Anti Vaxxers are stupid

[BrAinPaiNt]

What if it's the other way around? I mean, I think that if you are going to send parents to jail for not allowing vaccinations to their children, then you should also do the same for these people who are making money off of big Pharma when they introduce something that harms children and lets face it, it's not as if that has not happened in the past. Right now, that doesn't happen. Big Pharma pays a fine, settles and it's a drop in the bucket on the prophet line. Not only the President of whatever company but the board, anybody who is making profit on those drugs should see time. In for a little, in for a lot, so to speak. I'm OK with making parents responsible but not until the people who are really making money off of this stuff get the same type of justice. I'm also not in favor of schools just arbitrarily giving children treatments without the knowledge or consent of parents and that has also happened in the past. That's not right, to me. I am for vaccinations but I am not for taking the choice away from there parents. Parents are ultimately responsible for their children. I know that if anything happened to mine, no sentence would be worse then the pain of having to live with the fact that I allowed something terrible to happen to my kid.

I said if they develop conditions or diseases from NOT taking them. So if a kid's parents refuse to have them vaccinated for Polio and later the kid gets Polio...I think the parents should be punished for that.

At the same time...if a parent can prove that a vaccination caused a condition or disease to a child...they have the ability to sue Pharma. They have legal rights they can take to try to seek punishment from big Pharma....and I have NO problem. with that if they can prove it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I said if they develop conditions or diseases from NOT taking them. So if a kid's parents refuse to have them vaccinated for Polio and later the kid gets Polio...I think the parents should be punished for that.

At the same time...if a parent can prove that a vaccination caused a condition or disease to a child...they have the ability to sue Pharma. They have legal rights they can take to try to seek punishment from big Pharma....and I have NO problem. with that if they can prove it.

I understand what you said BP but that doesn't change the fact that there have been several vaccinations, in the past, that have caused serious illness, even death, after the fact. Parents neither have the money to fight Big Pharma or they are too old or even dead, by the time it happens. The afflicted can fight them but they can be dead before there is ever a ruling. Even if you win, all you get is money and that doesn't bring back the life of somebody who is afflicted. That money to Big Pharma, is nothing. That's no punishment to those guys. When they start going to jail or they start seeing a death penalty, then I'm OK with prosecuting parents. Until then, nope. Justice has to go both ways and one is way more financial prepared to deal with those legalities, then is the other. One has the deck stacked, overwhelmingly, in their favor. The other could be 100% right and never win because of all the other battles that have to be fought before it even gets to a jury.

To be clear, I am for vaccinations but I am not in favor of making parents responsible for decisions, such as this, with their children. It's a pretty big can of worms we are talking about here. Not all of these are Polio vaccinations. Some of these are for much, much different reasons and parents have the right to make decisions on behalf of their children. This kind of law is far reaching with lots of other applications in other areas. Just makes me uneasy to have this kind of thing in place.

That's just my opinion BP.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I said if they develop conditions or diseases from NOT taking them. So if a kid's parents refuse to have them vaccinated for Polio and later the kid gets Polio...I think the parents should be punished for that.

At the same time...if a parent can prove that a vaccination caused a condition or disease to a child...they have the ability to sue Pharma. They have legal rights they can take to try to seek punishment from big Pharma....and I have NO problem. with that if they can prove it.

So what is the vaccine saves millions; but occasionally has an adverse affect on a few people, but no way to figure out which people would be negatively affected by it?

This absolutely is the case with many drugs now.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I understand what you said BP but that doesn't change the fact that there have been several vaccinations, in the past, that have caused serious illness, even death, after the fact. Parents neither have the money to fight Big Pharma or they are too old or even dead, by the time it happens. The afflicted can fight them but they can be dead before there is ever a ruling. Even if you win, all you get is money and that doesn't bring back the life of somebody who is afflicted. That money to Big Pharma, is nothing. That's no punishment to those guys. When they start going to jail or they start seeing a death penalty, then I'm OK with prosecuting parents. Until then, nope. Justice has to go both ways and one is way more financial prepared to deal with those legalities, then is the other. One has the deck stacked, overwhelmingly, in their favor. The other could be 100% right and never win because of all the other battles that have to be fought before it even gets to a jury.

To be clear, I am for vaccinations but I am not in favor of making parents responsible for decisions, such as this, with their children. It's a pretty big can of worms we are talking about here. Not all of these are Polio vaccinations. Some of these are for much, much different reasons and parents have the right to make decisions on behalf of their children. This kind of law is far reaching with lots of other applications in other areas. Just makes me uneasy to have this kind of thing in place.

That's just my opinion BP.

