Parents, be wary of the hidden danger of vaccines!

Alternative Medicine
121
They don't do that Lausten. You are unfairly condemning Natural News when they have done nothing wrong. They said you should look it up yourself. Read the entire report.
Exactly, I should look it up myself. Actually you should, you're the one who says it's true. Prove it. Show me the 108 cases. How did Natural News find them? What search criteria did they use? What do they mean be "associated". A real piece of scientific research would answer all of those questions up front so someone could replicate their study and review their data. Luckily there are other people who have that kind of time and attempt to find the same results. They then shows us their work. But you won't look for that because it would disagree with your preconceived notions. Just like that video disagreed with you, so you dismissed it. Here's the question of the week, why do you accept what Natural News tells you but dismiss what the CDC tells you? I've explained this upthread. Now you're learning it firsthand. Peacegirl believes two things are true: anything and everything that her father wrote (even though she keeps changing her father's text! You're a liar. I never changed the concept whatsoever. That is what is at issue here.
Her father believed that light was made of molecules; we schooled her and pointed out that light was made of photons. In the text of her father's daffy book, she changed every instance of "molecules" to "photons," but of course she never thanked us for schooling her, and indeed brazened it out and maintained that her father never wrote a false line! Why? Because, she said, if her father had been wrong, he would have admitted that he was wrong. Since he never admitted that he was wrong, he was never wrong!) Just try and grok that. I mean, Wow! The second thing she believes is true, is anything she wants to believe is true. For her, those things are true. I pointed out to her upthread that in her father's book, he attacked vaccines. She denied that he did. I told her it was in the book! And people have copies of the book. Only then did she admit that she put that stuff in there herself. That is, the self-described "editor and compiler" of the book, which she says is infallible, keeps altering the infallible text. She still seems unable to grasp the fact that people have, on their hard drives, old versions of the book before she went in and changed it.
If what Lessans discovered is a grok, then you should feel confident that no one will listen. Why do you think you have to follow me everywhere I go? Don't you think people have brains to decide for themselves whether he was right or wrong? You are making people look like imbeciles. He never talked about vaccines in any of his books. I brought it up and I'm glad I did as an example of first do no harm, which doctors, Big Pharma, and the FDA/CDC are not heeding.
122
I brought it up and I'm glad I did as an example of first do no harm, which doctors, Big Pharma, and the FDA/CDC are not heeding.
So are you proposing that we ban chemo therapy, among others, because it actually harms the person? Just let them die of cancer and don't harm them.
123
I pointed out to her upthread that in her father's book, he attacked vaccines. She denied that he did. I told her it was in the book! And people have copies of the book. Only then did she admit that she put that stuff in there herself. That is, the self-described "editor and compiler" of the book, which she says is infallible, keeps altering the infallible text. She still seems unable to grasp the fact that people have, on their hard drives, old versions of the book before she went in and changed it.
When did she claim to have added the text about vaccines to the book? I believe she claimed to have been revising it when she was posting on FF.
124

One of the more bizarre things that Lessans did when he published the book is that he would not include an index. He claimed that for the book to make sense it needed to be read from the beginning to the end in order. I suppose it didn’t occur to him that readers could scan the book and mark down the page numbers of the various chapters for themselves. But then a reader who wasn’t smart enough to do that would be just the reader that Lessans was aiming for because they would accept his ideas without question, because they would not have had any ideas of their own. BTW, asking readers to read from beginning to the end in order, really didn’t help, it still didn’t make any sense, it was just a jumble of unrelated thoughts and fantasies.

125
I pointed out to her upthread that in her father's book, he attacked vaccines. She denied that he did. I told her it was in the book! And people have copies of the book. Only then did she admit that she put that stuff in there herself. That is, the self-described "editor and compiler" of the book, which she says is infallible, keeps altering the infallible text. She still seems unable to grasp the fact that people have, on their hard drives, old versions of the book before she went in and changed it.
When did she claim to have added the text about vaccines to the book? I believe she claimed to have been revising it when she was posting on FF. Post 77 in this very thread.] Notice this is after she accused me of lying that it was in the book; then, realizing others have copies of the book, she furiously backpedaled and admitted it was in the book, but that she put it there -- even though the book, she says, is infallible, and not open to questions or alterations! :lol:
126

Parents, be doubly wary of the known dangers of communicable childhood diseases.
Diphtheria anyone? Polio? Whooping cough? Scarlet Fever?
Lois

