California Has Officially Approved Mandatory Vaccines for All Children
California Governor Jerry Brown officially ended months of debate Tuesday by signing a bill that will require almost all of the state’s children to be vaccinated if they wish to attend public or private schools there. Awesome! ;)
Article:
http://mic.com/articles/121591/california-has-officially-approved-mandatory-vaccines-for-all-children
#vaccination #medicine
YAY! Good news!
ReplyDeleteThis should be interesting...
ReplyDeleteThis is a practical necessity. Ignorant parents should not be allowed to harm their children. Freedom to choose should not be allowed where it actually translates into the freedom to abuse.
ReplyDeleteAnd cigarettes are still legal.
ReplyDeleteJared Ribic I think you are missing the point. Cigarettes are not legal for children. Active or passive abuse of children should not be tolerated.
ReplyDeleteRandall Snyder, Jr. what's sad to me is you apparently have the same mindset the anti-vaxxers have. You're seeking out obscure and isolated fragments of information and outlandish theories and you are investing in them irrationally. The medical treatment theory you're touting here amounts to:
ReplyDelete... the microbe begins to fight the cell through radiation, and sickness is started. If the cell cannot repel the stronger vibrations and if the amplitude of its own vibration is forced to decrease, the microbe gains in amplitude and its vibrations begin to decrease and stop those of the cells, bringing on dangerous sickness or death
WTF? That's not just an oversimplification of the theory, that is the essential basis of it. Although all things vibrate and radiate, the nature of viral disease has little to do with the vibrations of a virus overcoming the vibrations of the cell being attacked.
Meanwhile your comment about vaccinations (a method peer reviewed and almost universally embraced by the medical scientific community) is incomprehensible and absurdly dismissive:
This is sad. Not because vaccines in some cases are effective...
...a means of eliminating vaccinations was achieved and published about in the local papers in the 1920-30's
Because in some cases they are effective? Although you likely didn't mean to construct that sentence the way you did (it doesn't make sense even if I accept your absurd premise), you clearly mean to marginalize the cure-value of vaccinations. Which is absolutely crazy.
I find society interesting, as well as what is/isn't 'legal' under certain circumstances:
ReplyDeleteA pregnant woman gets a ticket for not wearing her seatbelt, while she's driving to the clinic to kill her unborn child - yet we say we care about all life.
Children under 17 are not allowed to see a rated-R movie at the theater, but 13 year-old children are learning how to put condoms on bananas in 'health class' at school.
Once a child turns 13, parents can not access the child's medical record, yet when that child is old enough to drive (but still under 18), if they get in a wreck and injure someone, the parents are sued.
If someone breaks into your house and injures themselves, they can sue you.
Because of all the revenue the porn industry pays politicians, child pornography is now legal, as long as it's 'computer simulated' and not done with real children.
Because of all the revenue the tobacco industry pays politicians, cigarettes are legal, even though they're known to be harmful, they increase the overall cost of healthcare, and offer zero benefit to the smokers.
Because of all the revenue the pharmaceutical industry pays politicians, we now have 'mandatory vaccinations' creating additional financial benefit to those companies.
Because of all the revenue that big business pays politicians, food additives that are banned in other countries for health reasons, are still being used in this country, causing health problems.
It's legal to kill your unborn child, but as an adult, if you're laying on your death-bed, you no longer have the right to say "my body my choice" and are therefore denied the opportunity to escape your misery.
If it wasn't already obvious, it seems that not all laws are strictly for our own good.
I'm not against vaccinations, but once it becomes State Law, the public is no longer in control.
Today we at least have the illusion that we understand the ingredients in some vaccines. Tomorrow it won't matter what 'they' put in the vaccine, because once it's a requirement, you're getting it regardless.
Jared Ribic you're rambling. Your point, in essence, would seem to be that laws should not be used to mandate behaviours that protect children. I couldn't disagree more.
ReplyDeleteI've seen way too many sick children...
ReplyDeleteNot interested to read or hear any religious/ political nonsense or other idiocommercial ideas.
Everyone is free to choose of course... on that note I should have the right to choose if I want to treat or not a baby/ child with pertussis/ hepatitis/ chickenpox etc.
Children who are not immunized pose a threat of transmission when there is disease in the community. They can pass the disease on to babies who are too young for immunizations. They also pose a threat to children with medical exemptions, including children with leukemia, who cannot be immunized because of their medical condition.
The only way we can protect them is to surround them with immunized children.
California had nearly 7000 cases of pertussis in 2013 & 2014. It is not easily treated and can result in permanent brain damage and death.
Diphtheria is an infectious disease of the nose and throat that can lead to serious breathing problems, heart failure, paralysis and even death.
Get informed, ask proper questions and take the right decision! And if you still refuse vaccination do us a favor and keep your child home!!
This is indeed a slippery slope to climb. On the emotionally charged surface, someone else telling me how I have to live my life, raise my children is simply unacceptable, unfathomable. The extreme of this, and why we all real in horror to someone else telling us how we have to live is the likes of the insanity of the Nazis or ISIS telling people how they will live, or they will die simply because they have the power to enact their misguided beliefs. BUT, we are lucky enough to live in an age of prolonged scientific evolution where beliefs are backed up with duplicatable, proven facts. A game changer as it becomes an entirely different issue for now it is indeed a case of what is good for the community as a whole, not the individual. I admit it, this took me a long time to comprehend, too long. I understand now even with the likes of California’s new mandate, law, you STILL have the Right to Choose. You can choose to leave and find a community that is more akin to your beliefs. Or you can choose to campaign for changes to the laws to better fit your beliefs. But within the community, the village, while you are a part of it, to be a part of it, you, we should all not just comply but work together to enact.
ReplyDeleteWhen it is a restriction of an adult's right to choose for themselves I have a problem too - the cannabis prohibition laws for example are a travesty. But parents should not have the right to choose that their children will not receive basic medical care. It endangers not only their own children (which is enough to make it wrong) but the other children in the community. And all out of unforgivable ignorance.
ReplyDelete"Everyone is free to choose of course... on that note I should have the right to choose if I want to treat or not a baby/ child with pertussis/ hepatitis/ chickenpox etc."
ReplyDeleteBut in California, everyone is no longer free to choose.
...except the choice to leave California (and eventually the country if the Pharm Industry gains the same footing in all 50 states).
I was just talking with a veteran who brought up the 'interesting side effects' from the mandatory vaccinations in the military, resulting in Gulf War veterans who came home and had kids with birth defects.
I don't believe that anyone has all the right answers.
For example, there are those who think our current culture of sanitizing everything is actually bad for us. I understand that (in part), but I'm a germaphobe, and I regularly wash my hands, routinely wipe down my cell phone and computer keyboard with alcohol pads, because it makes sense to me. Yes, I think it's possible to go too far, by over-disinfecting, creating sterile environments and allowing our immune systems to become weak. But somehow we need to learn more, and find a balance. When I see someone biting their fingernails, I can't help thinking about all the terrible things they could be subjecting their system to. But I'm in no position to force my choices on Mr. Nailbiter.
It's really a tough call. I'm not anti-vaccination, but I am glad that I still have the choice to vaccinate, and not have it dictated by the State (for now).
Sean Walker how would you explain the relationship of matter to frequency?
ReplyDeleteJared Ribic
ReplyDeleteI had the feeling that you work in the medical field....maybe I was wrong.
Anyways...there's always the option of home schooling...and moving elsewhere.
And don't make me start with how important prenatal genetic tests are. If people would understand the importance of being healthy before/ during and after conceiving we would have less abortions, less babies with malformations and less sickness.
So, do not generalize...as for the rights, indeed no one should be allowed to tell us how to live....but when other people's actions interfere with other people's lives in a negative way, which could lead to sickness and even death...then we need to stop it. They even choose to protect themselves and others in the community...or simply leave, or live isolated.
Randall Snyder, Jr. I honestly don't want to insult you but your question is silly. It's a science-ignorant, new-age, touchy-feely, reality-is-what-my-creative-whim-will-make-of-it sort of question.
ReplyDeleteMatter has many different relationships to frequency, and unless you are talking about the vibrational frequency of something specific in the mechanics of viral diseases, you aren't holding up your end of an intelligent discussion.
And that is exactly what's at issue with anti-science movements such as the anti-vaxxers. It's a communal identity self-defense. The ignorant feeling diminished and acting out mindlessly. Tragically affecting not just themselves but their children and others'. It another sad case of the Tragedy of the Common, with society and the biosphere being the common exploited/degraded resource in this case.
In the course of choosing a profession, we no longer have choice as an option, other than quitting. It becomes an obligation. The fireman does not get to choose which fire he wants to fight, the policeman does not get to choose which crook he wants to arrest. They have made the choice to serve all regardless. It does not mean one has to run in to a burning building toward certain death, being smart so as to be able to do the most good is an important grey area to this obligation.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when groups of people try to impose their sense of morality on others there is a problem. What I do with my body is my business and no one else’s, and if there is a consenting adult engaging with me, it is now only our business and no one else’s. Unless, what I am doing can have an effect on someone else. Now it is there business… and they now have a say. Case in point vaccinations for public school kids. Yes, others who have kids going to the public schools have the right to demand every precaution is taking to prevent their child from contacting a preventable disease. I am grateful, I did not and my children did not contract Smallpox of Polio. Thank you science, thank you doctors, thank you governments for pushing this agenda.
Does it mean we should not all still be very adamant about how things are made, what are the long term effects… We should be outspoken watchdogs to keep those that would pervert great ideas for profit.
Corina Marinescu - I'm all for the good intentions of keeping everyone safe, and I only have 2 problems with this topic.
ReplyDelete1 - The science behind vaccination is sound, but not perfect, yet. Hopefully we're getting closer to it.
Remember the days of mandatory chest x-rays for kids in school? They routinely loaded the kids on a school bus, took them to all be shot with high level x-rays to check for tuberculosis. Nobody even questioned it, because that's just how things were done back then. The reason we don't do that anymore is because the benefit does not outweigh the risk.
2 - The State is forcing this on people, removing freedom of choice from the public.
If this were all about keeping kids safe, why not remove kids from homes where they're forced to breathe 2nd-hand smoke? There are no laws for this, because unlike selling pills and vaccines, there's no money to be made on it, so nobody cares.
People in California will no longer have the ability to chose for themselves if the benefits outweigh the risks. That's what really bothers me.
Sorry if I'm a little bitter about "rights." My crazy-ex put my 12 year-old son on Prozac without my consent (I'm supposed to have equal "rights" for medical decisions). She "claimed" he was depressed and suicidal, and needed to be on medication (although he never displays signs of this at my house, nor have any of my friends seen this in him). Guess what the side-effects of Prozac are? Depression and thoughts of suicide. Better yet, the fine print from the drug company eliminates any responsibility from them if the child commits suicide. Somehow they (psychiatrist and counselor) seem to think the benefits outweigh the risks, even though they both admit (verbally only) that the mother is the problem.
Yes I do work in the medical field. I'm not a person who is anti-vaccine, anti-healthcare, nor am I someone who believes you can just pray your sicknesses away. I do not believe in government conspiracies to put fluoride in our drinking water to mind-control us. If the news today read "California is no longer allowing vaccinations" I'd actually be upset about that, and wonder what's going on.
Science is awesome, and I love it. But great intentions coupled with imperfect application can produce terrible results. Add to that the potential for profit, and things get even worse.
Until we can eliminate side-effects, please don't force it on the public.
Jared Ribic again you are muddying the waters with a lot of irrelevant comments. Effectively no treatments have zero potential for side effects. However the risks Vs benefits balance of vaccinating is too compelling to allow people to abuse their children and others' by opting out.
ReplyDeleteWhat is your issue with the state imposing laws that objectively save children's lives with so little risk? The idea that the state shouldn't mandate proper health care for children on the one hand because it allows parents to inflict secondhand smoke on them on the other is ludicrous. Follow that line of reasoning consistently, then you must also be calling for an end to all child safety legislation: car safety seats, tobacco & alcohol sales restrictions etc. In many these cases there is an angle that someone is profiting from the decision, so the conspiracy angle should be understood to apply universally and so should be just factored out of consideration as irrelevant.
