|
|
|
|
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/25/2009 2:17:23 PM | Pray tell, how is this statement unworthy or deceptive, when you have pretty much made my argument , in your qualifying statement:
As I pointed out... more than once... you are generating a fallacy here... you present the possibility out of context to its real probability by saying, to paraphrase if I might, "There COULD be an endorine dysfunction so thimerosal COULD be one of the environmental causes"... you are layering possibility upon possibility while glossing over the real improbability that arises from the balance of evidence...
You are dismissing, the impact of metabolic waste on the central nervous system. I suspect that the underlying cause of autism will be found in a dysfunction of the endocrine system. Which could lead one to the hypothesis, that the study of nature (hereditary function of the metabolism) and nurture (environmental impact on the endocrine and central nervous system...such as vaccines...amongst other, very important indicators) might result, in a conclusive determination of the cause of autism.
No, I am not... the critical point here is that, if thimerosal were operating on such a compromised system, the linkage should be sufficiently demonstrated in the evidence to allow us to say that the balance of probabilities indicate such a linkage, even if the mechanism of action was unknown... just as we can say that there is a likely linkage, albeit small, between maternal rubella infection and autism risk... the evidence for it is far from conclusive but it is significant enough to rise to a statistical probability that is sufficiently strong to say that there is likely a linkage... the evidence for thimerosal's involvement, on the balance, does not rise beyond an unlikely level of statistical probability...
Yes... there is evidence of endocrine function being involved... evidence that is strong enough to rise to a level of statistical probability that allows us to say "There likely is something here"... but the evidence, in the majority, indicate maternal endocrine function over post-natal endocrine function... meaning that maternal endocrine dysfunction is more likely to be causative of autism, ruling out thimerosal in childhood vaccinations, than is an endocrine dysfunction in the child which creates an environmental sensitivity to certain toxins, the accumulation and/or metabolism of which produce the autistim... and, as I pointed out earlier... if the latter were the case, and thimerosal an environmental culprit... the association should be showing up in the data strongly enough to rise above being statistically unlikely... but it doesn't.
the "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" is based upon a confirmation bias...
Mmmm... so now we will go for the "well, you're just biased anyway" ploy will we...?
...will "which pharmaceutical company do you work for?" become the next question...?
Sorry... but I've read the "pro" and "con"... the evidence which supports and the evidence which doesn't... and the bulk of the evidence, the balance of probabilities, with regards to both thimerosal specifically, and post-natal causation generally (which also helps rule out thimerosal since it is administered post-natally), points strongly in the direction of unlikely...
There may be post-natal influences which impact severity... in a manner similar, but not likely exact, to that seen in PKU (which would be the endocrine/sensitivity point)... but the balance of the evidence does not make thimerosal anything more than unlikely to highly unlikely. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/25/2009 2:31:12 PM | All I need to say is, I agree with you. Nobody should be forced to get the flu shot, not should employers force their employees to get the shot in order to keep their jobs.
I haven't had a flu shot in 5 or 6 years (I was about 16 when I got my last flu shot). Had it not been for parents and schools who "forced" me to get the shot, I would have stopped getting it a lot sooner.
At my university, there are A LOT of people getting the flu shot. I've talked to some of them, and I'd say roughly 97% of them got really sick within 48 hours of getting the flu shot.
Unless I already have some fatal disease and they know whats going to save me, nothing (including flu vaccinations) will be injected into my body. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/25/2009 5:49:59 PM |
At my university, there are A LOT of people getting the flu shot. I've talked to some of them, and I'd say roughly 97% of them got really sick within 48 hours of getting the flu shot.
really, thats just silly. if you can get a 97% reaction to anything its remarkable. just the idea that you talked to 100 people about their reaction is silly. its the only way you'd get a number like 97%.
irresponsible talk like this is why we have this current medieval nonsense going on.
get a clue. vaccines were one of man's great leaps forward. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/25/2009 6:34:41 PM | You must be math illiterate or something, because you don't HAVE to talk to 100 people in order to get the 97% average. You can talk to 48 out of 50; 29 out of 30; 19 out of 20....whatever it may be...there are numerous ways to get a 97% (or close to it) average. And that was just an estimate. Notice I said "roughly 97%"
And am I exaggerating? No. Most people at my university have gotten the flu shot, and most of them did get sick right after receiving it.
