DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Xavier_Onassis on August 14, 2015, 12:15:57 PM
-
http://gizmodo.com/a-simple-flowchart-to-help-you-decide-if-you-should-vac-1682742133 (http://gizmodo.com/a-simple-flowchart-to-help-you-decide-if-you-should-vac-1682742133)
-
(http://blog.gbta.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/baltimore-sun-logo-446x218.jpg)
HPV vaccine is neither safe nor effective
AUGUST 14, 2015
It has also been assumed for seven years that the vaccine is safe. Yet there have been thousands of adverse event reports. The CDC itself admits there are three times as many adverse events for the HPV vaccine Gardasil as there are for all other vaccines combined.
Compared to all other vaccines in the U.S. schedule, Gardasil alone is associated with 61 percent of all serious adverse events, including 63.8 percent of all deaths and 81.2 percent of all permanent disabilities in females under 30 years of age.
In fact, Japan, India and France have removed HPV vaccines from their recommended list due to safety and efficacy concerns. Unethical practices and serious post HPV vaccination injuries and deaths prompted the Supreme Court of India to initiate an ongoing investigation of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
The Health, Welfare and Labor Ministry of Japan also conducted a national investigation regarding post HPV vaccine injuries in its country. The outcome was the removal of funding and recommendations regarding HPV vaccines. Japanese officials concluded that the harm experienced by women taking the vaccine is overwhelmingly greater than any expected benefits.
Prompted by medical reports of post-HPV vaccination arrhythmia and motor neuron disabilities in children in Denmark, the European Medicines Agency is conducting an investigation of HPV injection adverse events. Lawsuits for HPV injuries and deaths have also been filed in Spain, France and Columbia.
Some studies have linked serious HPV vaccine adverse events to the aluminum adjuvant, which is a known neurotoxin. Yet the latest version of HPV vaccine, Gardasil 9, contains double the amount of aluminum adjuvant than its predecessor.
We already have proven, safe and effective ways to prevent cervical cancer with pap screening, which carries no serious health risk. So the doctors who do not recommend HPV vaccination are the ones who have done their research. The public should be grateful to those who have taken their oath seriously.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-vaccine-letter-20150812-story.html
-
Simple concept here.....
- Parents should have the right not to have their children vaccinated
and
- Schools should have the right not to accept any child who has not been vaccinated
-
exactly SIRS.....Let Freedom Ring!
-
Let Freedom ring, let the children die.
After all, they are no longer fetuses.
Gardasil is not the only vaccine available, anyway.
My daughter was vaccinated, no ill results, and none of those childhood diseases, either.
-
LOL...you have absolutely no standing to try and defend a child's right to life, with your perverted efforts at trying to dehumanize & kill, yes KILL, a child who simply hasn't been born yet
-
My nieces children didn't die...in fact one of them (home schooled) is in college at 16 years old.
-
I have every right to say any damned thing I wish, sirs.
Vaccines have saved millions of lives and there is ZERO proof that they cause autism.
whooping cough, rubella, mumps, measles, chicken pox, smallpox and the rest of the diseases vaccines prevent used to kill, sicken and disable thousands of children every year.
-
I have every right to say any damned thing I wish, sirs.
Never claimed you didn't Dr Deflection. Merely that you have no credible standing trying to defend the right of a child to live, when you routinely condemn unborn children to be butchered
Vaccines have saved millions of lives and there is ZERO proof that they cause autism.
Vaccines (IN GENERAL) have caused serious side effects. One of the more serious that is believed to be tracked to vaccines is Guillain-Barre' Syndrome. Point being, that in some cases, things can happen, including death, following a vaccine. They're rare, but do happen.
Point being, that a parent should have the right not to want to have their child vaccinated. And any school that the child would have attended has the right not to accept that student. Simple as that
-
Some diseases are so severely dangerous and debilitating that the side effects of vaccines become a minor concern.
I recently heard good news on the research for a Malaria vaccine and there is great news on the vaccine for Ebola front.
Malaria is one of the greatest killers of human beings of all time , getting rid of Malaria might turn some marginal third world countries into first world tourist destinations.
If I knew that my chances for contracting Ebola were better than even , I would take a vaccine that made me turn blue and red polka dotted .
I would tell any friend that most vaccines are tiny risks and prevent serious pain that is not at all unlikely.