Your other plank is that people should be free to make choices not in the interest of their child's basic health and safety because otherwise their individual freedoms are being imposed upon. I think you need sit calmly and think through your reasoning and consider what sort of society you're advocating.
In for a penny, in for a pound, as the saying goes.
ReplyDeleteRandall Snyder, Jr. I want to keep this brief - your response was frankly unnecessarily long. All that you have have said and referenced amounts to:
1) Like all matter, viruses, bacteria and cancer cells all have resonant vibrational frequencies, which can be used to destroy them, by over-agitating them at these frequencies
2) Cells Viruses are in a sort of vibrational war with the cells they invade.
3) It is sad that the CA state government is forcing this new policy on people instead of having pursued this obvious alternative to vaccines.
I see 2) as a non-science claim and I wont respond to it. 3) follows entirely from an overly optimistic appraisal of of 1) , so I will comment only briefly on 1).
Most things can be destroyed by vibrating them at a destructive level. Vibrating things at their resonant frequency is the most efficient means to achieve this because they are much more readily excited at these frequencies. However viruses pass through most of the soft tissue in the body, delivering sufficient sonic waves through several centimeters of intermediate tissue is impossible, because the intermediate tissue is a poor conductor of the sonic waves. Even using constructive interference techniques.
Somewhat similar methods have been researched extensively using other forms of waves (although of the particle variety: light, microwaves) with tumors. They have been marginally successful, but with concentrated cancer cells, not with distributed pathogenic material. And contrary to your original claim that not much time has been invested into this field, I'm sure over a 100 millions dollar have been. (A friend of mine has participated in and led numerous research projects which I am sure have totaled to more than $10M and he certainly isn't alone in this research field)
Your belief that a vibrational resonance frequency based method would have yielded a better solution than vaccines is unfounded. It's pie in the sky. Your optimistic comments imply you believe you know better than the medical science community the potential of this technique or perhaps that there is some sort of conspiracy afoot causing them not to pursue this obvious alternative to vaccinations.
Googling this technique yields a wealth of hits on homeopathy and alternative medicine sites. Real science articles are sparse and make it clear it's just a vague idea. The only concrete solution proposed for penetrating soft tissue was to cycle the blood out of the body. That's a pie in the sky solution, but even if it came about, would you prefer that to getting a vaccine? Can you imagine how expensive it would be? You can be sure that the risk of that sort of procedure would be far greater than the risk associated with vaccines.
Sean Walker Ignorant parents should not be allowed to harm their children.
ReplyDeleteNot just their own children (though that's bad enough). But other people's children, whether young or adult: the non-immunized, those who don't respond to immunization, those who are immunocompromised.
Anti-vaxxers are playing dice with all of them.
Much needed, much overdue, much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteSean Walker even "silly" questions can lead to novel insights. The beneficiary of a robust informed debate is both for those who participate in the debate and those who find the debate interesting.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that you did some cursory "googling" to become better aware of these esoteric facts. But until you have read the content suggested in its entirety you are limited in your capacity to respond to suggestions based on cursory observations.
I am not expecting you to turn the first page of any of the text but you would likely agree that there is no real opportunity for debate of this or anything for that matter where both parties have different levels of exposure to the content. I have read what I have shared, if you would like to continue to engage in this discussion it's only prudent that you read the material.
When I post something I do it intimately aware of the science and the implications of the information's impact on humanity. I do not make a point of attacking those who have contrary points of view but I welcome the debate as it forces me to be as knowledgeable as I can be so that my intentions to help are honored.
You have attempted to paint me, my character and intentions as other than they are. That's casting judgement where you aren't qualified to do so.
People who disagree but who remain true to their desire to inform are beneficial to one another. I encourage you to keep a positive and open mind to all of this information that you find challenging, some of it may just prove fruitful to you.