Are these people really going to go back to the place where the got the vaccination and threaten them? No. Why? Because what good will it do? They (the citizens who received the flu shot) have no clue that the shot made them sick; rather, they must believe that they've come down with a little virus that was already spreading on their school campus, in their home, or maybe they picked the bug up while grocery shopping. I'm not saying this isn't possible, because it is, but isn't it just a little ironic that the ones getting sick so suddenly are those that got the shot?
The OP said for each of us to give our opinions, so that's what I did. I don't need people coming at me telling me I'm full of shit for believing what I believe. I'm not telling you that you're full of shit, am I? I'm just giving you my opinion, and stating the statistics I have come up with.
That's it. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/25/2009 7:14:38 PM | Science is based on fact and the search for fact. Not on simple belief. That would be superstition. But why believe in tried and tested scientific methodology (whichever side of the debate you are on) when you've got the random, unscientific database of whatever your friends said? The exception may prove the rule, but rarely does it disprove it. And even then, it takes a scientific approach to do so.
Yours, madam, is not. And as such, in a discussion such as this, is irrelevant. To use your phrase, yes, I am telling you that what you believe is shit, although no, I do not have any reason to believe that you yourself are full of it. Just a little misguided as to what constitutes valid data.
I don't mean to pick on you in particular, but rather to bring to light the absurdity that other posters beside yourself insist that individual experiences amount to a counter-argument against properly gathered wide-base data. (I'm sure there's an academic term for this with which I'm not familiar.) | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/25/2009 9:08:16 PM |
As I pointed out... more than once... you are generating a fallacy here... you present the possibility out of context to its real probability by saying, to paraphrase if I might, "There COULD be an endorine dysfunction so thimerosal COULD be one of the environmental causes"... you are layering possibility upon possibility while glossing over the real improbability that arises from the balance of evidence...
You are attacking an argument, that doesn't actually exist, (direct quote: you present the possibility out of context to its real probability), through distortion and misrepresentation, thereby dismissing my stance without ever addressing my original argument.
No, I am not... the critical point here is that, if thimerosal were operating on such a compromised system, the linkage should be sufficiently demonstrated in the evidence to allow us to say that the balance of probabilities indicate such a linkage, even if the mechanism of action was unknown... just as we can say that there is a likely linkage, albeit small, between maternal rubella infection and autism risk... the evidence for it is far from conclusive but it is significant enough to rise to a statistical probability that is sufficiently strong to say that there is likely a linkage... the evidence for thimerosal's involvement, on the balance, does not rise beyond an unlikely level of statistical probability...
Yes... there is evidence of endocrine function being involved... evidence that is strong enough to rise to a level of statistical probability that allows us to say "There likely is something here"... but the evidence, in the majority, indicate maternal endocrine function over post-natal endocrine function... meaning that maternal endocrine dysfunction is more likely to be causative of autism, ruling out thimerosal in childhood vaccinations, than is an endocrine dysfunction in the child which creates an environmental sensitivity to certain toxins, the accumulation and/or metabolism of which produce the autistim... and, as I pointed out earlier... if the latter were the case, and thimerosal an environmental culprit... the association should be showing up in the data strongly enough to rise above being statistically unlikely... but it doesn't.
hhmmm...
... Your argument is rapidly becoming an "appeal to probability" fallacy.
Strawman swallows the red herring...
Mmmm... so now we will go for the "well, you're just biased anyway" ploy will we...?
We both are, since we are faced with disputable, inconclusive evidence...
We are merely opining.
