Rand Paul: Sure, Vaccines Are OK, But We Shouldn’t Trade ‘Liberty’ for ‘False Sense of Security’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
During a Senate Health Committee hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) criticized the idea that parents should be required to vaccinate their children and perpetuated the notion that vaccines themselves could cause harm.
The speech, which came during the opening moments of the hearing, was framed as an argument in favor of personal liberty, a posture that Paul routinely adopts. But in offering his thoughts, the Kentucky Republican furthered the argument that it is socially reasonable not to vaccinate your kids—a mindset that the scientific community says is already worsening communal health crises.
“As we contemplate forcing parents to choose this or that vaccine, I think it’s important to remember that force is not consistent with the American story, nor is force consistent with the liberty our forefathers sought when they came to America,” said Paul, reading off a paper. “I don't think you have to have one or the other, though. I'm not here to say don’t vaccinate your kids. If this hearing is for persuasion I’m all for the persuasion. I’ve vaccinated myself and I’ve vaccinated my kids. For myself and my children I believe that the benefits of vaccines greatly outweighing the risks, but I still don’t favor giving up on liberty for a false sense of security.”
Paul didn’t just make the case that vaccines should be voluntary, however. He used his platform at the hearing to affirmatively push the perception that they are potentially problematic.
“It is wrong to say that there are no risks to vaccines,” said Paul. “Even the government admits that children are sometimes injured by vaccines.”
Virtually all medical literature shows that the benefits of vaccines dramatically outweigh the limited risks. And many of the more outlandish conspiracies (including supposed links of vaccines to autism) have been discredited. But, here too, Paul sounded a skeptical note, suggesting that the data simply wasn’t large enough to give parents a convincing case.
“Now proponents of mandatory government vaccination argue that parents who refuse to vaccinate their children risk spreading these diseases to immunocompromised community,” he declared. “There doesn't seem to be enough evidence of this happening to be recorded as a statistic.”
Paul, who is an eye doctor, has long argued that forced vaccination is wrong, even comparing the concept to martial law . But what is often left unsaid in his speeches is the scientific consensus that parents who do not vaccinate their children are creating risks of communicable diseases that could impact parents who have every intention of vaccinating their kids.
That social contract has already begun to break down in places over in the past several years. According to the Centers for Disease Control , recent measles outbreaks have popped up as sickened travelers arrived in the U.S. from abroad and as the number of unvaccinated people in the U.S. has grown.
A lack of vaccinations contributed to outbreaks in New York State, New York City, and New Jersey in 2018 and in Minnesota in 2017. In 2015, an outbreak that began at Disneyland sickened 147 people. While the initial case was not found, a study in JAMA Pediatrics , a peer-reviewed medical journal published by the American Medical Association, indicated that a lack of vaccinations helped the virus spread more rapidly.
Shortly after Paul spoke, his Republican colleague, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) offered to “give some color to what Senator Paul said.”
He then proceeded to go through cases of individuals who ended up with terrible diseases simply because they didn’t think getting vaccinated was important. A physician himself, Cassidy noted that the only requirement with regards to vaccination was that a children get them before entering the public school system.
Addressing Paul without looking at him, Cassidy concluded: “If you are such a believer in liberty that you do not wish to be vaccinated then there should be a consequence and that is that you can not infect other people.”
Tags
Who is online
83 visitors
You have the right to go to the roof of a 10 story building and jump off. You don't have the right to take your child up to the roof and push them off.
The society has determined that vaccinations prevent the spread of disease.
Individual liberty is trumped in that case.
Paul says there are occasionally fluke bad outcomes from vaccination.
I'm sure there have also been fluke bad outcomes from people, including children, wearing car seatbelts.
The thing that pisses me off is that these people are not putting just their children at risk. They are also risking the health of those their children come in contact with.
Exactly. We depend on herd immunity. It is not fair to everyone else.
Actually, medical science has determined that. But we know what you mean.
That's what anti-vaccers seem to focus on: they only see bad things with vaccinations but ignore all the good vaccines have done. It's willful ignorance at its worst.
I think I'm in love with Dr Cassidy even if he does have an R behind his name!
Rand Paul ain't much of an MD if he advises against vaccinations. Where did he get his MD from, anyway?
He has to know of immuno-suppressed persons who cannot get vaccinations because it could cause them to get very sick and/or die. And if he doesn't, I think he should return his MD
1. Dr. Paul, 52, practiced ophthalmology for 18 years before becoming a senator in 2010. Dr. Paul moved to Bowling Green, Ky., in 1993. There he worked for Downing McPeak Vision Centers and the Gilbert Graves Clinic for about 15 years combined before launching his own ophthalmology practice in town.
2. Dr. Paul earned his medical degree from Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, N.C., in 1988. After that, he completed his general surgery internship at Atlanta-based Georgia Baptist Medical Center, followed by a residency in ophthalmology at Duke University Medical Center, completing his training in 1993. Despite his extensive medical training, Dr. Paul does not hold a bachelor's degree, according to NPR. He attended Waco, Texas-based Baylor University to study biology and English, but left a few courses short of a diploma after he was accepted into medical school.
3. His ophthalmology certification is contested. He originally earned board certification in 1993 after the completion of his residency. However, in 1997 he formed his own board, called the National Ophthalmology Board, with 200 other physicians in protest of certification requirement changes by the American Board of Ophthalmologists. The now-defunct board was not recognized by the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure, so Dr. Paul was not board certified by a board recognized by the state since 2005, and since Dr. Paul's board dissolved in 2011, he has had no certification from an active body, according to the Washington Post. Kentucky state law does not require board certification for licensure.
He worked at the Gilbert GRAVES clinic...Tell me that is a misprint..
How does one get into medical school without a bachelor's degree?
And he formed his own board because of certification requirements? Who else besides me thinks he couldn't meet those requirements?
This guy is shady as fuck
I always thought that.
I know several people who did. Some med schools will take junior undergrads on an early admission program - these students, in my experience, were the cream of the crop. You can complete most of your pre-med required courses in 3 years, if you work hard at it. Or you could when I was in college.
Since you provided that explanation I will accept it.
Are you kidding, now that is what I call a Quack. The man is not qualified to practice medicine, no wonder he opted for politics, I suspect a lot of those calling themselves doctors are not...
Seriously. I mean..."Duke University"? What kind of place is that?
I'm not talking about his degree from Duke.
Which medical school were you referring to, then?
I'm not talking about his medical school at all! Did you even read my comment all the way thru?
I never cared about the degree, but forming a separate certification board for the 200 malcontents who could not
afford or maybe could not pass the 10 year re-certification process required by the American Board of Ophthalmology ( 28,600 plus members )
with himself as president, his wife ( not a doctor) as VP and Father in law ( Not a doctor) as Treasurer/secretary was sleazy.
And rather impotent, since Kentucky does not require any certification for Ophthalmologists.
That's what I'm calling "shady as fuck"
Paul received his MD from Trump U after 'private tutoring' from Ivanka.
He doesn't advise against vaccinations. He acknowledges that there are risks to vaccination. He and his kids are vaccinated.
I'm not a fan of Paul, and I am a fan of vaccines, but this article seems to stretch the truth a bit about his views.
Didn't actually read the article, did you?
I read it
So the whole "advises against vaccinations" thing.... we can agree that is erroneous, yes?
Yes, because Sandy set me straight on that
My apologies if I missed that.
I never did think much of him
AS a former Ron Paul elector, I'm not so fond of his son. He doesn't hold to much of what his father believes..... He's more mainstream republican than libertarian....
Sad to say......
It's my understanding that Mr. Magoo was one of his clients when he was a non board certified eye doctor.
I believe that Wile E. Coyote was his assistant.
