Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Secret Agent Man

“...I want NON-LIFE-THREATENING MEDICAL CARE....” That sounds fine but when there is dispute among those who extensively study these things there is little chance the man in the street can make an informed decision.

For example, do you really believe there was any significant information in the article excerpted?


97 posted on 09/20/2011 10:38:04 AM PDT by arrogantsob (Why do They hate her so much?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]


To: arrogantsob

The man in the street is his best first responder. He has to live in his own skin.

There is risk to everything. The man in the street MUST retain the right to control what goes in to his body and what doesn’t. What optional medical care he gets and what optional medical care he doesn’t. Because as you say, when there is doubt or controversy over optional medical treatments, the man in the street - Joe Citizen, Joe the Plumber - needs to say, “You know what? I am not going to take this until I am satisfied that one side is correct.” Or “I am going to wait to take it until more data comes in.”

If you can’t make an informed decision, the man in the street must be allowed to say “NO”. And assumed to say no unless he explicitly says yes, because this is the position that respects the individual more than assuming they say yes and it’s up to them to say no. Especially when you don’t have enough info to make an informed decision.

Optional medical care is jsut that. It isn’t required immediately or you’ll die otherwise. going from 5 to 26 required vaccines in 30 years at earlier and earlier ages is nuts for things that the body can fight off. They even try to foist a chicken pox vaccine on people now. Chicken pox is a nuisance but is hardly ever deadly. More kids statistically will be harmed by the vaccine than the actual disease.

And I’ll throw your quesiton back at you. Haven’t you ever heard of pharma companies ever rigging test results, getting rid of scientists who wouldn’t cover up bad trials, ignoring studies showing high damage and death rates , to get a drug product out, or a vaccine out? Merck knew about SV-40 contamination in their polio vaccines and did nothing about it. Said it was all safe. It wasn’t.


107 posted on 09/20/2011 7:02:52 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson