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.

Dont Get Rich on Singles

Dyersburg, TN

#9506 Jun 9, 2014
Get Real wrote:
<quoted text>
The CDC profits from the sale of vaccines, they also promote whatever pharma tells them to.
If that's not control, what is?
How stupid are you? Most people get only one, if any vaccines, in a year. That's the CDC's get rich plan? Something sold once a year? Why not just diagnose everyone they can with ADHD or depression. You know, the stuff they can use to actually get money from people having to constantly come to them for refills.
DeDominicis

Sevierville, TN

#9507 Jun 9, 2014
Yes.
Get Real

Lexington, TN

#9508 Jun 9, 2014
Dont Get Rich on Singles wrote:
<quoted text>
How stupid are you? Most people get only one, if any vaccines, in a year. That's the CDC's get rich plan? Something sold once a year? Why not just diagnose everyone they can with ADHD or depression. You know, the stuff they can use to actually get money from people having to constantly come to them for refills.
How stupid am I?

Do you know what the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) of 1992 is?

I love the shingles tag in your screen name. Did you know cases of shingles have been geno-typed back to the vaccine strain?
In other words, the vaccine caused the disease.
Fail

Lexington, TN

#9509 Jun 9, 2014
Festus wrote:
<quoted text>
Two observations.
1. The law referenced has to do with special ed.
2. Would rather trust a law school site than a .com
Finally, could you provide a direct quote that supports your claim that public education is a federal requirement.
All children are entitled to a free and appropriate public education. Try excluding ANY child regardless of handicap, and in all but 2 states, vaccine status.
Jose

Paris, TN

#9510 Jun 9, 2014
Fail wrote:
<quoted text>
All children are entitled to a free and appropriate public education. Try excluding ANY child regardless of handicap, and in all but 2 states, vaccine status.
Again, provide an exact quote and the source if the quote. Do read at least the first two paragraphs of the source i posted. Note, it says there that nothing about education is mandated by the constitution
Fail

Lexington, TN

#9511 Jun 9, 2014
Jose wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, provide an exact quote and the source if the quote. Do read at least the first two paragraphs of the source i posted. Note, it says there that nothing about education is mandated by the constitution
Brown v. Board of Education.
WTSenior

United States

#9512 Jun 10, 2014
Jose wrote:
<quoted text>
Read closely: it is the claim that vaccines are harmful that is the basis of the argument that they should not be mandated.
Ergo: the comments are not off topic
READ header should state mandate. not talking everyone elses foolishness , off topic period but who cares when in ternet mandated censor you will have no say " thank God ".
Roger

Paris, TN

#9513 Jun 10, 2014
Fail wrote:
<quoted text>
Brown v. Board of Education.
That is about segregated schools, and is similar to the ADA stuff you mentioned earlier. The cases are about discrimination--not that public schools are required by the feds.
Roger

Paris, TN

#9514 Jun 10, 2014
WTSenior wrote:
<quoted text> READ header should state mandate. not talking everyone elses foolishness , off topic period but who cares when in ternet mandated censor you will have no say " thank God ".
Did you miss your AA meeting?
Refuser

Lexington, TN

#9515 Jun 10, 2014
Did you know that vaccines have been deemed "unavoidably unsafe" by the US Supreme Court?

So whenever anyone tells you vaccines are perfectly safe, you might want to point them to this.

Up until February of 2011, an individual harmed or killed by a vaccine could sue the vaccine manufacturer in civil court if the individual were unhappy with the decision or compensation awarded by the vaccine court.

But in Feb. 2011 all that changed as the court ruled the following:

“No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”§300aa–22(b)(1).

Justice Sotomayer wrote a vigorous dissent:

"the Court excises 13 words from the statutory text, misconstrues the Act’s legislative history, and disturbs the careful balance Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market. Its decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products. Because nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history of the Vaccine Act remotely suggests that Congress intended such a result, I respectfully dissent."

How is it that any company can be free of liability for their products?

And why would any intelligent person trust the products of a company that is?
Roger

Paris, TN

#9516 Jun 10, 2014
Refuser wrote:
Did you know that vaccines have been deemed "unavoidably unsafe" by the US Supreme Court?
So whenever anyone tells you vaccines are perfectly safe, you might want to point them to this.
Up until February of 2011, an individual harmed or killed by a vaccine could sue the vaccine manufacturer in civil court if the individual were unhappy with the decision or compensation awarded by the vaccine court.
But in Feb. 2011 all that changed as the court ruled the following:
“No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”§300aa–22(b)(1).
Justice Sotomayer wrote a vigorous dissent:
"the Court excises 13 words from the statutory text, misconstrues the Act’s legislative history, and disturbs the careful balance Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market. Its decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products. Because nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history of the Vaccine Act remotely suggests that Congress intended such a result, I respectfully dissent."
How is it that any company can be free of liability for their products?
And why would any intelligent person trust the products of a company that is?
We should all take comfort that natural selection will take care of all those who think as you do.
refuser

Lexington, TN

#9517 Jun 11, 2014
Rodger,

The only class of drugs fully protected from any and all litigation is vaccines.

If the company that made the car you drive was shielded from any and all liability, would you but their cars? I mean seriously, what incentive would they have to produce a safe product when the consequences of a poorly thought out down right dangerous product are zero.

I suggest you go get some yard darts & play outside with your kids, oh, wait....

rathernotsay

Nashville, TN

#9518 Jun 11, 2014
For you people who are against vaccinations......one little question. Why do we not have polio diagnoses anymore? At least not like there were prior to the vaccine. That's just one example. It's not complicated
Native Tennessean

Hendersonville, TN

#9519 Jun 11, 2014
Yes, if you are going to send your child to public school you should be required to give them the vaccinations. You don't have the right to allow your unimmunized children to infect other children.

There is a lot of good science out there which completely debunks the claims of immunizations causing autism. Do some real research, and you'll see that is true.
Refuser

Lexington, TN

#9520 Jun 11, 2014
I'm just gonna leave this here.

http://articles.mcall.com/2014-06-10/news/mc-...
Get Real

Lexington, TN

#9521 Jun 12, 2014
rathernotsay wrote:
For you people who are against vaccinations......one little question. Why do we not have polio diagnoses anymore? At least not like there were prior to the vaccine. That's just one example. It's not complicated
Another example, Scarlet fever. The vaccine was so...hey, there's no vaccine for scarlet fever.
Get Real

Lexington, TN

#9522 Jun 12, 2014
Native Tennessean wrote:
Yes, if you are going to send your child to public school you should be required to give them the vaccinations. You don't have the right to allow your unimmunized children to infect other children.
There is a lot of good science out there which completely debunks the claims of immunizations causing autism. Do some real research, and you'll see that is true.
Actually, there's not.The man behind the studies touted by the CDC is a wanted fraud....
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 in 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 (vaccine/autism) on his research. He is 2nd on the list of the Inspector General's "Most Wanted" list.

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

Lexington, TN

#9523 Jun 12, 2014
Roger wrote:
<quoted text>
That is about segregated schools, and is similar to the ADA stuff you mentioned earlier. The cases are about discrimination--not that public schools are required by the feds.
God, you are dense. I never said an education was required, I said it could not be DENIED. Whether by disability, discrimination....or vax status, for that matter.
Felix

Paris, TN

#9524 Jun 12, 2014
Fail wrote:
<quoted text>
God, you are dense. I never said an education was required, I said it could not be DENIED. Whether by disability, discrimination....or vax status, for that matter.
You are quite dense--one cannot follow discriminatory practice (race, religion, and the like) in determining who to admit. You appear to be claiming that this applies to those whose decisions not to vaccinate are based on questionable scientific claims rather than for bona fide religious beliefs or verifiable medical conditions.
Felix

Paris, TN

#9525 Jun 12, 2014
Refuser wrote:
I'm just gonna leave this here.
http://articles.mcall.com/2014-06-10/news/mc-...
You are so right. Life was much better during the second decade of the 20th century.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/influenza-ep...

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.

Hepatitis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
zepatier Sep 16 AlvinTostig 1
News Hepatitis A found in Save On Foods pineapple cups Sep 4 PurifyCleaning 1
News Gay men can now donate blood three months after... Jul '17 Darby 4
Rebuttal over Cochrane Review of DAAs-What is t... Jul '17 hcvnewdrugs 1
News Scientific Evidence and the EU Court Jul '17 VAERS NVICP 1
The Liver - Super Foods & Supplements Jun '17 hcvnewdrugs 1
News EU court: Vaccines can be blamed for illnesses ... Jun '17 RIGHT ON 2
More from around the web