127
I pointed out to her upthread that in her father's book, he attacked vaccines. She denied that he did. I told her it was in the book! And people have copies of the book. Only then did she admit that she put that stuff in there herself. That is, the self-described "editor and compiler" of the book, which she says is infallible, keeps altering the infallible text. She still seems unable to grasp the fact that people have, on their hard drives, old versions of the book before she went in and changed it.
When did she claim to have added the text about vaccines to the book? I believe she claimed to have been revising it when she was posting on FF. Post 77 in this very thread.] Notice this is after she accused me of lying that it was in the book; then, realizing others have copies of the book, she furiously backpedaled and admitted it was in the book, but that she put it there -- even though the book, she says, is infallible, and not open to questions or alterations! :lol: Arrrrgh! I meant what date did she revise the book, or which edition of the book did she claim included her revisions?
128
Parents, be doubly wary of the known dangers of communicable childhood diseases. Diphtheria anyone? Polio? Whooping cough? Scarlet Fever? Lois
Oh my goodness, NO, according to Peacegirl the risk from the vaccine is much greater, one in a million could be harmed, as opposed to all of them getting these serious diseases during childhood? One thing that should be pointed out is that the resistance from actually surviving the disease is much better and more long lasting than the resistance from the vaccination, even though they could die from actually getting the illness. "But if they are like to die, let them, and reduce the surplus population" - Charles Dickens.
129
I pointed out to her upthread that in her father's book, he attacked vaccines. She denied that he did. I told her it was in the book! And people have copies of the book. Only then did she admit that she put that stuff in there herself. That is, the self-described "editor and compiler" of the book, which she says is infallible, keeps altering the infallible text. She still seems unable to grasp the fact that people have, on their hard drives, old versions of the book before she went in and changed it.
When did she claim to have added the text about vaccines to the book? I believe she claimed to have been revising it when she was posting on FF. Post 77 in this very thread.] Notice this is after she accused me of lying that it was in the book; then, realizing others have copies of the book, she furiously backpedaled and admitted it was in the book, but that she put it there -- even though the book, she says, is infallible, and not open to questions or alterations! :lol: Every file I ever put online was my compilation David. You don't have any of Lessans' books so don't tell me what he did or didn't include. The knowledge is infallible. Man does not have free will whether you can see this absolute truth or not. The rest of his discoveries are so far removed from your knowledge and capabilities that they aren't worth discussing with you around. I am tired of your false accusations.
130
Parents, be doubly wary of the known dangers of communicable childhood diseases. Diphtheria anyone? Polio? Whooping cough? Scarlet Fever? Lois
Lois, look at the facts. In England, from 1876 to 1880, years before the diphtheria antitoxin was introduced, the diphtheria death rate was 1.22 per 10,000. However, from 1896 to 1900, after the diphtheria antitoxin was introduced and mandated, the diphtheria death rate soard to 2.72 per 10,000 --- a 123 percent increase. In New York, from 1875 to 1894, years before the antitoxin was introduced, the diphtheria death rate had declined on its own by 45 percent. From 1891 to 1895, there were 36,000 cases of the disease. However, from 1896 to 1900, after the antitoxin was introduced, there were 62,000 cases of the disease --- a 72 percent increase. Massachusetts jumped from 13,000 to 28,000 cases during these same years --- a 115 percent increase. According to J.T. Biggs, a public health officer who analyzed the data, "The most startling feature of the report of 1895 to 1901 is the higher fatality rate in those inoculated with antitoxin when compared with the untreated cases." The diphtheria death rate continued to plummet long before the vaccine was introduced. In the Unitated States, from 1900 to 1930, diphtheria fatalities declined by more than 85 percent. In fact, mortality from the disease decreased from 7.2 deaths per 10,000 in 1911 to .9 deaths per 10,000 in 1935 --- an 88 percent decline. Vaccine Safety Manual by Neil Z. Miller
131