But why would I want to use force on them?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/world-malaria-vaccination-approved-150724055510421.html
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1502924
-
Exactly my point. I strongly support parents vaccinating their children, when you weigh the pros vs the cons. It should still be up to the parents and not forced by Government. And any parents that chose not to, lose their right to have their child accepted into public school
-
I support the right of the parent(s) to make the choice on abortion. I also support their right to make their own decisions regarding vaccinations.
To support one, and not the other, regardless of which is which, makes no sense to me. If X cannot credibly support abortion and then argue against a parent's right to make a choice regarding vaccination, how can Sirs keep his credibility arguing the exact opposite? So before we go throwing that argument around, let's remember it can cut both ways.
-
One thought comes to mind: if the smallpox vaccination had not been mandatory, it is unlikely that 100% of the people necessary to make this horrible disease extinct, and we would still have smallpox with us now and forever. Being as some people are superstitious, distrustful, irrational, stupid or simply crazy, 100% of the population will never agree on anything.
I cannot see individual freedom is more important than the the extermination of smallpox (or any other disease like it) forever.
This is the old Star Trek debate from the Wrath of Lhan, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", says Spock. "Or the one," adds Kirk.
I cannot imagine that a 100% compliance of every parent in vaccinating their children is possible. Yet, somehow, it was possible to get a large enough compliance to exterminate smallpox. It seems inconceivable to me that at least some people were compelled to get vaccinated against smallpox by force, and we are all better off because of it.
There will be a very few people that will suffer some ill effects from a vaccination. But I think that it is sufficiently proven that vaccinations now being given to children do not cause autism, as that ex-Playboy Playmate turned celebrity has claimed.
It is all about the odds with vaccines, just as lottery tickets and slot machines. People who cannot comprehend the vast difference between the odds of different events will continue to lose fortunes to casinos and lotteries and their children will unnecessarily be stricken by one or more of the childhood diseases that can be fatal.
With regard to abortion, I am neither for not against it. I simply think that the mother has the greatest stake in whether the child is born or not, and therefore she should make the decision without being compelled by some government. Rich women will always find a way to have a safe abortion on demand, so this only gives the same choice to the poor.
I think there is a good case for outlawing casinos and commercial large stake gambling. But I would not outlaw poker games among individuals or professional gamblers.
I doubt that Doc Holliday types would wreck many lives, but Bally. Trump and MGM have almost certainly ruined thousands. It is pragmatically impossible to prevent professional gamblers, but preventing huge casinos is clearly possible. Ecuador voted to abolish casinos in 2008, I think.
I don't think that abolishing casinos would be possible in the US, but we would be better off without them.
-
I support the right of the parent(s) to make the choice on abortion. I also support their right to make their own decisions regarding vaccinations.
To support one, and not the other, regardless of which is which, makes no sense to me. If X cannot credibly support abortion and then argue against a parent's right to make a choice regarding vaccination, how can Sirs keep his credibility arguing the exact opposite? So before we go throwing that argument around, let's remember it can cut both ways.
That depends on what you think the difference is.
The decision to run a risk with ones self or ones children might be reasonable or unreasonable or marginal, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the individual and the heads of families rather than defaulting to the government , so on the spectrum only those things that are nearly certain to cause serious harm should be a decision made by the government risks that are marginal or reasonable remain the province of the parent or the individual.
Someone that prefers natural , traditional , holistic or even homeopathic medicine to our western medicine might be increasing the risk , but certainly not making death a certainty.
Abortion is pretty certain to kill the child , and when it doesn't sometimes the child is placed on bare metal to chill and finish dying. This is not a choice between better and worse means of treatment , it is a straight decision to kill.
There is a lot of difference in disagreeing on what is a reasonable risk , and sure as shooting killing.
-
The decision to run a risk with ones self or ones children might be reasonable or unreasonable or marginal, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the individual and the heads of families rather than defaulting to the government , so on the spectrum only those things that are nearly certain to cause serious harm should be a decision made by the government risks that are marginal or reasonable remain the province of the parent or the individual.
So, by that logic, let's stop making infant and child car seats mandatory. I'd bet way more are bought and used to avoid tickets than are ever actually needed in an automobile accident. Parents shouldn't be charged for neglect or endangerment for leaving candy colored laundry detergents in child's reach, or medications, drugs, alcohol or rat poison, or hey, even leavng guns and ammo laying about. Why is it you want only fetuses to live, but have no concern for them after birth? Enquiring minds would like to know.
-
I support the right of the parent(s) to make the choice on abortion. I also support their right to make their own decisions regarding vaccinations.
