|
Philosophy Religions, schools of thought, matters of importance and navel-gazing |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
10-08-2007, 03:41 PM | #1 | |
New Kid in School
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 25
|
Social Obligations & Immunization
Quote:
My reasonable reaction is that there would never be a smooth transition from a fully or mostly immunized population to a non- or lowly immunized population; so sure, there would be a transitory period whereby disease levels may appear to rise. But that would have to also take into account the many other factors that go into assessing levels, including but not limited to a rise in inaccurate diagnoses based on a larger but not necessarily more accurate awareness of disease/symptoms. Or even a rise in accurate diagnoses based on ever-improving awareness of disease/symptoms. I don't think there is a clear right/wrong WRT immunizations, I really don't. We all just look at the data available, and do what feels right. I reserve judgement for those who don't bother to investigate the data available, and make uneducated decisions (whichever decision they make). Ignorance isn't bliss, it's irresponsible. So .... Herd Immunity. Reporting of Disease Levels. Coke v. Pepsi. Will she ever realize she is the only one here using internet shorthand in every single post. Did Joanie love ChaChi??? Discuss.
__________________
***** we interrupt this broadcast to introduce Vivian ... recommended by 3 out of 4 online forums |
|
10-08-2007, 03:51 PM | #2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I will not allow any immunizations that are made from/with toxins and have not.
Fortunately our Dr. has access to the newest versions and agrees with me. |
10-08-2007, 03:56 PM | #3 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 2,655
|
So, Vivant, talk smallpox to me. I really want to know your take on that. Also, what's your background, qualifications?
|
10-08-2007, 08:44 PM | #4 | |
New Kid in School
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 25
|
Quote:
Smallpox has been successfully treated homeopathically for centuries. On the off-chance I contract smallpox (most likely to happen from an act of terrorism) this will be my first course of action. I might still die. I might still die of smallpox even if I had been immunized for smallpox. It's a gamble either way, and we all have to weigh the odds unique to our respective situations. My biggest concern about smallpox: Do we trust that the live-virus vaccine of decades past will hold up to the genetically reproduced version of the disease that we are most likely to encounter today? Your thoughts? Again, I'm not out to change anyone's mind OR to have my mind changed. I simply enjoy exchanges of information and understanding where other people come from in reaching the decisions and beliefs that they do. I'll spare you the Kumbaya. this time.
__________________
***** we interrupt this broadcast to introduce Vivian ... recommended by 3 out of 4 online forums |
|
10-08-2007, 09:10 PM | #5 | |
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
|
Quote:
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox...ease-facts.asp
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! |
|
10-08-2007, 09:54 PM | #6 | |
New Kid in School
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 25
|
Quote:
My ex-husband has been vaccinated for the same diseases. It's been a few years, though, but at the time the recommendation was NOT to immunize the entire population for smallpox. Is smallpox now a recommended immunization for civilians? If 3 out of 10 people become infected with smallpox, the recommendation at the time of my ex-husband's last shot was to isolate the outbreak. Vaccinate those who came into contact with the infected; then vaccinate those who came into contact with those who came into contact with the infected. There was a 3-5 day window from the point of exposure, where the smallpox vaccine was believed effective. Maybe that has changed in the few years since we were married, I don't know. I don't lose sleep over smallpox. Or my ex-husband As Aliantha points out, we take chances with our kids every day. Preventable chances, be they car rides or immunizations or exposure to disease. 3:10 seems a safe gamble to me, even if the stakes are higher I still feel comfortable with the numbers.
__________________
***** we interrupt this broadcast to introduce Vivian ... recommended by 3 out of 4 online forums |
|
10-09-2007, 01:14 PM | #7 | |||
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 2,655
|
Quote:
Quote:
No one gets innoculated against small pox anymore. The disease is considered to be eradicated BECAUSE of widespread innoculations, NOT homeopathic treatments. So, if you were exposed to a small pox outbreak at some unknown point in the future, chances are good that it would be the result of terrorists getting hold of one of the two sources of small pox left in the world: a culture maintained by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta or another culture which is maintained somewhere in the former Soviet Union. Quote:
"Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya..." |
|||
10-08-2007, 06:44 PM | #8 | |
trying hard to be a better person
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 16,493
|
I think people who live in cultures where millions of people from past generations have gone to the trouble of immunising their children, not only for the benefit of their children (as a personal choice) and for the betterment of society (as a moral choice), and then choose not to immunise their children are being incredibly short sighted.
