Choose To Vaccinate

[Kathianne]

You do not have to say it. The parameters you present require it.

Name one ideal Man has ever had that he' has ever gotten right. Although bulletproof on paper, guaranteed success and brilliant ideal and all that, it goes completely to crap the very second a person becomes involved in making it happen. That's historical fact, minus the idealism.

Then, we have to interpret what you call an "emergency". I would consider this an "emergency". Despite who should be doing what or is claiming this or that, solve the problem. THEN point fingers.

I don't know whose argument besides Kathianne's I am supporting. As previously stated, I jumped back into the thread after leaving off 2 weeks ago. I considered it a good argument and no one's going for blood. I believe I explained early on I have ZERO issue with mandatory immunizations as part of one's responsibility to the community/family. I also have zero problem with it because I was a military brat 20 years then served 21 and never even gave it a thought. I thought everyone did it and since it makes perfect sense to get the immunizations, I never had reason to question it.

In the US, those who choose to not adhere t the law that is based on the common good, they have recourse. They can home school. Private school (that's a guess). The freedom of choice is there, such that it is.

On the other hand, if you attend public schools you get your shots like the rest of the herd. I believe you used the term "herd" early on in the thread? Ever seen 2000 Marines and Sailors confined to the space of a ship for 1-3-6-9-12-or-more months at a time? No different than a classroom full of children in the winter with the heat on. And it is a herd for sure.

Now suppose I have Marines that can't get the shot(s) for whatever reason. Should their lives be endangered by some snot-ass know-it-ass who just "doesn't wanna"?

I can see taking a stance on something that might matter some day, but this topic isn't one of them. I go get my damned immunizations every year like a good boy, mostly to protect me from whatever strain of the plague the grandchildren may have, and out of respect for all of them by not bringing some bullsh*t into the house.

I don't know about TX or any other private school states. In the past couple of weeks have been in 4 Catholic school offices: Sign in all, "Every child must have proof of current immunizations to enroll or remain at the school. We protect all of our children. We make no exceptions."

Don't have that sort of sign in my public school office, though the law is clear-as you say, too many 'exceptions' nowadays.

[Gunny]

I don't know about TX or any other private school states. In the past couple of weeks have been in 4 Catholic school offices: Sign in all, "Every child must have proof of current immunizations to enroll or remain at the school. We protect all of our children. We make no exceptions."

Don't have that sort of sign in my public school office, though the law is clear-as you say, too many 'exceptions' nowadays.

Our laws are strict. We're too close to the border for them not to be. I do not believe you can get into any "public" (for the purposes of this to include "private" schools) without your shots, or the aforementioned exceptions.

Not sure how it is in AZ, but here, a job application is like an inquisition because of illegals. They're pretty much the same about shots. You have to have them.

What is the word I'm looking for? "Shot numb"? I guess I've had so many and never questioned them beyond to ask maybe which one it is, that the paltry amount of shots you need for school isn't registering with me We'd get 3-4 at a time in each arm, simultaneously. Got to get 3 shots for school?

Practicality dictates mandatory immunizations, minus the exceptions of course. In this for instance, I think the being part of a responsible society trumps personal choice.

[Kathianne]

Our laws are strict. We're too close to the border for them not to be. I do not believe you can get into any "public" (for the purposes of this to include "private" schools) without your shots, or the aforementioned exceptions.

Not sure how it is in AZ, but here, a job application is like an inquisition because of illegals. They're pretty much the same about shots. You have to have them.

What is the word I'm looking for? "Shot numb"? I guess I've had so many and never questioned them beyond to ask maybe which one it is, that the paltry amount of shots you need for school isn't registering with me We'd get 3-4 at a time in each arm, simultaneously. Got to get 3 shots for school?

Practicality dictates mandatory immunizations, minus the exceptions of course. In this for instance, I think the being part of a responsible society trumps personal choice.

