13
   

Vaccine Court

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:08 am
@shewolfnm,
Except that it's a little more empirical than politics -- which is what Thomas was saying.

I do agree with what Bella says btw about not just believing what the doctors say and leaving it at that. I'm all for researching on your own. Just make sure you have good sources.
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:09 am
@sozobe,
Oh yeah.
We too passed on the HEP series.
That is something you can take as an adult if you decide you would want it.

0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:36 am
@shewolfnm,
shewolfnm wrote:
His autism got worse when he got his shots. Putting more time then necessary between those shots.. he was... almost 'healed' if that makes sense
Does this prove a thing? Nope. Not at all. ( and yes there is a ton more to the story. Im grazing over it...)

This pretty much goes to the core of why people link vaccines and Autism. The visible signs of Autism onset at roughly the same time as four-year vaccinations.

It is human to think "this happened just after this other unusual thing, so that must be the reason!"

But Autism is not caused by vaccines. The scientific community agrees. The courts agree.

Autism markers are present long before vaccinations. Autism has been linked to multiple genetic transcription errors.



If you want to discuss the safety of vaccinations in general, I have no problem with that. But please stop bringing Autism into it.
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:41 am
A few additional thoughts:

IMO, people (maybe not Shewolf) are willing to forgo vaccines because they have not seen the effects of these diseases. T had a discussion with a mom who had not vaccinated her kid, and the kid got whooping cough and almost died. She said, "if I'd known she'd get it, then I'd have gotten the vaccine." Well, duh.
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 09:39 am
@DrewDad,
I think what most people do not know is that you CAN say " I want the shots that do not HAVE a, b, and c in them" and you can get them.
Some insurance do not cover them how ever..

( polio .. for bean.. 120.00 ) But that was as 'clean' of a shot as I could get her with what I feel is good for her body to avoid.

If knowing that you can be specific in what you want your child to get was more common knowledge, it would not have to be so cut and dry - vaccinate or dont- because that is not the case.

The diseases are real, but so are the dangers to whats in those shots.
It is just not REAL common to know that you have a say so in what happens.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 10:18 am
Almost all schools require an immunization record when entering kindergarten
and I am glad they do. I would not want my child being exposed to childhood
diseases we thought were extinct.

I did have whooping cough as a child, and I remember vividly
how terrible it was. No reason to expose my child to it.

With SARS and other viral diseases around, we shouldn't have to worry
about Hepatitis, Polio, Diphtheria and other diseases threatening a child's
life.
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 10:24 am
@CalamityJane,
if the vaccines WORKED as well as we are lead to believe they would, you would not be worried about your child catching something she has ' had her shots' for.. ya know?


the sad part is that we as parents are supposed to shoot our kids up with all kinds of crud, and then, they dont work-
Measles break outs in San Diego, Tucson, the army camps..

Polio - new york..

I could dig up many links to prove my point but I dont have to. You understand what I am saying..
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 10:50 am
@shewolfnm,
shewolf, we not only had a Measles break-out in San Diego, we also have reports of Polio here. Why? We live in close proximity to the border and a large number of Mexican kids are not vaccinated. There are clinics around the border towns who advertise free vaccinations for the kids, as everyone is painfully
aware of the outbreaks of childhood diseases.

By the time a child shows visible signs of chickenpox, the time where it is at a
contagious stage, has elapsed already. Being in a school setting, one child
can easily infect the entire class, unless some have vaccination for chickenpox.
Actually, it is mandatory in our CA schools now to be immunized for chickenpox.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  4  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 11:10 am
I think a big part of the problem is that people who don't vaccinate their child believe their child is protected because everyone else was so stupid that they had their children vaccinated.

Ain't so.

Even in schools that "require" vaccinations, it isn't that hard to get a waiver on religious grounds. There are a lot of unvaccinated kids in schools.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 11:29 am
@shewolfnm,
shewolfnm wrote:
if the vaccines WORKED as well as we are lead to believe they would, you would not be worried about your child catching something she has ' had her shots' for.. ya know?

Have you been lead to believe that vaccinations work 100%? If so, you've been mislead.

Vaccinations do help prevent infections in individuals, but the main effect is to protect the general population. A population protected by vaccinations will have fewer and smaller outbreaks, but it depends on a large portion of the population being protected in the first place.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 11:58 am
@Green Witch,
In Diamond's book, he doesn't necessarily say that the diseases we have gotten from domestic livestock leave a society stronger for the epidemic experience. At least i didn't get that from reading his book. His claim was that it left the population immune, or at least more immune than populations which had never been exposed to those diseases. If either Mr. Diamond, or you, wish to allege that pandemic diseases acquired by humanity from livestock leave society stronger for the experience, you'd need to make the case in realistic terms.

