Jump to content
IGNORED

CA has mandatory vaccination/CA Bans Personal Belief Exemp


IronicallyMaeve

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 882
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Antibiotic resistance is a problem caused by different sources. It comes down to under- or over-use. People that do not finish a course or by taking multiple courses too close together, having antibiotic soap for every handwashing (sanitizer works differently) instead of when dealing with bodily fluids. Antibiotic use in animals is different, since bacteria in people is different than in animals. The best thing that we can do is limit antibiotic use to when needed. I don't see where the government produces antibiotic soap to fill homes with?? :?

Vaccines are different than antibiotics (or antivirals) in the way they work. Vaccines stimulate the hosts antibodies (which a newborn doesn't have when born) and antibiotics and antivirals fight the bug themselves. So I can't see how humans in general will develop vaccine resistance, in the sense that we have developed some antibiotic resistance.

In bacteria and viruses, it is a numbers game, so the bug replicates rapidly to make more bugs. When you have fast multiplication, there are more chances for mutations to occur (resistance).

The erythromycin drops also help against other bacteria (not just STIs). So if they are ineffective against one strain of bacteria, but work for another or different bacteria, why is it such a problem to get them? The drops are not contributing to antibiotic resistance, as they only apply once right after birth. To now have glee that you will refuse next time from comments online, baffles me. It's like not putting on your child's seat belt because you are a good driver. :sick:

What was the research you did on the drops to make you now refuse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the fuck says Ya ...... Seriously [emoji38]

I do....an educated redneck hick from the sticks. It's slang for "you". An example: " How ya doin'?". But it's being used in this thread as a substitute for "yeah".

ETA: Clarification

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antibiotic resistance is a problem caused by different sources. It comes down to under- or over-use. People that do not finish a course or by taking multiple courses too close together, having antibiotic soap for every handwashing (sanitizer works differently) instead of when dealing with bodily fluids. Antibiotic use in animals is different, since bacteria in people is different than in animals. The best thing that we can do is limit antibiotic use to when needed. I don't see where the government produces antibiotic soap to fill homes with?? :?

Vaccines are different than antibiotics (or antivirals) in the way they work. Vaccines stimulate the hosts antibodies (which a newborn doesn't have when born) and antibiotics and antivirals fight the bug themselves. So I can't see how humans in general will develop vaccine resistance, in the sense that we have developed some antibiotic resistance.

In bacteria and viruses, it is a numbers game, so the bug replicates rapidly to make more bugs. When you have fast multiplication, there are more chances for mutations to occur (resistance).

The erythromycin drops also help against other bacteria (not just STIs). So if they are ineffective against one strain of bacteria, but work for another or different bacteria, why is it such a problem to get them? The drops are not contributing to antibiotic resistance, as they only apply once right after birth. To now have glee that you will refuse next time from comments online, baffles me. It's like not putting on your child's seat belt because you are a good driver. :sick:

What was the research you did on the drops to make you now refuse?

I've stated up thread, twice, that on things like these I like to take a look at how other countries do things.

The only info I have received about vaccines is that Italy

Has mandatory vaccines but its not enforced.

I saw a schedule for UK and the USA

I also said there are things the fda approves that other countries do not.

Many people on this board said that this practice is not universal. It's not done in the UK.

If it is unnecessary then I will opt out

Why would I want my baby's eyes to sting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've stated up thread, twice, that on things like these I like to take a look at how other countries do things.

The only info I have received about vaccines is that Italy

Has mandatory vaccines but its not enforced.

I saw a schedule for UK and the USA

I also said there are things the fda approves that other countries do not.

Many people on this board said that this practice is not universal. It's not done in the UK.

If it is unnecessary then I will opt out

Why would I want my baby's eyes to sting?

Also antibiotic use in animals does increase our overall resistance of antibiotics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antibiotic resistance is a problem caused by different sources. It comes down to under- or over-use. People that do not finish a course or by taking multiple courses too close together, having antibiotic soap for every handwashing (sanitizer works differently) instead of when dealing with bodily fluids. Antibiotic use in animals is different, since bacteria in people is different than in animals. The best thing that we can do is limit antibiotic use to when needed. I don't see where the government produces antibiotic soap to fill homes with?? :?