I think if you can prosecute parents, then why even give them the options of not allowing the vaccination? Just have the vaccination required by law and be done with it. The prosecution would be for them breaking the law just like tax evasion or anything else like that.

 

[nobody]

I think if you can prosecute parents, then why even give them the options of not allowing the vaccination? Just have the vaccination required by law and be done with it. The prosecution would be for them breaking the law just like tax evasion or anything else like that.

Too many people refusing vaccinations breaks the concept of herd immunity and is detrimental to society as a whole. Sometimes individual liberty must be curtailed when talking about the good of humanity as a whole.

That being said, choice is important. I would make the law something like you can choose to not get vaccinations, but that negates the child's right to attend public school, negates their ability to get government scholarships, negates the possibility of government subsidized healthcare or supplementary income, etc. Remove them from society as much as possible without outright shipping them off to a remote location.

 

[DFWJC]

I think if you can prosecute parents, then why even give them the options of not allowing the vaccination? Just have the vaccination required by law and be done with it. The prosecution would be for them breaking the law just like tax evasion or anything else like that.

Exactly. Unless it is illegal, you sure can't prosecute for something like that.

If they wish to make it illegal, then go for it.
But we already know that "illegal" has become a VERY flexible term in some part of the country.

You know what. If they also put a little GPS tracker device in one of the shots, that too might save lives by knowing exactly where everyone is at any give n time!.
Or maybe they could take track that the pre-WWII intellectuals in Europe were doing--and just kill off the really old or, if defective, at birth. Would save billions!
Cool!

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I understand what you said BP but that doesn't change the fact that there have been several vaccinations, in the past, that have caused serious illness, even death, after the fact. Parents neither have the money to fight Big Pharma or they are too old or even dead, by the time it happens. The afflicted can fight them but they can be dead before there is ever a ruling. Even if you win, all you get is money and that doesn't bring back the life of somebody who is afflicted. That money to Big Pharma, is nothing. That's no punishment to those guys. When they start going to jail or they start seeing a death penalty, then I'm OK with prosecuting parents. Until then, nope. Justice has to go both ways and one is way more financial prepared to deal with those legalities, then is the other. One has the deck stacked, overwhelmingly, in their favor. The other could be 100% right and never win because of all the other battles that have to be fought before it even gets to a jury.

To be clear, I am for vaccinations but I am not in favor of making parents responsible for decisions, such as this, with their children. It's a pretty big can of worms we are talking about here. Not all of these are Polio vaccinations. Some of these are for much, much different reasons and parents have the right to make decisions on behalf of their children. This kind of law is far reaching with lots of other applications in other areas. Just makes me uneasy to have this kind of thing in place.

That's just my opinion BP.

The parents still have the right. I never disputed that.
However with rights come some responsibility.

If a parent denies health care to their child and the denial of said health care causes the child to developed serious health issues and or death that could have been prevented ...They should be held accountable IMO.

We can agree to disagree on this topic. However this country would be in MUCH better shape and health care costs be much better if we took preventative health care MUCH MUCH more serious.

However in this country we have too many parents and individuals who have an attitude that nobody should tell me how to raise my child even if doing so is designed to help the child. I mean when a campaign that is there to help a child be healthy and is basically saying they should eat a good variety of foods including vegetables and try to knock out the high sugar content foods...some parents act like idiotic fools screaming...nobody tells me what to feed my kid. Little johnny might be fat as a watermelon and breaths heavy just walking to the bathroom but don't dare suggest a healthy meal routine because that is telling me what to do with my own child.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think if you can prosecute parents, then why even give them the options of not allowing the vaccination? Just have the vaccination required by law and be done with it. The prosecution would be for them breaking the law just like tax evasion or anything else like that.

If it goes both ways, then yeah, maybe that would be fair but it's too one sided to me. Besides, there something called the 1st amendment that protects anybody who has religious convictions that prevent vaccination. That's not going to get changed any time soon.

Aside from that, most States have laws already in place that force common vaccinations for common diseases. You don't get into school with out immunizations etc.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The parents still have the right. I never disputed that.
However with rights come some responsibility.

If a parent denies health care to their child and the denial of said health care causes the child to developed serious health issues and or death that could have been prevented ...They should be held accountable IMO.

We can agree to disagree on this topic. However this country would be in MUCH better shape and health care costs be much better if we took preventative health care MUCH MUCH more serious.

However in this country we have too many parents and individuals who have an attitude that nobody should tell me how to raise my child even if doing so is designed to help the child. I mean when a campaign that is there to help a child be healthy and is basically saying they should eat a good variety of foods including vegetables and try to knock out the high sugar content foods...some parents act like idiotic fools screaming...nobody tells me what to feed my kid. Little johnny might be fat as a watermelon and breaths heavy just walking to the bathroom but don't dare suggest a healthy meal routine because that is telling me what to do with my own child.