Polio/Scarlet fever:
In 1963, Sabin’s oral vaccine quickly replaced Salk’s injectable shot. It is cheaper to make, easier to take, and appears to provide greater protection, including “herd immunity” in unvaccinated people. However, it cannot be given to people with compromised immune systems. Plus, it is capable of causing polio in some recipients of the vaccine, and in individuals with compromised immune systems who come into close contact with recently vaccinated children. As a result, in 2000, the CDC “updated” its U.S. polio vaccine recommendations, reverting back to policies first implemented during the 1950s; children should only be given the killed-virus shot. The oral polio vaccine should only be used in “special circumstances.”
When national immunization campaigns were initiated in the 1950s, the number of reported cases of polio following mass inoculations with the killed-virus vaccine was significantly greater than before mass inoculations, and may have more than doubled in the U.S. as a whole. For example, Vermont reported 15 cases of polio during the one-year report period ending August 30, 1954 (before mass inoculations), compared to 55 cases of polio during the one-year period ending August 30, 1955 (after mass inoculations) — a a 266% increase. Rhode Island reported 22 cases during the before inoculatons period as compared to 122 cases during the after inoculations period — a 454% increase. In New Hampshire the figures increased from 38 to 129; in Connecticut they rose from 144 to 276; and in Massachusetts they swelled from 273 to 2027 — a whopping 642% increase.
Smallpox had already stopped infecting people in more than 8 out of 10 countries throughout the world when WHO launched a worldwide vaccination campaign against smallpox in 1967. At that time, only 131,000 cases were reported. Yet, authorities credit their global initiative with eliminating the disease. Some medical historians question the validity of this claim. Scarlet fever and the plague infected millions of people. Vaccines were never developed for these diseases yet they disappeared as well.
Several reputable historians credit multiple public health activities — sanitation and nutrition reforms — with reducing the incidence and severity of the early problematic diseases including smallpox, plague, dysentery, scarlet fever, typhoid, and cholera. During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, "the etiology of disease was largely unrecognized and the breeding places of disease were undiscovered. With the advent of the industrial revolution, droves of people left the countryside to seek employment in the cities. Unsanitary and crowded living conditions contributed to the spread of disease. Protective measures were inconsistently applied before health authorities coordinated community efforts to: 1) clean streets, backyards, and stables, 2) remove trash, construct sewage systems, and properly dispose of human waste, 3) drain swamps, marshes, and stagnant pool, 4) purify the water supply, 5) improve the roads so that food could be rapidly transported to the cities and distributed while still fresh and nutritious.
Vaccine Safety Manual by Neil Miller

132

Pertussis
Pertussis epidemics were relatively common in Europe during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. Outbreaks were also common in America. By the 1930s, 73 percent of all U.S. children under 10 were exposed to the disease and a small percentage died. Today, pertussis is rarely fatal. However, when infants under six months contract the disease, it can be serious and life-threatening. There is no specific treatment for pertussis. Antibiotics and cough suppressants have been used, but with little effect, and are generally not recommended.
The first “whole-cell” pertussis vaccine was developed in the early 1900s and put into general use during the mid-1930s and early 1940s. In 1946, the pertussis vaccine was mixed with vaccines for diptheria and tetanus. This became known as DPT, the world’s first “three-in-one” combination shot. In 1981, Japan replaced DPT with DTaP because it contains a supposedly safer “acellular” form of pertussis. The United States switched from DPT to DTaP in 1996.
The current DTaP vaccine developed for infants 6 weeks to 7 years of age contains Bordetella pertussis antigens, Corynebacterium diptheriae toxoid, plus Clostridium tetani cultures “grown in a Peptone-based medium containing a bovine extract.” This combination vaccine also contains 170 mcg of aluminum, “a trace amount of thimerosal” (a mercury derivative), gelatin, polysorbate 80, and polio virus and pepatitis B as well - a “five-in-one” shot! It also contains 850 mcg (!) of aluminum, neomycin sulfate, polymyxin B, polysorbate 80, residual formaldehyde, and yeast protein. (The DPT vaccine that was eventually removed form the market after 50 years of pediatric use contained 25 mcg of thimerosal per dose.)
In 1954, researchers at the U.S. Public Health Service developed the first test to determine whether the pertussis vaccine is safe for children: they injected the vaccine into the bellies of young mice to see if they would die. If the mice lived and gained weight, the vaccine was considered safe and was approved by the FDA. The United States never conducted its own clinical tests in children to determine whether the pertussis vaccine is safe. Instead, it relied on data collected by Great Britain during the 1950s on children between six months and one-and-a-half years of age. Even though 42 of these children had convulsions within 28 days, 80 percent of the babies were 14 months of age or older, and the tests were designed to measure the efficacy —not safety— of the vaccine, U.S. health authorities used these results as evidence that the vaccine is safe to give to babies as young as six weeks of age. In fact, a two month old baby weighing less than ten pounds receives the same dose of pertussis vaccine as a 50 pound child entering preschool.
The pertussis vaccine may cause fever as high as 106 degrees, pain, swelling, diarrhea, projectile vomiting, excessive sleepiness, high-pitched screaming (not unlike the so-called cri encephalique, or encephalitic scream associated with central nervous system damage), inconsolable crying bouts, seizures, convulsions, collapse, shock, breathing problems, brain damage, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). In one report, serious reactions (including grand mal epilepsy and encephalopathy) were shown to be as high as one in 600. In another study, approximately one out of every 200 children who received the full DPT series suffered severe reactions (shock-collapse or convulsions).
The manufacturer lists several serious adverse reactions that have been reported after its DTaP vaccine was licensed and mass marketed. These include anaphylaxis, encephalopathy, grand mal convulsion, thrombocytopenia, hypotonia, neuropathy, autism, apnea and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Several other serious reactions were reported by DTaP manufacturers (including the maker of the five-in-one shot); swelling of the mouth, difficulty breathing, cranial mononeuropathy, brachial neuritis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system, neuroblastoma, gastroenteritis, bronchiolitis, asthma, diabetes, chronic neutropenia, seizures, convulsions, bulging fontanelle, cyanosis, lymph-adenopathy, arthralgia, myalgia, angioedema, alopecia, apnea, and death.
Vaccine Safety Manual by Neil Z Miller

