Jump to content
IGNORED

CA has mandatory vaccination/CA Bans Personal Belief Exemp


IronicallyMaeve

Recommended Posts

That's a good question about the eye drops. I'll give it a try- they aren't systemic. I wonder if it's maybe something that could be screened for when the GBS screening is done close to delivery. I never thought about refusing the drops for my kids even though I and my husband have only been with each other. I just did it because that's what the hospital said and I didn't know the reasons behind it too much as it was before I went to school. I don't know if I'd refuse them or not if I had babies now. Never thought too much about it.

Antibacterial soap isn't systemic either but there are concerns about it so, ya. I think it's worth discussing and I'd like to know why all babies are given them, even csections done before ROM.

The big ones we worry about right now as far as atb resistance are mrsa, vre, and there are a few more less common ones. I'm not positive what antibiotics are used to treat gonorrhea and chlamydia but I do see some resistance to some of the antibiotics mentioned. Not sure if the erythromycin ointment at birth is a part of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 882
  • Created
  • Last Reply

"I will freely admit my own experience with a medical mishap influences my thoughts in this area. Just as your experience working with a pharmaceutical company influences yours. But in my experience, most patients who have been injured by a bad product just get the run around and brushed off by the companies. If they aren't just outright screwed over."

I agree with that and that's why I made the comment that one wouldn't feel so happy about mandatory vax if it were their child who was vax injured. I think sometimes they do get brushed off and they can't sue the vaccine manufacturer and then have to try to prove the vax caused the problem, which is very hard to do, in order to get any VAERS money. I KNOW that's why some parents are refusing vaccines, esp with the amount of them our kids get now as opposed to even 10-15 years ago and in relation to other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say Big Pharma is full of compassionate do-gooders, I just said there's less conspiracy there than people think and that many actually do care about their end-users. Sorry if you don't believe me, but I've seen it first-hand. ETA: I just saw your edit, and I'm sorry you had a negative experience. That's just as valid to me as my own personal experience, and I know that happens. Healthcare fucks up. Doctors fuck up, nurses fuck up, Pharma fucks up, hell, even marketing fucks up. But one doesn't equal all, and I've just gotten very tired of the BIG PHARMA WANTS TO KILL US argument the anti-vaxxers are spewing. If the only motivation truly was money, Pharma would be hesitant to make vaccines at all.

I never said " big pharma wants to kill us all" or that there is some big conspiracy. I'm not against prescription medications or vaccinations. My kids were vaccinated and I'm on several prescription medications myself. Pharmaceuticals and vaccines have saved countless lives.

- BUT- I think there is a very unfortunate tendency to 1) Put profit ahead of people - particularly when it comes to discontinuing a product or admitting to damage that it causes. And 2) To dismiss out of hand any treatment or remedy that they aren't able to make a profit on. Yes western medicine is great. It's also not the only medical model. It's just ridiculous that if something grows in the ground or has been used for thousands of years in another culture - it's put down as " woo" and laughed off. Related to that is the bizarre tendency to dismiss anything that a lab hasn't set up a " peer reviewed study on" without ANY acknowledgement that peer reviewed studies ONLY reflect what scientists and their finders care to focus on. A study involving 100 patients taking x prescribed medication can help show that x medication is effective ( or not). But dismissing thousands of individuals saying that they had a negative experience after taking x - just because they weren't part of the study is insane. And I think that's what tends to happen. Because of the Internet people can share their negative and positive experiences with products and home remedies and illnesses. Those experiences can't control for all variables ---- but they shouldn't be dismissed as invalid and pointless. Look at the breastmilk example. Not finding a study on effectiveness ONLY means no one has done a study on effectiveness. That's it. Thousands of people sharing that it did work for them will get no legitimacy and will be brushed off in favor of continuing to sell a product at a profit. Instead of anyone official attempting to do official studies.

I said what I did about organic yuppies because it seemed nicer than saying hipsters, in so many words. But the info I looked at said hipstery-types are less likely to vaccinate.

But hipsters also fall into the category of relatively older parents. And I said they're more likely not to vaccinate because they haven't seen the consequences of the diseases they should be vaccinating against, because several sources have said as much. It isn't that older people aren't vaccinating their children as much as it is that older adults don't seem to make up the majority of the anti-vax demographic- children or not.

i think by " older" you must mean old enough that they likely don't have infants or pre- schoolers. That could mean that they aren't anti- vaxers because they have seen the damage of other diseases - or it could mean that elder adults are less open to new information and change. Unless it's specified otherwise, how can you tell?

