New Australian Vaccination Policy

[Pegg]

I wonder how many would have said that during 1918 outbreak.

But of course, you know better than medical science.

they didnt understand the importance of quarantine back then. Doctors didnt even think it was necessary to wash their hands between patients...even after performing autopsies they would enter the maternity ward and use their same blood stained hands to assist women giving birth. No wonder there was so many disease outbreaks!

Our health is very much dependent on cleanliness. Medical science did not always know that.

 

[Kolibri]

If I could keep a sample of the vaccine to do an allergy/detox correction to it after, I would be mentally less resistant. But explaining why I want a sample or even getting one if I asked is oh so setting myself up for looks saved up for people touched in the head.

My reasons are totally non-religious, btw.

 

[Pegg]

If I could keep a sample of the vaccine to do an allergy/detox correction to it after, I would be mentally less resistant. But explaining why I want a sample or even getting one if I asked is oh so setting myself up for looks saved up for people touched in the head.

My reasons are totally non-religious, btw.

thats a good point Kolibri.

Even on the packets of hair colour it is recommended that you do a small test of the product to ensure no adverse reactions occur. Why dont they have such a test for an immunisation before they inject it directly into your bloodstream?

My guess is because they dont care if you are adversely affected by it or not. You are just one of those insignificant few who had a bad reaction.

 

[Glaurung]

Our health is very much dependent on cleanliness. Medical science did not always know that.

Our knowledge is of course limited and will never be complete, it's a growing process. No one denies this. Since the advent of modern medical science we have learnt a great deal about disease and how it works. As a result we can much better combat disease especially those spread by infectious agents such as viruses. We vaccinate because the data shows indisputably that it works and whatever risks may be present in vaccination pale in comparison to the risks involved with the very diseases they are intended to combat. You don't worry about your children contracting polio, or smallpox, because the vaccination programs decades ago pretty much eliminated these terrible diseases (which could very well kill you) from the western world.

It's only now, as people have grown up in a world where getting polio and smallpox is nearly unheard of, that you have these special snowflakes raising 'informed concern' over potential risks that are largely unsubstantiated by any credible evidence. Because it's not informed, anti-vaxxing is a product of the selfish 'I know better' type thinking of well off suburbanites. If you were really concerned about risk you'd never let your children into your car, or risk them to the far more dangerous diseases that could potentially make a comeback because of people like you.

Australia just had an infant die to whooping cough because of this idiotic 'concern' over the risk of vaccines. Well, that's one mother who lost her bet. She knew better than to trust the medical consensus that vaccines are safe.

 

[Pegg]

Our knowledge is of course limited and will never be complete, it's a growing process. No one denies this. Since the advent of modern medical science we have learnt a great deal about disease and how it works. As a result we can much better combat disease especially those spread by infectious agents such as viruses. We vaccinate because the data shows indisputably that it works and whatever risks may be present in vaccination pale in comparison to the risks involved with the very diseases they are intended to combat. You don't worry about your children contracting polio, or smallpox, because the vaccination programs decades ago pretty much eliminated these terrible diseases (which could very well kill you) from the western world.

It's only now, as people have grown up in a world where getting polio and smallpox is nearly unheard of, that you have these special snowflakes raising 'informed concern' over potential risks that are largely unsubstantiated by any credible evidence. Because it's not informed, anti-vaxxing is a product of the selfish 'I know better' type thinking of well off suburbanites. If you were really concerned about risk you'd never let your children into your car, or risk them to the far more dangerous diseases that could potentially make a comeback because of people like you.

Australia just had an infant die to whooping cough because of this idiotic 'concern' over the risk of vaccines. Well, that's one mother who lost her bet. She knew better than to trust the medical consensus that vaccines are safe.

its amazing how much media hype surrounded the death of that little boy while the death of a child by immunisation goes unreported and no one bats an eyelid.

How Many Children Are Reportedly Hurt by Hepatitis B Vaccine?
Hepatitis B is a rare, mainly blood-transmitted disease. In 1996, only 54 cases of the disease were reported to the CDC in the 0-1 age group. There were 3.9 million births that year, so the observed incidence of hepatitis B in the 0-1 age group was just 0.001%. In the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), there were 1,080 total reports of adverse reactions from hepatitis B vaccine in 1996 in the 0-1 age group, with 47 deaths reported.

Let us put this in simpler terms. For every child with hepatitis B, there were 20 that were reported to have severe complications. Let us also remember that only 10% of the reactions are ever reported to VAERS, so this means: traditional medicine is potentially harming 200 children to protect one from hepatitis B.​

When 17 children die after receiving a vaccine, shouldnt' we be more concerned about vaccines? The statistics above are true stats from the USA. Numbers dont' lie.