And that is my point. Stop trying to present it as a fact, as if it is conclusive evidence.
will "which pharmaceutical company do you work for?" become the next question...?
The question never crossed my mind...you are way too intelligent and informed (although somewhat misguided), to be a pharmaceutical rep...
There may be post-natal influences which impact severity... in a manner similar, but not likely exact, to that seen in PKU (which would be the endocrine/sensitivity point)... but the balance of the evidence does not make thimerosal anything more than unlikely to highly unlikely.
An "appeal to probability fallacy"...
A conclusive statement does not equate, to a prediction based upon probability.
After all, a prediction based upon probability is a disingenuous claim...
For the record, I am not against all vaccines...just the ones that could be resolved through preventive measures... | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/26/2009 1:41:37 PM |
through distortion and misrepresentation, thereby dismissing my stance without ever addressing my original argument.
Oh... there's no distortion or misrepresentation in this...
"you present the possibility out of context to its real probability by saying, to paraphrase if I might, "There COULD be an endorine dysfunction so thimerosal COULD be one of the environmental causes"
Throughout, you draw the attention back to 'vaccines' as a possible factor associated with a possible cause in such a vague way as to effectively disguise the real probability... in a way that leads it to appear as though it is more likely than it actually is based on the evidence... No, you haven't SPECIFICALLY said so... but your exposition of your is structured in such a way as to "dance around" the reality of the role that probability plays in determining scientific truth...
Shall I quote...?
children who have autism, have a significantly lower metabolic rate for mercury and other additives within the vaccine. Yes, this is hereditary. But it is also environmentally influenced. (Hence, vaccines...)
Thermisol is contained in the vaccine. Fact. Autistic children have a lower threshold for mercury..mostly, due to hereditary factors, this is again...a fact.
It is factual, that persons who have autism are less likely to process mercury...and it happens mostly in boys...due to the information gathered by those who have actually studied autism, and physiological congruences...
Hey, they may not be right. But they do provide overwhelming evidence, in the face, of the questions that are asked.
I'm sorry, but it is a fact, and an indisputable fact at that, that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence MAY or MAY NOT lead to a conclusion, that thimersol is a factor in autism.
The above statement, is a true statement. The cause of autism is still unknown. This is a fact. So one cannot rule out that, that the vaccines are a contributing factor in the cause of autism. The overwhelming evidence that you are pushing to be blindly accepted as fact, is a fallacy, since it cannot be proven true.
You are dismissing, the impact of metabolic waste on the central nervous system. I suspect that the underlying cause of autism will be found in a dysfunction of the endocrine system. Which could lead one to the hypothesis, that the study of nature (hereditary function of the metabolism) and nurture (environmental impact on the endocrine and central nervous system...such as vaccines...amongst other, very important indicators) might result, in a conclusive determination of the cause of autism.
Again, your sources and my sources disagree...when you poison the body, the body reacts. Mercury is a poison, that affects the brain. Introducing a poison to a system which cannot handle it, (infantile, genetically compromised body) can result in debilitating affects. While such an infusion might be "safe" (I use that term loosely) for a healthy system, in a weakened one the same dose may be an overdose, and therefore toxic.
...each of those statements have an element of rhetorical truth to them but "dance around" the question of probability... and we both know the importance of probability over rhetoric in determining scientific truth... a good argument can easily be rhetorically true without being scientifically true..
We both seem to agree with this notion below...
science rarely considers anything to be 100% proven beyond any question and typically acknowledges that there are other, albeit unlikely, alternatives... it is all determined on the basis of a balance of probabilities...
... And the point of this is that in science, especially the medically-oriented sciences, the standard for the truth or falseness of conclusions is the relative balance of evidence... the balance of probabilities... which outcome is favoured by the evidence... the more probable tending towards truth, the less probable tending towards falseness...
The elision of that distinction through arguments such as...
that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence MAY or MAY NOT lead to a conclusion, that thimersol is a factor in autism.