I'll go find links to where I read all of that when I'm back at a computer. Sorry for sticking "highly" in front of "educated"- I didn't realize that would cause such a semantics cluster. But like I said, in my experience it's the educated who are having their kids vaccinated. Apparently other sources say differently. I've been wrong before, so this wouldn't be the first time :lol:

I've got nothing for you on the antibiotic resistance or soap, and I don't think anybody said the wealthy should get exemptions- I sure didn't, because that's fucked up.

I was referring to Duggars the end is near comments in that section.

Edited because the sass game is real tonight thanks to a beastly headache and some IRL nonsense, and I needed to tone it down

I get that. I also have a headache and IRL nonsense making me extra :x at the moment. I'm really, really not against vaccines or western medicine. I just think it's important to also look at things like side effects and alternatives and not just assume that everything out there is both safe and effective,.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what I believe. Why is it that it's ok for you to be intolerant of my beliefs but if I don't agree with yours then I'm the bigot or deserve to be treated like crap?

Bitch, please! This is a snark site, and your question quoted above is classic trolling behavior, and you damn well know that. Stop acting all butthurt.

Now to answer your question. It's because I'm a mean hateful bitch who has no tolerance of ignorant fundie assholes whose beliefs are harmful to others. Others may like trying to reason with you. I don't. I never pay nice with fundies. They and you don't deserve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DUH they'd admit it. It's not at all uncommon for drugs to be recalled and those who were put on the drugs to receive compensation for the drugs being found to be dangerous. Also, as stated much earlier in this discussion, there is little to no profit in vaccines, which is why only 5 of the 30 companies that provided vaccines 30 years ago still provide them today. If they were found to be harmful, none of the companies would even bother with making vaccines, and they'd focus on the profit they make from allowing outbreaks to happen.

Cases in point, the old pertussis vax, the old rotavirus vax, every single product info sheet or doctor consultation regarding vaccines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whew, looks like I read the tone of your post wrong. I'll chalk that up to the headache and long day on my end. Sorry!!

I didn't mean you specifically said that about big pharma, but rather was trying to reflect what I feel is the general tone of the anti-vax movement as a whole. I wish too that there were more of an acceptance for alternative medicine where appropriate- no, I don't think eucalyptus could solve a cardiac problem, but it does address many things and can be used in place of modern medicine in some cases. I'm very much about that (and if you're looking, the encyclopedia of plant remedies [paraphrase] is incredible! I can get an exact name if anyone would like.) where it's applicable. Why get pepto bismol (with its coloring and flavor additives) when you can chew fennel? It just worries me that some of the people who follow the natural route eschew modern medicine in total, when some things just can't be healed without it. It's also truly unfortunate that those natural remedies don't have more oversight because they're considered ineffective. Some of those compounded pills can be truly dangerous, and people just don't know or won't accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to have quite the judgment against the wealthy for someone living in a town with a supposed minimum $1m home value. The wealthy do not think nothing bad will ever happen to them- the sheltered and naive do, and that's not determined by wealth. I went to school with many individuals wealthy beyond imagination (think international oil money, grandchildren of the top political families in the U.S., children of pro athletes, etc) and some of those families had more sordid and painful histories than you could imagine. Tragedy doesn't strike based on social standing, though the way it's addressed may look different. I hope you're not saying you don't think anything negative will happen to you, because inevitably, something will, and with that perspective, it'll knock you on your ass.

What are you trying to say the educated are against? I couldn't tell. If you're saying they're against vaccinations, while I believe someone upthread said the educated are against it, I would argue the opposite. In my experience, the highly educated have been taught and value critical thinking and statistical analysis, and for the most part do not buy into the ridiculous conspiracy theories spouted by anti-vaxxers. The statistics I found suggested that the anti-vax movement is skewed toward a younger demographic, mainly what I'd call yuppie parents, and childless yuppies, who are into the organic or natural lifestyles and are against government oversight. They may be educated, but they also have not been confronted with the dangers of the diseases we have mitigated as their elders were.