133
Here's the question of the week, why do you accept what Natural News tells you but dismiss what the CDC tells you?
Lausten, this is going to go nowhere. Unless we can let our guards down and have a conversation, not a debate, which implies a winner and loser, it will have no good outcome whatsoever on either side. That is how polarized this issue has become. Sam Harris crystallizes the problem. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/final-thoughts-on-chomsky I'm familiar with Harris, and read the whole email exchange earlier. I have no idea how you are comparing you and I to this situation, there are so many possible to view it. My guard is completely down. I've asked you the same questions I've asked many people, and received a variety of answers. I'm not debating. I've pointed a few times where I have decided not to present counter arguments or follow lines of thought. I'm mostly interested in your motivation. The issue is not polarized. It's established scientific fact, then there are people like you. I just saw a great battle of the billboards. One is a challenge from some anti-vax group, challenging Paul Offit MD to a public debate. The other challenges that group to discover something worthwhile and publish it in a peer reviewed journal.
134
Here's the question of the week, why do you accept what Natural News tells you but dismiss what the CDC tells you?
Lausten, this is going to go nowhere. Unless we can let our guards down and have a conversation, not a debate, which implies a winner and loser, it will have no good outcome whatsoever on either side. That is how polarized this issue has become. Sam Harris crystallizes the problem. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/final-thoughts-on-chomsky
I'm familiar with Harris, and read the whole email exchange earlier. I have no idea how you are comparing you and I to this situation, there are so many possible to view it. My guard is completely down. I've asked you the same questions I've asked many people, and received a variety of answers. I'm not debating. I've pointed a few times where I have decided not to present counter arguments or follow lines of thought. I'm mostly interested in your motivation. The issue is not polarized. It's established scientific fact, then there are people like you.
This is exactly what Harris was talking about. It's about having a conversation rather than a debate with people hurling insults at one another, which is far from productive. Why are you insulting me Lausten by saying "then there are people like you?" You think this is good conversation? I call it bullying. You obviously have an axe to grind and I cannot relate to someone like that.
I just saw a great battle of the billboards. One is a challenge from some anti-vax group, challenging Paul Offit MD to a public debate. The other challenges that group to discover something worthwhile and publish it in a peer reviewed journal.
A peer review panel is not the end all. Often empirical results and reviews by peers are just plain unreliable.
135
A peer review panel is not the end all. Often empirical results and reviews by peers are just plain unreliable.
Ah Ha, poison the well of the accepted standard of empirical evidence and then parade out all the WOO you can find.
136

Vaccination Mandate Legislation: The One Where We Find Out Who We Really Are
Rubber meets the roadBy Ginger Taylor