If this is your belief, which is fine, then don't you think that those who are responsible for actually harming children through the use of immunizations should also be held responsible? You said earlier that if it can be proven then fine, sue them or what have you but don't you think that the punishment for one side is much greater then the punishment for the other? You sue Big Pharma and they have decreased profits for a year or two, maybe. You kill a child and they are never coming back. That's not equitable. Before you can institute any kind of requirement on a parent that forces them to make that kind of decision for their children, you have to make the punishment fair. You can't ask them to go along with a system that is designed to be so favorable to one side and not the other. You will never get consensus on that. You can't pass a law like this to send parents to prison for making decisions like that and then just slap other side with a fine or some such. That's wrong to me.

 

[Rockport]

I know someone who works in the health sector. One of his favorite sayings is "if alternative medicine really worked it would no longer be alternative medicine...it would be real medicine."

That’s stupid because alternative medicine that does work does become real medicine, i.e. acupuncture, etc.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

If this is your belief, which is fine, then don't you think that those who are responsible for actually harming children through the use of immunizations should also be held responsible? You said earlier that if it can be proven then fine, sue them or what have you but don't you think that the punishment for one side is much greater then the punishment for the other? You sue Big Pharma and they have decreased profits for a year or two, maybe. You kill a child and they are never coming back. That's not equitable. Before you can institute any kind of requirement on a parent that forces them to make that kind of decision for their children, you have to make the punishment fair. You can't ask them to go along with a system that is designed to be so favorable to one side and not the other. You will never get consensus on that. You can't pass a law like this to send parents to prison for making decisions like that and then just slap other side with a fine or some such. That's wrong to me.

I am advocated punishing either side...you seem to be advocating that you cannot punish either side because the punishment would not be the same...at least that is what it sounds like to me. Not sure that makes much sense.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I am advocated punishing either side...you seem to be advocating that you cannot punish either side because the punishment would not be the same...at least that is what it sounds like to me. Not sure that makes much sense.

Actually, that's not accurate. Right now, you can really only punish one side and that's Pharma because the other side, under very specific circumstances, is protected by the 1st amendment. My point is, and I don't see this happening anytime soon, that if you make laws that force parents to do something that infringes on their rights, you better have a really strong public support for it because it means that you are going to have to overturn a constitutional right. The idea that you can unilaterally force a parent to subject their child to something goes against hundreds of years of law in this country. That's not going to go away easily. I am saying that being able to punish Big Pharma better be something along the lines of jail time for all who profited and were involved in producing something that took the life of somebodies child. Suing for millions is not equitable. Unless of course, your punishment for a parent who does not want to immunize their child, which may result in death, is also some sort of fine? I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm saying you should do it fairly if that is what you want to pass law around.

 

[csirl]

That’s stupid because alternative medicine that does work does become real medicine, i.e. acupuncture, etc.

I dont think Chinese mythology re mystical points in the body is real medicine.

 

[Rockport]

I dont think Chinese mythology re mystical points in the body is real medicine.

Nothing mystical about it. Just science.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Too many people refusing vaccinations breaks the concept of herd immunity and is detrimental to society as a whole. Sometimes individual liberty must be curtailed when talking about the good of humanity as a whole.

That being said, choice is important. I would make the law something like you can choose to not get vaccinations, but that negates the child's right to attend public school, negates their ability to get government scholarships, negates the possibility of government subsidized healthcare or supplementary income, etc. Remove them from society as much as possible without outright shipping them off to a remote location.

That's pretty much the way it is now. I mean, if you don't get immunizations, then they don't allow you to register your kids for public schools, in most States. I don't think you can withhold federal funding for these people,if there is no real threat of public endangerment. I mean, these people, as they grow up will contribute to the tax base so you can't just say, "you pay but you don't play" out of hand. I don't think that that would fly legally but I'm not a lawyer so who knows?

 

[Melonfeud]

Too many people refusing vaccinations breaks the concept of herd immunity and is detrimental to society as a whole. Sometimes individual liberty must be curtailed when talking about the good of humanity as a whole.

That being said, choice is important. I would make the law something like you can choose to not get vaccinations, but that negates the child's right to attend public school, negates their ability to get government scholarships, negates the possibility of government subsidized healthcare or supplementary income, etc. Remove them from society as much as possible without outright shipping them off to a remote location.

You forgot the negates part where their ineligible to run for public office in order to overturn such Stalinist type of mandate,Too!

 

[Keithfansince5]

I said if they develop conditions or diseases from NOT taking them. So if a kid's parents refuse to have them vaccinated for Polio and later the kid gets Polio...I think the parents should be punished for that.

