No Jab - No Pay!

Forums › Off topic › No Jab - No Pay!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 10

Networkn
32358 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282021 13-Apr-2015 12:31

Dairyxox: Sorry but I'm not going to simply OK any 'vaccination' for my kids.
I'm going to consider each vaccination on a case by case basis. I refuse to simply trust the powers that be, and follow like a sheep. If I'm going to refuse a jab, then there will be a good reason for it (maybe its got mercury or other toxic ingredients, or is poorly tested etc). There better not be any penalty.

The current "batch" of vaccinations are well established and are given to thousands of kids every day. How will you determine what has been "poorly" tested? Facebook? Twitter?

I am wondering what makes you more qualified to consider each vaccination than the thousands of researchers, doctors and approval regimes?

What will you do if they make it mandatory, or if there is a penalty for it? What if they tell you your kids can't go to school unless they are immunized?

Dairyxox

1594 posts

Uber Geek

#1282088 13-Apr-2015 13:05

I'm not claiming to be more qualified, I'm claiming to be most the most interested in my offspring's well-being.
I'm all about making an informed decision

I refuse to trust any qualified professional at face value. Who knows what payoffs they get. Think for yourself, question authority.

I'm not worried about the old school vaccinations, but the new ones. Don't want my kids to be guinea pigs.

networkn

Networkn
32358 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282090 13-Apr-2015 13:09

Dairyxox: I'm not claiming to be more qualified, I'm claiming to be most the most interested in my offspring's well-being.
I'm all about making an informed decision

I refuse to trust any qualified professional at face value. Who knows what payoffs they get. Think for yourself, question authority.

I'm not worried about the old school vaccinations, but the new ones. Don't want my kids to be guinea pigs.

Good Grief! Really?! Pay offs?! Ok.

I'd argue if you aren't immunising your kids you definitely AREN'T the person most interested in their well being.

shk292

2858 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1282100 13-Apr-2015 13:19

Dairyxox: I'm not claiming to be more qualified, I'm claiming to be most the most interested in my offspring's well-being.
I'm all about making an informed decision

I refuse to trust any qualified professional at face value. Who knows what payoffs they get. Think for yourself, question authority.

So, you do an independent audit of aircraft servicing records before you catch a flight? And personally vet the flight log books of all pilots?
You get designs of all bridges peer-reviewed before you drive a car over them?
You're a qualified electrician and have independently verified your house wiring?
You've carried out your own geo-technic survey of the land your house sits on?
You've measured the electromagnetic field strength of your cellphone - using instruments you've calibrated yourself - and independently verified these cause no harmful effects?
You have a medical degree and personally test any treatment regime before you or your family get treated?

I hope you realise how inconsistent you're being if you answer 'no' to any of the above?

Nobody can be an expert in everything. We all have to trust professionals

NZtechfreak

4649 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1282113 13-Apr-2015 13:29

While being (obviously) ardently pro vaccination, I'm not in favour of this.

I work in South Auckland, and our rates of vaccination are extremely high. The main culprits where low vaccination is concerned is not the poor, who this would effect. I would be in favour of effective steps to promote/facilitate vaccination.

For the record: I don't get any "payoffs", and frankly, I resent you even suggesting it. I have no problem with people wanting to take a rigorous look at the merits of each vaccination, in fact I encourage everyone to question authority, but to have the integrity of the work I do called into question is offensive.

Twitter: @nztechfreak
Blogs: HeadphoNZ.org

networkn

Networkn
32358 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282118 13-Apr-2015 13:34

NZtechfreak: While being (obviously) ardently pro vaccination, I'm not in favour of this.

I work in South Auckland, and our rates of vaccination are extremely high. The main culprits where low vaccination is concerned is not the poor, who this would effect. I would be in favour of effective steps to promote/facilitate vaccination.

For the record: I don't get any "payoffs", and frankly, I resent you even suggesting it. I have no problem with people wanting to take a rigorous look at the merits of each vaccination, in fact I encourage everyone to question authority, but to have the integrity of the work I do called into question is offensive.