From the AZ education immunization website: https://education.azgovernor.gov/edu...n-requirements

Immunization Exemption Forms

• • Medical Exemption Form [Español] - Must be completed by the child's physician or nurse practitioner.
  • Religious Beliefs Exemption Form [Español] - Must be completed by the parent or guardian of a child attending childcare or preschool programs. The initials of the parent/guardian and the date are required next to each vaccine preventable disease description, in addition to the signature and date at the bottom of the form.
  • Personal Beliefs Exemption Form [Español] - Must be completed by the parent or guardian of a student attending Kindergarten through 12th grade. Personal Beliefs exemptions are not applicable in childcare or preschool programs. The initials of the parent/guardian and the date are required next to each vaccine preventable disease description, in addition to the signature and date at the bottom of the form.

It's the 3rd that has encompassed all the problems. The first reason is obvious, there are a few that cannot be immunized for health reasons.

The second is a small problem, but was a reasonable accommodation for Christian Scientists back when I presume.

It's the 3rd that is for anti-vaxers, the real issue with numbers.

[Kathianne]

From the AZ education immunization website: https://education.azgovernor.gov/edu...n-requirements



It's the 3rd that has encompassed all the problems. The first reason is obvious, there are a few that cannot be immunized for health reasons.

The second is a small problem, but was a reasonable accommodation for Christian Scientists back when I presume.

It's the 3rd that is for anti-vaxers, the real issue with numbers.

Texas seems to have the same, though have a sort of restrictions on the 'religious/conscience' exemptions:

https://dshs.texas.gov/immunize/school/exemptions.aspx

[Gunny]

Texas seems to have the same, though have a sort of restrictions on the 'religious/conscience' exemptions:

https://dshs.texas.gov/immunize/school/exemptions.aspx

Call me cynical, lazy or whatever, but I'm getting shots before I'm going through any of that exemption paper drill. I'm not overly fond of needles but I AM allergic to paperwork

I don't agree with the reasoning for "religious/personal exemption". It places the individual's personal desires above the health and welfare of the community. That is not logical nor practical. And I DO take the Rights of the individual very seriously. However, some common sense, which is not so common anymore, and just simple courtesy are required.

What really bugs me about this? Where are all these "I take my stand for my Rights" people when real, meaningful Constitutional Rights are being trampled? You know, something worth fighting for?

[Drummond]

You do not have to say it. The parameters you present require it.

There it is. I said no such thing as what you'd claimed for me. QED.

I think contexts are getting just a little muddled in all this.

I've highlighted STTAB's lack of consistency, from his overall argument. Namely ... don't trust Government, except ... when you DO ... and then, trust one (in total defiance of a claim not to) to such an extent that you'll accept seeing powers seized which facilitate total dictation to the general public. Given that the reason to take that action can be said to 'hang together', so, that power is taken, applied, nobody is allowed to choose otherwise, in the face of an authority's insistence upon it, one you 'don't trust' ....

Untrustworthy people are people who are entitled to dictate to you, remove your freedom of choice ? They're entitled to set that precedent, create and implement laws, making such diktats you can only defy by breaking those laws ?

... Then, we have to interpret what you call an "emergency". I would consider this an "emergency". Despite who should be doing what or is claiming this or that, solve the problem. THEN point fingers.

The answer to this seems obvious to me. States of emergency apply to situations that are emergencies ! Such as, if national security is seriously compromised. Or, where a SERIOUS health emergency exists, threatening life &/or limb.

I seriously doubt that measles qualifies ! Bird flu could (in my view, it does). An ebola outbreak would. But ... measles ?

I'm of the view that a Government taking on powers, and insisting on their mandatory implementation, for something as relatively mild as MEASLES, for God's sake (!!) must be one exercising power for the sake of it. It's an over-reaction. A sledgehammer to crack a nut. I automatically question the motivation of the action taken.

What concerns me is that I think I'm observing what I'd fear, namely, the automatic acceptance of Governments taking on dictatorial powers just because THEY say they want to. It's a means to an end, and maybe the automatic acceptance of that IS already a precedent people accept ?

If so ... you will see a steady erosion of democratic accountability in everyday life. Almost worse, you won't even recognise what's happening. And ... STTAB's illustrated inconsistencies will be reflected by attitudes adopted everywhere.

In the US, those who choose to not adhere t the law that is based on the common good, they have recourse. They can home school. Private school (that's a guess). The freedom of choice is there, such that it is.

