Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ignorance of Science Can be Deadly

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by OJsDad View Post

    So, how many unborn babies has given their ok to being murdered by their mothers.
    Thing is, if a pregnant woman is willing to abort her fetus, would she be a good and competent mother if she had the child ???

    I'd be in favor of a guv'mint funded program to assist women whom don't want to keep the child, to go through with the birth and then put the child up for adoption. Better yet, with technology advancing the way it is, might we eventual have a process where the fetus could be removed and transplanted to another womb, or an artificial one ?
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      But, if the vaccine works and most have it, only the unvaccinated in such a case would be endangered and that's their choice.
      There is another subset of kids that is often missed.

      There is an average of 43 kids being diagnosed with cancer everyday. Treatment involves suppressing their immune systems. While in treatment (my son's was 1,164 days) these kid's immune system do not have the ability to fight minor infections. This lasts for a good 6 month after they take their last chemo, at that point a titer is done to establish a baseline immunity. Our son had to get all of his childhood vaccinations redone.

      Our county's requirements are:


      Your child must be immunized against Diphtheria, Pertussis (whooping cough), Tetanus (DPT), Poliomyelitis (IPV/OPV), Measles (Rubeola), Mumps, Rubella (MMR), Hepatitis B, and Chicken Pox (Varicella). Preschool students must also have Pneumococcal vaccine series. The following are required of all students:
      • Four doses of DTaP, with one dose after the fourth birthday; for all new students as of fall 2010
      • Four doses of IPV/OPV, with one dose after the fourth birthday; for all new students as of fall 2010
      • Two doses of Measles and Mumps vaccine, and one dose of Rubella vaccine (usually given as MMR) , first dose given at 12 months and second dose at 4 years old/before entering school
      • Three doses of Hepatitis B following the recommended schedule
      • Two doses of Varicella vaccine for students entering kindergarten as of fall 2010; at least one dose Varicella vaccine for all students, two does required for grades K-6
      • A Tdap (Tetanus, Diphtheria and Pertussis) booster is required of students grades 6-12
      • An HPV(Human Pappillomavirus) vaccine is recommended for girls entering 6th grade as of fall 2009. FDA approval has been made for boys to also receive HPV.
      • A Pneumococcal vaccine (PCV) booster is required of all students age 24 to 60 months as of 2014.

      Immunization records must show the month, day, and year of vaccines received as well as signature of health care provider.

      Students who do not have the necessary immunizations and/or a physical examination will not be allowed to attend school. However, students may be conditionally enrolled if their health records indicate that they have had a current dose of the vaccines and parents present a written schedule from a physician for completing the immunizations within ninety days of enrollment.


      The above pretty much covers it and should present a solution but there is a religious waiver:

      http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/..._exemption.pdf

      Our son ended up going to a Catholic grade school for 1st, 2nd, & 3rd grades because that school gave no exemptions; every child had to have current vaccinations.



      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

        Thing is, if a pregnant woman is willing to abort her fetus, would she be a good and competent mother if she had the child ???

        I'd be in favor of a guv'mint funded program to assist women whom don't want to keep the child, to go through with the birth and then put the child up for adoption. Better yet, with technology advancing the way it is, might we eventual have a process where the fetus could be removed and transplanted to another womb, or an artificial one ?
        Giving the child up for adoption is a viable option. Abortion for the convenience of the mother, as in she couldn't be bothered being pregnant, or as a form of birth control is murder.
        We are not now that strength which in old days
        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

          I think that the anti-vaxxers are free to do with their own bodies as they wish.
          But they are not also entitled to expose me to risk.

          I will liken it to alcohol use.
          I do not believe that the government has a right to regulate one's alcohol use in the home, but once that person gets on the public highway or otherwise endangers the public, then the government has a right to regulate that behavior.