For those who have followed our banter, thank you for paying attention and I would be honored to hear your thoughts.
This issue is important and the results of a complete understanding of the nature of reality, from the quantum level is the most obvious place to build your understanding of the potential to eliminate vaccinations and their peripheral concerns.
Question everything, especially what you know. :D
The research that I have referenced includes well grounded facts along with easy-to-understand explanations that will have any intellectually-honest reader giving the entire notion of vaccinations a second glance.
Randall Snyder, Jr. I don't invest my time in every pie-in-the-sky idea someone promotes. I told you specifically the problem that would be encountered regarding penetrating soft tissue with sound and the solution I saw mentioned. You didn't respond in substance to that. An alternative to sound waves I also read about involved lasers, which also has obvious problems associated with penetrating soft tissue.
ReplyDeleteSo I challenge you, aside from the EXTREMELY vague frequency idea and an EVEN vaguer recent comment about the importance of QM, with specificity and not verbosity, what objectively leads you to believe that the science behind this idea is so promising that the legislation in CA is 'sad'? I agree, this subject is very important, which is why I am responding to your nonsense - otherwise I would take the emotionally intelligent route of ignoring it. Shooting your mouth off about how 'sad' the CA situation is on the basis of a treatment theory that has very little substance isn't doing it justice and is exactly the nature of the problem that requires the CA legislation - willful and active ignorance focused on persuading people about irrational approaches to caring for our children.
Sean Walker this would be kind of amusing if not for being disingenuous. You are trolling on this issue.
ReplyDeleteYou have been encouraged to read and become informed but instead you wish for me to defend facts you can't attest to. There is no point in trying to get you to take a sip from the trough. Cognitive dissonance is clearly your choice.
Slanderous suggestions reflect on your intentions and in no way affect history or the facts recorded. The information I present here requires no defense. Anyone willing to look can decide for themselves.
Good day sir.
Randall Snyder, Jr. ie you are full of shit - gotcha.
ReplyDeleteYour QM reference was icing on the cake. Do you by chance listen to Deepak Chopra? I'm thinking you are 'intimately aware' of the subject that you are promoting in the same sense that he is about QM... lol
Edward Morbius I'm not usually this confrontational but I just can't stand anti-vaxxer, and anti-science BS. And when it has real consequences, as it does on this topic, it gets me vocal.
ReplyDeleteSean Walker there's nothing I've posted on this thread that states I'm anti-vaccine. That's you projecting to distract. I've only suggested it's sad that an investment has not been made to fully understand the achievements of Dr. Rife and others and how once realized in practice vaccinations will no longer be necessary. Supposing there was a healthier alternative wouldn't you want that or is this simply a case of don't challenge the status quo because that's where my vested interests lie?
ReplyDeleteDo you comprehend how ridiculous your inflammatory responses are?
I didn't do this work, I'm only exposing others to the source material I've become familiar with. Your reaction is just like that of someone fearful they'll find out the world isn't flat after all. That sir is reprehensible but at this point no surprise.
If you truly possessed the deep passionate concern of which the tone and posture of your comments suggest, you'd put in the effort required to digest the material in an attempt to prove yourself wrong but that's likely an exceptional effort too beneath you to consider.
There is no practical way that others could be harmed by simply considering repeatable scientific results.
Can you explain the implications of the 2 slit experiment?
Randall Snyder, Jr. reality check, you said:
ReplyDeleteThis is sad. Not because vaccines in some cases are effective but in that the state of California has invested its efforts to institute such a legal requirement when, within its own borders, a means of eliminating vaccinations was achieved and published about in the local papers in the 1920-30's by then San Diego resident Dr. Royal Raymond Rife.
There is nothing sad about the situation. The method of vaccinations isn't substandard or regrettable and your proposed solution is pie in the sky.
I am quite well acquainted with the double slit experiment and the competing interpretations of it. What relationship does that have with the subject at hand?
Sean Walker Brandolini's Law:
ReplyDeletehttp://bulldozer00.com/2014/08/28/brandolinis-law/
Edward Morbius lol! That is so true.
ReplyDelete