There's the common good, yes. And then, there's the Nanny State, which exists to create a culture of dependence.

In such a culture .. who questions authority ?

On the other hand, if you attend public schools you get your shots like the rest of the herd. I believe you used the term "herd" early on in the thread? Ever seen 2000 Marines and Sailors confined to the space of a ship for 1-3-6-9-12-or-more months at a time? No different than a classroom full of children in the winter with the heat on. And it is a herd for sure.

Your military equivalence, there, reinforces the National Security aspect, which applies where there really is a need to defend society's best interests. That's a little different to guarding against the 'horrific' prospect of actually risking getting measles !!!

I say that there is a difference. Or would you be prepared to send armadas of warships as a countering action to people back home catching bad colds ? Does the one really equate to the other ?

I wasn't the first person who used the 'herd' term, and when it was first mentioned, I questioned its use.

Now suppose I have Marines that can't get the shot(s) for whatever reason. Should their lives be endangered by some snot-ass know-it-ass who just "doesn't wanna"?

This is MEASLES we're talking about !

I can see taking a stance on something that might matter some day, but this topic isn't one of them. I go get my damned immunizations every year like a good boy, mostly to protect me from whatever strain of the plague the grandchildren may have, and out of respect for all of them by not bringing some bullsh*t into the house.

.... and I'm sure that choice played a part in all of that.

I've never had an immunisation shot of any kind, ever. But still, I've led a healthy life. I've been exposed, to my certain knowledge, to measles and meningitis outbreaks (my mother died of meningitis), but, my immune system coped easily (if, in fact, it even needed to). I don't say that such shots are a waste of time, or that recourse to them shouldn't exist. But I do believe that such hysteria exists (which is totally exploitable) on this, where it shouldn't.

[Gunny]

There it is. I said no such thing as what you'd claimed for me. QED.

I think contexts are getting just a little muddled in all this.

I've highlighted STTAB's lack of consistency, from his overall argument. Namely ... don't trust Government, except ... when you DO ... and then, trust one (in total defiance of a claim not to) to such an extent that you'll accept seeing powers seized which facilitate total dictation to the general public. Given that the reason to take that action can be said to 'hang together', so, that power is taken, applied, nobody is allowed to choose otherwise, in the face of an authority's insistence upon it, one you 'don't trust' ....

Untrustworthy people are people who are entitled to dictate to you, remove your freedom of choice ? They're entitled to set that precedent, create and implement laws, making such diktats you can only defy by breaking those laws ?



The answer to this seems obvious to me. States of emergency apply to situations that are emergencies ! Such as, if national security is seriously compromised. Or, where a SERIOUS health emergency exists, threatening life &/or limb.

I seriously doubt that measles qualifies ! Bird flu could (in my view, it does). An ebola outbreak would. But ... measles ?

I'm of the view that a Government taking on powers, and insisting on their mandatory implementation, for something as relatively mild as MEASLES, for God's sake (!!) must be one exercising power for the sake of it. It's an over-reaction. A sledgehammer to crack a nut. I automatically question the motivation of the action taken.

What concerns me is that I think I'm observing what I'd fear, namely, the automatic acceptance of Governments taking on dictatorial powers just because THEY say they want to. It's a means to an end, and maybe the automatic acceptance of that IS already a precedent people accept ?

If so ... you will see a steady erosion of democratic accountability in everyday life. Almost worse, you won't even recognise what's happening. And ... STTAB's illustrated inconsistencies will be reflected by attitudes adopted everywhere.



There's the common good, yes. And then, there's the Nanny State, which exists to create a culture of dependence.

In such a culture .. who questions authority ?



Your military equivalence, there, reinforces the National Security aspect, which applies where there really is a need to defend society's best interests. That's a little different to guarding against the 'horrific' prospect of actually risking getting measles !!!

I say that there is a difference. Or would you be prepared to send armadas of warships as a countering action to people back home catching bad colds ? Does the one really equate to the other ?

I wasn't the first person who used the 'herd' term, and when it was first mentioned, I questioned its use.



This is MEASLES we're talking about !



.... and I'm sure that choice played a part in all of that.