The above statement, is a true statement. The cause of autism is still unknown. This is a fact. So one cannot rule out that, that the vaccines are a contributing factor in the cause of autism, ever. The overwhelming evidence that you are pushing to be blindly accepted as fact, is a fallacy, since it cannot be proven true.
... is an old rhetorical trick that deliberately plays on the inherent uncertainty contained in scientific knowledge... scientific truth... by using an argument in the form "there is a chance it could still be true because you can't conclusively prove it isn't true" that attempts to ignore the role probability plays in determining scientific truth or falseness...
... and you use it's inverse... "there is a chance it could be wrong because you can't conclusively prove it is true"... here...
An "appeal to probability fallacy"...
A conclusive statement does not equate, to a prediction based upon probability.
After all, a prediction based upon probability is a disingenuous claim...
... again attempting to ignore the pivotal role probability plays in determining "conclusiveness"... scientific truth or falseness...
...What you are really doing is arguing the philosophical question of "what is truth?" rather than the scientific standard of proof/"conclusiveness"/scientific truth...
...Oh... and in the realm of scientific knowledge... scientific truth... a conclusive statement does equate to a prediction based upon probability...
... the fact that scientific proof... scientific truth... is determined based on the higher probability indicated by the preponderance of evidence... and that the probability will almost always less than 1... is a given... more than a given actually... a necessity, if scientific truth is to have any meaning...
...As such the "appeal to probability" fallacy only occurs in science when you argue for the unlikely outcome over the likely outcome based on the premise "but it COULD be true/false because its probability is not zero"... and especially so when you add some extra "ifs" on top of it... as in... "IF it is an endocrine issue then it COULD be vaccines"... so... while such a statement is technically true in the way it is formed it is not a valid rebuttal in the context of scientific truth if its probability does not rise to a likely level relative to the conclusion being rebutted... again, because... scientific truth... or falseness... is entirely dependent on the relative probability of each possibility
 | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/26/2009 2:28:05 PM |
At my university, there are A LOT of people getting the flu shot. I've talked to some of them, and I'd say roughly 97% of them got really sick within 48 hours of getting the flu shot.
I would love to see proof of this  If this is in defense of the OP, no wonder he's having so much trouble trying to prove his point. 
When I was a kid, we use to take thermometers apart and play with that little ball of mercury, nobody told us it was dangerous.
Anyway, back to the claim of 97% of bad reaction to the flu shot to the point of being sick, I use to work in a factory where a good 500 people got the flu shot on the same day and none of them ever seemed to get sick or even use it as an excuse to call in sick, and believe me if they thought they could have, a good 100 would have.  Ninety-seven percent got sick, that's hilarious! | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/26/2009 4:02:51 PM | | Wow, this is still going, think I'll add my 2 cents. This whole debate comes down to this, when does one's personal choices/rights end and the rights and personal choices of another begin. Most times when we make a choice the consequences of that choice is ours, but what happens when that choice can potential harm another. I fully understand why the OP didn't want to be forced by the government to take a flu shot, but in healthcare our choices can directly impact pts who are vulnerable, does that Pt not have the right to be in a place that is as safe as possible, do they not have the right to ask for caregivers that have had the flu shot to minimize their exposure to something potentially harmful. An example, I was in the bank, an older man comes in with 2 grandkids, as we are waiting in line the child begins to cough and sneeze, you could tell the child was very ill, he had her sit in a chair and wait for him to finish. From my point of view I thought you ass, that child should be home and in bed not out spreading it around and from the looks on peoples faces and the teller who made a comment about it none of us were impressed. So this person's choice could have potentially caused several people and their families to become sick, but things will probably not change because we view things from our own perspective and don't see the consquences we can have on others. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/26/2009 4:43:56 PM | Is it getting hot in here or what?
Mungo...you so turn me on...
Sorry. I just had to get that out of my system...
Oh, yeah...back to the discussion. (I got hormonally distracted for a moment.)
