Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtieguy
in Maryland it seems gov't officials are taking a shot at the founding fathers of the United States not to mention freedom of choice of current citizens. go to jail for not giving your kids the flu shot?
|
Unless they are dealing with an epidemic, I don't agree with this approach. As you said, that approach takes away freedom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtieguy
do a search, the shot is not only worthless,
|
BULL!
The shot isn't 100% effective (what is?), but it's much better than 0% effective! And the shot both helps the individual getting it (direct help, as they are less likely to get sick), and ALSO helps OTHER PEOPLE that the person is exposed to (as they are less likely to spread the infectious disease if/when they are protected by the flu shot).
i.e. The shot is good for public health.
NOTE: One common reason why some people think the flu shot is less effective than it really is, is because there are many common diseases out there people call "the flu", that really aren't influenza at all. As such, someone may catch one of those (often lessor severity) diseases after getting a flu shot, and then (incorrectly) claim that the flu shot didn't help them (when the flu shot is only designed to help against genuine influenza, not any of the OTHER infectious diseases out there).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtieguy
it IS toxic!
|
I suppose you are referring to the preservative in the shot? While it's not clear that the preservative amounts in the shots are a big problem, if that's what is concerning you, than you should know that you can get flu shots without the preservative (although such vaccine is less available than the more traditional flu vaccine that contains the preservative).
Or where you referring to the fact that the vaccine has ingredients (byproducts of the manufacturing) that some might be allergic to (most commonly for flu shots "egg products", as most flu vaccine is grown in chicken eggs)? If so, than that's also true. However, there isn't an ingredient on the market that someone on the planet won't be allergic to. So the proper approach with allergies, is to identify those people with the allergies, and avoid giving them the allergen. And that is in fact the approach that happens with flu shots (i.e. if you are allergic to egg products and/or have shown an allergic reaction to the shots in the past, than you are usually advised not to get the vaccine).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtieguy
is anyone going for this? YES, 13%(presently) polled AGREE w/this mandate?
|
Agree with the mandate? No.
However, I do agree that the flu shot makes sense for large groups of people in close proximity to each other (such as schools), because it helps to prevent one person's illness from turning into a small epidemic. i.e. vaccines (when properly used) are a good weapon against the spread of infectious diseases.
So while I don't agree with the mandate, I do agree that the shots should be more generally available/used by school kids. Because large crowded areas (of which schools are one good example), are precisely the places where infectious diseases (such as influenza) love to spread. So helping to control the spread of such diseases in such areas, helps not only the people directly in those areas, but also the health (family, friends, etc) of everyone they later contact.
NOTE: I'm not a hypocrite on this issue either. In case you were wondering, I got my flu shot (for this year) about a month ago (shortly after the vaccine first became available at my HMO clinic). And no, I wasn't "forced" to get it, I chose to get the shot (due to the health benefits of having it).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtieguy
YES, this is politically motivated! this is what socialized medicine(by ANY name) will bring and MORE.
|
Rant, rant, rant...
Seriously, I see both sides of the inoculation debate. It's true that people should have the freedom to choose what they do with their bodies. So on that level, such things should never be mandated.
However, it's also true that infectious diseases can spread throughout the population like wild fire, and inoculations (be they flu shots, or some other disease protection) are a potent weapon to help prevent (or at least slow) that problem. So from a standpoint of protecting society from rampant infectious diseases, getting those vaccines out to the people makes sense.
So I guess I'm a little "on the fence" with this one (because there are good arguments on both sides). Which is why I generally come down to agreeing with recommendations for such vaccines at schools, but stop short of "requiring them" (i.e. give the people some procedure to "opt out").
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtieguy
well, i'll put my trust in the ACLJ if this foolishness comes to Florida!
|
In the early days of the "ACLJ", I heard the founder of the organization brag on national TV (I think it may have been the 700club, but I don't remember which TV program for sure) that it's PURPOSE was the fight the ACLU.
i.e. the ACLJ's purpose is NOT to promote freedom. It's purpose is instead to push their political/religious agenda AT THE EXPENSE of the freedom of everyone else! And this is the group you want to put your faith in?
NOTE: The ACLU isn't perfect. But they are (at the core) a group that is founded on constitutional principles, and freedom of choice. The same is NOT true of the so-called ACLJ...
__________________
Sure, the shot isn't 100% guaranteed effective (as much as predicted evolutionary models) - but all or nothing will typically net nothing 
Linear Mode