I've never had an immunisation shot of any kind, ever. But still, I've led a healthy life. I've been exposed, to my certain knowledge, to measles and meningitis outbreaks (my mother died of meningitis), but, my immune system coped easily (if, in fact, it even needed to). I don't say that such shots are a waste of time, or that recourse to them shouldn't exist. But I do believe that such hysteria exists (which is totally exploitable) on this, where it shouldn't.

I will re-state: I answered for me. I did not read from where I left off to where I picked back up. The topic doesn't seem to warrant it as it is still the same topic. I have no idea what Staab has posted. I will assume he is speaking for himself. This sin't a gang thing.

Nor do I see it as anything to take personally to point of being defensive.

There is no real inconsistency in not trusting the government and believing it is a responsibility to one's community/family to not needlessly endanger others. I trust the government to do what is best for the government. It is in the government's best interest that we be healthy, military or otherwise. Military immunizations are to protect from where one is going, not where one lives. Local immunizations protect against local issues. In either case, the government can't collect tax dollars or votes from dead people.

As is pointed out in the other thread of the same topic, measles is the leading killer for a preventable disease. That is enough right there to end any argument or question.

I survived two strains of the measles and the chickenpox as a child. I don't see that as a valid argument in regard to everyone else. I have grandchildren 2, 7, and 11. They haven't had either and you can carry infectious diseases without contracting them yourself. So, I get my shots for THEM, not me. Likewise, they get theirs.

Matter of fact, I've never heard of the European measles but I'm going to find out of I need a shot and get it if I do.

If you, drummond, don't want to get an immunization and have the Right not to, then feel free to exercise your Right in any manner you see fit. No one here has said not to. I feel the same way about taxes as you do measles shots but I still have to pay them because I don't have the Right not to.

My reasoning is clear and understandable. I also understand yours quite clearly. IMO, it is off. So we disagree. I'll live presumably but we know I WON'T die fromt he measles

[Kathianne]

It looks like Mr. Drummond may have a relative or at the least a kindred spirit in TX! https://hotair.com/archives/2019/05/...continue-rise/

[Drummond]

It looks like Mr. Drummond may have a relative or at the least a kindred spirit in TX! https://hotair.com/archives/2019/05/...continue-rise/

Posts like that one are just plain tiresome.

So, let's clear the air. Yes ?

I've been labouring under a misapprehension on this whole subject of measles. A lot of my thinking, thus far, has had this consideration as its core: measles is 'NO BIG DEAL'. Because, to me, it really isn't.

I've always thought that if I ever did contract measles (I never have), OK, it'd have potential to be altogether nastier than a common cold, but nonetheless, it would be an illness you just 'get through', and shrug off, just as you would with a cold, or a bout of flu. Nothing more.

On another thread, I belatedly relayed my understanding of measles, which I now see varies substantially from yours. In my society ... measles deaths come pretty close to being seen as a feature of history; that's to say, in modern Britain, it's virtually guaranteed to be a NON-fatal disease. That's long been my understanding about it. Here in jolly ol' Blighty, the only real likelihood of dying from measles comes from already suffering from other illnesses at the time you contract it. If you don't, then, certainly these days, it doesn't endanger your life. [I've posted statistics showing that this is so.]

Even then, given the presence of other illness on the part of someone contracting measles, deaths in the UK from it are extremely rare.

I've now, belatedly, understood that for Americans it's a more serious illness, so, NOW, I begin to get why it worries your people ! Until now, I seriously wondered if all the angst about it might've been artificially generated by your authorities, amounting to nothing more than a form of hype, and the product of some kind of worked-towards agenda.

MY reality, is not YOUR reality, it seems. Measles is not regarded as a killer disease here !! I'm utterly baffled as to why the US has to regard it differently.

What makes your reality different from mine ? I'm honestly asking.

Would you, or anybody else, care to explain it to me (& without barbs, please !). WHY is measles a greater threat to your people, than to mine ??

[STTAB]

Call me cynical, lazy or whatever, but I'm getting shots before I'm going through any of that exemption paper drill. I'm not overly fond of needles but I AM allergic to paperwork

I don't agree with the reasoning for "religious/personal exemption". It places the individual's personal desires above the health and welfare of the community. That is not logical nor practical. And I DO take the Rights of the individual very seriously. However, some common sense, which is not so common anymore, and just simple courtesy are required.