Do I ? I do feel like the wealthy , and yeah I'm including myself is this although that could be argued based on my income ( preschool teacher), don't think theae kind of bad things will happen. Sure there parents will die, they will get in car crashes ect. But they typically don't think diseases like thrse will affect them ( caner ect is normal, but not thing you can catch) and may think we'll that only happens to dirty people who can't/ dont take care of themselves.

Maybe this is a naive view. I would say as a child I was very sheltered in my community. Often referred as the bubble. Oakland and gangs are only 20 min away but we were in a safe little bubble.

I use antibacterial soaps and hand sanitizer but whenever I read the material it does make me rethink it/ I know they aren't really good.

I can't really take antibiotics as they are so strong for me. I ask for low doses the few times I've taken them.

This is probably because I do not eat most meats and therefore do not ingest extra antibiotics on a daily basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I ? I do feel like the wealthy , and yeah I'm including myself is this although that could be argued based on my income ( preschool teacher), don't think theae kind of bad things will happen. Sure there parents will die, they will get in car crashes ect. But they typically don't think diseases like thrse will affect them ( caner ect is normal, but not thing you can catch) and may think we'll that only happens to dirty people who can't/ dont take care of themselves.

Maybe this is a naive view. I would say as a child I was very sheltered in my community. Often referred as the bubble. Oakland and gangs are only 20 min away but we were in a safe little bubble.

I use antibacterial soaps and hand sanitizer but whenever I read the material it does make me rethink it/ I know they aren't really good.

I can't really take antibiotics as they are so strong for me. I ask for low doses the few times I've taken them.

This is probably because I do not eat most meats and therefore do not ingest extra antibiotics on a daily basis.

I just think that's the view of someone who's been sheltered. Like conservatism, thinking nothing will happen to you is often the thought process of those to whom nothing has ever happened. I think it's a stretch to to say that's a wealth-related mentality. Plenty of well-to-do individuals grew up with, or came to know, horrible tragedies just like anybody else, and they certainly aren't immune to cancer. It's a dangerous trap to fall into thinking that nothing will happen to you. Like I said, tragedy doesn't strike based on social standing. I'd encourage you give some thought to what the "bubble" has really taught you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The immunizations I gave were for the most part in the Nicu, and they were given on a corrected schedule.

So if a baby was born 2 mos preterm, the first round of immunizations would be given when the baby was 4 mos old or 2 mos corrected.

Obviously, if the baby was still very unstable or had taken a turn for the worse (septic, for example), we would hold off on the immunizations until the patient was stable.

That is not what we experienced in the NICU in 2011. Our boys were 11 weeks early, got their 2 month shots at 2 months actual (aka 37/38 weeks gestational ). Also got synagis then. They were extreme low birth weight, 2lb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cases in point, the old pertussis vax, the old rotavirus vax, every single product info sheet or doctor consultation regarding vaccines.

Ya, I know that. I specifically mentioned the rotavirus vaccine. I'm talking about on a bigger level for vaccines as a whole. Like if they are ever linked to cancers, AI diseases, xyz, will they ever admit it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think that's the view of someone who's been sheltered. Like conservatism, thinking nothing will happen to you is often the thought process of those to whom nothing has ever happened.

In other words, check your privilege.

All of us who have grown up with vaccines have lived a privileged life. We were sheltered from the ramifications of the diseases, and their effects on people of all ages. The anti-vaccination crowd, spearheaded by the idea that "they're childhood illnesses, and therefore nothing to worry about" is purely born of that privilege. The idea that "it's only a problem in countries that don't have vaccines because they also don't have proper sanitation" is also a mark of privilege (not just because people feel they can shit on countries that are still developing, but because people don't acknowledge that this outbreaks HAVE and WILL happen in developed countries where vaccines are being denied). Denying children vaccines is denying them the same privilege you were afforded.

Furthermore, by denying children vaccines, you not only put them at risk, you put unborn children at risk. Just look at Rubella. Rubella is generally thought of as a "mild" disease -- it's asymptomatic in 50-70% of the cases of infection, and comes with 3-7 days of mild flu like symptoms and maybe (50-80% chance of) a rash in many of those that are symptomatic. But, it poses a threat to the health (particularly brain, eye, ear, and heart) of those infected. And, the infection can be transmitted to fetuses if the mother contracts the disease. During the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, those fetuses are at a severely increased risk of Congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), more so the earlier in the pregnancy the infection occurs. Unless you've received the MMR vaccine in the last 18 years, you are at risk of contracting the illness if exposed (not necessarily a very high risk, but immunity wanes after 18 years, which is why it's imperative to have your immunity tested or to receive the MMR if you're hoping to conceive, especially if you live in an anti-vaccination pocket or you are going to be traveling out of the country during your pregnancy).