Let me first state the obvious.
Of course I am debating within the rhetoric. We both are. The classic definition of the rhetoric is, "the art of persuasive speech". (red herring, btw)
Throughout, you draw the attention back to 'vaccines' as a possible factor associated with a possible cause in such a vague way as to effectively disguise the real probability... in a way that leads it to appear as though it is more likely than it actually is based on the evidence... No, you haven't SPECIFICALLY said so... but your exposition of your is structured in such a way as to "dance around" the reality of the role that probability plays in determining scientific truth...
Your are basing your premise on probability theory and the transferable belief model, when there has simply not been enough time to gather empirical evidence and statistical data to support an informed conclusion.
and we both know the importance of probability over rhetoric in determining scientific truth... a good argument can easily be rhetorically true without being scientifically true..
I agree...
... And the point of this is that in science, especially the medically-oriented sciences, the standard for the truth or falseness of conclusions is the relative balance of evidence... the balance of probabilities... which outcome is favoured by the evidence... the more probable tending towards truth, the less probable tending towards falseness...
The balance of evidence is based upon the information at hand. Again, politely, I suggest the idea that there is simply not enough evidence gathered, to draw broad-sweeping conclusions based upon inadequate study.
To attain a statistical inference would require time...
What you are really doing is arguing the philosophical question of "what is truth?" rather than the scientific standard of proof/"conclusiveness"/scientific truth...
I do tend towards the philosophical. Thank you for noticing that about me...
...Oh... and in the realm of scientific knowledge... scientific truth... a conclusive statement does equate to a prediction based upon probability...
A conclusive statement can only be drawn from a prediction based upon probability, when all of the evidence is known...
... is an old rhetorical trick that deliberately plays on the inherent uncertainty contained in scientific knowledge... scientific truth... by using an argument in the form "there is a chance it could still be true because you can't conclusively prove it isn't true" that attempts to ignore the role probability plays in determining scientific truth or falseness...
... and you use it's inverse... "there is a chance it could be wrong because you can't conclusively prove it is true"... here...
If you are going to use the probability theory as the premise of your refutation, then stop ignoring the random variable.
so... while such a statement is technically true in the way it is formed it is not a valid rebuttal in the context of scientific truth if its probability does not rise to a likely level relative to the conclusion being rebutted... again, because... scientific truth... or falseness... is entirely dependent on the relative probability of each possibility
Okay. So technically you might be correct, based upon current evidence...or not.
The empirical evidence points both ways...
There is no way to get around that. We simply do not have enough data, to draw a conclusive statement, with regards to this topic... | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/27/2009 11:37:42 AM | OP
You have rights.
Don't do it if you don't want to. If you lose your job because of this there is something incredibly wrong with that.
I saw an ignorant post suggesting you were the one in the wrong.
We live in a democracy people! The government doesn't force us to do anything like that and if it attempts to there is something wrong!
Plain and simple! :) | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/27/2009 11:51:26 AM |
this whole debate comes down to this, when does one's personal choices/rights end and the rights and personal choices of another begin. Most times when we make a choice the consequences of that choice is ours, but what happens when that choice can potential harm another. I fully understand why the OP didn't want to be forced by the government to take a flu shot, but in healthcare our choices can directly impact pts who are vulnerable, does that Pt not have the right to be in a place that is as safe as possible,
ah, utilitarianism, the greater of the good if you will!
There is an article that discusses Post 9/11 "Security and Liberty: the Image of Balance" Waldron.
This is what came to mind when I saw this thread.
So if we give up our rights to the government for security for the greater of the good, who is being affected?
In the Post 9/11 context it's those that are being denied their civil liberties of due process and all that wonderful stuff.
