freeflybella

Hmm...the hypothetical HIV vaccine. -what are the side effects? what is the injury rate? how many die from it? -at what age would this vaccine be given? birth? -what would this vaccine be combined with? The bird flu and chickenpox? would it be the HIV vaccine or the HAHz vaccine? -how many trials did it have and what were the results? -how long since it was first approved are they trying to mandate it? **** I hope a cure for HIV is found before a vaccine is. Same result - eradication of disease. Less money for pharma. Less risk for those without HIV. Wait...less money for pharma? I guess we'll see the vax first. **** The answer for me is no. Make the HIV vax available, make it free and educate everyone. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

How many diseases are there in the world? Where do we draw the line, Bill? It is a tough call. You're very right about that. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

This not directed at you, Dave, but WTF? WHY do I have to have GOD to be able to opt out of a vaccine mandate?! Is that cuz GOD will cure my HPV? Only a dwindling few states allow philosophical exemptions. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

I'm not anti-vaccine. I'd love a cure-all that was 100% safe. Until that day comes, I owe it to myself and to my child to understand what's being asked of me (if not, forced upon me). 100% safe, eh? Funny demand, coming from a SKYDIVER. I'm not throwing my infant from a plane, Kallend! Calculated risk is what it's about. You can't take calculated risks if you don't know the factors involved. (hint: that's where the 'calculation' part comes in)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'datamining'. I referenced the VAERS database because there ARE adverse effects and I have a right and an obligation to question. Vaccines aren't necessarily unsafe for all (they are for some) but that also doesn't mean they are safe. If I'm taking my infant to a doctor and having him injected with something - I want to know what and why. I don't have blind trust in lawmakers/pharmaceutical sales companies. Many vaccines have been recalled and discontinued over the history of vaccines for varied reasons - ranging from harmful formulations to ineffective lots to dangerous side effects. As I said, it's my right and obligation to question. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

I thought that's what all of these threads were about - the fact that some don't want us to be able to make those decisions. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

There's a vaccine for that. And you've refused it, why?

From the CDC... (see attachment) Remember that MMR and DTaP are 6 vaccines. (edited: the article I quoted from in my previous post was from 2002 - it seems already the numbers are up. 14 vaccines recommended/mandated and up to 30+ shots by age 2 - if you include yearly flu) Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

There's a vaccine for that. And you've refused it, why?

I'm not anti-vaccine. I'd love a cure-all that was 100% safe. Until that day comes, I owe it to myself and to my child to understand what's being asked of me (if not, forced upon me). Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

This isn't exactly strong evidence that an infants' immune system can handle an indefinitely growing number of shots - but this is enough to concern me as a parent. And to encourage me to ask questions and read and try my best to educate myself without blindly trusting some fucking lawmakers' greed. (HPV) Then again I do suffer from the disease of ignorance. http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?LOWAGE=0&HIGHAGE=2&SEX=&STATE=&PRIOR_VAX=&VAX_DATE_LOW=&VAX_DATE_HIGH=&CUR_ILL=&VAX=&VAXDOSE=&VAXMAN=&VAXROUTE=&VAXLOT=&VAXSITE=&ONSET_DATE_LOW=&ONSET_DATE_HIGH=&REPORT_DATE_LOW=&REPORT_DATE_HIGH=&SYMPTOMS=&HISTORY=&L_THREAT=&ER_VISIT=&DIED=&HOSPITAL=&DEATH_DATE_LOW=&DEATH_DATE_HIGH=&X_STAY=&RECOVD=No&LAB_DATA=&DISABLE=&OTHER_MEDS=&V_ADMINBY=&V_FUNDBY=&PAGENO=1&PERPAGE=10&action=Find%2C+spreadsheet+format http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/stats.html Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

