California lawmakers seek to end 'personal belief' vaccine exemptions

[elohiym]

"New American research shows that there could be a link between the controversial MMR triple vaccine and autism and bowel disease in children"

That's not my quote or claim. I quoted a British online newspaper and asked you what facts you dispute. Did I rebut? No.

Specifically refuted by the lead author of that very research that allegedly shows such a link.

He isn't disputing that he found measles from vaccines in the guts of autistic children with bowl disorders, is he?

"Here is a list of 28 studies that support Wakefield's findings"

I did claim that, but should have said allegedly support Wakefield's findings.

I already cited one which does not in that list of 28, and that was the very first one I looked at...

The study evaluated children diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorders and found that 22.7 percent has GI symptoms. How does that not support Wakefield's findings?

... this gives me great doubt that the others are any better.

What would constitute support or replication of Wakefield's findings? Explain how you would try to replicated his findings.

I don't have the time or patience to examine all of them ...

But you still want to imply that none of them support or replicate Wakefield's findings?

It's interesting that out of all the claims and points I've made on this thread you can only think to attack something I claimed while trying to understand why people kept bringing up Wakefield in this conversation. I still don't know why some of you think he's relevant to this conversation. He supports measles vaccination, so that makes it seem even stranger to me some keep bringing him up.

And how do vaccine requirements for children infringe upon your freedom of religion?

It is my personal religious belief, and I don't have to justify it to you or anyone.

If vaccines are not mandated for the entire population, why mandate them for school children?

Because children are not capable of making an informed decision on the matter at such a young age. If adults wish to put themselves in harms way they are free to do so in most respects, they however cannot put children in harms way.

You are implying that adults who have not received their vaccines do not put children in harms way. You are implying herd immunity is not important.

Are you referring to something outside of allergic reactions? Because children which have allergies to the ingredients are not permitted to receive them.

How will someone know if my child is allergic to the ingredients in a vaccine?

Those that knowingly and put children in harms way should be held accountable.

Sometimes they are, but I believe most of the time they get away with it.

The rationale between anti-vaxxers refusing vaccines for their children and Christian Scientists who refuse medical treatment for their children is the same: Infringement upon personal beliefs and parental sovereignty over the welfare of their children.

Parental sovereignty over the welfare of their children? :shocked:

Do you believe the state and medical doctors should have sovereignty over the welfare of people's children?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

That's not my quote or claim. I quoted a British online newspaper and asked you what facts you dispute. Did I rebut? No.

And what claims have you made?

He isn't disputing that he found measles from vaccines in the guts of autistic children with bowl disorders, is he?

I don't know where any such suggestion is made. I think you are reading into the report things that are not there.

I did claim that, but should have said allegedly support Wakefield's findings.

A false Allegation.

The study evaluated children diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorders and found that 22.7 percent has GI symptoms. How does that not support Wakefield's findings?

A percent not discordant with non-autistic children, as noted by the report.

What would constitute support or replication of Wakefield's findings? Explain how you would try to replicated his findings.

A random respectably sized (30 or more) sampling of a juvenile MMR recipients, with a statistically significant higher percentage of Autism.

Have anything like that?

But you still want to imply that none of them support or replicate Wakefield's findings?

Per the null hypothesis, yes.

It's interesting that out of all the claims and points I've made on this thread you can only think to attack something I claimed while trying to understand why people kept bringing up Wakefield in this conversation. I still don't know why some of you think he's relevant to this conversation. He supports measles vaccination, so that makes it seem even stranger to me some keep bringing him up.

Because his work is the (sole) clinical basis of the alleged Autism-MMR link.

It is my personal religious belief, and I don't have to justify it to you or anyone.

So it violates your religious rights but you can't explain why?

You are implying that adults who have not received their vaccines do not put children in harms way. You are implying herd immunity is not important.

Teachers, child-care workers, medical professionals, virtually anyone that works with children are required to received vaccinations.

How will someone know if my child is allergic to the ingredients in a vaccine?

As far as I am aware the only allergy associated with MMR are those associated with egg allergies. You should know if your child has an egg allergy, and if you are unsure, they are simple tests that can determine this. Furthermore there are eggless alternatives. Every time I have received the MMR booster I have been asked if I have an egg allergy.

Sometimes they are, but I believe most of the time they get away with it.

That is a litigation issue, not a vaccine issue.

Parental sovereignty over the welfare of their children? :shocked:

Do you believe the state and medical doctors should have sovereignty over the welfare of people's children?