Things have changed over the last few months. The attack on parents who are calling out the corruption in the vaccine program, and on those refusing to ignore their intellect and their conscience when making vaccine decisions, has become shrill and is now in the process of becoming codified into law.
The Public Private Partnership of Public Health and Pharmaceutical Corporations are now trying to bar children from school (and in some cases adults from their places of employment) if they do not agree to inject a cadre of vaccines that are classified by law as “unavoidably unsafe." And this is being done in the absence of any serious threat to public health.
The measures have already failed in Oregon, Washington, Maryland, North Carolina, New Mexico, Illinois and Texas, but are still under consideration in California, Vermont and Maine. In California and Vermont, legislators and lobbyists have taken to using some dirty tricks to ram these bills through the legislatures despite the outcry of very angry parents and disability rights activists. In Vermont, parents were barred from even testifying on a bill that would throw children out of both public and private school (even special needs children) who are so much as missing one Hepatitis B vaccine. Some Vermont Senators actually took the position on the floor of the Senate that their state didn’t have an obligation to educate these children (or allow them enter a private school), and those families who wanted their children educated would have to sue the state.
It has presented a fork in the road to many who have not had to make a hard choice in this issue so far.
Over the last few months, in conversations with those new to the fight to prevent vaccine injury and get proper care for those who have been hurt, and those in positions to speak with authority on vaccine choice and vaccine safety, there has been a running question.
“What will happen to me if I speak out?"
They are afraid of repercussions. They see what happens to the social lives, public perceptions and careers of those who have spoken boldly on vaccine corruption and stood up for vaccine choice, and they are afraid. They don’t want to get Wakefielded.
And who can blame them. Because the answer to that question can range from, “Nothing bad will happen to you, and you will start to hear many thanks from people for speaking out on their behalf," to, “The mainstream media will call you an anti-vaccine nut job, your relatives will disown you, your boss will fire you and you will loose your house."
For random parents, it is usually closer to the former, but for professionals with a large platform to speak from and an audience to influence, it can be closer to the later.
But in thinking about how to answer people, a few things have occurred to me.
Our generation has sat in a comfortable place in history, and often judged quite harshly those who didn’t stand up for the injured and oppressed minorities of only a generation or two ago.
We all seem to believe that we would have marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, and parked ourselves at lunch counters in the south until our black friends were served. We all seem to believe that we would have hidden Anne Frank in our attics and kept Jews out of the camps by employing them like Oscar Schindler. We all believe that we would have been a stop on an underground railroad.
And we believe it because we know now, from the safety of our vantage point in history, that those that did were right and honorable and the best of us. And we want to believe that we are like them. We want to believe we are who they were.
We all want to believe that we would have walked next to Elizabeth Eckford as she tried to simply go to school.
Elizabeth-Eckford-1957
But how much more serious was the threat to them for what they did, than the threat to us for speaking out and saying, “Pharma is hurting children, CDC is corrupt, vaccine safety researchers are under DOJ and Congressional investigations for fraud, the vaccine program is not safe, families don’t have to participate if they don’t want to, the vaccine injured must be cared for and the marginalization of unvaccinated people must end?"
“What will happen to me if I speak out?"
You will not be rousted from your bed in the middle of the night and disappeared. You will not be lynched. You will not be put into a concentration camp. You will not be impressed into slavery. You will not be set on fire. You will not be raped. You will not have your children taken from you. You will not be shot on your lawn in front of your family and your neighbors.
What will happen to you is that some people might not like you and might not want to associate with you any more, and that might cost you money and standing. That’s it.
Is that worth preventing the removal of the rights of citizens of the United States to decide what does or does not go into their own bodies and the bodies of their children? Is that worth preventing throwing both healthy and disabled children out of their education?
This is the episode where we find out who we really are.
Who are we really?
-Ginger Taylor, MS, HealthChoice.org

137

If not for vaccines, since the initiation of a measles vaccine, it is easy, from a cursory review of data, that, literally tens of thousands of Americans who would have likely died from measles, didn’t die from measles.
How many people have died from getting the measles vaccine during that same time?
The numbers just don’t even come close to justifying an anti-measles vaccine stance.
Should we continue to look closely at problems associated with vaccines? I think so. Can vaccines be made safer for more people? Probably. Should we be extraordinarily careful about the load of vaccines that are being place on infants and toddlers? I think so. Should we stop vaccinating? Of course not, except in the rare cases that are medically deemed to be a greater risk than not vaccinating.

138

Tim this is the problem you will come across with all of these misguided antivaxxers. They live in the glow of the post vaccine era where the incidence of these deadly and crippling diseases have been so successfully and drastically reduced that they have convinced themselves that there is almost no risk. Unfortunately that is not true.
These illnesses were not chased into the shadows by good sanitation or better medical treatment. There is NO treatment for measles, mumps, rubella, polio and many of the other diseases we vaccinate for and sanitation did not eradicate small pox from the slums of India and other similar places. Vaccines did that.
Unlike small pox though the world has not mustered the inspiration and commitment to vaccinate enough people to eradicate measles, mumps, rubella, and polio form the human population so that we no longer have to vaccinate for them. So these disease continue to exist in pockets around the world.
The antivaxxers claim that the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of the illness but this reasoning ignores the fact that as soon as we leave enough people unvaccinated these diseases will return back to their former deadly ubiquity.
To follow their logic we should stop vaccinating and allow these diseases to return. Only when there are sufficient people dying again should we then vaccinate. Of course they only want other people vaccinated so that they can leach off of heard immunity and not take any risk themselves however miniscule from vaccines.
Following this practice we would see episodes of devastating epidemics followed by periods of relative calm and up and down we would go riding this wave of insanity into eternity.

