Posted on 02/04/2015 9:43:28 AM PST by raptor22
ulture: An unlikely issue has entered the infant 2016 presidential campaign: Vaccines and required vaccinations. Let's hope the fact there's no scientific link to autism or anything else isn't lost in the political fray.
Candidates will often look for an edge over their opponents. Thus, both New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky recently suggested that, while vaccinations are good, forcing parents to vaccinate their children might be too much.
We believe vaccines are safe and should be routine, but concern about parents' rights is not unreasonable. What really gripes us, however, is listening to the media make this out to be an issue dreamed up by anti-science, right-wing kooks. Far from it.
The issue has been pushed in recent years almost entirely by the left. Hollywood progressives and others in the media (see editorial, below) have promoted the idea that vaccines have possible nasty effects, such as autism, and that they're reason to keep kids from being vaccinated.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence
Please cite your evidence. If "nearly every" study that has been done is biased, then by definition there are some that aren't.
What are the findings of these studies that are not biased? Do they support your conclusions? Please cite them.
I think you missed one:
VIOXX
Or maybe it had another name.
Have you seen this? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7w
hPOsCUAAF3Or.png:large
The link didn’t work. #cdcwhistleblower lot’s of people on twitter campaign asking for Congressional investigation.
Yeah, if she was, it would be a nightmare for anyone to clean up her blood and/or vomit. All I am saying is that cases such as Kaci Hickox do not speak well for what the government will do - it speaks volumes that the government is certainly with kinks in terms of what they will do to control the spread of a disease. I know that HIV/AIDS speaks badly about that already, but this is extra icing on the cake.
Your last link does not appear to be working. Can you repost it? Thanks.
Can you cite a study in support of multiple vaccines at once especially for newborns and infants?
Thanks.
Yes.
The Journal of Pediatrics
March 29, 2013
The Risk of Autism Is Not Increased by "Too Many Vaccines Too Soon
They use the reported events to then go out and study the relationships between vaccines and the reported adverse reactions, and I've already linked to a document from the American Academy of Pediatrics that lists dozens of studies showing no causal relationship between vaccines and autism. To date, outside of Wakefield's fraudulent work, there's been no scientific study showing evidence that vaccines cause autism; NOT ONE.
The Italian case was long ago debunked as essentially a hoax by a questionable court, and I'm surprise to hear it brought up again:
Court Rulings Don't Confirm Autism-Vaccine Link - Forbes
The centerpiece of the “courts confirm” article is the 2012 finding of a local Italian court that a child was diagnosed with autism a year after receiving an MMR. The court, in linking the two things, relied very heavily on the retracted and fraudulent 1998 Wakefield MMR Lancet paper and the testimony of a single physician, hired by the plaintiff’s attorney (widely known for advising parents on how to avoid compulsory vaccinations). The physician, Massimo Montinari, it seems, has written a book on how vaccines cause autism and peddles an autism “cure” that he’s devised.
Italian courts, provincial or otherwise, are not known for basing their rulings in science. They are, after all, part of the system that led to a manslaughter conviction of six scientists for not predicting the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, disregarding completely the obvious fact that such predictions are not, in fact, scientifically possible. In a similar way, the Italian court that made the MMR-autism ruling–the centerpiece of this latest “courts confirm” tripe–ignored completely the science made available to it and focused almost solely on the retracted Wakefield paper and a physician with a COI in making its decision. A decision that is, by the way, under appeal.
______
What is your stance on the government requiring everyone purchase medical insurance?
I think it's statist garbage, and unconstitutional.
Why is it okay for the government to demand to all of us to subject ourselves to a medical procedure?
You don't have to get vaccinated if you don't want to. If you don't want to vaccinate your kids, you can home school them. Taking proper precautions to make sure that children are not at risk for spreading harmful infectious diseases, in light of the evidence which is overwhelming and one-sided towards the safety of immunizations, is not only reasonable but responsible.
Are your answer logically consistent?
Of course they are. Are yours? Using your logic, on what basis could you deny a kid with the measles entrance to public school? Don't his parents pay property taxes too? What would be your justification for quarantining someone with Ebola? Would you even support a quarantine?
Is is it consistent with liberty to decide for oneself and their children if the with consent to a medical procedure?
State governments are well within their Constitutional authority to require basic health and safety measures for the 50 million children who attend public school. You're perfectly within your right to leave your children defenseless against deadly diseases, but you cannot pass that risk on to other children. That isn't liberty.
Which source are you referring to? Do you have any evidence that the Journal of Pediatrics study I linked to is "tainted"?
Sounds like you're going to play the 9/11 Truther angle, and claim any evidentiary source that debunks your assertions is part of the conspiracy.
Science, like government, has lost credibility. People just don’t trust it as much. With good reason. Look at the global warming silliness and the demonstrated fraud perpetrated by scientists in that discipline.
If you people at Investor’s Business Daily don’t have a good long public discussion about this, and then relate it with details about the studies on vaccines, you haven’t really done any thinking about it. Or you’re lying.
Boy, you must be new at this.
Let me dumb it down for you.
That's what is called a "press release". A press release is like a summary of the findings that is sent to various media outlets.
The researchers were tasked with exploring the safety of the CDC schedule as it related to autism risk, and for readers' convenience, they posted a link to the actual schedule so that readers can see the object that is being tested.
If you had bothered to read the entire press release, you'd see a link to the full study at the bottom:
Try to keep up here. I'm not going to do all the work for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.