No, though there are some obvious and reasonable exceptions as there always are. Do parents have the legal right to feed their children dog-food everyday? What if the parent(s) really believe the dog-food has exceptional healing and nutritional properties? I didn't think so.

 

[MAD Max]

The most reasoned arguments presented on this subject were given by Dr Bernadine Healy who was director of National Institutes of Health (NIH) in a CBS News interview:

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/healy-on-vaccine-autism-link/

We don't really know what Autism is (the medical community redefines it nearly every year), but we do know that there is a connection between toxins and brain damage.

The government, CDC/Pharma, and the media are creating hysteria over these measles outbreaks to create fear, in order to make mandatory vaccines a major political debate in the 2016 elections. It's the prefect way to get many on the right (including the candidates) to turn left, and support more government control. This may indeed lead to the deaths of many Americans, not because of vaccines or diseases, but because people will defend their right to not have their babies injected with toxins.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

The most reasoned arguments presented on this subject were given by Dr Bernadine Healy who was director of National Institutes of Health (NIH) in a CBS News interview:

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/healy-on-vaccine-autism-link/

We don't really know what Autism is (the medical community redefines it nearly every year), but we do know that there is a connection between toxins and brain damage.

The government, CDC/Pharma, and the media are creating hysteria over these measles outbreaks to create fear, in order to make mandatory vaccines a major political debate in the 2016 elections. It's the prefect way to get many on the right (including the candidates) to turn left, and support more government control. This may indeed lead to the deaths of many Americans, not because of vaccines or diseases, but because people will defend their right to not have their babies injected with toxins.

Perhaps you can elaborate on which 'toxins' you are referring to?

 

[Nick M]

Perhaps you can elaborate on which 'toxins' you are referring to?

The ones that clearly affect your cognitive reasoning.

 

[MAD Max]

Perhaps you can elaborate on which 'toxins' you are referring to?

Bovine cow serum
Sorbitol
Thimerosal
Formaldehyde
Phenoxyethanol
Aluminum phosphate
MSG

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Bovine cow serum
Sorbitol
Thimerosal
Formaldehyde
Phenoxyethanol
Aluminum phosphate
MSG

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal_faqs.html#d

I will get to the rest of these later. Though I will just say that if anyone had any good evidence that the ingredients caused real harm to in the dosages present in the mmr vaccines, you could expect manufacturers to get sued into oblivion. And there has been ample time and people using them where such evidence would be available.

Despite numerous studies that have proven the safety of thimersol, public outcry has caused manufacturers to remove the ingredient from vaccines.

 

[shagster01]

So nobody here who supports this policy ever answered if they support abolishing any personal belief exemption by doctors in the case of abortion too.

 

[elohiym]

... there is no point in me presenting the clinical evidence to you which refutes quite decidedly the claims you are making, because you will dismiss it out of hand.

What claims am I making that you can refute? If you make a good argument, I will not dismiss it.

You asserted I have made claims you can refute with "clinical evidence." Go for it.

And what claims have you made?

You don't know what the claims are that claim you can refute with "clinical evidence?" Interesting.

He isn't disputing that he found measles from vaccines in the guts of autistic children with bowl disorders, is he?

I don't know where any such suggestion is made. I think you are reading into the report things that are not there.

Here is a quote from a news release from Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center:

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. – An American scientist whose research replicates a connection published in England in 2002 between the measles virus and bowel disease in autistic children strongly warns against making the “leap” to suggesting that the measles vaccine might actually cause autism.

“That is not what our research is showing,” said Stephen J. Walker, Ph.D., an assistant professor of physiology and pharmacology at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center. Walker and colleagues have issued an abstract to be presented at this week’s International Meeting for Autism Research, indicating that a high percentage of autistic children that they have tested with chronic bowel disease show evidence of measles virus in their intestines.​

Are the highlighted statements true or not? If those statements are true, how exactly do they not support the legitimate portions of Wakefield's finding?

I still don't know why some of you think he's relevant to this conversation. He supports measles vaccination, so that makes it seem even stranger to me some keep bringing him up.

Because his work is the (sole) clinical basis of the alleged Autism-MMR link.

How is his work the sole clinical basis of the alleged Autism-MMR link? How would someone conclude the connection from the wording of his findings?

So it violates your religious rights but you can't explain why?

Of course I can explain why; but there is no point to me explaining why in this discussion.