          I do not approve of anti vaxxers because usually they are endangering lives other than their own. i.e. their children
          Anti-vaxxing is still behaviour that endangers others. And they are exposing you to risks. Admittedly not directly from the things you are vaccinated against, mostly... Indirectly we are looking at trouble when there is a need to confront new diseases that we might be able to stop through vaccination, but with enough anti-vaxxers around won't be able to reach the necessary immunization threshold to stop an epidemic.

          Also, all vaccines do not guarantee 100% protection. If the anti-vaxxers are numerous enough to allow a disease panorama we thought we had seen off to return, there are things you even when vaccinated will have start taking into account again as a risk. Vaccination doesn't just take people out of the danger when exposed. It removes the risk of exposure. (Makes the population as whole inhospitable to whatever causes the disease, but it really only works if enough of the population is inhospitable.)

          Which is also why anti-vaxxers have been able to do this – since most are still vaccinated they have a measure of protection by these diseases being relatively rare still... They're not vaccinated, and hey, nothing (too bad) has happened (yet). With enough of them around they won't be protected like that eventually. But then we will ALL be exposed to possible infections in amounts that we have not seen for an age. At which point levels of protection from vaccine will become important, and a lot of people vaccinated will also fall ill regardless.

          Tuberculosis used to be regarded as a hereditary disease. Some people were just not genetically susceptible (still aren't), while most are. And back in the day the tb-bacillus was everywhere, so everyone was massively exposed to it. Early genetics had no trouble calculating the hereditary aspects of it all.

          It's very dissimilar from alcohol abuse. As epidemiologies go I'd say they're completely different beasts.

          Should carriers of the AIDS virus be allowed to do what they like with their bodies in relation to others? Still no vaccine, so no need to be against it in that case.

          Comment


          • #20
            Yep. Simply being unvaccinated and in public is essentially a health hazard. Unless we put these clowns in quintessential leper colonies they constitute a safety threat. You can safely and responsibly consume alcohol. You can't safely and responsibly be an anti vaxxer.
            A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
              Anti-vaxxing is still behaviour that endangers others. And they are exposing you to risks. Admittedly not directly from the things you are vaccinated against, mostly... Indirectly we are looking at trouble when there is a need to confront new diseases that we might be able to stop through vaccination, but with enough anti-vaxxers around won't be able to reach the necessary immunization threshold to stop an epidemic.

              Also, all vaccines do not guarantee 100% protection. If the anti-vaxxers are numerous enough to allow a disease panorama we thought we had seen off to return, there are things you even when vaccinated will have start taking into account again as a risk. Vaccination doesn't just take people out of the danger when exposed. It removes the risk of exposure. (Makes the population as whole inhospitable to whatever causes the disease, but it really only works if enough of the population is inhospitable.)

              Which is also why anti-vaxxers have been able to do this – since most are still vaccinated they have a measure of protection by these diseases being relatively rare still... They're not vaccinated, and hey, nothing (too bad) has happened (yet). With enough of them around they won't be protected like that eventually. But then we will ALL be exposed to possible infections in amounts that we have not seen for an age. At which point levels of protection from vaccine will become important, and a lot of people vaccinated will also fall ill regardless.

              Tuberculosis used to be regarded as a hereditary disease. Some people were just not genetically susceptible (still aren't), while most are. And back in the day the tb-bacillus was everywhere, so everyone was massively exposed to it. Early genetics had no trouble calculating the hereditary aspects of it all.

              It's very dissimilar from alcohol abuse. As epidemiologies go I'd say they're completely different beasts.

              Should carriers of the AIDS virus be allowed to do what they like with their bodies in relation to others? Still no vaccine, so no need to be against it in that case.


              Either you misunderstood or I explained it poorly.
              I agree that the anti-vaxxers should not be permitted to expose others to risk.

              If they can work out a way not to expose others to risk,they can do as they wish (IMO). Essentially, that means they must be exiled from interaction with other humans if they chose to skip vaccines.

              They have no right to expose others to risk of deadly disease.
              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

              Comment


              • #22
                This young man is very smart:

                https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/04/healt...nes/index.html
                We are not now that strength which in old days
                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X