Vaccines are different than antibiotics (or antivirals) in the way they work. Vaccines stimulate the hosts antibodies (which a newborn doesn't have when born) and antibiotics and antivirals fight the bug themselves. So I can't see how humans in general will develop vaccine resistance, in the sense that we have developed some antibiotic resistance.

In bacteria and viruses, it is a numbers game, so the bug replicates rapidly to make more bugs. When you have fast multiplication, there are more chances for mutations to occur (resistance).

The erythromycin drops also help against other bacteria (not just STIs). So if they are ineffective against one strain of bacteria, but work for another or different bacteria, why is it such a problem to get them? The drops are not contributing to antibiotic resistance, as they only apply once right after birth. To now have glee that you will refuse next time from comments online, baffles me. It's like not putting on your child's seat belt because you are a good driver. :sick:

What was the research you did on the drops to make you now refuse?

I'm confused. What is anti-biotic hand wash?

The UK has no higher rates of eye issues despite this evil practice of not administering prophylactic anti-biotic ....... Different is not always wrong. Just different.

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!

Well gee, I guess it's a good idea to keep using DDT , sacharine, silicone breast implants and smoking a couple packs of cigarettes a day and have levels of air pollution so high that the air looks like an acid trip.

:roll: .

Since other, completely unrelated , events mean I'm more likely to live long long enough to contract cancer in the first place, why on earth would I avoid things that could possibly increase my risk?

I'm not at all saying any vaccines are known to increase cancer risk. I'm just saying the fact people live long enough to contract cancer is a really stupid reason to not worry about the products that may cause that cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused. What is anti-biotic hand wash?

The UK has no higher rates of eye issues despite this evil practice of not administering prophylactic anti-biotic ....... Different is not always wrong. Just different.

I think she's talking about anti- bacterial hand wash. Which, from what I've read, are really problematic. I really wish Duggars the End is Near would address this

.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/16/fda-antibacterial-soap/4038907/

Oh, and for those who say the FDA is super fast to jump on getting rid of potentially dangerous products -- they were first requested to investigate the primary ingredient in most antibacterial soaps nearly 40 years ago. And only started this process when they were sued.

Here is a very interesting article that is partially about the eye drops issue.

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/missing-mi ... nce-birth/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is so much hooey in this thread that I'm going to be like Peppa Pig and put on my boots before jumping in.

"Western medicine" is not just one form of medicine on equal footing with several other forms of medicine. In fact, "Western medicine" doesn't exist, it's actually "science-based medicine" which crosses all borders because every doctor everywhere wants to find treatments that work.

"Alternative medicine" is for the most part bullshit. Homeopathy--bullshit. Rikki--bullshit. Juice cleanses--bullshit.

Herbal medicine was mentioned. Some herbs have some limited evidence for efficacy, such as St John's wort (which comes with side effects and interactions patients need to be aware of) and milk thistle for those undergoing chemo. Most do nothing.

How do we know? We've checked! Scientists don't go "oh, herbs, that's boring, we only use stuff we invent in the lab". Medicinal natural products is a huge area of research, with scientists studying compounds extracted from various bacteria, fungi, sponges, plants... Vincristine, taxol, artemisinin, streptomycin, penicillin--these and others were discovered in natural sources, found to be effective for various application, and are widely used in medicine.

So take your ginseng if you want, but it's not part of "Western medicine" because we know it doesn't do much of anything for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All bacteria is not bad bacteria!

Some bacteria is good

In fact i was reading a study that seem to find that allergies (i think milk) are higher in csection babies because they dont get the same bacteria. If i recall it looked at brestfeeding vs formula as well. It showed there digestive bacteria compared to the mothers and mothers who brest feed and vag delvered were the most simalar. Next was formula feed and vag delivered.

Next c section babies. Their bacteria looked totally different than their mothers. Something didn't get passed on in the birthing process that should have been passed.

Also as far as not buckling up- in sure I could find statistics for counties who don't have seat belt requirements and make an argument.

Just thinking about school buses which have no seat belts. And kids who in car still need boosters can ride in them with no booster or Anything.

Now Californias seat belt/ car seat laws are on the sticter side of the USA. However they still lack compared to recommendations.

CA law forward face at one.

Usa recommendation forward face at 2

Swedish recommendation ( as far as I could find no law) forward face at 4.

Huge difference.

Swedish have no- low neck injurys in car accidents

Compared to US children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your Sweden/US comparison is more an argument for increased caution in terms of vaccination and antibiotic prophylaxis, since Sweden has the more restrictive laws and better outcomes.