Honestly I find the stance suggested by the Australian Govt is starting to head in the direction of uncomfortable for me, however I am very very uncomfortable with anti-vax. The problem is finding effective middle ground and education doesn't trump facebook posts by uneducated people for some reason in NZ often.

Smoking rates dropped in NZ considerably and continue to drop, but it took legislation to get it there and despite the protests to the contrary, very few bars etc actually failed as a direct result of the loss of income that legislation supposedly took.

The problem I guess for any measure taken to penalize that don't act in a childs best interests almost always end up penalizing the kids.

NZtechfreak

4649 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1282137 13-Apr-2015 13:49

This is a very difficult area, and yes there may be a role for legislation, but that needs to be weighed very carefully.

The policy mooted here, if it were applied in the New Zealand context, I would see as being primarily geared to generate political capital.

Twitter: @nztechfreak
Blogs: HeadphoNZ.org

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32358 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282143 13-Apr-2015 13:53

NZtechfreak: This is a very difficult area, and yes there may be a role for legislation, but that needs to be weighed very carefully.

The policy mooted here, if it were applied in the New Zealand context, I would see as being primarily geared to generate political capital.

Agreed, it's incredibly difficult. Unsure what the right answer is, but you are right that vaccination rates in lower income areas are generally not too bad, and this would simply make things worse for them or have little or no effect for a massive set up cost.

richms

28191 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282192 13-Apr-2015 14:29

I think aussie is a step in the right direction. Opting out of part of the healthcare/support system and expecting it to clean up the mess with hospital stays and treatment for preventable diseases is crazy.

If you want the safety net of public health and welfare, then you should take all reasonable steps to prevent needing them.

The other option would be to require that anyone that chooses not to vaccinate their child have to carry an additional insurance policy against the outcome of their decisions to pay for the extra treatment and liability that their portable infection incubator will cause if they want to send the child to schools etc.

Richard rich.ms

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1282203 13-Apr-2015 14:39

"...denies benefits to anyone who does not immunise their child, unless they are exempted on medical or religious grounds"

For medical grounds, I doubt it would be too hard to find a medical professional willing to sign an exemption form based on self (or parent - in this case) diagnosis of an allergy, or from a practitioner who themselves object to government coercion for medical treatment of any kind, except if decided by the courts individually.

As for "religious grounds", it sounds impossible to police. Some jews and muslims may be happy to receive an MMR vaccine injection containing pig gelatine, but would vehemently reject taking an oral vaccine or anything else by mouth if it contained the same ingredient (the gods truly are crazy to come up with that one IMO). Having to administer some kind of database of what believers of assorted invisible men in the sky will and won't accept isn't going to work (fairly). What proof you're going to need to be exempted is also relevant.

From my experience, many "anti-vaccination" folks aren't exactly "open for discussion" on the subject. I expect they'll do whatever they feel will work to avoid being discriminated against.

richms

28191 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282206 13-Apr-2015 14:42

Im not happy at exemptions for religious grounds, but small steps, close that loophole when the bulk of the problem parents are dealt with.

The medical one could be hopefully caught by proper auditing of who is issuing them and requiring a second opinion if a crooked GP is doing too many diagnosis of things.

Richard rich.ms

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1282209 13-Apr-2015 14:46

networkn:
Sideface: "It makes me sick to my stomach the number of people we hear spouting anti vax stuff these days. "

People have been spouting anti-vax stuff since the days of Edward Jenner (early 1800s) - nothing new about that.

In the 1800's there was some excuse for it, now there is none.

I'm a parent of four kids - they are almost fully vacinated. However there are a couple of vaccines I am not comfortable with.

Argument One:
One is hpv-human-papillomavirus-vaccine, the vaccine given to girls to reduce Cervical cancers - interestingly enough the cause of those cancers is the same disease which cause genital warts - ie from unsafe sexual practices. Why should my child be innoculated on the chance she is a slag or too stupid to wear protection? further more - now they want to vaccinate my boys - and they don't have a uterus. there were over 35000 adverse vaccinations reactions reported in 2014 in the USA alone - and they believe only about 5% of adverse reactions are reported - meaning a possible 700 000 possible adverse reactions in 2014. - See notes at end of post.