I also never understood why he combs his hair with an eggbeater
He combs his hair? ?? /s
This is a great example of why he is my favorite Senator. He feels the vaccinations are good but doesn’t want government forcing them on people against their will. This is exactly how I feel.
Absolutely agree, people should be able to choose to vaccinate. Any that do are free to mingle anywhere with the general public, any that do not are free to never leave the confines of their own home. It's a choice each parent can make for their children
Why if the other ones are vaccinated what are they worried about?
The unnecessary death of an innocent child, even if it is not their own. There is no excuse to justify that happening when there are vaccines to protect their life. None
It's about herd immunity. It has to stay above 90% or some of these virulent diseases can get out of hand faster than most people can imagine.
"In 1912, measles became a nationally notifiable disease in the United States, requiring U.S. healthcare providers and laboratories to report all diagnosed cases. In the first decade of reporting, an average of 6,000 measles-related deaths were reported each year.
In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year . Also each year, among reported cases, an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 1,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles."
Some can't be vaccinated due to health issues. And some haven't been vaccinated just because they're not old enough, but can still catch the disease. I had measles as a baby before I was old enough for the vaccine.
Are the other ones all vaccinated?
However my previous response was a little harsh, the children would of course be able to play in their parents yards as well (with proper fencing)
Newborns can not be vaccinated against these diseases and some of them are fatal to newborns - so much for you crusade to save the innocents - oh yeah those are "born" children.
It's all about his rights. Not anybody else's...especially that immumo-suppressed person who can't receive vaccines and gets measles from one of his unvaccinated minions
My daughter has an immune disorder which makes her susceptible to these diseases even though she was vaccinated. She has to have tests run before she gets her flu vaccine to be sure she is "healthy" enough to get it. If she contracts the flu it could kill her.
The immuno-suppressed person's rights do not outweigh anyone else's.
My wife is on immuno-suppressants. That does not give us the right to alter everybody else's behavior.
What if some little knucklehead gives her chicken pox or measles? What will you do?
And you can alter someone else's behavior if they cause you harm
Get her to the hospital.
Why don't we forcibly quarantine anybody with the flu? We could have a Flu Jail. Let's not forget chastity belts or at the very least a facial tattoo for all the HIV or Hep C patients.
Will we outlaw rock concerts to protect migraine sufferers? Will we outlaw whiskey to protect alcoholics? Will we outlaw steak to protect those with heart disease or peanuts to protect those with peanut allergies? Sugar to protect diabetics?
Just exactly how far does this use of force extend?
You're going down a slippery slope and so I'm done
People should be able to choose whether to vaccinate their children but nobody, including the public school systems should be required to allow those children to attend. My son doesn't allow his cousin or her children to come to his house until his baby is old enough to vaccinate.
Exactly.
Isn't that what we do already?
No, we don't. We let the Jenny McCarthys of the world get on media and convince people not to vaccinate their vermin and then turn them loose into public schools. Some states have all kinds of exemptions to vaccination policies
The Law in all states in the nation require entering your child in the local education complex. (school system)
Mandatory education...... Vaxxed or not..... Hence the need for legal exceptions.....
I say set up a separate school system for them...... But then they would scream bigotry wouldn't they......
You cannot enroll in public schools where I live without an immunization record. If my nutty religious neighbor doesn't want to vaccinate her kids, she's probably nutty enough that she's homeschooling them anyway.
So it sounds like those are the issues you should be addressing. OR....rather....the citizens of those places should be addressing.
I bet Texas has religious exemptions for vaccinations.
Homeschool. It's a thing. It's actually HUGE among hyper-religious people who don't want their children learning terrible and evil things like evolution or that Christians aren't actually persecuted in Texas.
Online school. Ever growing section of both public and private education system. Texas Tech has its own online ISD, where kids can do the entirety of high school online. This is the future, BTW. It's cheaper, more efficient, and you don't have to deal with the behavior problems.
Come to find out, you are not wrong.
Oh yes, Online schooling is the future no doubt, for all the reasons you cite and more, much more..... (education choice for one)
Up around here in these parts homeschooling is part of the "education complex" to homeschool here in washington you have to do it with an approved education course of instruction in order to meet the goal of the same education the student would get in their approved school system. It's the real bane of the charter schools around here also.
We have a court system that is in the pocket of the teachers unions......
So...backing up to this comment again...and noticing how batshit certain parts of it are....
"We let" people get on media? You're suggesting we shouldn't? Unless they agree with you? How does that work, exactly? So not only do we not give a shit about their right to decide about their own bodies, we don't give a shit about their right to free speech, either? We'll definitely need state-controlled media to accomplish that. But it's for the greater good.....
"Vermin"? The contempt some liberals hold for the rest of the world is astonishing.
That's the case in Texas, too.
We don't have a union problem here. We have a supply problem, because the state is growing so fast, but not a union issue.
I kinda figured I wasn't. Arkansas has religious exemptions and Texas and Arkansas are pretty similar in culture
Back it up, Jack. You know very well what I'm talking about but you want to make a big, stinky case out of it. I'm not playing that game.
Seems like you got a hair up your butt cross wise today so why don't we just part company for today and maybe tomorrow will look better.
You could have stopped right there.
I don't know about more efficient. More convenient maybe. But there's something about being in a classroom itself. Kind of like reading from an actual book rather than a tablet.
Homeschooled kids miss out on a lot of the social stuff that will help them once they get into the workforce.
My nephew (the homeschooled one who is now a young earther) used to want to be the CEO of Amtrak. Then after he got brainwashed, he wanted to be a Christian camp counselor for his entire career. He's now figured out that isn't the greatest career path, but I'm not sure how he's going to find a real job where he'll be as sheltered as he needs to be (from all the heathens plus anyone who cusses, anyone who accepts science, etc.).
The contempt some 'conservatives' hold for those who aren't is astonishing.
Indeed. It limits their horizons.
Sounds like he's rather limited, especially if he can't deal with the real world.
Sad that he's afraid of the real world.
You're accusing me of what you're doing....which is having a strop. That's the point. Everything from Rand Paul is shady to Rand Paul advises against vaccinations to "letting" people on media outlets to "vermin". WTF?
Oh no. They want their kids learning the Bible, interpreted in a way they find agreeable.
It's definitely more efficient than traditional classroom settings, and that gap will grow exponentially in the next few years. Online schooling lets kids progress at their own pace, which is impossible in traditional classrooms.
When you think about the expenses involved with public education, massive amounts of that money goes to maintaining physical infrastructure needed to warehouse kids. We have bond issues to build new schools or renovate old ones. We've got billions sunk into paper textbooks that have to be replaced every few years. Our school year is still built on an agricultural calendar....because so many of us still farm....
There is something about being in a classroom, but that presumes the classroom in question happens to be a positive environment. It presumes the teacher is good, the class is reasonably controlled, and the A/C is working. It presumes you're in a good school with class offerings that are appropriate for your ability, where you don't have to worry about violence in the hallways or drug use in the bathrooms.
My kids went to schools like that, ranked among the top 2% in the nation. But what about kids who live in neighborhoods where the schools are shit?
Beware, though. Online schools will have the same effects people worry about with vouchers. All the best kids will be taking advanced calculus from their living room, and the kids that remain will be very resource intensive.
whatever
I don't like kids hence the word "vermin"
I'd agree with that.
I haven't seen children of liberal families referred to as "vermin", though. Have you?
I call all kids (who aren't mine) "vermin"
I agree with that, and I'd say it extends to private school kids also, to a lesser degree.
I don't think that trend will hold. I think we're going to see more kids going to school online. I had AAU basketball players doing HS online, holding down jobs and socializing normally. They chose the online school because they felt like their opportunities as black kids in public schools were very limited.