Children on buses generally don't need seatbelts because buses are massive. The risks in a collision are much lower if you are in a bus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your Sweden/US comparison is more an argument for increased caution in terms of vaccination and antibiotic prophylaxis, since Sweden has the more restrictive laws and better outcomes.

Children on buses generally don't need seatbelts because buses are massive. The risks in a collision are much lower if you are in a bus.

I'm certainly not against vaccines-

But the Swedes do the car seat thing without a law making them.

I haven't seen anyone say Swedes have mandatory vaccines ( just did a quick look on lines and saw no such laws) and there rate for the country is 95%

Looking at a few articles they did educational campaigns in the 80s and probably just educate thier citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in California first 5 could run an ad campaign just like they do for suger ect

Quite a side note:

please remember that your 3-4 year olds should only receive 4 oz of juice per day and most juice boxes ( honest kids, carpisun ect) come on 8 oz boxes. Please be smart. Look up nutrition recommendations for your children!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble with saying "why don't we do what [insert European nation] does" is the US is nothing like European nations. It is more racially and ethnically diverse, has more income disparity, a much larger population, and hugely larger land mass. In places like Sweden there is a respect for authority and consensus opinion missing in the US. Do you think the people opting out of vaccines in CA do so because they aren't educated? They tend to be more educated and affluent than average. It's mostly an attitude problem, not an education problem. They know the scientific and medical consensus, but decide that they will not be told what to do, they know (really feel) what is best for their child, and they do their "research" to come to the decision not to vaccinate.

Really I think it is an ego thing. For some reason we're obsessed with parenting "right", which seems to mean being hyper-involved in every aspect of your child's life and making every decision yourself. Vaccinations are another way a parent can empower her or himself by standing up to authority figures to protect her or his child's purity. Except instead of the sexual purity Fundies worry about, it's purity from aluminum salts, preservatives, antibiotics, pesticides, unspecified "toxins", and other "unnatural" chemicals, regardless of the demonstrated low level of risk.

Not sure how we can educate around that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along with the differences from European nations--access to health care is really horrible for a lot of people in the US. Obamacare improved access in terms of insurance plans to cover preventive care, but because the US is so large and many places sparsely populated, sometimes people have to drive an hour just to see a doctor. Some other nations have home visitors that check up on women a week after childbirth, here we're sometimes lucky if they can get access to a car to drive themselves to the doctor. That is another reason preventative care is important here--get infants eye drops now because there is no home visitor to notice their conjunctivitis 5 days from now, and give a baby three shots this month because he might not be back for months if you try to split them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well gee, I guess it's a good idea to keep using DDT , sacharine, silicone breast implants and smoking a couple packs of cigarettes a day and have levels of air pollution so high that the air looks like an acid trip.

:roll: .

Since other, completely unrelated , events mean I'm more likely to live long long enough to contract cancer in the first place, why on earth would I avoid things that could possibly increase my risk?

I'm not at all saying any vaccines are known to increase cancer risk. I'm just saying the fact people live long enough to contract cancer is a really stupid reason to not worry about the products that may cause that cancer.

She was not arguing against vaccines. She was pointing out that, thanks to vaccines, seat belts, good food, and clean water, humans live longer now. By not dying of diphtheria in childhood, we live long enough to maybe get cancer in our 70s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've stated up thread, twice, that on things like these I like to take a look at how other countries do things.

The only info I have received about vaccines is that Italy

Has mandatory vaccines but its not enforced.

I saw a schedule for UK and the USA

I also said there are things the fda approves that other countries do not.

Many people on this board said that this practice is not universal. It's not done in the UK.

If it is unnecessary then I will opt out

Why would I want my baby's eyes to sting?

So are you planning to base the entirety of your child's medical care on a single thread from an internet board dedicated to snarking on fundamentalist religion? Or might you actually talk to your doctor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Children on buses generally don't need seatbelts because buses are massive. The risks in a collision are much lower if you are in a bus.

Not to mention, school buses, by design, act differently than cars in a collision.

School bus crash data show that a Federal requirement for belts on buses would provide little, if any, added protection in a crash. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) have come to the same conclusion. NTSB concluded in a 1987 study of school bus crashes that most fatalities and injuries were due to occupant seating positions being in direct line with the crash forces. NTSB stated that seat

belts would not have prevented most of the serious injuries and fatalities occurring in school bus crashes.

