United wants to make covid vax mandatory
02-20-2021, 07:00 AM
#181
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,113
There are mainstream Doctors that are very concerned about immune responses and DNA pre exposure risk factors. So much so that you are now seeing an alteration of the standard pre-school immunization cocktail. Informed parents are now spreading out those shots over a much longer period of time to reduce the stress to the immune system and subsequent endocrine and hormonal response.
02-20-2021, 08:42 AM
#182
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
My sister in law (attorney) says you may be "waiving" any legal recourse by using experimental drugs, immunizations, or treatments. I guess it's a separate discussion, but the individual definitely has the "right to try." Under the right to try act. But, the individual (and/or their estate) needs to be aware they may be waiving their rights under the law should something in the treatment, later on be found to be causal to death or disfunction.
It has interesting tentacles into corporate law. Should a corporation force you to use an experimental drug, treatment, or therapy, the company (employer) may be assuming the liability on the FDA/drug manufacturer's behalf. I haven't seen any ALPA, other trade union, or company legal opinions on it.
I remember the military making you sign some papers before taking the Anthrax shots in the late 90's.
The "right to tray" act is interesting.....If you are interested in Right to Try, you should discuss this pathway with your licensed physician. Companies who develop and make drugs and biologics, also known as sponsors, can provide information about whether their drug/biologic is considered an eligible investigational drug under Right to Try and if they are able to provide the drug/biologic under the Right to Try Act. Ultimately, sponsors developing drugs for life-threatening diseases or conditions are responsible for determining whether to make their products available to patients who qualify for access under the Right to Try Act.
It has interesting tentacles into corporate law. Should a corporation force you to use an experimental drug, treatment, or therapy, the company (employer) may be assuming the liability on the FDA/drug manufacturer's behalf. I haven't seen any ALPA, other trade union, or company legal opinions on it.
I remember the military making you sign some papers before taking the Anthrax shots in the late 90's.
The "right to tray" act is interesting.....If you are interested in Right to Try, you should discuss this pathway with your licensed physician. Companies who develop and make drugs and biologics, also known as sponsors, can provide information about whether their drug/biologic is considered an eligible investigational drug under Right to Try and if they are able to provide the drug/biologic under the Right to Try Act. Ultimately, sponsors developing drugs for life-threatening diseases or conditions are responsible for determining whether to make their products available to patients who qualify for access under the Right to Try Act.
02-20-2021, 01:36 PM
#183
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,050
Assume if you have any vaccine-related problems your recourse will be the usual government compensation program. Plus company/union loss-of-medical insurance.
02-20-2021, 01:46 PM
#184
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,050
There is an abundance of data that reveals an over-abundance of immunizations can and has altered children's psycho-motor and psycho-development. In addition, more data on females taking vaccines and other similar substances/vectors and how it may affect a child invetro. Also more data on female reproduction. This is NOT likely the forum to offer "an affirmative" recommendation regarding vaccination efficacy, etc. You may have an opinion on vaccine-autism "so called fraud." I would hate to have a female take your advice and suffer grave consequences. Caution is the order of the day. Too many other (contra) studies debunk the so-called (fraud). It's opinion and conjecture.
Anything medically that adds risk to one's life should be adequately discussed with a physician and those risks explored. There are mainstream Doctors that are very concerned about immune responses and DNA pre exposure risk factors. So much so that you are now seeing an alteration of the standard pre-school immunization cocktail. Informed parents are now spreading out those shots over a much longer period of time to reduce the stress to the immune system and subsequent endocrine and hormonal response. it will take about 20 years to see the new data as these young children develop and mature. Females of child bearing years should be cautious of what they put into their bodies, to include immunizations. Genetic predisposition and environmental exposure is a great place to start. One's environment is both within and outside of one's body.
Anything medically that adds risk to one's life should be adequately discussed with a physician and those risks explored. There are mainstream Doctors that are very concerned about immune responses and DNA pre exposure risk factors. So much so that you are now seeing an alteration of the standard pre-school immunization cocktail. Informed parents are now spreading out those shots over a much longer period of time to reduce the stress to the immune system and subsequent endocrine and hormonal response. it will take about 20 years to see the new data as these young children develop and mature. Females of child bearing years should be cautious of what they put into their bodies, to include immunizations. Genetic predisposition and environmental exposure is a great place to start. One's environment is both within and outside of one's body.
As to the rest of it, I agree... there's no zero risk when you put anything in your body. You have to assess the risk vs. benefit for yourself, and you are of course free to do that.
My kids got all their shots, all are doing fine, or more than fine. I think part of the problem is that when something tragically goes wrong in child development, which happens in nature, parents naturally look for a reason or maybe something to blame other than themselves. Vaccines make an easy target for that sort of compensation. Best to look at it carefully and objectively (if it's on facebook it's probably not objective, and if the advocate isn't educated it's probably not objective).
02-20-2021, 04:31 PM
#185
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,538
The autism part is fraud, period. Ambulance chasers had to fabricate the research to make their case.
As to the rest of it, I agree... there's no zero risk when you put anything in your body. You have to assess the risk vs. benefit for yourself, and you are of course free to do that.
My kids got all their shots, all are doing fine, or more than fine. I think part of the problem is that when something tragically goes wrong in child development, which happens in nature, parents naturally look for a reason or maybe something to blame other than themselves. Vaccines make an easy target for that sort of compensation. Best to look at it carefully and objectively (if it's on facebook it's probably not objective, and if the advocate isn't educated it's probably not objective).
As to the rest of it, I agree... there's no zero risk when you put anything in your body. You have to assess the risk vs. benefit for yourself, and you are of course free to do that.
My kids got all their shots, all are doing fine, or more than fine. I think part of the problem is that when something tragically goes wrong in child development, which happens in nature, parents naturally look for a reason or maybe something to blame other than themselves. Vaccines make an easy target for that sort of compensation. Best to look at it carefully and objectively (if it's on facebook it's probably not objective, and if the advocate isn't educated it's probably not objective).
Wait, what? You mean Jenny McCarthy isn't a vaccination expert?
02-20-2021, 05:47 PM
#186
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2020
Posts: 144
By delaying, or spreading out vaccines, the vaccine company still gets paid. Where exactly is the fraud if a parent chooses to mitigate risk and spread out vaccines to minimize stress on the immune system?
Ambulance chasers chase ambulances with live or dead patients in them. No one with an autistic child has ever cashed in financially. Also, no one who wants to spread out or mitigate risk stands to benefit by chasing an ambulance. So, I think it's pretty well debunked as far as ambulance chasers go. Parents want to be proactively conservative when it comes to this stuff.
The reason the 5 in 1 and 6 in 1 shots were developed was to minimize the number of Dr. visits a child would make to the Dr. Another words...it was done out of convenience to minimize costs of Dr. visits. If a parent wants to pay more to visit the Dr for shots, or wellnesss visits I don't see why it's anyone's business but the parents. Before the combo cocktail of vaccinations were introduced there were very low autism rates. Is it causal? No way to know,other than to change the vaccination schedule. Ambulance chasers only chase ambulances if there is a financial upside or persuasive reason to do so (economically) to their bottom line. But, tell us where you went to Medical School and how long you've been in practice... Love to know more.
02-20-2021, 06:29 PM
#187
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 501
I don't think it's fraud. Why? No real "benefit" to anyone. If it was fraud, someone would be benefiting. Just about every "fraud" i've ever heard of...someone on one end stood to benefit.
By delaying, or spreading out vaccines, the vaccine company still gets paid. Where exactly is the fraud if a parent chooses to mitigate risk and spread out vaccines to minimize stress on the immune system?
Ambulance chasers chase ambulances with live or dead patients in them. No one with an autistic child has ever cashed in financially. Also, no one who wants to spread out or mitigate risk stands to benefit by chasing an ambulance. So, I think it's pretty well debunked as far as ambulance chasers go. Parents want to be proactively conservative when it comes to this stuff.
The reason the 5 in 1 and 6 in 1 shots were developed was to minimize the number of Dr. visits a child would make to the Dr. Another words...it was done out of convenience to minimize costs of Dr. visits. If a parent wants to pay more to visit the Dr for shots, or wellnesss visits I don't see why it's anyone's business but the parents. Before the combo cocktail of vaccinations were introduced there were very low autism rates. Is it causal? No way to know,other than to change the vaccination schedule. Ambulance chasers only chase ambulances if there is a financial upside or persuasive reason to do so (economically) to their bottom line. But, tell us where you went to Medical School and how long you've been in practice... Love to know more.
By delaying, or spreading out vaccines, the vaccine company still gets paid. Where exactly is the fraud if a parent chooses to mitigate risk and spread out vaccines to minimize stress on the immune system?
Ambulance chasers chase ambulances with live or dead patients in them. No one with an autistic child has ever cashed in financially. Also, no one who wants to spread out or mitigate risk stands to benefit by chasing an ambulance. So, I think it's pretty well debunked as far as ambulance chasers go. Parents want to be proactively conservative when it comes to this stuff.
The reason the 5 in 1 and 6 in 1 shots were developed was to minimize the number of Dr. visits a child would make to the Dr. Another words...it was done out of convenience to minimize costs of Dr. visits. If a parent wants to pay more to visit the Dr for shots, or wellnesss visits I don't see why it's anyone's business but the parents. Before the combo cocktail of vaccinations were introduced there were very low autism rates. Is it causal? No way to know,other than to change the vaccination schedule. Ambulance chasers only chase ambulances if there is a financial upside or persuasive reason to do so (economically) to their bottom line. But, tell us where you went to Medical School and how long you've been in practice... Love to know more.
02-20-2021, 06:54 PM
#188
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,050
The study published in the Lancet (and subsequently debunked and retracted) was funded by ambulance chasers who specialized in suing drug companies...
02-21-2021, 05:53 PM
#189
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2020
Posts: 144
It is fraud. Someone does stand to benefit. The autism claim originated and was constantly reused by the multitudes of scammers hocking essential oils, crystals, spiritual healing, homeopathic cures, and all the other cons some of you eat up because it fits the false reality you choose to reside.
Mom's and Dad's simply want to take a "conservative approach" to vaccinations.
Nothing wrong with that.
We do that in airplanes. When somehting's wrong, or to prevent something from going wrong, we take a conservative approach. Spreading out vaccinations is simply "more conservative - and - therefore- less aggressive - and- threfore less risky to a child and his/her immune response. it places less stress on the endocrine system and the auto-immune system.
I haven't seen anyone on this thread speaking about crystals or the like. You made a reach that was a bridge too far in my opinion.
Less risk is a good thing.
02-21-2021, 06:04 PM
#190
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2020
Posts: 144
Why would you oppose people mitigating risk? There are other approved and recommended vaccination schedules that many parents aren't even aware of yet. But, the data is out there.
One such web resource says this: "Kids get up to 27 vaccines by their second birthday. They can get as many as 5 shots at some visits." That seems pretty excessive to me.
For kids, There are state regulations that mandate what kids need for PUBLIC school. Individual states have rules on this stuff. So, you have two things to balance: States rights, and individual rights. Parents are responsible to make sure they comply with state law. There are exceptions such as religious objections, etc. But spreading out the risk is wise, prudent, and doesn't impact you in the least. Parents have the right (at least for now) to still be parents.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