So here, if these workers HAVE to take these injections are we allowing them to give up their right to do what they want with their body for the greater of the good? | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/27/2009 12:57:59 PM | | good point sweet, as I said I do understand why the OP doesn't want to be forced to get the flu shot, I was simply pointing out how we look at personal choice, we each have one. What if my personal choice put you or a family member at risk, would it make me right, would my civil liberities be more important then yours, of course not. This is the balance we have to try and keep in a society, yes each person has to make a choice if they want to get the shot, but in healthcare we also have an ethical obligation not to hurt others in our care who are vulnerable. If the OP had not been in healthcare, which increases our risk of catching the flu/cold and passing it to our pts, people probably would not have cared in the least if he got the shot or not. This is also about numbers, healthcare facilities run on limited staff due to budget cuts in recent years as the OP stated previously, if a sufficent number of staff are off sick, then a hospital/clinic can't function properly and can adversely effect the quality of care to the public. Again people will proclaim civil liberities for all right up until if adversely effects them or their family directly. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/27/2009 5:13:30 PM |
So here, if these workers HAVE to take these injections are we allowing them to give up their right to do what they want with their body for the greater of the good?
Pure! To reiterate "for the greater of the good"... seriously, if we let such a
Mandate happen, what's next? Perhaps all people without Children or family
who are deemed healthy, are Mandated by the Government to give up a Kidney
and Bone Marrow for the "greater of the good?" Liver Transplants have made
overwhelming progress in the last 15 years. In Fact, just part of your liver is
required in some cases for a successful transplant. Can we add , you must also
give up part of your liver " for the greater of the good?" How about imprision
every person who has HIV "for the greater of the good?"
I know I'm on the extremist end here, however, what I've just written is a possibility
considering the question of "for the greater of the good!"
If the OP had not been in healthcare, which increases our risk of catching the flu/cold and passing it to our pts, people probably would not have cared in the least
I believe just the opposite. I believe School teachers, food workers, Bus drivers
and anyone other than healthcare workers who work with public mass, increases the risk of passing flu/cold or any contagious affliction TEN FOLD over healthcare
workers. Any Nurse. MD, Tech, or Therapist, wash their hands constantly, perhaps
hundreds of times a day and put new gloves on with each person we deal with.
How many times do other professions that deal with MASS PUBLIC wash their hands or wear gloves before and after dealing each person they come in contact with??
To revisit a point made earlier by a poster, can not be stressed enough.
Hospital Admins, are notorious for hounding healthcare workers who
take sick leave. From my experience and observances, Nurses are the
most abused healthcare workers of all when they take sick leave. I've wittnessed
too many times...a Nurse working while having cold/flu symptoms. I've wittnessed
those same Nurses asking to go home because they felt sick, only to have the
Nursing Supervisor tell them NO.."we are too short staffed." I've wittnessed
Nurses showing me written disciplinary actions because of calling in sick.
In the real world, this is what happens, not what you see on TV. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/27/2009 11:29:02 PM | | Have to agree with you stormwolf, we have only so much staff to cover shifts and I myself have had to go into work with a cold because there was no one to cover my shift, unfortunately this just spreads it around to other staff and Pts, but we have no choice in the matter we have to work. Yes we use universal precautions and even wore masks our entire shift when SARS hit Toronto and if we get sick ourselves, but sick people do come to us and unless you are a wearing a mask the entire time you are still at risk, but you are right anyone who works with the public can be a risk. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/30/2009 2:49:21 AM | Glad to see posts like this and awake people seeing what is going on here with the H1N1 scam the elite is pulling on the collective.
All I can say is do your research and remember where all of your previous info came from.. the Media.. which is obviously the least credible source of information that exists. If you would like a good source for information our website has plenty of swine flu information on it. www.collective-evolution.com. Also check out this video for a bunch of facts about the swine flu vaccine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e32EJ2oCikQ
1nelove
Joe | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/30/2009 3:29:56 AM |
At my university, there are A LOT of people getting the flu shot. I've talked to some of them, and I'd say roughly 97% of them got really sick within 48 hours of getting the flu shot. Since we're tossing out stats here, I have some of my own...