If you get rubella in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, your baby has about an 8 to 9 in 10 chance (85 percent) of getting infected.

If you get rubella at 13 to 16 weeks of pregnancy, your baby has about a 1 in 2 chance (50 percent) of being infected.

If you get rubella at the end or your second trimester or later, your baby has about a 1 in 4 chance (25 percent) of getting infected.

http://www.marchofdimes.org/pregnancy/r ... nancy.aspx

Rubella, or German measles, is most dangerous to your baby if you catch it during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. Rubella can cause miscarriage, stillbirth or birth defects in unborn babies, such as:

hearing loss

brain damage

heart defects

cataracts

This is called congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) and is transmitted to the baby through the placenta.

If a pregnant woman does become infected with rubella during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, there is no treatment that is known to be effective in preventing CRS.

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1104.aspx?CategoryID=54

Between 1964 and 1965, there was a worldwide epidemic of rubella, also known as German measles. Pregnant women who contracted rubella in the first trimester of their pregnancy could pass the rubella virus to their developing fetus, causing the child to be born deaf, blind, with cardiac problems, developmental delays and other medical conditions. In the United States alone, approximately 20,000 children were born during this epidemic with two or more of these symptoms. This constellation of symptoms is known as congenital rubella syndrome, or CRS.

http://www.hknc.org/Rubella.htm

CRS represents the neonatal manifestations of antenatal infection with the rubella virus. The infection affects many fetal systems. The risk of CRS abnormalities varies according to the gestational age at which the maternal infection occurs. Therefore, counselling regarding the risk to the fetus and management of pregnant women must be individualized. Transplacental vertical infection by the rubella virus can have catastrophic effects on the developing fetus, resulting in spontaneous abortion, fetal infection, stillbirth, or fetal growth restriction. Many children born with CRS will demonstrate persistent neuromotor deficits later in life. Pneumonitis, diabetes mellitus, thyroid dysfunctions, and progressive panencephalitis are other late expressions of CRS.
http://sogc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/guiJOGC203CPG0802.pdf

Denying vaccinations is refusing people the rights to the same privileges you were afforded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, check your privilege.

All of us who have grown up with vaccines have lived a privileged life. We were sheltered from the ramifications of the diseases, and their effects on people of all ages. The anti-vaccination crowd, spearheaded by the idea that "they're childhood illnesses, and therefore nothing to worry about" is purely born of that privilege. The idea that "it's only a problem in countries that don't have vaccines because they also don't have proper sanitation" is also a mark of privilege (not just because people feel they can shit on countries that are still developing, but because people don't acknowledge that this outbreaks HAVE and WILL happen in developed countries where vaccines are being denied). Denying children vaccines is denying them the same privilege you were afforded.

Furthermore, by denying children vaccines, you not only put them at risk, you put unborn children at risk. Just look at Rubella. Rubella is generally thought of as a "mild" disease -- it's asymptomatic in 50-70% of the cases of infection, and comes with 3-7 days of mild flu like symptoms and maybe (50-80% chance of) a rash in many of those that are symptomatic. But, it poses a threat to the health (particularly brain, eye, ear, and heart) of those infected. And, the infection can be transmitted to fetuses if the mother contracts the disease. During the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, those fetuses are at a severely increased risk of Congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), more so the earlier in the pregnancy the infection occurs. Unless you've received the MMR vaccine in the last 18 years, you are at risk of contracting the illness if exposed (not necessarily a very high risk, but immunity wanes after 18 years, which is why it's imperative to have your immunity tested or to receive the MMR if you're hoping to conceive, especially if you live in an anti-vaccination pocket or you are going to be traveling out of the country during your pregnancy).

http://www.marchofdimes.org/pregnancy/r ... nancy.aspx

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1104.aspx?CategoryID=54

http://www.hknc.org/Rubella.htm

http://sogc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/guiJOGC203CPG0802.pdf

Denying vaccinations is refusing people the rights to the same privileges you were afforded.

:clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, I know that. I specifically mentioned the rotavirus vaccine. I'm talking about on a bigger level for vaccines as a whole. Like if they are ever linked to cancers, AI diseases, xyz, will they ever admit it?

You are seriously the most frustrating fear mongerer I've ever encountered, and that says a lot because I know people who are convinced that merely holding a gun will make you turn into a mass murderer.

What, pray tell, is in ALL vaccines at such a level that they can cause cancer, AI diseases, etc? The vast majority of ingredients in vaccines are experienced in your daily life in much higher quantities.

As per the FDA website:

Aluminum salts are incorporated into some vaccine formulations as an adjuvant. An adjuvant is a substance added to some vaccines to enhance the immune response of vaccinated individuals. The aluminum salts in some U.S. licensed vaccines are aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, alum (potassium aluminum sulfate), or mixed aluminum salts. For example: aluminum salts are used in DTaP vaccines, the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, and hepatitis B vaccines.

Aluminum adjuvant containing vaccines have a demonstrated safety profile of over six decades of use and have only uncommonly been associated with severe local reactions. Of note, the most common source of exposure to aluminum is from eating food or drinking water

Certain antibiotics may be used in some vaccine production to help prevent bacterial contamination during manufacturing. As a result, small amounts of antibiotics may be present in some vaccines. Because some antibiotics can cause severe allergic reactions in those children allergic to them (such as hives, swelling at the back of the throat, and low blood pressure), some parents are concerned that antibiotics contained in vaccines might be harmful. However, antibiotics most likely to cause severe allergic reactions (e.g., penicillins, cephalosporins and sulfa drugs) are not used in vaccine production, and therefore are not contained in vaccines.

Examples of antibiotics used during vaccine manufacture include neomycin, polymyxin B, streptomycin and gentamicin. Some antibiotics used in vaccine production are present in the vaccine, either in very small amounts or they are undetectable. For example, antibiotics are used in some production methods for making inactivated influenza virus vaccines. They are used to reduce bacterial growth in eggs during processing steps, because eggs are not sterile products. The antibiotics that are used are reduced to very small or undetectable amounts during subsequent purification steps. The very small amounts of antibiotics contained in vaccines have not been clearly associated with severe allergic reactions.

Formaldehyde has a long history of safe use in the manufacture of certain viral and bacterial vaccines. It is used to inactivate viruses so that they don’t cause disease (e.g., polio virus used to make polio vaccine) and to detoxify bacterial toxins, such as the toxin used to make diphtheria vaccine. Formaldehyde is diluted during the vaccine manufacturing process, but residual quantities of formaldehyde may be found in some current vaccines. The amount of formaldehyde present in some vaccines is so small compared to the concentration that occurs naturally in the body that it does not pose a safety concern.

Formaldehyde is also produced naturally in the human body as a part of normal functions of the body to produce energy and build the basic materials needed for important life processes. This includes making amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins that the body needs.

Formaldehyde is also found in the environment and is present in different ways. It is used in building materials, as a preservative in labs and to produce many household products.

The body continuously processes formaldehyde, both from what it makes on its own and from what it has been exposed to in the environment. When the body breaks down formaldehyde, it does not distinguish between formaldehyde from vaccines and that which is naturally produced or environmental. The amount of formaldehyde in a person’s body depends on their weight; babies have lower amounts than adults. Studies have shown that for a newborn of average weight of 6 - 8 pounds, the amount of formaldehyde in their body is 50-70 times higher than the upper amount that they could receive from a single dose of a vaccine or from vaccines administered over time.

Excessive exposure to formaldehyde may cause cancer, but the latest research has shown that the highest risk is from the air when formaldehyde is inhaled from breathing, and occurs more frequently in people who routinely use formaldehyde in their jobs. There is no evidence linking cancer to infrequent exposure to tiny amounts of formaldehyde via injection as occurs with vaccines.

Stabilizers added to vaccines include: sugars such as sucrose and lactose, amino acids such as glycine or the monosodium salt of glutamic acid and proteins such as human serum albumin or gelatin. Sugars, amino acids and proteins are not unique to vaccines and are encountered in everyday life in the diet and are components that are in the body naturally.