What really bugs me about this? Where are all these "I take my stand for my Rights" people when real, meaningful Constitutional Rights are being trampled? You know, something worth fighting for?

That's not being lazy that is a direct result of military service, where you have to fill out three forms just to use the latrine (or head for you naval guys)

[STTAB]

Posts like that one are just plain tiresome.

So, let's clear the air. Yes ?

I've been labouring under a misapprehension on this whole subject of measles. A lot of my thinking, thus far, has had this consideration as its core: measles is 'NO BIG DEAL'. Because, to me, it really isn't.

I've always thought that if I ever did contract measles (I never have), OK, it'd have potential to be altogether nastier than a common cold, but nonetheless, it would be an illness you just 'get through', and shrug off, just as you would with a cold, or a bout of flu. Nothing more.

On another thread, I belatedly relayed my understanding of measles, which I now see varies substantially from yours. In my society ... measles deaths come pretty close to being seen as a feature of history; that's to say, in modern Britain, it's virtually guaranteed to be a NON-fatal disease. That's long been my understanding about it. Here in jolly ol' Blighty, the only real likelihood of dying from measles comes from already suffering from other illnesses at the time you contract it. If you don't, then, certainly these days, it doesn't endanger your life. [I've posted statistics showing that this is so.]

Even then, given the presence of other illness on the part of someone contracting measles, deaths in the UK from it are extremely rare.

I've now, belatedly, understood that for Americans it's a more serious illness, so, NOW, I begin to get why it worries your people ! Until now, I seriously wondered if all the angst about it might've been artificially generated by your authorities, amounting to nothing more than a form of hype, and the product of some kind of worked-towards agenda.

MY reality, is not YOUR reality, it seems. Measles is not regarded as a killer disease here !! I'm utterly baffled as to why the US has to regard it differently.

What makes your reality different from mine ? I'm honestly asking.

Would you, or anybody else, care to explain it to me (& without barbs, please !). WHY is measles a greater threat to your people, than to mine ??

To put it simply , because we have FAR more people than England and a lot of those people are here from shall we say less than ideal places, where they have contracted God knows what and brought it here.

We have far more people , so it follows that we also have far more people who would not survive a Measles outbreak. Just simple math. And as I said earlier in the thread if you stretch medical resources too thin then you see people who could marginally survive with minor medical care dying of measles because they couldn't get that minor medical care.

If as we discussed earlier 2% of the population died when exposed to Measles , that would be 600K deaths in the US without even considering the impact of stretched resources if we had a Measles outbreak.

[Drummond]

To put it simply , because we have FAR more people than England and a lot of those people are here from shall we say less than ideal places, where they have contracted God knows what and brought it here.

We have far more people , so it follows that we also have far more people who would not survive a Measles outbreak. Just simple math. And as I said earlier in the thread if you stretch medical resources too thin then you see people who could marginally survive with minor medical care dying of measles because they couldn't get that minor medical care.

If as we discussed earlier 2% of the population died when exposed to Measles , that would be 600K deaths in the US without even considering the impact of stretched resources if we had a Measles outbreak.

No, STTAB.

I'm going to do you the favour (it's probably true, anyway) of assuming that you haven't seen the statistics I posted on another thread about this. So, let me introduce you to them now.

See:

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...s-1940-to-2013

Study the table this link takes you to. I promise you that you can trust the figures it shows you.

You say that you've far more people in the US than we have in the UK. True ! We've got around 65 million these days.

What's your population ? Around 300 million, 'give or take' ? That's approximately five times the number we have here. So, multiply each statistic by five, to reach a decent comparison ... yes ?

OK, then.

From the period 2010 to 2016 (the latest year reported on) we had precisely FOUR deaths in the UK from measles. Not '4K' of deaths, or anything remotely like it. Not even a tally of deaths reaching double figures ! So, tell me ... between 2010 and 2016, did you only have five times that number, i.e TWENTY deaths ? Or, was it more ? Just, in that period, how many more ?