 

[Glaurung]

its amazing how much media hype surrounded the death of that little boy while the death of a child by immunisation goes unreported and no one bats an eyelid.

Do you seriously think that dubious alternative medicine website run by a known quack and anti-vaxxer is a credible source? You JW's have a history of using blatantly biased if not outright dishonest sources and it took two minutes of googling to learn about this guy and his credibility.

China is investigating but no matter what they say, as far as you're concerned if a few die after been vacinated (in a place like China of all places) it must be by default the vaccine. Correlation is causation when its confirms your biases eh? If you get sick after a flew shot, it must have been the flu shot! That's terrible, fallacious thinking and you know it. But even if we accept those deaths as direct result of those vaccines (purely hypothetical) hepatitis B is rampant in China.

Hepatitis B in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Every year, 300,000 people die from HBV-related diseases in China, including 180,000 patients with HCC

How dangerous is Hep B?

WHO | Hepatitis B

17 or 780,000?

The supposed risks are not even remotely comparable. And of course, China is not exactly known for product and procedural safety. Have there been any supposed deaths outside of this incident? How many outside of China die as a result of this vaccine?

 

[Kolibri]

Outside of "defending and legally establishing the good news," and dealing with citizen rights regarding our "aim to live quietly" while seeking to personally hold to non-conscience determined matters, i.e. the use of blood in medicine, you'll find Jehovah's Witnesses as a whole are not policy lobbyists. (Phil 1:7; 1 Tim 4:11) We accept that when policy changes, there will be freedoms, or restrictions w/penalties if we personally violate the policy. It is a tough personal call when we are faced with issues that are not in direct conflict with biblical law but can dramatically impact how we feel/heal.

I know both my mom and myself would love to have cannabis or hemp legal for poultices and others medically responsible (not breathing in hot ash and burning out and coating our lungs) ways. It just isn't legal in most of the states or restricted in ways that are inconvenient for our personal choice of more far eastern approaches to health care. But as it is not a matter of loyalty regarding scriptural injunctions (matters of worship) I "mind my own business" when it comes to what dictates policy for others.

17 or 780,000?

The 17 is pretty big when you know you are personally more at risk than normal to be one of those 17. There is only 1 of each of us. And "the dead do not praise Jah." (Ps 115:17)
While never risking the "real life" to come we might choose to risk death now, or we might look for acceptable alternatives/compromises. (1 Tim 6:19)

 

[gnomon]

Vaccines, poison, nothing else to add.

Absolute utter stupidity. Add that to your narrow repertoire.

 

[psychoslice]

Absolute utter stupidity. Add that to your narrow repertoire.

You wish.

 

[gnomon]

You wish.

edit: Forget it. I came into the forums pecking for a fight and I can't do it. That is all. Never mind my what I previously wrote.

 

[SkepticThinker]

they didnt understand the importance of quarantine back then.

False.

The 1918 Influenza Epidemic in New York City: A Review of the Public Health Response
JAMA Network | JAMA | Nonpharmaceutical Interventions Implemented by US Cities During the 1918-1919 Influenza Pandemic
Spanish Influenza
JAMA Network | JAMA | QUARANTINE AND ISOLATION IN INFLUENZA
October 1, 1918 - ALL "FLU" CASES QUARANTINED BY ORDER OF CITY | Chicago Tribune Archive

Doctors didnt even think it was necessary to wash their hands between patients...even after performing autopsies they would enter the maternity ward and use their same blood stained hands to assist women giving birth. No wonder there was so many disease outbreaks!
Our health is very much dependent on cleanliness. Medical science did not always know that.

Also not true.

Surgical hand preparation: state-of-the-art - WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care - NCBI Bookshelf
Asepsis and Bacteriology: A Realignment of Surgery and Laboratory Science1

“Washing hands in a standard 70% alcohol solution is effective against most pathogenic bacteria, but it has no effect on viruses, especially influenza viruses.”
http://www.thyroidscience.com/reviews/derry/Derry.flu.iodine.9.19.09.pdf


“By the late nineteenth century, operations looked quite different as they were carried out in antiseptic conditions. Theatres were full of carbolic and surgeons and nurses worked in clean white aprons and shirts. Instruments were laid out on a clean tray and all used equipment was put straight into a bowl to move it away easily. Nurses had to wear caps to keep their hair from bringing in an infection. But at the end of the century, as Koch’s identification of germs continued, Lister’s antiseptic (getting rid of germs) surgery began to develop into aseptic (no germs in the first place) surgery. Rubber gloves were worn (1894) and face masks began to be used (1897). Koch’s work showed that heat was more effective than carbolic for sterilising surgical instruments and the spray began to be abandoned in 1890. By 1910, operating theatres were filled with people wearing sterilised gowns, masks and gloves, using metal furniture and operating under electric lights. Surgeons were actively pursuing higher and higher standards of cleanliness to reduce the death rates. They were also able to undertake more complex operations such as repairing a heart that had been damaged by a stab wound (1896). “

 

[psychoslice]

edit: Forget it. I came into the forums pecking for a fight and I can't do it. That is all. Never mind my what I previously wrote.

Yea, there is nothing like a good old fight, I think most of us here secretly like fighting, its good, it stimulates the mind.

 

[JayJayDee]

Here's an interesting question: In the event that a child/children dies from contracting a disease from an unvaccinated child, should the parents of that unvaccinated child stand trial for murder/manslaughter?

If vaccinations work...what risk does an unvaccinated child pose to anyone who is vaccinated?

If the antibodies produced in the normal run of a childhood disease immunise a person for life...why don't vaccinations?
Why do they need constant booster injections? Do we realise that vaccinations are not immunisations?

Both my daughter and her daughter contracted whooping cough....both had been vaccinated. It made me wonder about how effective vaccinations really were. Are we told the whole story?

The right to bodily integrity should not be violated by anyone. Who forces people to have a substance injected into their body or into the body of their child against their will? If that fundamental right is removed...what right is to be sacrificed next?

Maybe the anti-vaccination stance is not unsubstantiated rubbish after all. Perhaps a little more research is in order before people buy into the propaganda. Be aware that Big Pharma has a huge stake in this issue. That in itself should make us think twice.

 

[JayJayDee]

Half your luck! I had the flu vaccine last year and was sick for 3 months!!! Dont tell me about it. I know. Do you think I would give that same flu vaccine to my kids now that I know how sick they can make a person? Absolutely Not. And im not going to be bullied by anyone into taking something that i know can be harmful.

Absolutely right! The flu vaccine almost killed my mother. And my husband reacted very badly to it as well. Two people who became extremely ill because of the flu shot and that was just in my family. I refused to have it and never got sick at all. These vaccines are not all they're cracked up to be.

People can rant and rave about anti vax's all they like. That is not going to sway my decision. Im not bothered by the bullies and their scare tactics.

Me either. Governments can be pressured by pharmaceutical companies and swayed by their selected data, (not always fully disclosed) but at the end of the day, big bucks are at stake. Where money is the concern, corruption is never far away.
One only has to investigate their stance on use of medical marijuana to know how interested they are in our health. They demonized a harmless plant that has amazing medicinal properties because they know it would threaten their profits.
I don't trust them.

 

[Pegg]

Me either. Governments can be pressured by pharmaceutical companies and swayed by their selected data, (not always fully disclosed) but at the end of the day, big bucks are at stake. Where money is the concern, corruption is never far away.
One only has to investigate their stance on use of medical marijuana to know how interested they are in our health. They demonized a harmless plant that has amazing medicinal properties because they know it would threaten their profits.
I don't trust them.

Yes, corruption and mistakes occur in the pharmaceutical industry just like any other.

You cant' trust someone just because they wear a white coat and work for a respected scientific department. Just recall the fraudulent Iowa State University laboratory manager Dong-Pyou Han who spiked blood samples in order to get millions of dollars in grants to fund a vaccine for aids.

 

[Pegg]

False.

The 1918 Influenza Epidemic in New York City: A Review of the Public Health Response
JAMA Network | JAMA | Nonpharmaceutical Interventions Implemented by US Cities During the 1918-1919 Influenza Pandemic
Spanish Influenza
JAMA Network | JAMA | QUARANTINE AND ISOLATION IN INFLUENZA
October 1, 1918 - ALL "FLU" CASES QUARANTINED BY ORDER OF CITY | Chicago Tribune Archive



Also not true.

