Posted on 09/14/2009 8:38:06 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Great article at your researcher link. I’ve added it to my favorite list so I can access it again for these types of discussions.
In the case of Polio, the original vaccine has this said about it “The vaccine actually induced 260 cases of poliomyelitis, including 10 deaths.”
Was the benefit worth the cost? If you could save 1,000 lives, would you sacrifice 1 through statistics? Like anything else, it’s a game of benefits vs risk.
Someone, somewhere is going to die from getting a shot. The question at the end of the day is did I do any harm? Are there people who are going to be alive in a year or two, who would have been statistically dead if I did nothing?
To answer your HIV question of 5% fatality rate; first off this would NEVER be approved by the FDA. But if it were, you would ask yourself - what are the odds of me catching this bug? If I catch it, will I die? Will I take out someone innocent?
If this were “Night of the Living Dead” scenario, and an anti-zombie vaccine had a 5% fatality rating, would you take it? I would. It all depends on the situation.
Besides, I like my meat med. well; not rare.
Doh!!! You are correct. 1993 - 2001 is smack dab in the middls of King Bubba. Now I'm embarassed ....
This law or regulation assumes every young girl is going to be sexually promiscuous and won't even give young Simone a chance to prove otherwise. That is dead wrong and Simone is right to fight it.
The distinction you are missing in your example is whether you forced them to take the vaccination which killed him. It is the difference between an accidental death of someone who chose to take the shot and the pre-calculated murder of someone who was forced against their will to do the same.
I would argue that the vaccination as marketed reduces SOME of the odds of exposure, but may actually increase the risk of the other parts of exposure because of the FALSE illusion that one is protected from the cancer when in fact one is only protected from PART of the precursor infections. Further, by giving the false sense of security, it might even encourage risky behavior that could be averted by better education and information instead of the vaccine. Also, those who become infected from the strains that are not prevented may be less likely to get the regular screenings that could save their lives because they were duped by the "one less" campaign into thinking they have nothing to worry about. Making the vaccination avaialable to those who deem it to be beneficial is perfectly fine, but don't lie about what the vaccine is (the ads still refer to Gardasil as a vaccination against cervical cancer even though that characterization is a blatant lie) and leave the decision up to the individual based on the best information that can be provided.
Point one is that I’m 48; so I have a few more miles left on the ol’ chassis.
What if the hypothetical HIV vaccine in your example features a 1/2 of 1% chance that it will make your genitals shrivel up and fall off - never to function in the old chassis again? And what if in addition to that there is another 1/2 of 1% chance tha it will cause your heart to suddenly stop beating for several minutes. Would you prefer to have the CHOICE (in your post you said you would choose to take the vaccine) based on your own assessment of the risks and benefits, or would you prefer that the government mandate that you must take it?
Well said.
Not in my opinion. An argument can be made for having the government protect us from risks that no individual citizen could adequately protect himself against. For example, vaccination requirements for airborne diseases or building codes in crowded areas (where a building collapse might crush people on adjoining property).
The government should NOT be in the business from protecting us from risks we are reasonably capable of avoiding ourselves. By exercising some self-restraint and being careful in choosing partners, a woman can protect herself from STD's. People aren't left helpless against this threat without the strong hand of the government to guide them.
Without the vaccination mandate, will some women still get cervical cancer because they made stupid decisions? Most definitely. But that's her business, not mine. It's sad if she wants to throw her life away, but it's her life... not mine, and certainly not the government's.
It's not wise to empower the government to protect us from our own stupidity. Doing so opens the door for the government to regulate every aspect of our lives, "for our own good".
bttt
I say deport the illega immigrant!!!
What law? Did Congress pass legislation authorizing this?
I'm accustomed to quick reactionary calls for deportation around here.
Perhaps if her name were Chavez....
I just checked, in 2005 in the U.S., 3,924 women died of cervical cancer. In 2005 in the U.S., 40,000 people did in car crashes. So, if the government banned cars, look at all the lives that would be saved? By your argument, that’s the right thing to do. I really don’t think that’s any more ridiculous. We don’t even have an adequate idea how safe Gardasil is, or what kind of side effects it has.
She isn’t an illegal immigrant. But it’s interesting that you hate legal immigrants and support illegal ones.
Okay, so you’ve made it clear that you are part of the homosexual lobby. Whether you know it or not.
Actually I was just drawing the parallel as to how many around her think that the legal status of a child whom is born on American soil doesn’t matter since there parent may not have legal status or are only here on a temporary basis.
Yet in this case the parents have legal status and the child is in violation of her conditional stay. What differences apply here that has garnered so much pro-sentiment and why is it that others are not afforded such advocacy or compassion?
Very interesting...
Psst violating the terms of your conditional stay.... makes you illegal...
Psst, the terms of also allow for an appeal. She’s not hiding. If they wanted to make her go bye bye, they now where she is. She is doing everything above board.
Yet in this case the parents have legal status and the child is in violation of her conditional stay. What differences apply here that has garnered so much pro-sentiment and why is it that others are not afforded such advocacy or compassion?
Okay, so here's the thing: People are sympathetic to her because, even though they are patriotic U.S. citizens, they aren't happy to see their government impose an evil and unamerican regulation on someone. (probably a regulation, not a law) If this girl did something that most people feel was wrong or deleterious to the country, they wouldn't support her. But most U.S. Americans don't want to take this, and they certainly don't want it forced on anyone. Most U.S. Americans don't like it when they see their government doing something Big Brotherish or Soviet. If it were a vaccine for a communicable disease, especially someone coming from a high-risk area, they might support it. But, she's even been living in this country for most of her life. No one sees her not taking Gardasil as a threat to their wellbeing. (Except for pharma executives) Here's another thing you might thing about: You're talking about this matter in the MIDDLE OF A DEBATE OVER WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAKEOVER OUR HEALTH. And you are promoting the government owns our health position. Gee, are you really surprised your argument is not popular. These potential citizens are being put through the same thing that will happen to all of us, if this passes. So, yeah, people are very sympathetic to someone going through what they see themselves going though soon. And we don't want for potential citizens, what we don't want for ourselves.
I realize you are on the pro-Obamacare side, but it's not popular here on FR.
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.