100% of the people I know personally in the health care profession are getting vaccinated as well as bringing their families in to get the vaccine. 0% of these people have fallen ill as a result of this.
Pretty damned good odds if you ask me... | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/30/2009 5:21:19 AM |
100% of the people I know personally in the health care profession are getting vaccinated as well as bringing their families in to get the vaccine. 0% of these people have fallen ill as a result of this.
Your 100% is equivalent to how many people? 5? 12? 4000?
Do you personally know the health conditions of 4000 people?
Like what are you talkin' a boot? | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/30/2009 6:29:55 AM |
Like what are you talkin' a boot? Well, considering you've chosen to not quote the comment I was directing my post towards, it's no wonder that you are unsure of where the conversation came from... perhaps your reading it in context to the thread and the quote I originally made would clarify this for you... 
100% is everyone... the qualifier is that I know them and their families personally. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/30/2009 7:16:02 AM |
100% of the people I know personally in the health care profession are getting vaccinated as well as bringing their families in to get the vaccine.
"The Vaccine." Would you care to share the exact vaccine and profession
you claim is 100% ? Of the thousands of healthcare workers I work with
I would estimate 8 out of 10 are not getting the H1N1 shot. As for there family,
I have yet to meet any healthcare worker in mid-town Manhattan who
claims their children have taken the H1N1 vaccine. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/30/2009 7:32:55 AM | Storm, if you can't make a salient argument, you continuously play with facts to build your whiny argument. Of course, none of them has - it hasn't been and still isn't available. It's only been two days since NY schools have been giving them out, and none of those in Manhattan, according to various sources I checked.
You might just as well claim that none of them have travelled to the moon.
Go ahead - protect your rights. It's a pity you don't realize that with rights and freedom come responsibility. You deserve what you get - I only hope you don't pass it on to some unfortunate innocent victim.
But at least nobody's going to tell you what to do.
Please stay away from my country - we don't need people like you infecting us. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/30/2009 3:04:10 PM | | They did "NOT" get really sick. They had the normal reaction to their body creating antibodies to ensure that it would be able to fight off a severe illness when they are exposed in the future. Also 97% is a pretty hard number to swallow especially with the "really sick" if 97% of the population recieving flow shots got really sick within 48 hours the country would shut down and it would be a lot more noticable than someone claiming that 97% got sick on POF. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/30/2009 5:48:36 PM |
Go ahead - protect your rights. It's a pity you don't realize that with rights and freedom come responsibility.
What responsibility are we talking about? Giving up rights? Cuz if so we're right back to where we started again!
Utilitarianism! For the greater of the good.
You people are funny!  | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 11/2/2009 6:54:05 PM | My Point Of View>No one should have to be force to do anything to their bodies or force to take any kind of a drug...Being force to take this H1N1 is wrong no matter how you look at it...I wouldn't and I'm not going to get it either...I don't like putting anything in my body that isn't meant to be... | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 11/3/2009 5:40:12 AM |
My Point Of View>No one should have to be force to do anything to their bodies or force to take any kind of a drug.
 Gov Patterson has even superceeded the Supreme Court Justice's injunction
and totally suspended all Flu shot mandates for anyone! Dr Richard Daines
( the NY head of the DOH, underestimated the sheer shortage of Health care
workers and their intelligence. While my personal stats are not a fact ....
from the people I talked to in NY that work in health care, 50% were not going
recieve either shot and file a Civil claim for being illegally fired. That would have crippled NEW York and there are not enough health care workers to replace such
numbers. Victory for all people here!!!!!
To decrease your chances of getting the flu.
1. get plenty of rest
2. take 5000 IU of vitamin D3 per day
3. Bleach wipe all handles on doors of your work place and home every day
4. carry tissue with you to open all public doors and wash your hands
after contact with every one you come in contact with.
5. avoid all people sneezing and coughing even if it seems your rude and
move away from them on public transiet.
6. avoid anyone who has taken the Flu shot. | |
|
|
| Page 13 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