They all do. They all still exist. And even more are mutating. The number of shots required for children has almost doubled in 20 years. How many vaccines will our children have to have in another 20 years? "The number of recommended childhood vaccines has increased substantially over the past several decades. Twenty years ago, children received 7 vaccines routinely and up to 5 shots by 2 years of age. Today, children receive 11 vaccines routinely and as many as 20 shots by age two," explains Dr. Offit." Quoted from an article "assuring" us that infants' immune systems can handle the growing number of vaccines safely. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

wow. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

My favorite part of the article is that he was charged with "inducing panic". Doesn't surprise me. I lived in Westerville Ohio for 2 years - 9th and 10th grade. I went to that high school (my brother went to the middle school next door). I moved there from San Francisco (complete with dyed hair and safety pins) and was immediately labeled a 'devil worshipper'. I can just imagine what the 'Young Lifers' must have thought of the nekkid bearded dude. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

you're silly. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

First, it's not illegal to be an obese adult. Second, food is different from hitting. We need food, we don't need hitting. It's not a black and white comparison. Third, I do believe parents need much more support in being able to provide their kids with better food options. I think it's a 'crime' that candy and coke are allowed in schools and that McFuckingDonald's is the cheapest food out there, blah blah blah. Spanking your baby/toddler requires only one thing - stop doing it. It's not effective, it's potentially harmful and in many cases very harmful. Do most of you believe that your children are your possessions? That how you treat them and what you do to or with them should be outside of any and all common societal acceptance? We're saying it's not OK to force other people to breathe second hand smoke - but it fuck it, it's fine for babies. It's not OK to hit anyone ever, but go ahead, hit your baby. Yep. It's a divisive issue. I think I've beat this horse (over 3) long enough. BUT I offer an alternative to keep your toddler from running into traffic/pushing his sister down the stairs/touching the stove burner. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Parents who abuse their kids call it discipline. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

No it doesn't. But that's the mistake most people are making. Why stand on principle when it comes to protecting children? Again, this law says no one gets hit (except for kids over 3). I mean, if you want government to back off - I say let grown ups fist fight over arguments. I'd be for that before I'd ever be for allowing someone to hit a child. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't research (and public opinion) factor into whether laws get passed? Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Talk to me when your child is born. Seriously. This isn't about NOT DISCIPLINING children. This is about SPANKING infants and toddlers. My child is wonderfully disciplined and I use a variety of methods - not one of which is striking him. Ever. If the issue is THE PARENTS not disciplining, why would you advocate that CHILDREN should be the ones being spanked?! Anyway - I hope you don't feel the same about striking your infant or toddler once you become a parent. But until a law is p-assed, it's your business. Good luck!

I'm not mistaking anything, Zen ~ we just disagree. I DO agree with you that laws for the most part should stay out of our homes/bedrooms etc. BUT only for consenting adults. Children have no vote. We must do what we can to protect them. It's good that you agree 'punishment' should never be handed down while angry. The problem is - very very often that's exactly how it happens. So let's agree to disagree there.

Hi! Sorry, I said I was here - then ran smack into toddler bedtime. Which, as a single mama, is absof*ckinlutely at 7pm. Strict? Yes I can be. Anyway, my definition of "little swat" is probably the same as yours. But I think you're referencing my reply to Bill where I said the 'little swatters in dire situations' have nothing to worry about. First, spanking is not illegal now so I recognize that there are a wide variety of child spankers - from "dire situations only" to "everyday form of discipline/communication." Second - what I meant was that those who spank (swat, hit, whatever) only in "dire situations" have nothing to worry about because those situations occur so very infrequently that choosing an alternate form of discipline should be very easy. (If they are not occurring infrequently - I'd suggest they have bigger issues at hand and it's probably more proof that the spanking is just not working.) It's those who spank regularly and often who must alter their mindset and rethink how they discipline their child. I'd also hazard a guess that the 'dire situation' spankers most likely don't spank their babies. But I could be wrong. Anyway, the definition of "hit" is pretty clear. It includes all the little euphemisms. But again, I do understand what most here mean by little swat. Unfortunately, the law can't be that open to interpretation - especially when it comes to people hitting babies.

Hell-ooo? Right here? I support the proposed law and believe that it is NOT appropriate to hit a child under 3 for any reason. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

People have a tendency to think of children as small adults. You have to remember that up until 6-9 months of age, a child doesn't even really see himself as separate from his mother. Until well into their 2nd year, they have no impulse control. That means they can't stop themselves from doing something impulsively. YOU as a parent need to stop them. And if you're right there (where you should be), you can use any number of alternatives to teach your child what to and not to do. Whether you choose to spank or not, the people who give "little swats" to get attention in dire situations have nothing to worry about. It's the ones who use "little swats" all day as a form of communication who need to think twice. I think the law (no hitting under 3) sends the right message to the right people. Anyway, the research is there on whether spanking works. From the AAP Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi