
I repeat, your attitude is hostile. A number of your comments are on the level of calling people who question your pronouncements "[email protected]". That is evidence that you cannot, or are not willing to, distinguish the issue at hand from a person expressing a judgment about that issue.
It is apparent that many on this thread are more interested in stroking each others egos than in furthering understanding of the topic.
I'm not hostile. I'm bored.

Pop for a subscription to medscape or plos one.

Go back in published literature, to the time before medical schools were funded by the pharmaceutical industry....before the American Academy of Pediatrics got their cushy new offices paid for by Merck & Friends.

And so I don't come off as an ass, have a nice night.
Armadillo

Paris, TN

#9248 Apr 14, 2014
Get Real wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not hostile. I'm bored.
Pop for a subscription to medscape or plos one.
Go back in published literature, to the time before medical schools were funded by the pharmaceutical industry....before the American Academy of Pediatrics got their cushy new offices paid for by Merck & Friends.
And so I don't come off as an ass, have a nice night.
If you were bored, you would refrain from responding to my boring posts.

Again, you are unwilling or unable to answer the very basic question. Nor, have you shown evidence that you have the training to interpret medical research.

For those two reasons,
I question the veracity of your last statement.

Regards,
youare

Knoxville, TN

#9250 Apr 14, 2014
Armadillo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were bored, you would refrain from responding to my boring posts.
Again, you are unwilling or unable to answer the very basic question. Nor, have you shown evidence that you have the training to interpret medical research.
For those two reasons,
I question the veracity of your last statement.
Regards,
You are such a pr!ck Armad1ldo. No wonder people make fun of you. Jerk.
Get Real

Lexington, TN

#9251 Apr 14, 2014
A fully vaccinated 22 year old woman contracted measles and transmitted it to other people. This is a first - supposedly.

Of course the study authors couldn't help taking a pot shot at non-vaxxers at the end of the story but they do explain this is a case of "vaccine failure".

Vaccine failure is happening more and more: just think of the recent measles, pertussis, and mumps outbreaks affecting thousands of fully vaccinated people.

Moreover, vaccine induced immunity is not permanent. There are likely tens of millions of Americans walking around with no vaccine produced "protection" from measles and yet everyone is not contracting measles.

The idea of herd immunity is a farce as it relates to vaccination induced immunity. This notion is becoming increasingly clear as more and more cases of vaccine failure occur.

http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2014/04/mea...
Get Real

Lexington, TN

#9252 Apr 14, 2014
For the past several years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been actively promoting the shingles vaccine as the solution to what some experts say is a building shingles epidemic. But a new study published in the German medical journal Der Hautarzt, or “The Dermatologist” in English, has revealed that the childhood vaccine for chicken pox, a common viral disease related to shingles, may actually be directly responsible for triggering this epidemic.

Also known clinically as varicella-zoster virus, chicken pox is a relatively mild form of herpes virus that typically manifests itself during the early childhood years. Nearly all children who develop the condition at a young age, in fact, never develop it again, and are also usually imparted with lifelong immunity to both VZV and its relative, herpes zoster, a more severe form of the disease commonly referred to as shingles.

According to the new study; however, getting vaccinated with the chicken pox vaccine, which first became commercially available in the U.S. back in 1995, could damage this natural immune cycle. Based on the available data, getting vaccinated for chicken pox may end up blocking the mechanisms the body uses to develop its own natural immunity to both chicken pox and shingles, causing much worse infection later on down the road.

A five-year-old girl, it turns out, was found recently to have developed severe symptoms of shingles not long after being vaccinated for chicken pox. Researchers from Helios Klinikum in Germany conducted a direct immunofluorescence assay on the child to look for evidence of the vaccine strain in the infection, and found that the vaccine strain had, indeed, caused the child to become infected with the much more severe shingles virus.

“This case demonstrates that a negative VZV direct immunofluorescence assay does not exclude an infection with the vaccine strain,” wrote the authors in their study abstract, which you can view here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23358727
Get Real

Lexington, TN

#9253 Apr 14, 2014
A very clear example of the way that a drug company can profit from one vaccine increasing the need for another vaccine. Prevnar 7 and Prevnar 13 both increase staphylococcal infections.
Guess what Pfizer has in their pipeline?
A vaccine against staph.

Brilliant.

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.

Springfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Anyone had any problems with Elwood Brooks? (Jun '10) 3 hr Amber 79
jessica hope biggs 12 hr Country 1
World Series/little league 19 hr Your momma 8
White House Masonic lodge 700 gone down hill Sun Mr Wow 2
Sick of all your junk white trash rednecks Sun Sick of junk 7
White dude found dead on South Main Aug 26 Chucky 5
Heath Babb Aug 24 Deez nuts 161

Springfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Springfield Mortgages