Diamond's book is interesting, but largely because of his synthesis of the contemporary archaeological and agronomic view of the domestication of plants and animals. His reliance upon history is much more flawed. For example, he describes the seizure of Atahualpa and then alleges that it was a reliance upon guns, germs and steel which lead to Pizarro's successful conquest. That is not exactly accurate. It is true that the so-called Inca empire had been earlier devastated by exposure to what was probably smallpox--but that did not reduce their military capacity to the point where they could not have handled fewer than 300 Spanish soldiers. Ultimately, it was a cultural failure which doomed the Tawantinsuyu empire (usually called the Inca empire). The seizure of Atahualpa and his eventual murder paralyzed his society, which was so rigidly adapted to centralized control that no one individual could take decisions upon which others could act until it was too late. By the time the "Inca" people finally rose against their Spanish masters, they had largely overcome their previous failures, but by that time, the Spanish were too well established, and were in reasonably constant communication with the rest of the Spanish "new world" empire to call for the help they needed to survive.

Diamond also compares the conquest of Peru to the conquest of Mexico, and dismisses Cortés' accomplishment in a few lines. The two events did not resemble each other in the least. After Cortés landed near Tobasco, he acquired the services of two Spaniards who had been shipwrecked on the coast, and who had learned the local language (a relative of Mayan dialects), and then he found and "liberated" a woman usually described as an Aztec "Princess." Dona Marina, as she became known, quickly picked up Spanish, and as she spoke the Nahuatl (the language spoken by the Toltec tribes of the central Mexican plateau) and Mayan languages, he was enabled to set up a train of translation even before she learned Spanish. From her, he learned of the Aztec empire, and made his decision to sail up the coast, land and march inland. He had previously been following the Grijalva expedition, which had touched briefly on the coast of the Yucatan, and he had with him Bernal Diaz, who had accompanied Grijalva, and who was later to write The Conquest of New Spain, the one surviving eyewitness account of the conquest other than Cortés', which is necessarily suspect.

Cortés landed on the east coast of what is now Mexico, and established a settlement, La Villa Rica de la Vera Cruz, which is modern Veracruz in Mexico. From there he began marching inland, having been forbidden to do so by emissaries of the Aztec emperor, Moctezuma (not Montezuma, although it's swimming against the tide to insist upon it). He first encountered the Tlaxcalans, the people of a city state which had been in a state of constant defiance of the Aztecs in the three generations of the Aztec empire. Thinking he was an ally of the Aztecs, they attacked him over a period of three days (they holed up in some abandoned houses), and very nearly destroyed them. Diaz, a veteran of Cordoba's campaigns in Italy and a reliable military witness, estimated that the Tlaxcalan forces numbered in the tens of thousands--Cortés' just over 400. Cortés was able to use two significant factors to accomplish his conquest. The first was his undoubted diplomatic skills. He parlayed with the Tlaxcalans, and they came to an agreement after Cortés had convinced them that he was no friend to Moctezuma and the Azteca. That agreement lead the Tlaxcalans to contribute thousands of warriors and thousands of porters (they had no domestic animals suitable as beasts of burden). Cortés marched over the mountains to Cholula, where Dona Marina warned him of a plan of which she had heard in the market place to attack and slaughter most of the Spaniards, and to make a prisoner of Cortés and his officers, to be presented to Moctezuma. The Spanish and the Tlaxcalans set their own trap, the plot was foiled, and Cortés turned on his diplomatic charm again, and the Cholulans became his allies.

Between Cholula and Tenochtitlan (capital of the Azteca and site of modern Ciudad Mexico--Mexico City), Cortés enlisted the aid of the city state of Xochimilco as well. By the time he finally confronted Moctezuma, he had the aid of literally tens of thousands of Toltecs who deeply resented the hegemony of the Azteca. It is very likely that Dona Marina, an intelligent and astute woman by all accounts, had apprised him of this situation from the outset. He also enlisted the aid of the Texcocans, and of several other city states around the Lake Texcoco, upon the southwest shores of which Tenochtitlan was located. Even with that aid, it took Cortés nearly two years to reduce Tenochtitlan and destroy the Aztec empire. When Moctezuma was taken prisoner, and appealed to his people to cooperate with the Spaniard, they spontaneously stoned him to death. They then put up a fierce resistance which required thousands of Spaniards (Cortés had surprised and taken over an expedition of 1100 Spaniards sent from Cuba to supercede him, and was later reinforced by more Spaniards from Cuba) and tens of thousands of other Amerindians to subdue them--at the cost of very nearly annihilating them.

The two situations as between Pizarro and Cortés were not at all similar. Contrary to what Diamond claims, the smallpox did not visit central Mexican plateau until after the conquest--that was the pandemic of the late 1520s which was eventually to reach Quito and the "Inca" army shortly before Pizarro arrived. When the Tlaxcalans very nearly wiped out the Spaniard, the guns and steel and horses of the invaders had almost no effect on a fierce and independent people who were willing and able to absorb the few additional casualties which those advantages would entail. The same is true of the Azteca, who would rather stone their emperor to death than to submit to the invader, and worse yet, to the other Amerindians they had conquered three generations before.