To support one, and not the other, regardless of which is which, makes no sense to me. If X cannot credibly support abortion and then argue against a parent's right to make a choice regarding vaccination, how can Sirs keep his credibility arguing the exact opposite?
Because one is about the sanctity of life. The other is simply preventative measures, and should be left to the parent. 2 completely different concepts, thus no double standard
-
The decision to run a risk with ones self or ones children might be reasonable or unreasonable or marginal, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the individual and the heads of families rather than defaulting to the government , so on the spectrum only those things that are nearly certain to cause serious harm should be a decision made by the government risks that are marginal or reasonable remain the province of the parent or the individual.
So, by that logic, let's stop making infant and child car seats mandatory. I'd bet way more are bought and used to avoid tickets than are ever actually needed in an automobile accident. Parents shouldn't be charged for neglect or endangerment for leaving candy colored laundry detergents in child's reach, or medications, drugs, alcohol or rat poison, or hey, even leavng guns and ammo laying about. Why is it you want only fetuses to live, but have no concern for them after birth? Enquiring minds would like to know.
That exaggerates the case I was making a bit, but I think I can go from this point.
Do you think that the police should be checking homes preemptively to baby proof them?
-
Because one is about the sanctity of life. The other is simply preventative measures, and should be left to the parent. 2 completely different concepts, thus no double standard
Not completely different to the unvaccinated child who dies of a childhood disease that could have been prevented. They are just as dead.
-
Because one is about the sanctity of life. The other is simply preventative measures, and should be left to the parent. 2 completely different concepts, thus no double standard
Not completely different to the unvaccinated child who dies of a childhood disease that could have been prevented. They are just as dead.
So the aborted child is just as dead as the unvaccinated child?
Since the aborted children are 100% successfully killed , but a majority of unvaccinated children survive , I see a difference in degree as well as a difference of kind.
-
Read what I said again, closely.
Not completely different to the unvaccinated child who dies of a childhood disease that could have been prevented. They are just as dead.
-
Because one is about the sanctity of life. The other is simply preventative measures, and should be left to the parent. 2 completely different concepts, thus no double standard
Not completely different to the unvaccinated child who dies of a childhood disease that could have been prevented. They are just as dead.
That's not a given, H. A child isn't guaranteed some childhood death if not vaccinated. Abortion is 100% death. There in lies the difference
-
Read what I said again, closely.
Not completely different to the unvaccinated child who dies of a childhood disease that could have been prevented. They are just as dead.
They are neither dead nor doomed when the decision is made.
I remember getting a brace of vaccinations in boot camp and a few more before every cruse , the Navy believes that the vaccines are a net plus though in the thousands of vaccinations they do see some bad reactions. Examining the odds, the Navy is probably right .
In particular I remember the flap that came with the anthrax vaccine , this was an emergency and it was believed likely that Saddam would attack with anthrax. There was a relatively high rate of bad side effects (still a minority) and it became a real question whether a soldier or sailor had any right to refuse to be vaccinated.
-
Personally, I think the religious worry too much about abortion for folks who worship a god who, several times, ordered entire populations wiped out, down to every man, woman and child, and in some cases their herds as well. They claim to be for freedom and less government regulation, except where it goes against their religious beliefs. They go on about religious freedom, while seeking to deny others their freedom from religion. But that's just me. I wonder about things.
-
You're going to have to provide some examples of how we're "denying others their freedom from religion". Last I checked, I have yet to see one court case, where anyone from my "religious side" is attempting to mandate that you pray or attend sunday school, or even believe in God. Last I checked it was those who don't practice religion, attempting to use lawsuits to force those who do, to accept and respect a choice of living contrary to their religious beliefs
In other words, it appears you have it bassackwards
-
Has my appeal against murder been too religious?
I guess it is true that only Christians are worried about lives that aren't their own.
-
You're going to have to provide some examples of how we're "denying others their freedom from religion". Last I checked, I have yet to see one court case, where anyone from my "religious side" is attempting to mandate that you pray or attend sunday school, or even believe in God. Last I checked it was those who don't practice religion, attempting to use lawsuits to force those who do, to accept and respect a choice of living contrary to their religious beliefs
In other words, it appears you have it bassackwards
The bakery case is one such attempt, where religion was brought up in order to discriminate against someone who believes differently. It's not necessariy a matter of the religious trying to mandate that others pray, attend Sunday school, or believe in some god; it's a matter of the religious trying to enforce their beliefs on others.