At the same time...if a parent can prove that a vaccination caused a condition or disease to a child...they have the ability to sue Pharma. They have legal rights they can take to try to seek punishment from big Pharma....and I have NO problem. with that if they can prove it.

if a parent can prove that a vaccination caused a condition or disease to a child...they have the ability to sue Pharma. They have legal rights they can take to try to seek punishment from big Pharma....and I have NO problem. with that if they can prove it

Apparently you did not pay attention to what I had already posted. Pharma CANNOT be sued. As absolutely idiotic as it seems, it is true here in good ole corporate America. Furthermore, there are proofs proving that vaccines cause serious problems but they continually keep getting silenced. Plenty of scientists have come out against vaccines and have written articles in journals that are published, and they just get glossed over in time. If the scientist doesn't consent to the program they get fired. So if a scientist in the pharmaceutical field can't even make a difference when they expose problems with a drug, how is "a parent" going to do this?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is “responsible for protecting the public health by regulating human and animal drugs, biologics (e.g. vaccines and cellular and gene therapies), medical devices, food and animal feed, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.”

Most people think the FDA approves all drugs on the market today, but that’s not true. Some drugs are not subject to FDA approval (ex. “compounded” drugs), and others are only reviewed after they’re put on the market. Read more about the FDA approval process here.

Since the FDA was created, thousands of dangerous drugs have entered the market and caused harmful side effects, including serious illnesses and wrongful deaths. While the FDA has become better at finding potentially dangerous drugs, many have slipped through their fingers and made it to market.

You might think that if the FDA approved a dangerous drug which caused you harm, you’d be able to sue the FDA for their negligence. Unfortunately, the FDA is a government agency, therefore it has sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is a legal privilege stating government agencies can’t be sued (unless they allow it, which rarely occurs).

Gotta love the highlighted. Yep, we are the rats. Well not me, but you are. Oh wait, you have nothing to worry about. All drugs are 100% safe. I read it right here on this forum.

Pharmaceutical Drug Companies
Before 2013, drug companies could be sued if their drug caused serious adverse side effects, injury, illness, or death. They paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in drug lawsuit settlements and jury verdicts.

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court made a historical decision. In the case of Karen Bartlett vs. U.S. Merck and Co. and Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, the Supreme Court ruled that once the FDA approves a drug, individuals are prohibited from suing the drug’s manufacturer, even if it’s proven that the drug caused harm!

In the Bartlett case, the plaintiff took the drug Sulindac, which allegedly caused her to suffer gangrene in her right arm as a result of “toxic epidermal necrolysis.” The Supreme Court ruled that, because the FDA approved the drug Sulindac, the manufacturer has immunity from private and class action lawsuits.

Basically, the ruling stated drug manufacturers have a right to rely on the FDA approval system, and once a drug is FDA approved, pharmaceutical companies can’t be sued. Otherwise, the court said, why does the FDA exist at all?

What this means to you is, if you’ve suffered a serious side effect or illness from an FDA approved medication, you are barred from filing a lawsuit against the manufacturer. (Supreme Court rulings are rarely overturned, but in the future it may happen.)

 

[Keithfansince5]

I think if you can prosecute parents, then why even give them the options of not allowing the vaccination? Just have the vaccination required by law and be done with it. The prosecution would be for them breaking the law just like tax evasion or anything else like that.

Yep COMMUNISM here we come......Bravo!

 

[Keithfansince5]

Too many people refusing vaccinations breaks the concept of herd immunity and is detrimental to society as a whole. Sometimes individual liberty must be curtailed when talking about the good of humanity as a whole.

That being said, choice is important. I would make the law something like you can choose to not get vaccinations, but that negates the child's right to attend public school, negates their ability to get government scholarships, negates the possibility of government subsidized healthcare or supplementary income, etc. Remove them from society as much as possible without outright shipping them off to a remote location.

More communism propaganda. BTW, I thought your vaccinations worked? If so, what are you worried about? I mean, your kid would be 100% safe from whatever the sickness or illness is right. Aren't the kids who have NOT been immunized the ones who would potentially come down with the illness?

 

[Keithfansince5]

Exactly. Unless it is illegal, you sure can't prosecute for something like that.

If they wish to make it illegal, then go for it.
But we already know that "illegal" has become a VERY flexible term in some part of the country.

You know what. If they also put a little GPS tracker device in one of the shots, that too might save lives by knowing exactly where everyone is at any give n time!.
Or maybe they could take track that the pre-WWII intellectuals in Europe were doing--and just kill off the really old or, if defective, at birth. Would save billions!
Cool!

I hope this is sarcasm?