Surgical hand preparation: state-of-the-art - WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care - NCBI Bookshelf
Asepsis and Bacteriology: A Realignment of Surgery and Laboratory Science1

“Washing hands in a standard 70% alcohol solution is effective against most pathogenic bacteria, but it has no effect on viruses, especially influenza viruses.”
http://www.thyroidscience.com/reviews/derry/Derry.flu.iodine.9.19.09.pdf


“By the late nineteenth century, operations looked quite different as they were carried out in antiseptic conditions. Theatres were full of carbolic and surgeons and nurses worked in clean white aprons and shirts. Instruments were laid out on a clean tray and all used equipment was put straight into a bowl to move it away easily. Nurses had to wear caps to keep their hair from bringing in an infection. But at the end of the century, as Koch’s identification of germs continued, Lister’s antiseptic (getting rid of germs) surgery began to develop into aseptic (no germs in the first place) surgery. Rubber gloves were worn (1894) and face masks began to be used (1897). Koch’s work showed that heat was more effective than carbolic for sterilising surgical instruments and the spray began to be abandoned in 1890. By 1910, operating theatres were filled with people wearing sterilised gowns, masks and gloves, using metal furniture and operating under electric lights. Surgeons were actively pursuing higher and higher standards of cleanliness to reduce the death rates. They were also able to undertake more complex operations such as repairing a heart that had been damaged by a stab wound (1896). “

even as recent as a few months ago in Africa ebola patients were being sent back to their homes which spread the virus through famililies and communites faster then what might have happened if sick people were quarantined adequately. If its not being done correctly in our day and age, what makes you so sure it was being done in the 18th century?

 

[SkepticThinker]

even as recent as a few months ago in Africa ebola patients were being sent back to their homes which spread the virus through famililies and communites faster then what might have happened if sick people were quarantined adequately. If its not being done correctly in our day and age, what makes you so sure it was being done in the 18th century?

Um, the analyses I provided for you. That's how.

By the way, we're talking about the Influenza Epidemic of 1918 that occurred in the twentieth century.

 

[SomeRandom]

they didnt understand the importance of quarantine back then. Doctors didnt even think it was necessary to wash their hands between patients...even after performing autopsies they would enter the maternity ward and use their same blood stained hands to assist women giving birth. No wonder there was so many disease outbreaks!

Our health is very much dependent on cleanliness. Medical science did not always know that.

Actually the cleanliness guidelines (although not as strict as they are today) were not that bad during the 1918 outbreak. They did use quarantine measures and even disinfectant regularly to combat the disease. They also moved patients who were more susceptible to the disease (like pneumonia patients) to separate rooms. Hell health practitioners even wore masks in all their dealings.
It wasn't up to present day standards, of course. Due to lack of technology and some lingering outdated beliefs. But it was built upon the germ theory, which maintained that germs cause illnesses and can be spread. And they did seem to know something about air travel of diseases.(Even if they were slightly off.) Because Public Health Officials at the time wanted to educate people about coughing and sneezing into their hand and the proper way to dispose of nasal discharge. They also tried to limit gatherings of people, to avoid the uninfected sharing the same air as the infected. They even aimed to teach people to wash their hands before eating and just hygiene in general.

The type of hygiene you are referring to was that of the 17 - 1800s and was swiftly dying by the time the 1918 outbreak occurred because of updated measures to hygiene procedure and a better understanding of how infectious diseases work.

The 1918 Influenza Pandemic: Response

Of course, they had limited knowledge at the time compared to today, but the outbreak contributed highly to the understanding of illnesses in general. And led to better preventative measures as well as better medical science practices.

It was most likely allowed to spread so quickly due to well...... WWI.

Also, the Spanish Flu was such that even if you were healthy and clean as a whistle you would be ****ed over by it. It attacked healthy immune systems far better than it did even unhealthy ones. Not all viruses need us to be dirty or even unhealthy to be infected by them. Some of them just need to be foreign.

 

[Flankerl]

It almost makes you with for Spanish Flu v2. Perhaps it would only target the idiots and leave their kids alone.

One can hope.

 

[darkendless]

If vaccinations work...what risk does an unvaccinated child pose to anyone who is vaccinated?

Some people (myself being one cannot be vaccinated against certain things. I cannot be vaccinated against hepatitis. So idiots with their anti-government mindset are harmful to me. To be honest, the selfishness is sickening and I strongly hope anti-vaxxers endure years of sickness for their stupidity.

The right to bodily integrity should not be violated by anyone. Who forces people to have a substance injected into their body or into the body of their child against their will? If that fundamental right is removed...what right is to be sacrificed next?

It's not a violation. A bodily violation is someone like me getting sick because you refuse to get vaccinated.

Maybe the anti-vaccination stance is not unsubstantiated rubbish after all. Perhaps a little more research is in order before people buy into the propaganda. Be aware that Big Pharma has a huge stake in this issue. That in itself should make us think twice.

They've done enough research your illogical fear is just that.