• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

are vaccines safe?

Forums New posts

are vaccines safe?

  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .

Free episodes:

FYI: Your pixelsmith01 account has been removed. You should be able to post with the same username and password on any device with a reasonably current web browser.
 
then pl
Gene Steinberg said:
FYI: Your pixelsmith01 account has been removed. You should be able to post with the same username and password on any device with a reasonably current web browser.
Click to expand...
i see that. there must have been a delay because i posted from pixelsmith01 after i was told it was deleted.
now please tell mike i am not lionberg so he quits harassing me via pm.
 
mike said:
That's it in a nutshell.
Click to expand...
Yet the supreme court says they are "unavoidably unsafe" because vaccine companies were being sued left and right the supreme court made them exempt from liability from the unsafe vaccines.
"The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan as part of a larger health bill on Nov 14, 1986, in the United States, to reduce the potential financial liability of vaccine makers due to vaccine injury claims."
you guys are completely wrong and not too intelligent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pixelsmith said:
would you like to debate that or are you a chicken shit?
Click to expand...
Ok follow my reasoning.

You assert vaccines cause autism.

You assert vaccines do not improve immunity to the target disease.

Unvaccinated people have a higher incidence of the target disease.

You assert those people were given the disease by vaccination.

Yet they were unvaccinated.

Instead you should be asserting that the unvaccinated people have lower incidences of autism and the same incidence of the target disease.

But instead of that, you assert he creation of what Ockham would say is a new entity - a new variant of the disease.

Your assertions are not only self-inconsistent, but they also violate Occam's razor.
 
Last edited:
Azz7092 said:
I guess you just have to make your own decisions for what's best for your children,
Click to expand...

Actually the reality is the state has a say in many matters too.

Child car seat restraint laws are one example. Parents dont get to decide what they think is best. The state does.
Custody matters are another example, Usually its the family law court that decides who gets the kids, since parents can rarely agree on who is best suited for custody.

Vaccination through case law
There have been a number of cases in Australia and internationally where courts have authorised the vaccination of a child against the wishes of at least one of the parents (Box 1). In all cases, the judges ruled that they were acting in the best interest of the child and based their decision on the scientific evidence presented, including risk assessments by medical practitioners.

In one instance,8 the parents defied the New South Wales Supreme Court’s order to vaccinate and concealed the child until the period of effectiveness had lapsed. While the judge defended parens patriae – the power and authority of the state to protect persons who are unable to legally act on their own behalf – this case shows that monitoring compliance with the court’s directions can present a problem, particularly if treatments are ongoing. Parens patriae may also empower the courts to overturn the decisions of minors who refuse treatment, no matter how ‘competent’ they are deemed to be.

In another case, this time in the UK,9 two children were deemed to be ‘competent’ as they possessed the necessary reasoning abilities to have their views against vaccination taken into account. However, the judge decided for vaccination, stating she was ‘only concerned with the welfare needs of these children’. A decision by an Australian court in this instance would be guided by the Gillick and Marion cases.

RACGP - Vaccination and the law

Parens patriae - Wikipedia

Decisions on behalf of your Children: The doctrine of 'Parens Patriae' in Australia
 
Turns out vaxxed is banned here in australia
A CONTROVERSIAL anti-vaccination movie has been shown at one of Victoria’s most prominent cinemas, despite being banned at theatres across Australia and the world.
Dr John Cunningham, who was awarded an Order of Australia medal last year for vaccination promotion, on Wednesday slammed the movie as “lies”.
“You would struggle to find even an element of truth in that movie. It’s rubbish,” Dr Cunningham said.

No Cookies | Herald Sun
 
Gene Steinberg said:
You're a grandfather?
Click to expand...
I am. Actually times-4. Ex-wife had a child very young, then he had children very young.... We're from Indiana. We're pretty red-neck'y. But I can say all of them are thoroughly vaccinated and not a single case of autism among them. Also, no threat of them getting small pox, TB, etc... And better yet, the local, state, and federal governments will let my grand kids into school. The anti-vaxxers can't make such boasts.
 
Back
Top