Don't believe in abortion? Don't get one. Work within the law to try to change the law. Don't bomb abortion clinics or threaten or even actually assassinate abortion providers.
Believe homosexuality is a sin? So are a lot of other things...how many sins do you commit every day? Woud you appreciate being denied service because of any of them?
Don't believe in same sex marriage? Then get a job where you are not required, BY LAW, to issue same sex marriage licenses or otherwise facilitate them.
You want to pray, go to church, whatever, by all means, go ahead. But remember, you are also accountable to civil law, and you are admonished to '...render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's...', meaning to obey civil law, pay your taxes, etc. And civil law, in this country, says that you can NOT discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, religion, sex, age, or sexual preference.
-
Has my appeal against murder been too religious?
I guess it is true that only Christians are worried about lives that aren't their own.
See the part of the previous post about civil law. At present, legal abortion is not defined as murder, regardless of how you characterize it. Neither are legal executions of condemned criminals, justified killngs by police officers in the line of duty, and many justified killings by private citizens in self defense or defense of others. If you disagree with any of those, work within the law to change the law.
-
You're going to have to provide some examples of how we're "denying others their freedom from religion". Last I checked, I have yet to see one court case, where anyone from my "religious side" is attempting to mandate that you pray or attend sunday school, or even believe in God. Last I checked it was those who don't practice religion, attempting to use lawsuits to force those who do, to accept and respect a choice of living contrary to their religious beliefs
In other words, it appears you have it bassackwards
The bakery case is one such attempt, where religion was brought up in order to discriminate against someone who believes differently. It's not necessariy a matter of the religious trying to mandate that others pray, attend Sunday school, or believe in some god; it's a matter of the religious trying to enforce their beliefs on others.
That's NOT forcing you to "become religious", or share their beliefs. There are a gazillion other bakeries you could use allowing you to be as agnostic as you wish. Rhetorically speaking, YOU, on the other hand appear to be trying to force this 1 bakery to become just like the other gazillion....forcing them to drop their religious beliefs to placate your feeling offended
Sorry, that was a really bad example since no one is being denied their right from religion. Do you have any others?
-
It's a great example of 'Render unto Caesar...' The law prohibits discrimination, period. By trying to discriminate against anyone who does not believe as he does, the baker is trying to force his beliefs on others. And, in the meantime, violating the law. Period.
Oh, and you forgot to address abortion clinic bombings, assassinating abortion providers, trying to intimidate those seeking abortions, refusing to issue licenses for same sex marriage....There are any number of ways to illegally try to force your religious views on others.
-
The law indeed prohibits discrimination. The Constitution however prohibits the attempt to diminish one's 1st amendment right to Religious freedom. The latter is what trumps any misinterpreted notion of the former. I'd recommend your recommendation....use the law to fix it, as in you're going to need to lobby enough folks to amend the Constitution
And since the bombings were never brought up, I never forgot them in the 1st place. Any effort to bomb, hurt, or anything to damage someone else should be punished to the fullest extent of the law
-
Again, if all vaccinations were voluntarily, it is doubtful that smallpox could have been eradicated.
It is impossible to get 100% of people to agree to anything.
No little kids like getting a vaccination shot.
So this is about parents forcing them or allowing them to be forced.
We are clearly better off because smallpox has been eradicated. I don't see where the end did not justify the means in this case.
-
And since the bombings were never brought up, I never forgot them in the 1st place. Any effort to bomb, hurt, or anything to damage someone else should be punished to the fullest extent of the law
My Reply #26 today
And unless these laws constitutionality is challenged and they are overturned, they are considered constitutionally valid.
Ball in your court. ;)
-
What ball? Did you miss the ongoing effort of trying to deal with the slaughter of these unborn children, via legislators??
-
Nope, but I was in Pensacola when an abortion provider was shot by an anti-abortion zealot.
-
And that zealot should be tried & convicted for any such crime. I'll add that I seriuously doubt said zealot was attempting to convert anyone, as much as their irrational attempt to punish those who they believed were killing unborn children. Under such a scenario, hardly some attempt to bring one to a religious epiphany
-
Has my appeal against murder been too religious?
I guess it is true that only Christians are worried about lives that aren't their own.
See the part of the previous post about civil law. At present, legal abortion is not defined as murder, regardless of how you characterize it. Neither are legal executions of condemned criminals, justified killngs by police officers in the line of duty, and many justified killings by private citizens in self defense or defense of others. If you disagree with any of those, work within the law to change the law.
Is the difference between what is murder and what is not , the words chosen to describe the act?
The law is already contrary to murder , I don't want to change this.
But I would like the law to describe what is a human being , in a true and reasonable way, thus applying the existing protection to the people not now protected.
This is the point that keeps Dred Scott coming back into the discussion, the Supreme Court has had some false starts at describing a human being before.
-
Dred Scott has diddly to do with this, except in your mind. Dred Scott was not, i repeat NOT a fetus.
-
Dred Scott was once an unborn child, who then was born. Point being its how others attempt to dehumanize others, to apparently placate the level of immorality one must embrace to act so hidiously to another
-
You have no point. You were once a fetus too, and so fucking what?
Does that make you Dred Scott?
-
You're really off the reservation here, Professor literal. EVERYONE born was once an unborn child....WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DRED SCOTT DECISION.
The reason Dredd Scott is brought into this conversation.....AGAIN.....has to do with the efforts used to dehumanize what are human beings, be they black or unborn, so that others that support the heinous acts made upon them, can somehow ..... sleep better at night, I suppose
-
This about VACCINATIONS. What the poo does Dred Fucking Scott have to do with VACCINATIONS??? What do vaccinations have to do with abortions?
The fact is that smallpox, a horrible fatal disease was eradicated forever by vaccinating pretty much everyone in sight,m and surely many against their will.
So this is one case in which the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few.
The reason we cannot do the same with other diseases is because smallpox only affects human beings and not other animals. You could catch measles from a chimp or leprosy from an armadillo.
-
Dred Scott and unborn children are what keep being repeated, as a tangential discussion, when H began disccussing the topic of abortions, or in your case, an overt & transparent deflection attempt. Putting aside the topic of vaccinations, the reason Dred Scott is referenced when the support of unborn children getting their skulls crushed, is the effort used by those who are perfectly ok with the act, by way of dehumanizing the unborn child by continually referring to them as a fetus.....MUCH LIKE what the south did with slaves, in dehumanzing them, so that they could better rationalize their overt mistreatment of them
As it relates to the topic of vaccinations, while I fully support that children should be vaccinated, it should be the right of the parent to make that decision. And it should be the right of any school not to accept any child that has not been vaccinated. Simple as that
-
I would support the vaccination of a child against smallpox or a similar eradicatable disease even against the will of the parents.
That is what happened in the case of smallpox, and we are much better off because of it.
-
Good for you
-
Good for all of us.
Would you prefer having smallpox or violating one kid's ostensible "rights" for fifteen seconds?
-
No, since I would chose to have my child vaccinated
-
I didn't know that anyone was forced to take a smallpox vaccination.
I got it as a kid , and I can't imagine my parents opting out of the protection, I got Polio vaccination too.
But was it a choice or was it done by force?
-
I am sure that among the millions and millions that were vaccinated against smallpox, there were some who refused and were vaccinated against their will. For whatever reason: religion, fear of witchcraft, colonial suppression, tribal mistrust. All these reasons were insufficient to the goal of ending smallpox.
It is like the flowchart at the beginning of this post.
-
I think thats not how it happened. Parent permission was always needed but today more opted out alot more than in the past and today sufficient amounts created a safe pocket for some of the old illnesses to finally spread .
This totally does not mean vaccines do not work just that small pocket out breaks will be part of our lives now.
The real issue is where these outbreak happens. If it places more incline to opt out then it may also be places that is more likely to be slow to quarantine if at all.
I think schools today legally cannot temporarily exclude sick kids. Ex. Lice
-
I think thats not how it happened. Parent permission was always needed but today more opted out alot more than in the past and today sufficient amounts created a safe pocket for some of the old illnesses to finally spread .
I do believe you're right on the mark, Kimba
-
The dippy ex-Playboy bunny has caused a lot of harm by spreading all that untrue crap about how vaccines cause autism.
More children will die and many more than that will suffer for no good reason because of her.
-
Im not a parent so you can disregard my opinion on this matter. But i think that giving children shot can be traumatic thing fir a parent and likely the more wimpy parent use lame excuses to not give them. Remember children associate doctors visit with needles and pain. So parent get the fun of dragging thier child to the doctors office. So when the kids is school age i think the more whiney child will be abke to skip shot with the parents backing.
The problem today is vaccination is grew to a religious right issue so families has to double down . Anybody willing to bet we will see many sick children and those will be used as more proof vaccine never worked and more children will turn vegan and not take shots.