139
This is exactly what Harris was talking about. It's about having a conversation rather than a debate with people hurling insults at one another, which is far from productive. Why are you insulting me Lausten by saying "then there are people like you?" You think this is good conversation? I call it bullying. You obviously have an axe to grind and I cannot relate to someone like that.
I just saw a great battle of the billboards. One is a challenge from some anti-vax group, challenging Paul Offit MD to a public debate. The other challenges that group to discover something worthwhile and publish it in a peer reviewed journal.
A peer review panel is not the end all. Often empirical results and reviews by peers are just plain unreliable.
"People like you" is the most neutral thing I can possibly say. Why would you interpret that as an insult? You just stated again that you don't accept science, so that sets you apart from all of the people who have worked on, created and continue to maintain the vaccine system. There's them, then there's you and others like you. I asked you what you want to be called, but you didn't answer. You put down everyone and everything related to vaccines, doctors, the CDC, mothers who vaccinate, on and on, but you go ape when someone says "people like you". Pretty sad.
140
This is exactly what Harris was talking about. It's about having a conversation rather than a debate with people hurling insults at one another, which is far from productive. Why are you insulting me Lausten by saying "then there are people like you?" You think this is good conversation? I call it bullying. You obviously have an axe to grind and I cannot relate to someone like that.
I just saw a great battle of the billboards. One is a challenge from some anti-vax group, challenging Paul Offit MD to a public debate. The other challenges that group to discover something worthwhile and publish it in a peer reviewed journal.
Paul Offit said it would be okay to give children 10,000 shots. Is that pure idiocy or what? Vaccine Doctor Given at Least $30 Million Dollars to Push Vaccines? June 25, 2009 Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia earned millions of dollars as part of a $182-million sale by the hospital of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine. The amount of income distributed to Offit could be as high as $46 million. Offit has refused to say how much he made from the vaccine. The high price placed on the patents raises concerns over Offit’s use of his former position on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to help create the market for rotavirus vaccine -- effectively, to vote himself rich. Offit’s claim to a share of the profits from Rotateq revenues is based on his role as a listed inventor on the cluster of patents that protect Merck’s vaccine. Paul Offit had a great personal interest in Rotateq’s commercial success, and more than any other individual in the world he found himself in a position to directly influence that success. Unlike most other patented products, the market for mandated childhood vaccines is created by the recommendation of an appointed body, ACIP. From 1998 to 2003, Offit served as a member of ACIP. Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Defend Vaccine Exemptions With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it's critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educating the leaders in your community http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/06/25/vaccine-doctor-given-at-least-30-million-dollars-to-push-vaccines.aspx
A peer review panel is not the end all. Often empirical results and reviews by peers are just plain unreliable.
"People like you" is the most neutral thing I can possibly say. Why would you interpret that as an insult? You just stated again that you don't accept science, so that sets you apart from all of the people who have worked on, created and continue to maintain the vaccine system. There's them, then there's you and others like you. I asked you what you want to be called, but you didn't answer. You put down everyone and everything related to vaccines, doctors, the CDC, mothers who vaccinate, on and on, but you go ape when someone says "people like you". Pretty sad.
I did not say that. I said that in the case of vaccines, it is not as clear cut as you think. There are known side effects in some children and there is no test to pre-screen which children are susceptible. Trying to force parents to vaccinate their children or be thrown out of school is going to cause a serious backlash. I do not put anyone down who wants to vaccinate, but by the same token all parents should be given the right to do what they think is best for their children without ridicule or penalty. Moreover, there are many parents who have observed marked changes in their children right after a vaccine. You can't tell me that there is no correlation between the shot and the changes in behavior (some devastating) just because the report was anecdotal. And I already said, call me by my name. You don't have to classify me as an anti-vaxer which you know has a negative connotation and puts me in an inferior position. Saying, "People like you" is also negative. You could have said "people who take your position". You know that sounds better so why didn't you say it that way? I'm sure you know why. :-S The person an audience will favor is not always based on objective thought but on who is the loudest and the meanest.