In 1989, NAS completed a study of ways to improve school bus safety and concluded that the overall potential benefits of requiring seat belts on large school buses are insufficient to justify a Federal requirement for mandatory installation. NAS also stated that the funds used to purchase and maintain seat belts might better be spent on other school bus safety programs and devices that could save more lives and reduce more injuries.

Rather than requiring seat belts, NHTSA decided that the best way to provide crash protection to passengers is through a concept called "compartmentalization." This requires that the interior of large buses provide occupant protection so that children are protected without the need to buckle-up. Occupant crash protection is provided by a protective envelope consisting of strong, closely-spaced seats that have energy-absorbing seat backs. The effectiveness of compartmentalization has been confirmed in the NTSB and NAS studies.

Small school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating under 10,000 pounds, must be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated seating positions. Since their sizes and weights are closer to those of passenger cars and trucks, the agency believes seat belts

in those vehicles are necessary to provide occupant protection.

http://transportation.spps.org/uploads/ ... tbelts.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She was not arguing against vaccines. She was pointing out that, thanks to vaccines, seat belts, good food, and clean water, humans live longer now. By not dying of diphtheria in childhood, we live long enough to maybe get cancer in our 70s.

you know you have successfully achieved satire when someone misses the point. :) Anything that reduces your chances of death by one cause increases your changes of dying of something else. Vaccines and seat belts also increase the chance that I will be killed by a rampaging flock of ducks. Doesn't mean that I should stop wearing my seat belt or avoid contact with ducks. (Though, yesterday, I was charged by some baby ducks. I almost died -- of cute).

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?

Well, this is anecdotal and therefore carries no scientific weight. I'm 53 years old. I got every recommended immunization as a child, and have kept my immunizations updated through adulthood. The worst reaction I had to any shot was probably a little soreness, a little redness, and that's it. The same is true for my 7 siblings. So for 53 years, I've been basically healthy. I've lost 3 siblings - one to complications due to AIDS, one to complications due to MS, and one due to colon cancer. My parents got immunized when vaccines became available. They are in their late 80's. (My mom did get breast cancer in her 70's, had a mastectomy and is doing fine. I don't think we can point the finger at her vaccines as the culprit.) My material grandmother also had breast cancer in her 30's, had a mastectomy and lived to age 97. All my cousins got their vaccines. They are all in various states of good health. My son got all his vaccines and thankfully had no adverse reactions. All my friends were vaccinated and they all vaccinated their kids.

Of all the people that I know, all have been vaccinated as kids and get updated vaccines as per their doctor's recommendation.

I do have one niece who is severely autistic. She seemed normal up until she approached the age of 2, and then regressed and was subsequently diagnosed. It is tragic, but there is no way to know the cause. Was it a genetic disorder of some kind, was it due to pollution, or was it something else?

To sum up what I'm rambling about trying to say: Based on my own life experiences, I know a lot of people who have spent their lives free from devastating illnesses, such as polio, rubella, smallpox, or measles. In my admittedly small sample, I have several relatives who have had cancer. Three survived; one did not. One has autism, no known cause. 50-60 years of anecdotal evidence may not count for much, but taking that in conjunction with known medical evidence/opinions on the overall safety of vaccines, I think if standard vaccines caused cancer, this would have become evident by now. (And if it takes 60 years for the cancer to show up, I think I'd still take the vaccines and enjoy my 60+ years of being protected from polio, measles, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you planning to base the entirety of your child's medical care on a single thread from an internet board dedicated to snarking on fundamentalist religion? Or might you actually talk to your doctor?

Of course I will talk to my doctor. I stated I would take the tests they want to prove I don't have STDs and that my child doesn't need this medication. If my child does need the medication they will receive it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I saw people bringing up how awful GMOs, pesticides, etc are and what not -- I forgot who all made those claims, and I'm not going to go back to find someone to quote -- and I want to know what all you are doing besides "not trusting the FDA," shopping at places like Whole Foods (which, hate to break it to you, actually sells conventionally farmed foods, just like every other chain grocer), and demanding new laws. Because if you're not doing anything else, you're contributing to the problem.