Diamond reduces complex cultural events to simplicities--and simplistic explanations. There is not doubt that he did yoeman's work in writing a synthesis which carefully and clearly describes the domestication of plants and animals by prehistoric cultures, and the spread of languages and cultures with their domesticates across the globe. His theory of the causes of the success of European conquest is over-simplistic, and is not founded at all in the historical record, of which he appears to be profoundly ignorant, based on what he has written. I suspect he had his theory in place, and rushed about skimming modern historical review textbooks to find an incident which he could hold up as the avatar of European conquest.

For those who would like to know what the Spanish conquest was really like, i recommend William Prescott, the great American scholar who wrote more than twenty volumes on the Spanish monarchy and the conquest of their empire from the late 15th century through the 18th century. It isn't necessary to read them all, his conquest of Mexico is in three volumes, and his conquest of Peru is in two. As well, i would recommend The Conquest of New Spain, by Bernal Diaz, which he wrote 50 years later while on his hacienda in Nicaragua, and which has rarely been out of print ever since.

Diamond's pet theory is gratifying to him, i'm sure, and to those with insufficient historical knowledge to question it. However, those who have read more deeply will immediately recognize how shallow his analysis is, and how very, very much he leaves out. Most glaringly, his account only explains the conquest of the Americas (and actually only seems to explain it), and doesn't explain the conquest of Africa and Asia, where the people already had guns, germs and steel. Mr. Diamond's theories are naive. The book is fine for learning about the domestication of plants and animals, and the spread of cultures with domesticates. It is worthless for explaining how Europeans came to dominate the modern world.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 02:31 pm
@shewolfnm,
Quote:
Which makes no sense to me. if it is a vaccine.. and it 'works' why do I have to register when I request a safer version?


So they know where to place you on the list for a spot at Guantanamo.
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 02:44 pm
@Setanta,
A little preface: I was typing away and almost finished with a much longer answer, but my browser locked up - as it often does on this site when I am replying and try to make a change or correction. Below is my hasty Reader's Digest version for what it is worth:

This is a big topic. Im not sure I have the strength and blocks of time to bat it about. I can also claim no scholarship in the area. I do promise to look into the books you mention. I have time in the winter and often pick a topic to immerse myself in. If you say Diamond was incorrect in his historical perspective and facts I accept that. Having read the book a number of years ago, I don't feel confident claiming to remember any hardcore statements to debate the issues. You would have to take it up with Mr. Diamond, or perhaps write your own book to dispute his. I promise to buy a copy - and not used one, so you get the full royalties..

shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 07:58 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:


If you want to discuss the safety of vaccinations in general, I have no problem with that. But please stop bringing Autism into it.


Absolutely not.
I will not stop talking about that because that is one of the reasons that lead me to begin to research vaccines.
it was that idea no matter how far fetched you might think it is that started a lot of parents on a path of inspection into the safety of these shots and the safety of the many things in them.
I absolutely will NOT stop bringing that up.
Sorry you dont seem to understand that.
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:02 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:


Have you been lead to believe that vaccinations work 100%?


No. I have not, but it is a large mis-conception believe it or not. Its sad really.
I know people who refuse to test their child for anything they may have had their shots for. ( dont understand them)

Then I know people who really believe they should not vaccinate at all because the rest of the population is vaccinated and there is no danger.

Too many extremes on one coin , but it does seem to be a common idea that once you get shots, you will 'never' get what ever it is you got the shot for..
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:34 pm
@shewolfnm,
So you'll deliberately lie and mislead people in order to promote your agenda? Good to know.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 10:04 pm
I look at it like this:

When everyone, and I mean everyone but Mr. B, was telling me that Mo had ADHD, I knew he didn't. I KNEW it. But everyone kept telling me that was the problem. I read and read and read and asked and asked and asked and finally I gave in and had him tested.

I gave in because I read how awful the impact of untreated ADHD can be.

If you look at the report I got back, especially the part evaluating the gajillion dots I filled in on all the tests, according to my responses he would have been diagonosed with ADHD.

But he wasn't. He doesn't have ADHD.

And the long term problems associated with ADHD aren't nearly as bad as those associated with say, diphtheria.

If Mo contracted such a preventable illness and I didn't prevent it I just couldn't live with myself. I couldn't. That's a gamble I would never take.

I can't even begin to understand why anyone would.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 10:56 pm
@shewolfnm,
Shewolf --

I must admit I'm not entirely clear what point you are making about the allegation that vaccinations cause autism. Are you saying that this is actually a solid story, rather than a long-debunked urban legend? Or are you merely saying that reading about it caused you to look into vaccination safety in general? I have no problem if it's the latter, but the former point would be garbage, pure and simple.