Oh my.
Out of curiosity, how old is this boy?
LOL.
OK. Fair enough.
Normally I just use terrible terms for my own kids. They know I'm kidding. Other kids sometimes can't tell.
Indeed. To hell with actual facts, logic, and critical thinking.
The problem with that is, kids may not be suitably challenged enough to succeed. It's academic coddling.
Money to education is a good thing. While on-line class might be convenient, a school established an academic environment with less possible distractions which might occur elsewhere. The importance of rules and discipline is also fostered in a school setting. Not to mention socialization with peers.
For the most part, that is probably the case.The same thing can be said for other environments (especially home) where online learning may occur. But educational institutions might have standards in place and the resources to meet those standards, where a learning environment is established.
That is a problem to be sure. The same can be said for student homes, where kids would probably engage in online learning.
Online schools is probably best suited as an option for certain high school level and college level students. Students at that point will be old enough and (hopefully) mature enough to have the self discipline to seriously engage in an online course and give it their all. Both online and actual classroom settings have their pros and cons.
True. But they certainly don't have a monopoly on that.
Why would that be different than what happens in brick and mortar classrooms? It's remedied easily, BTW, with national testing. The British have been doing it for decades.
If it's academic coddling, I doubt very much you would see places like Harvard offering graduate degrees done 90% online. My daughter is getting her Masters in mathematics online at Texas A&M. It's exceedingly challenging.
Depends on where and how it's spent. Just like money to anything else.
I guess it might seem that way if you've never actually taught public school. But it's not reality. The idea that a classroom full of 30 other kids, many of whom have little interest in academics and some of whom are certainly learning disabled or otherwise considered "special education" is less distracting than a kitchen table, a couch at Starbucks or a chair in a local library where you can put your headphones on and get down to business is simply not accurate.
I agree with that. But I'm not sure those things aren't more easily replaced than quality instruction in physics or trigonometry.
I think that's where the decision comes in, because often those institutions are not doing their job. There is a reason we have such a massive gap in academic achievement, and it isn't because poor and minority kids are less intelligent.
That is the implementation I'm envisioning.
I don't think they even have a Baltic Ave. on that,
Online may not be as structured or disciplined as a regular classroom. There may be less motivation or encouragement to succeed. Basically t just becomes more of a "just do what you feel like" rather than establishing set goals.
Well bully for them.
I doubt it too. Although some institutions might offer online Bachelors or Masters level classes, depending on the class or degree. Some even have a mix of online and classroom setting-the best of both worlds I suppose.
Good for her. Good luck to her on that.
Improving school conditions, educational resources, and teacher quality would be a good place to start.
It boils down to discipline. A teacher can enforce discipline to get a class in line and a student must be self disciplined enough to pay attention and work online. Younger kids might have a problem with that, especially if they're not being watched or supervised.
Quality instruction is one thing. But one must have (or be given) the discipline to listen to quality instruction for it to stick.
That too is a big problem, and probably one with multiple issues contributing to it.
That would be reasonable and more realistic. I don't see it as much for younger children, although that is not to say it should be discounted altogether. Perhaps online "class" for kids can be used in conjunction with regular class, like interactive assignments as games or as extra credit.
He should be hired as CEO of Amtrak right now, he would be better than current Amtrak boss Richard Anderson,
I strongly support your right to call them Vermin
So the vision here is that kids who are disciplined and do want to succeed would have access to high-quality instruction via video, email, chat and study groups.
It also offers a chance for kids with unusual situations to get a diploma from an accredited school. So if you're a child model or your mom is a diplomat or your family travels a lot or you're an Olympic fencing/gymnastics/bobsled prospect or you live in Bethel, Oklahoma where they don't offer Calculus or Physics or....if you live in subsidized housing in an otherwise prosperous area of North Dallas and your teachers think "passing" is the best you can do because you're black and poor..... you have the ability to get a good education.
My daughter took health and computer science online at so she could take more electives during the school day.
Current programs primarily serve HS kids, but they also offer a way for parents who want to homeschool to make sure their kids are actually well educated.
I confess I was skeptical when my daughter was taking classes. My opinion changed dramatically when I saw the poor kids I was coaching start using these programs.
Fair enough. You bring up some good points.
Wait a minute. You feel it is ok to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term because of an "innocent" life, but think it is not ok to force people to be vaccinated against diseases that can prove fatal to newborns & fetuses. Oh man....
Yes I’ll wait that minute for you to find something I never said. I’m pro abortion and believe in leaving the decision up to the parents not the government if they want to kill their child.
Sure you are - the word "murder" in your response is telling.
Sorry about that I edited the comment after realizing the Dalai Lama’s definition of murder could be different from the American interpretation of the word. I should not have used the word murder in my response.
Using the term "pro-abortion" is also telling
I suspect that those of us who were never vaccinated as children are not now among the living, Polio, whooping cough, TB, smallpox have already taken care of that decision..something tells me you were and now is free to comment on Newstalkers, thanks to responsible parents..
I can argue for and against, but in the end, the bottom line is simple.
no one sticks a needle in me without my permission... period.
when the govt starts thinking it can ignore my consent as if it owns me? time for a new govt.
How do you feel about the government taking some of your money without your permission?
(Or do you not allow the government to take some of your income during tax season . . . ???)
I had no problem paying taxes so obviously, they had my consent for that.
how do you feel about staying on topic?
( or do you have a problem staying on topic? )
(I had no problem paying taxes so obviously,
Why do you say its obvious?
Your comments give the impression that you won't let the government tell you what you must do (?)
I could be mistaken, but it seems you fell you have the right to pick and choose what government rules you want to follow....
(of course you are entitled to your opinion,but its also true that not following the law does have consequences...)
exactly.... if I do not agree? there is no chance in hell.
consent of the governed - is a bitch like that.
cheers
That’s exactly how I feel. Foreign visitors from third world countries have no requirements to get vaccinated but some what it forced upon us against our will. Probably the same people that are hell-bent on safe havens for illegal unvaccinated immigrants.
If I ever have grandchildren and if any of them are immuno-suppressed and catch measles from some crotch cricket whose mummy or daddy didn't vaccinate them....I will sue that mummy and daddy.
Sounds like the CDC is speaking out of both sides of it's mouth again. We have to pay attention to their wording of "Travelers" vs "Immigration" and why there would be a difference between the two for vaccination requirements is beyond me.
Here is what I know what Julia's and Irina's requirements were and must always be prepared to show proof of, whenever traveling back and forth.
Paul is anti choice on abortion and pro choice on vaccines, those 2 don't fit together
No they don't, a true libertarian is all about individual choice.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Or... "I've got mine, get off your ass and get your own".
No, my comment stands
mine tend to have difficulty fitting on bumper stickers, and or bumpers, in general.
This may be the clearest example of identity politics I've seen in recent memory.
What percentage of conservatives do you think would ignore any warnings on the vaccine and would get all their children vaccinated the day they were allowed if the vaccine supposedly immunized their child from being gay? And how many do you think would be trying to make the gay vaccine mandatory for all children in America?
Here we have many denying the sound science supporting current vaccines that prevent tens of thousands of annual infant and elderly deaths by providing a herd immunity against horrible diseases, but offer them a chance to immunize against being gay and I bet they'd do whatever it took to force it on as many people as possible, health concerns be damned.
What percentage of conservatives do you imagine are not getting their kids vaccinated?
“Since 2009, the number of ‘philosophical-belief’ vaccine non-medical exemptions has risen in 12 of the 18 states that currently allow this policy: Arkansas, Arizona, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah.”
" Among children aged 19 months to 35 months in rural areas, about 2 percent received no vaccinations in 2017. That is double the number of unvaccinated children living in urban areas."