Only 3 million acres in the United States is used to produce fruits and vegetables. There are 318.9 million people in the country. That's 409.78 sq feet per person. But then, 1 out of ever 3 acres of every type of agriculture is exported. So, really, it's 2 acres for 318.9 million people in the country. That's 273.19 sq feet per person. To produce enough fruits and vegetables to make up 2300 calories a day (this does not include corn and it does not include any grains) per person, you need 19166.5 acres when farmed in a traditional way. Farmers have to find a way to increase their yields to make up for the 18893.31 acres they DON'T have to work with. That means genetically modifying foods to increase the amount of food they produce, use pesticides, work with less variety, etc.

Furthermore, consumer waste is a huge problem. Just look at the meat industry. In 2012, 103.6 lbs of red meat and 80.3 lbs of poultry was retailed per capita in America. 49.6% of the red meat and 50.8% of the poultry is lost yearly because of waste. That's 51.39 lbs of red meat and 40.79 lbs of poultry lost yearly PER PERSON in America. That's at least 359.729999 pounds of feed wasted every year PER PERSON for red meat production and at least 81.58 pounds of feed wasted every year PER PERSON for poultry. And this doesn't count eggs, dairy products, animal fibers, or any other form of animal product, nor does it count the loses those products face; nor does it take into account the amount of fruits and vegetables wasted every year, which adds even more to the strain those farmers are under to meet demands.

Unless you're making sure not to waste your foods, unless you're working to produce your own foods, etc, you're going to contribute to the need farmers feel to turn towards GMOs, pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I want to know is what the FDA would do if it were discovered that vaccination greatly increases your risk of having the Dragon of Unhappiness fly up your bum while you're sitting on the toilet.

I mean, as long as we're discussing hypotheticals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I saw people bringing up how awful GMOs, pesticides, etc are and what not -- I forgot who all made those claims, and I'm not going to go back to find someone to quote -- and I want to know what all you are doing besides "not trusting the FDA," shopping at places like Whole Foods (which, hate to break it to you, actually sells conventionally farmed foods, just like every other chain grocer), and demanding new laws. Because if you're not doing anything else, you're contributing to the problem.

Only 3 million acres in the United States is used to produce fruits and vegetables. There are 318.9 million people in the country. That's 409.78 sq feet per person. But then, 1 out of ever 3 acres of every type of agriculture is exported. So, really, it's 2 acres for 318.9 million people in the country. That's 273.19 sq feet per person. To produce enough fruits and vegetables to make up 2300 calories a day (this does not include corn and it does not include any grains) per person, you need 19166.5 acres when farmed in a traditional way. Farmers have to find a way to increase their yields to make up for the 18893.31 acres they DON'T have to work with. That means genetically modifying foods to increase the amount of food they produce, use pesticides, work with less variety, etc.

Furthermore, consumer waste is a huge problem. Just look at the meat industry. In 2012, 103.6 lbs of red meat and 80.3 lbs of poultry was retailed per capita in America. 49.6% of the red meat and 50.8% of the poultry is lost yearly because of waste. That's 51.39 lbs of red meat and 40.79 lbs of poultry lost yearly PER PERSON in America. That's at least 359.729999 pounds of feed wasted every year PER PERSON for red meat production and at least 81.58 pounds of feed wasted every year PER PERSON for poultry. And this doesn't count eggs, dairy products, animal fibers, or any other form of animal product, nor does it count the loses those products face; nor does it take into account the amount of fruits and vegetables wasted every year, which adds even more to the strain those farmers are under to meet demands.

Unless you're making sure not to waste your foods, unless you're working to produce your own foods, etc, you're going to contribute to the need farmers feel to turn towards GMOs, pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, etc.

First, can you please provide your source for the statistics, as these are of interest to me and I want to look it up myself. In particular I'm suspicious of that 3 million acre claim, and also of the acres/square feet (which I think you have conflated here).

Second, I didn't post about GMOs on this thread, but I am indeed opposed to GMOs and pesticides. What am I going to do about it? Well, I grow a garden, I support my local farmer's market and other opportunities to buy local/no-spray food, and I also often buy organic when I must buy non-local. I'm not rigid about it and I'm sure I still eat plenty of "conventional" agriculture food, but I'm working to reduce the proportion of that in my diet.

Oh, and I've never even been in a Whole Foods. (and only into a Trader Joe's once, to get something my mom requested when I was visiting her and taking her shopping)

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.