Great refutation of a tired old debate

Post Reply New Topic

I agree with you. The problem is the "you" is not the parent who is responsible for the well-being of their child. They are taken out of the equation. It is groups of people who ultimately obtain financial gain through their recommendations and who view "mishaps" to be a sort of necessary evil. They know a certain number of people will have negative reactions, perhaps even severe or life ending ones. I am not talking about autistics here. I am talking about the general population. But they judge that to be necessary...I don't know....byproduct? of attaining their goal of mass immunizations. The people who's lives are affected don't get to judge that. They just get to pay the consequences. So people other than ME are determining what level of risk is or is not acceptable for MY CHILD. And they aren't even considering MY CHILD. They are only looking at "children" as a big group of faceless, nameless people. What other medical intervention can be forced on someone? None that I am aware of. "Informed Consent" is the norm. But your "consent" is not really consent when given under duress. And when a parent who does not want to vaccinate their kids does so so that the child can attend school, it is under duress.

I agree it is a line, but I believe it has been crossed in a very large way, even though I (my kids) am in compliance. And I honestly do not believe that something other than financial gain was the primary motivator for the decisions. I am usually not the conspiracy type, but this is a multi-billion dollar industry. If they lost the ability to force people to inject themselves and their children with vaccinations, they would be out money. Big Time. I'll believe it is really for the good of the population the day that pharma is unable to make a single penny's worth of profit from vaccinations (yes, they can charge, but only up to the "break even" point) and the day that the doctor is only allowed to bill insurance or the government (but not the individual) for overhead including a market-based wage for a nurse for the 15 minutes it takes to give a vaccine. If no one was allowed to make money off of this, I promise you the mandation would be lifted. Because suddenly it would be viewed as "not worth it."

And I think that is the crux of why this gets into my craw. It is a sham.

I agree whole-heartedly. The chicken pox vaccine and Hep B and probably some others should not be mandatory. Whooping cough, MMR, polio, yes. We know what happens when these diseases go unchecked, people (usually babies) die or are seriously damaged for life. I guess I can count myself lucky for living in the land of conspiracy theorists.

I know this is off topic slightly but I thought you might want to know.

The low death rate of chicken pox (in the UK anyway where the vaccine isn't on the NHS and most people are unaware of it's existence) is because the cause of death is often put down as septicaemia. That the septicaemia is caused by the chicken pox isn't recorded in the official records, nor does it show up on the stats.

Admittedly the death rate is still very low generally, however, in children under the age of one it is much higher. A friends daughter was in intensive care at 9 months due to chicken pox, and the nurses told her that her situation wasn't unusual. Thankfully her daughter made it, although 5 years later is still showing delays.

As for the vaccine argument generally I don't see the connection, although I know some parents do. It was something I really thought about when I was pregnant, and decided the dangers of measles, mumps and rubella were far more dangerous. Thinking about it now I would still make the same decision, and not only because I now see those traits in Mim before the MMR, but because there are so many other environmental factors. Vaccines are simply not the only things that have changed since 1983.