To quote british health.

In 99% of cases, cervical cancer occurs as a result of a history of infection with high-risk types of HPV. Often, infection with the HPV causes no symptoms. HPv is spread by sexual contact.

Looking at those figures, from such <sarcasm>unrealibly fringe organisations</sarcasm> such as the CDC, FDA and British National Health, am I really so OTT in not wanting my children vaccinated with HPV, and having made what I believe is a solid, sensible, facts backed call, should I then be penalised for protecting my children's health just if I happen to be on a benefit? (side note - I am not on a benefit but when you consider how invasive the working for families now is, and the number of families who rely on it to prop up one of the lowest per captia wages in the western society - maybe I am on a benefit and could be forced to risk my childrens' health doing this or face financial difficulties / penalties.,

Further more, if we follow the logic forcing HPV vaccination of children, both boys and girls should be inoculated against all forms of STD's just in case the grow up to be slags.

If my children want to engage in risky sexual practices as consenting adults, then by all means they can get innoculated then, and yes, that is a valid choice. To inoculate children against STDs is ludicrous. Adults can get themselves innoculated if their lifestyles include that type of risk. As an example, we don't get innoculated against TB in NZ (despite it being a growing problem again) but I chose to when I went to work in the indian slums, along with choloera, typhoid and yellow fever. I didn't take anti malerial pills as their side effects are not good because I judged the risk to be low enough not to need to - but again - my lifestyle meant i weighed risks and rewards for vaccination, as a consenting adult. HPV should be the same.

Secondly - There are a number of vaccines being shoved at us as a result of marketing, not hard scientific research. To refuse vaccines based on solid decision making rather than sheep mentality should be rewarded, not penalised. Look at some of the BS scares around global "pandemics" which killed - oh wow - maybe 70 people world wide?

Penultimate argument: the Govt is beginning to use these types of tactics in the UK to enforce a number of different behaviours. For example, if you are late for a WINS type appointment you can loose your entire benefit for three or four weeks or longer, yet the same desk jockeys who enforce these rules don't get penalised for being late for work. These penalties are forcing families out of homes and into shelters.

In an increasingly Orwellian / Nanny state rulings such as this should be resisted vigorously as to allow them is one more step down the track of govt interference and control within the family and other areas they don't belong.

It also goes against the whole ethos of a social justice / welfare state - which is there to ensure minimum safety barriers / levels of life care / health / education etc for all. Just because someone does not agree with one part of an agenda doesn't mean they should be penalised or forced into accepted it.

Lastly: this type of penalty / targeting is discrimination at its most blatant, dressed up in politically correct rags. To discriminate against the most helpless, least resourced and vulnerable of our society but not enforce the same types of penalties against the more affluent (ie those in work, rich people, those not on benefits etc) is pure discrimination. It is unjust to enforce penalties on those on welfare without enforcing the same types of penalties for those on wages. If you remove benefits for non vaccinated kids, then take away ALL wages and savings for those on wages. Then it will be truly non-discriminatory. Until then this is pure discrimination against a portion of society who traditionally ar eless able to defend themselves. however try doing that and see how loud the scream is - pure hypocrisy.

To finish some stats on the dangers of HPV - Vaccines.

Here’s what Dr. Diane Harper, who helped develop Gardasil, said to attendees of the Fourth International Public Conference on Vaccination: “Gardasil is largely unnecessary, and it has never been fully tested on females under the age of 15 …[there`s] little need for the vaccine”. There are two HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix.

Dr. Harper revealed that 70 percent of those infected with HPV recover within a year without treatment. Within two years, 90 percent recover. Of the remaining ten percent, few become cancerous. She further stated that cervical cancer is treatable and diminishing. Unfortunately, Dr. Harper was forced to “recant” her statement publicly.

From the VAERS database - Vaccine Adverse Effects DB - An estimated 5% of all adverse effects get reported.

VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting system). The following table of adverse events from VAERS as of June 2014 was provided by SaneVax.
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a national vaccine safety surveillance program co-sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). VAERS is a post-marketing safety surveillance program, collecting information about adverse events (possible side effects) that occur after the administration of vaccines licensed for use in the United States.

Disabled

1,156

Deaths

169

Did Not Recover

7,111

Abnormal Pap Smear

572

Cervical Dysplasia

243

Cervical Cancer

Life Threatening

640

Emergency Room

11,705

Hospitalized

3,679

Extended Hospital Stay

251

Serious

4,920

Adverse Events

35,270

Safe? My donkey it's safe.!!!!! and I'll physically fight any fatherless bureaucrat who trys to force this on my kids.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282212 13-Apr-2015 14:50

KiwiNZ: While I agree whole heartedly with vaccination the proposed Australian solution is draconian and I would not like that to be considered here.

Choice is only useful when those entrusted to make the choices have adequate information and ability to properly do so. Some people need to be told what to do.

richms

28191 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282213 13-Apr-2015 14:52

IMO the govts job is to run the most affordable healthcare system possible. If getting a jab for all reduces the overall cost of the system then do it. People are too wound up about individual rights forgetting that they are part of a society.

Richard rich.ms

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1282228 13-Apr-2015 15:01

networkn:
Dairyxox: Sorry but I'm not going to simply OK any 'vaccination' for my kids.
I'm going to consider each vaccination on a case by case basis. I refuse to simply trust the powers that be, and follow like a sheep. If I'm going to refuse a jab, then there will be a good reason for it (maybe its got mercury or other toxic ingredients, or is poorly tested etc). There better not be any penalty.

The current "batch" of vaccinations are well established and are given to thousands of kids every day. How will you determine what has been "poorly" tested? Facebook? Twitter?

I am wondering what makes you more qualified to consider each vaccination than the thousands of researchers, doctors and approval regimes?

What will you do if they make it mandatory, or if there is a penalty for it? What if they tell you your kids can't go to school unless they are immunized?

You don't have to be an expert to make an informed decision. And social media is as often full of politically correct sheep forcing stupid decisions on others as it is full of stupid anti this and pro that biggots.

Here is why you don't have to be an expert - I know the basics of how immunisation works, dead viruses, teach bodies how to fight without fighting back etc etc etc. I might even be able to discuss protein markers, infection vectors, aeteology and epidemiology etc - however, even if I was an expert on one vaccine, I certainly wouldn't be on them all.

So how do I make an informed decision as a lay person?

I weigh up risk and rewards. Take the HPV vaccine for instance. I'm pretty sure my six year old girl is not sexualy active. I am pretty sure she is not going to be that way for at least another 8 years - hopefully. More hopefully if she gets to 16 and has elected to wait until marriage or is very pro monogamy, then it is unlikely that HPv vaccine will be of any benefit to her. However if she turned into a complete nympho slag, she and I would be having so discussions around condoms, vaccines, regular STD checks, partner vetting, safe sexual practice etc as well as the benefits of waiting.

For myself - I have personally put myself at risk by getting vaccinated with certain vaccines which have a reasonably high risk of problems (e.g. 1-5%) Why? I was working in an area where the risks for catching the disease i was vaccinated against were that 80-90% of people I was mixing with carried the disease and at least 50% of them were actively infected. Other highly communicable diseases I couldn't vaccinate against so I took the proper precautions. - informed decision.

As a parent I make the same types of informed decision - and none of them make me an expert, but when it comes to my kids health, I am able to be expert enough to know what is of benefit to my children in ways the govt is not - and as a parent I should be supported in those decisions, not slagged off for making what I believe are the best decisions fo rmy kids, including in not vaccinating them when and where I see fit - based on risk and benefits to my childrens / families particular circumstances.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 10