Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
Sign in to follow this  
Stan

New York Court Upholds Emergency Mandatory Vaccination

Recommended Posts

JoeMo
3 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

First, people seem to call all respiratory illnesses the flu. I think the flu often gets blamed for common colds. 

I know the difference.  A cold is a stuffy head and a wet cough; and if it's really bad, a low grade fever.  It's mostly a hassle.  The flu results in a stuffy head, overall body pains, and a fever as high as 104.  And it lasts much longer.

3 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

I remember the swine flu incident of the 70s when they were worried about a really serious year of infections.

Boy do I remember that! I was down for a month!  I really needed to be in a hospital; but the hospitals where I lived were "full".  I think it was the sickest I have ever felt in my life - including having cancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.

JoeMo

I know as I am getting older (I'll be 69 at the end of the week), there are a couple vaccinations I am seriously considering - shingles and pneumonia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Narcaqh:  I commend you for bringing to our attention the U. S. Vaccine Court.  A careful reading of the purpose and function of that Court  clearly demonstrates the value of vaccines that the lives that they save.  It is good to see you post material that is convincing on the need to be vaccinated.

 

For information on the purpose and function of hte U.S. Vaccine Court see:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/vaccines-trial-us-court-separates-fact-fiction 

The following is jsut one of the informative paragraphs in the above:

The vaccine court's data show that bona fide vaccine injuries are rare. For every million vaccine doses eligible for compensation that were distributed in the decade beginning in 2006, the court compensated one injury victim. Depending on the gravity of the disease in question, receiving a vaccine is orders of magnitude less dangerous than staying unvaccinated. The tetanus vaccine that Durant received causes a life-threatening allergic reaction in at most 0.0006% of people who get the shot. The U.S. case fatality rate from tetanus, by contrast, is 13.2%.

"One injury from vaccines is one too many, but it is also important to keep perspective," says Sarah Atanasoff, a physician at the VICP in Rockville, Maryland. "The benefits of vaccination to the individual, the local community, and the nation as a whole far outweigh the risks."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

If you do not read beyond the title, that is your responsibility.

If Narcah did not read the actual post that he cited and the links that he had, that is his responsibility.

In any case, he has demonstrated that falsity of his thinking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
On 5/18/2019 at 7:29 AM, Narcah said:

This. Is. Why. 

The person mentioned may have won a lawsuit by blaming vaccines, but that does not mean that a vaccine caused the problem. A sample of one is not scientific. It really demonstrates nothing more than she got a vaccine around the time of her illness. I have seen far worse cases of neurological problems when there was no vaccine involvement. This person in the story just happened to win the lawsuit lottery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

She was awarded the money by the Vaccine Court because that   Court determined that her injury was a result of being administered that vaccine.  All medical treatments may have adverse side effects.  The reality is that the rate of such adverse side effects from vaccines is rare compared to the problems with a person who gets the illness because they were not vaccinated.

I will give a personal example from a different treatment:  On a regular basis I received injections into each of my eyes in an attempt to keep me from going blind.   Those injections might delay me from going blind, but not prevent it.  They might (rare) cause further damage.  However, without those injections I will go blind, in both eyes.

They are not comfortable, for a period hours after the Injections, I can not see well enough to drive.  But, I had decided that I will take the discomfort and the potential risk in order to keep my eyesight a long as possible.  I believe that the potential benefit is greater than the potential risk.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Narcah
20 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

  “But, I had decided that I will take the discomfort and the potential risk in order to keep my eyesight a long as possible.”

 

Thank you for proving my point. YOU decided the reward was worth the risk. That is exactly what medical autonomy is all about, each person deciding for themselves (and their minor children) where the risk/reward falls for them. 

Would you be ok with the government forcing you to take eye injections?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Narcah:  You have asked a valid question that is well deserving of a response.

In background, as I have stated before, for almost 20 years I served on hospital ethics comities, both governmental and private.  We struggled with issues that sometimes had neither a simple nor a good answer.

One of our guiding principles was that an adult, who was competent, and who understood the consequences of their decision had the right to decide on the clinical care that they would receive and to refuse clinical care that the did not want to receive.  As a result, I have seen people die due to the choice that they  made, when they could have chosen life free of pain and disability.  The classic example of this, which I have previously posted is that of a woman, who was an informed clinical provider, and who had full medical coverage that would have paid all costs of her treatment, who died because she chose to reject recommended treatment and chose treatment that included vitamins, diet and other such.  She was informed and understood the consequences of her decision.  She was an adult and she was competent.  I fully support her right to decide to reject the recommended treatment.

In the hospital where I worked, we gave patients who had dementia the right to make decisions as to their care, when we believed that they understood the consequences of their decisions.  Dementia does not  mean that a person can never make a decision about their life.

But, ethical decisions are not always easy.  They are not  easy when the decision involves another person.   I  have been involved in situations where  daughter wanted to decide for a Father who could not make a decision about his care.  They are not easy when the decision involves a child.  A parent may not always have the right to decide on the care to be given to that child.  As an example, recently the national news has reported on some parents who have pled guilty to criminal abuse of a child.  Should such a parent have the right to make decisions as to how the child should be examined and treated for the abuse?

Another decision is not easy when the care given to a person affects the health of other people.  To what extent should a person with active TB be allowed to go out in public and infect others?   This same issue is related to vaccines.   Some vaccines can not be given to    people below a specific age.  Any person who is not vaccinated for such a disease may be a danger to others who could not have been vaccinated.  In such cases the public has enacted laws to protect  people who could not be vaccinated.    

To respond to your question:  No, I would not want laws to be passed that required people with ARMD to receive  injections into their eyes.  There is no public safety interest involved.  But, there is a general public safety interest involved in vaccines.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
23 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

She was awarded the money by the Vaccine Court because that   Court determined that her injury was a result of being administered that vaccine.  All medical treatments may have adverse side effects.  The reality is that the rate of such adverse side effects from vaccines is rare compared to the problems with a person who gets the illness because they were not vaccinated.

My point was that a one person event is not good evidence to say it was the vaccine. Even if said by medical people to be so. There are a lot of people in their final rest because medical people determined the wrong thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Exactly.  The State may, at times, decide the best interests of the child and act against the parents wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.



×
×
  • Create New...