So, please, where would the "ALL VACCINES CAUSE X" come in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a question that I was contemplating. I'm not trying to cause fear. I'm just asking if that were the case do you think they'd admit it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Injection is different than ingesting or being exposed to a toxin. Not that I'm saying it's harmful, but it's not the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Injection is different than ingesting or being exposed to a toxin. Not that I'm saying it's harmful, but it's not the same.

No, you are saying it's harmful. Just like you're trying to fear monger by saying that they'd never admit that vaccines are harmful. You ARE a fear mongerer. You ARE an anti-vaxxer. You ARE trying to convince people not to trust vaccines, the CDC, the FDA, etc.

If injections were really harmful, dont you think that AT SOME POINT in the last 200+ years of vaccinations, large quantities of people would have started showing the signs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you are saying it's harmful. Just like you're trying to fear monger by saying that they'd never admit that vaccines are harmful. You ARE a fear mongerer. You ARE an anti-vaxxer. You ARE trying to convince people not to trust vaccines, the CDC, the FDA, etc.

If injections were really harmful, dont you think that AT SOME POINT in the last 200+ years of vaccinations, large quantities of people would have started showing the signs?

I absolutely don't trust the fda.

There are things sold for food in the usa that other countries ( places in Europe and Canada) that are banned.

Reason they are legal here is not because they are safe but $$$$

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely don't trust the fda.

There are things sold for food in the usa that other countries ( places in Europe and Canada) that are banned.

Reason they are legal here is not because they are safe but $$$$

Please don't blindly follow. Please don't think because the fda says its safe that it is. Do your own research.

Our government makes mistakes all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, I'm thinking GMOS and pesticides on our food...

And antibiotics and hormones in our meat and dairy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vaccines do cause an increase in cancer. In the same way safe drinking water, seat belts and readily available food cause increases in cancer. Since we no longer die in massive numbers due to contaminated water, disease, accident and malnutrition, more people live long enough to develop cancer. In which, I'll take the cancer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a break down in the study that separates out " educated" and " highly educated" ? If there isn't, than what is your point? Are you trying to say there is some middle ground of " educated" that is anti- vax? Is that borne out by anything?

Really, a lot of the comments above don't even make sense -- the anti- vax movement skewed towards a " younger" demographic of yuppies and childless yuppies? I don't see how " yuppies" would fall into a younger age group, by anyone's standards.

Anyone who is a parent of school age child requiring vaccinations and is a " yuppie" is going to be at the oldest end of the childbearing spectrum. Are you comparing them to people who are well past the age of having children in school and would have seen these diseases? Because that would be completely irrelevant. When discussing who vaccinated and who doesn't.

The fact is that it is relatively wealthier and more educated parents who are less likely to vaccinate. Twisting it doesn't change that.

I don't even know what to say about a belief that a law that says, in effect, only wealthy parents are able to exercise an option they believe in makes it ok to have that law. How is it acceptable to have vaccine exemptions allowed as long as the parents are wealthy? ( not that $75,000 a year in the Bay Area is wealthy, because you can't even buy a house on that income in the area)

And I'm still really curious about the eye drops conversation as it relates to antibiotic resistance.

Sorry, but between the view of big pharma as compassionate do- gooders and using antibacterial soap as a good example -- I'm getting more and more sceptical.

I will freely admit my own experience with a medical mishap influences my thoughts in this area. Just as your experience working with a pharmaceutical company influences yours. But in my experience, most patients who have been injured by a bad product just get the run around and brushed off by the companies. If they aren't just outright screwed over.

Yeah I feel like you ( the end is near) are saying its OK to discriminate if the persons rich.....

And again you wrote all of these areas are rich but Vallejo really is a getto so I don't know how that can be said.

There is one part of Vallejo police just flat out won't go.

It's that dangerous.

Also now that I am aware of the eye drop thing I will be refusing- I'll take any test to prove I don't have STDs that I need. But yeah no need if there is no need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vaccines do cause an increase in cancer. In the same way safe drinking water, seat belts and readily available food cause increases in cancer. Since we no longer die in massive numbers due to contaminated water, disease, accident and malnutrition, more people live long enough to develop cancer. In which, I'll take the cancer!

:cracking-up: Just gotta say that this is amazing

ETA: ahhhh I'm a Speshul Snowflake now! :happy-partydance:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.