So I would guess about 2%.
Good a nice low percentage far below the percentage thresholds that would effect herd immunity. That is good news.
The CDC cites lack of access to medical facilities and lack of insurance as the major correlates.
I'm old enough to remember what iron lungs were and how they looked and how terrified we were that we'd get polio.
Dr. Saulk ended that dreadful disease for us so I'm in favor of getting a vaccination for what ever is needed.
I was 12 years old that year and you can bet your ass that we were afraid of getting this disease.
Paul is also in favor of vaccination but says government forcing it upon people against their will is a bridge too far. Polio is no longer a problem and that was done without compulsory vaccinations. It has always been a choice here in the USA.
Yes, I'm aware that Paul is in favor of vaccinations. Most states, if not all, require vaccinations before a child can get into school. (there is no federal mandate) There are some exemptions such religious beliefs and medical issues.
It becomes an issue when a child is excused from vaccinations and is mixed with other children. If they choose to follow that path, I'm in favor that if their kid is responsible for other children getting the disease (whatever it may be) the parents of that child are held responsible. (not for medical exemptions though)
Thank you vaccines.
Most people were probably smart enough to heed medical advice and receive vaccinations. People have only recently become dumbed down and paranoid about vaccines, particularly thanks to social media and second hand sources, or due to just plain old ignorance.
There should be!
Medical excuses is one thing. Religious excuse is a poor excuse, and one which can be easily exploited.
Lol I suspect it was equal parts smart and scared.
True. Now we're seeing dumb and paranoid. Well, just wait until the next preventable epidemic hits. Anti-vaccers might change their tune then (but I'm not that optimistic).
I have to disagree somewhat. Fear is a great motivator, people will do just about anything when scared shitless
The question becomes, what will they fear more: the vaccines or the onset of preventable diseases?
Absolutely agree and when they start seeing friends and families kids being partially/fully paralyzed or in an iron lung or bleeding out of every orifice I believe they'll start fearing the disease more than the imagined effect of the vaccination
I don't think we need a federal mandate but we should make it easier to hold people accountable when they could have vaccinated, didn't, and then made somebody sick
Are. Most people ARE smart enough. The math is quite clear.
How are we going to prove they made somebody sick?
Sometimes I wonder.
I used to too, but i kept getting lost,
at least that's what people tell me,"get lost" True Story
I haven't worked that out yet
Well if you can work that out...it's probably a pretty good idea.
However the insurance ramifications alone based on this whole new type of liability would be staggering.
sknot off 10 noan fir mi gramher consernz, i did however feel that the author's statement was , a reflection of that which the author , stated and meant.
Context being the decisive factor.
He was replying to another poster about polio vax being mandatory for school admittance, thus those vax were, not are...
i defer to his words, which state his n my case
better. Gordy was responding to Sean's Comment
"Polio is no longer a problem and that was done without compulsory vaccinations. It has always been a choice here in the USA. " S T
"Thank you vaccines."
"Most people were probably smart enough to heed medical advice and receive vaccinations. People have only recently become dumbed down "
were, to me, makes more cents than to change to R, but eye have my own perceptional disabilities, and only pointed out iii's
tres stooges style, asz eye did state to ewe, words can be parsed just ask Rosemary and Sage
If you are anti-vaxxer then you are a fucking moron.
Unvaccinated boy nearly died from tetanus. The cost of his care was almost $1 million.
Child abuse.
some commenting around here , have obviously been vaccinated against the
'truth'
His parents should have to pay the entire cost. 100% preventable.
They are fucking idiots.
You really shouldn't water it down like this...
tell them what u REALLY THINK and how u Really FEEL about them !
They should all go die in a fire and do the rest of our species a favor?
Current outbreak of measles in NY, one of the largest outbreaks in decades. Unvaccinated kids once again.
New York Confronts Its Worst Measles Outbreak in Decades