To move this question to a more pragmatic domain, may I ask you this? What specific vaccinations did the Bean get? And which ones didn't she get although a doctor recommend them to you?

0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2009 12:24 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP39qJLgNw0&feature=related
Vaccines don't cause autism, the preservative, thimerosal is the culprit.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2009 05:58 am
@Green Witch,
If you'll recall, he was "answering" the question of his friend from New Guinea, which was basically why do white guys have all the cargo. From there, he leapt to so many conclusions it was just dizzying. As i pointed out, his basic information about the domestication of plants and animals is sound, and appears to be up-to-date. And i highly recommend it for that. His remark about the continental axes of communication was a new idea to me, and a very cogent one, the sense of which i immediately agreed with.

It is his historical conclusions which i dispute, because they only explain (and then only seem to explain) European hegemony in the Americas--they don't explain why Europeans were so successful in Asia and Africa where military sophistication, metallurgy and endemic, livestock derived diseases were as common as in Europe. Personally, i would say the two biggest factors in the spread of European hegemony were social organization and blue water navigation. Cortés was (at least twice, i don't recall details) reinforced by sea from Cuba, and just before he burned the boats at Veracruz, he sent a small ship directly to Spain in order to bring himself to the attention of King Carlos (also the HR Emperor Charles V) and to forestall any negative report from the governor of Cuba, who had forbidden his expedition at the last minute. He could command resources from overseas, whether nearby Cuba, or distant Spain. The Azteca, of course, could not do that. Furthermore, Europeans, even when rivals at home, frequently worked together when confronting a common enemy, even if not always well--c.f. the crusades, and the long rivalry in the Mediterranean between Muslims and Christians. Not only could the Azteca not match that, their neighbors were actually hostile to them, and joined the invader in their destruction.

Pizarro's success largely came from the anthill-like nature of the Tawantinsuyu culture. Killing Atahualpa was similar to killing the "Queen" of an anthill. The "ants" wander around aimlessly, and no longer work effectively as a team. In that respect, it should be noted that Atahualpa had just won a civil war after his father had died as a result of epidemic which had reached them (probably smallpox finally arriving from the pandemic in the Spanish "new world" empire--commentators like Diamond forget or ignore that it devastates the invader, too). There then was a civil war which Atahualpa had just won. So when the Spanish seized him, the empire was now reeling from the third successive body blow to a highly-centralized state. European states had long encouraged (although not necessarily intentionally) a more vigorous individualism. Kill off a Roman Emperor, and three would pop up to claim the title within a month, while business as usual proceeded in the empire with a "yeah, whatever" attitude. When the "Inca" finally rose up against the Spanish, years after the murder of Atahualpa, they (the Spanish) had established regular deep sea communications with the rest of the new world empire, and only needed to hold out long enough for reinforcements to arrive, which is essentially what happened.

Also, Spanish conquests were (as were most European exploration and conquest expeditions, to one extent or another) capitalist ventures. A royal accountant would accompany such expeditions to see to it that the King got his statutory 20%, and the Church usually provided some sort of conditional imprimatur, too, as long as the expedition leader paid lip service to the idea of bringing the heathen to the knowledge and joy of Jesus' love--and then the Church got its 20%, too. If any of these expeditions failed, a new one would start, either from the original bunch or someone different. The first English attempt at colonizing North America, at Roanoke Island, failed. Jamestown (a commercial enterprise of the Virginia Company) came damned close to failing--about 80% of the population of the colony died each year in the first several years. The French colony at Hilton Head (1562?) didn't even last a year--the colonists left behind got lonely, built a boat and sailed back to France. Not only did other cultures not have blue water navigation, their European competitors had gotten good enough that a few dozen men likely would include enough skilled workers to build a boat which could sail three thousand miles.

I won't make this a digression about why, specifically, Europeans were enabled to establish hegemony right around the world. The Chinese were once successful blue water sailors and had a high degree of social organization, but didn't succeed as the Europeans did. It would take twice this post to just sketch why they didn't. But the point is, Mr. Diamond's answer to his friend in New Guinea was more important to him that actually establishing his truth of his hypothesis, and so he fudged the historical record to support his thesis. No fault to him, really, for all that he has a good scientific grounding (and i'm not expert enough to know if he had gross errors there) to argue his other points, i doubt that he was familiar in detail with the history of European exploration and colonization.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

My daughter - Discussion by Seed
acting out or real problem - Question by Bl08791
Tween girls - Discussion by sozobe
Nebraska Safe Haven Law - Discussion by Diest TKO
For Parents - Discussion by shawn1989
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Vaccine Court
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/14/2020 at 12:30:28