You are implying that adults who have not received their vaccines do not put children in harms way. You are implying herd immunity is not important.

Teachers, child-care workers, medical professionals, virtually anyone that works with children are required to received vaccinations.

Yet the rest of the public the children interact with is not mandated to receive vaccinations. They are still free to refuse medical procedures. Society isn't being protected by mandating that only certain classes of people must receive vaccinations. It's a travesty.

Do you believe the state and medical doctors should have sovereignty over the welfare of people's children?

No, though there are some obvious and reasonable exceptions as there always are. Do parents have the legal right to feed their children dog-food everyday? What if the parent(s) really believe the dog-food has exceptional healing and nutritional properties? I didn't think so.

We are discussing the right to refuse a medical procedure. What is your argument that parents should not be able to refuse vaccinations for their children?

 

[Rusha]

So nobody here who supports this policy ever answered if they support abolishing any personal belief exemption by doctors in the case of abortion too.

Different situation, entirely. All abortion ends an innocent life which is why I will never support abortion.

In the case of denying children life-saving vaccines based on whatever reasoning people wish to claim, the only way this should come into play is if the parent(s) in question are willing to sign a legal agreement barring them from having their children interact with other children.

Denying these vaccinations is in the same category as parents who deny their children lifesaving blood transfusions or other emergency medical intervention based on their religious preferences.

 

[shagster01]

Different situation, entirely. All abortion ends an innocent life which is why I will never support abortion.

In the case of denying children life-saving vaccines based on whatever reasoning people wish to claim, the only way this should come into play is if the parent(s) in question are willing to sign a legal agreement barring them from having their children interact with other children.

Denying these vaccinations is in the same category as parents who deny their children lifesaving blood transfusions or other emergency medical intervention based on their religious preferences.

It's not so different if the mom's life is in danger.

 

[genuineoriginal]

In the case of denying children life-saving vaccines based on whatever reasoning people wish to claim, the only way this should come into play is if the parent(s) in question are willing to sign a legal agreement barring them from having their children interact with other children.

Why should a parent have to sign such a legal agreement?

Are you afraid they will sue you for allowing your vaccinated children to pass on infectious diseases to them?

 

[Rusha]

It's not so different if the mom's life is in danger.

Most abortions are not done for the purpose of saving the mother's life. Abortions, OTOH, always take the life of an innocent child.

With the situation of denying vaccinations, the child/children who are prevented from receiving these vaccinations are at risk themselves BUT more importantly, they put other children who they come into contact with at risk.

Personal beliefs should never trump the health and well being of innocent children, both unborn and born.

 

[genuineoriginal]

With the situation of denying vaccinations, the child/children who are prevented from receiving these vaccinations are at risk themselves BUT more importantly, the put other children who they come into contact with at risk.

So, your claim is that unvaccinated children put other children at risk?

Are you not aware that fully vaccinated children can pass infectious diseases to others as well?

Are you not aware that vaccinations create a false sense of protection against infectious diseases that can lead people to foolishly expose vulnerable children to infectious vaccinated people?

 

[Angel4Truth]

So, your claim is that unvaccinated children put other children at risk?

yes, because they can infect people with weak immune systems that cannot be vaccinated and children too young to be vaccinated.

 

[MAD Max]

It's fine if someone wants to inject the blood of their child with toxic poisons, as long as they keep their child away from mine. Anyone who wants to force my child to get a shot in the arm, will receive one in the head.

 

[genuineoriginal]

yes, because they can infect people with weak immune systems that cannot be vaccinated and children too young to be vaccinated.

So, you want to force other people to use dangerous vaccines on their children because some irresponsible parents will not take common sense steps to protect their own children from infectious diseases despite knowing that their own children are unable to survive dangerous vaccines?

Why are you trying to put the blame on the innocent?

 

[Angel4Truth]

So, you want to force other people to use dangerous vaccines on their children because some irresponsible parents will not take common sense steps to protect their own children from infectious diseases despite knowing that their own children are unable to survive dangerous vaccines?

No, you are welcome to keep your children at home if you won't vaccinate them.

 

[genuineoriginal]

No, you are welcome to keep your children at home if you won't vaccinate them.

You are welcome to keep your vaccinated children at home as well.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You are welcome to keep your vaccinated children at home as well.

Why, you are the one who doesn't want to comply and put other people at risk.

Its real easy, if the school requires vaccination to attend and you dont want to vaccinate, keep them at home.