Quote:
With regard to the possible chance of your child having serious side effects from immunisation, it's all a crock of shit if you even take your child in the car with you because I'm telling you now as a fact, that your child is more likely to suffer damaging side effects from a car accident than they are from immunisation. We live in a society that has worked miracles to make our lives healthier. If you choose not to take advantage of that then that's your personal choice, but before too long we'll see parents being sued by their partners or getting court orders for immunisation over this issue, if in fact it hasn't already happened.
__________________
Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber |
|
10-08-2007, 09:10 PM | #9 | |||
New Kid in School
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 25
|
Quote:
Morality is a trickier topic, and the main interest of my original post. I do feel a certain morality towards society, as indicated by many of the personal choices I make day-to-day. However at the end of the day - an d I've already admitted my myopia here, my primary responsibility (and therefore my moral obligation) rest with my children. I won't do what I personally perceive to be wrong to them, for the socially perceived better good. Quote:
I ask, then: if our moral obligation is to eradicate all disease, and/or to "take advantage" of the "miracles" that "make our lives healthier" ... what is our moral obligation in addressing issues that stem from compensating for the rise in population and resulting further taxing of resources? Quote:
__________________
***** we interrupt this broadcast to introduce Vivian ... recommended by 3 out of 4 online forums |
|||
10-08-2007, 07:01 PM | #10 |
trying hard to be a better person
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 16,493
|
And one other thing also, if you think the risk of catching the disease is lower than the risks associated with the immunisation, why do you think that is?
It's because a few generations ago the risks of catching the disease were far higher than the risks associated with immunisation. What that means for those people now considering not immunising their children is that they're going to send society back to the times when parents lived in fear of their healthy child being stuck down by some terrible disease, only now they'll have the guilt of knowing they could have prevented it.
__________________
Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber |
10-08-2007, 07:51 PM | #11 | |
Come on, cat.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: general vicinity of Philadelphia area
Posts: 7,013
|
Do the people who immunize think that there is a finite list of diseases and that we can just make vaccines and check them off the list until human are disease free?
Do they not notice the rise in immune system related disorders - or do they think it's ok because kids don't get measles or chicken pox anymore? Oh, wait, they still do.... its just more frequent now to have a kid drop dead from an asthma attack or a peanut allergy than miss a week of school from measles. What about the possibility of some diseases protecting against others? What about the dangers of an overly hygienic society? Quote:
__________________
Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good. |
|
10-08-2007, 08:24 PM | #12 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
I agree with Alia, my Dad is a germphobe and we argue all the time about my son getting "dirty"... I think it is good for em' and science backs me up. |
|
10-08-2007, 08:40 PM | #13 |
Come on, cat.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: general vicinity of Philadelphia area
Posts: 7,013
|
What way? With no toxins? I'm having a hard time believing that, can you tell me a brand name of a specific vaccine that is toxin free? No mercury, formaldehyde, sorbitol, phenol, aluminum, 2-phenoxyethanol, sodium tetraborate etc etc.?
__________________
Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good. |
10-09-2007, 01:27 AM | #14 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Now, most of the complex salts, no, they still have them, but we break them down pretty quickly. But, if it has a heavy metal or solid toxin... no, he does not get it. Again, he has not missed one and has had many of his voluntary shots for a four-year-old. We have a progressive Dr. Most won't even tell you that they are available. |
|
10-08-2007, 09:32 PM | #15 | |
New Kid in School
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 25
|
Quote:
But I think that is a bullshit answer, so I'll retort with this instead: How did people survive disease and outbreak before the advent of popular immunization? The weak died; they always do whether it's disease. poverty. internet forums. The strong survived, and became naturally immune. They then passed these natural immunities down to their descendants via genes, and even through social behaviors such as breastfeeding. Statistically, a "healthy child" would survive a "terrible disease" ... a weak child (whether recognized as such, or not) would not. This is true even within the immunized population; side effects DO happen, however statistically minute you desire to present them as. (I don't care either way, as it isn't my reason for not immunizing). But I'll remove my evol. biologist hat for just a second to ask for clarification - What (other than immunization schedules) can share attribution to the decrease in disease? Increased hygiene. (As opposed to over-hygiene as seems the case of late) Better standards of living. Less crowding. Even for someone who supports immunization, surely you acknowledge that the decrease in disease isn't derived SOLELY from immunization ... right?
__________________
***** we interrupt this broadcast to introduce Vivian ... recommended by 3 out of 4 online forums |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|