-
There is really nothing in any religion against vaccinations, as all the religions were created before the concept of vaccination was introduced. But then, most people who practice a religion do not actually know much about what their religion says and if some foolish priest, minister, preacher or whatever decides that the religion requires this or bans that, it is rare that the members of the congregation will question him. That is how barbaric nonsense like female circumcision became part of Islam. Male circumcision may make STD's more difficult to contract and is not so disfiguring. Of course, the original purpose was to prevent a major cause of military defeat: soldiers who saw that the other side was winning and changed their uniforms for one from a dead enemy. If the soldier was circumcised, he could not deny that he was Jewish or Muslim and it was therefore an advantage to members of those religions.
In ancient times, wars were mostly fought for plunder and territory and no one wanted to be on the losing side, as it usually meant that you would be a slave.
I agree that children hate getting shots, I still dislike blood tests and shots myself. But since the benefits outweigh the brief discomfort, I never complain.
It is the responsibility of the parent to explain how shots work to children.
-
....and the right of the parent to decide if their child is to be vaccinated
-
If there were an ebola scare in the US and they thought it was going to spread and they had a vaccine to stop it, they would quarantine the area and vaccinate everyone and let them sue later. And that is what they SHOULD do.
-
We'll cross that bridge, if that were to ever happen
-
We already pretty much crossed it.
Note what happened when that nurse returned from Africa.
After a quarantine period that nurse left, but after that she did not come into contact with anyone for weeks.
It is the primary goal of the government to protect the people from epidemic diseases.
-
It is the primary goal of the government to protect the people from epidemic diseases.
That is OK.
But do you want a Government that protects people from themselves?
-
Protect from ourselves is a s.ippery slope. Something like refusing vaccines may risk us. Some people today on purpose get smallpox, measles ,mumps as a treatment for the disease.
-
Were the people of the past more reasonable than people are now?
Smallpox was eradicated two centuries after the vaccine was discovered .
Polio is close to eradicated sixty years after the vaccine was developed , it remains in a few pockets where Islamic leaders do not trust western medicine enough to allow it.
This sort of result does not require force .
-
But its ok now......we have Obamacare which can cover any conditions that come up, for those who might choose not to vaccinate
-
If there is a medical emergency and vaccinations will prevent an epidemic, any sane US government would vaccinate everyone and worry about lawsuits later.
This has nothing at all to do with the ACA. Epidemics are dealt with by the CDC.
Currently, there are no diseases that would fit the criteria for a mandatory vaccination.
-
I think it's more about the changing times. We have access to more info and can easily find data to support anything we believe.
I don't believe childhood disease will spread like wildfire but the trend of refusing will have an effect in our population.
-
I think that we can depend on the CDC to provide correct information of the threat of diseases to the population of this country. Preventing epidemics and any spread of any disease that could be prevented with vaccines should never be a political issue.
The role of the government would be to use the CDC to inform the people of the truth about vaccines. False rumors, such as the one that vaccines cause autoism, need to be squelched in the minds of the public.
-
the problem is vaccine do have a small degree of risk and it has been downplayed to such a degree some people will mistrust it. the anti-vaccine folks does bring it up but it never gets address .
-
I don't think that there is necessarily a connection between rumors people might hear about the possible dangers of a vaccine and the actual dangers, if any, the vaccine might pose.
Rumors can range from accurate to wildly incorrect. Some person might see a 13 or a 666 in a number associated with a vaccine and they might go ape, and see it as a part of Armageddon or the Antichrist.
If I heard a rumor that sounded plausible, I would contact the CDC or someone in a public health department that had actual training about vaccines.
I would not trust some airheaded person just because they appeared on Oprah.
-
the most reason I hear people avoid those shot is they get sick from them. but when is brought up it is largely ignored or told its inthier head. their are somethings that should never be told to a person and "it`s in your head is on the top of the list"
it`s fact to a quite afew people do get ill from these shot but most recover very quickly.
one of the problems is it`s not and cannot be 100% safe. so the ones who do get very sick and some do die from it will have very vocal and negative response.
I`m totally for vaccines for but acknowledge the risks involved. the risks is extremely small percentage wise. but percentage wise someone will get a bad reaction.
-
There is something like a reverse placebo effect in which people who think something will make them ill actually does.
They say that Australian Aborigine shamans have a sort of ritual in which they "point a bone" at someone, and that someone gets ill or even drops dead.
http://www.lasseteria.com/CYCLOPEDIA/215.htm