Of those presumed TWENTY deaths, were all of them cases where an underlying, and serious, additional health issue was suffered by those who died ? Because in the UK's cases, that was true of ALL of them.

To quote from my post, and the link:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...872#post932872

Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992. In 2006, there was 1 measles death in a 13-year-old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Another death in 2008 was also due to acute measles in an unvaccinated child with a congenital immunodeficiency, whose condition did not require treatment with immunoglobulin. In 2013, 1 death was reported in a 25-year-old man following acute pneumonia as a complication of measles. In 2016, one death was reported in a 10-month-old infant who suffered complications due to a secondary infection.

All other measles deaths since 1992 shown above are in older individuals and were caused by the late effects of measles. These infections were acquired during the 1980s or earlier, when epidemics of measles occurred.

I'll give you this much: my stats don't quite go up to the present day. I wish they did. Still .. I've no reason to think there's been any great change.

So, STTAB, do you see that there's more to this than the argument you offer ? Somehow, America manages to be far worse off than we are. Given that you've had a major outbreak, affecting far more people ... still, WHY aren't Americans coping well ? Why do you fear measles as a disease carrying lethal potential, for anyone other than already-seriously sick people ?

There's seemingly something that makes Americans more susceptible to this virus than we are, over here. WHAT is it ??

Can you explain that, STTAB ?

Until now, I assumed that you were the victim of authoritarian-concocted hype, & / or choosing to panic about, basically, 'nothing', and my argument was built on that. I was clearly wrong. MY reality is not YOUR reality.

And, note this: we've never had compulsory vaccination here. Never. Sure, it's 'heavily advised', and Government tries to meet ambitious targets of percentages for its take-up. Sure, there's TALK of MAYBE introducing mandatory compulsion, backed by law. But you can't explain our modern-day lack of mortality from measles, here, as a product of Government compulsion to comply with vaccinations.

I've never thought of measles as a 'killer' disease. I've never had to.

I'm asking why such a difference between our countries. That is the point.

================================================== ====

P.S .... Sorry !! I've just taken another look at the table I sent you. It says that the 2016 death (the only one recorded that year) was, I quote. 'Known not to be measles infection'. So .. revise my UK total DOWNWARDS. It's not FOUR. It's just THREE.

Sorry about that.

[Kathianne]

It's been awhile:

https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/n...KeFmaH52BnlI1I

ABC NEWS December 5, 2019
Worldwide measles deaths surge, reversing years of progress

More than 140,000 people around the world died of measles last year, most of them children under the age of 5, according to a report published by the World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Thursday.

This year is shaping up to be even worse, as deadly outbreaks continued to sweep the globe in 2019. As of mid-November, the number of measles cases countries reported to WHO was three times higher than the number of cases reported at this time last year.

...


Samoa's story is one sliver of a larger narrative about a measles spike following more than a decade of progress toward eliminating the disease. In 2000, there were roughly 28,000,000 estimated measles cases worldwide. By 2017, that number had fallen to fewer than 8,000,000 cases.

Last year, progress ground to a halt.

2018 saw nearly 10,000,000 estimated cases of the infectious disease spread around the world.

"In other words, we're backsliding," warned Dr. Kate O'Brien, director of immunization, vaccines and biologicals at WHO.

"There's been an increase in both the cases and the deaths that have occurred from measles," she said.

In 2018, Albania, Czechia, Greece and the United Kingdom, lost their coveted measles elimination status, meaning they've had continuous measles transmissions for more than a year after previously declaring the disease eliminated. The United States, which this year logged the highest number of measles cases in more than two decades, barely clung to its own status. Outbreaks in Brooklyn and New York State that lasted for nearly 12 months threatened to end nearly 20 years of having the elimination designation.

...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It's been awhile:

https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/n...KeFmaH52BnlI1I

Read the article. Where was the part about how most of the infectious disease, measles for one, is increasing in USA due to the much promoted/sponsored/aided by dem party, illegal immigration into our country. O that is right that part was censored..
Did not make it into the article.
Any person that trusts our government blindly is going to end up damaged in their lifetime by being so gullible..
Our government, its bureaucracy is a firmly entrenched beast--that is primarily a liberal dem party apparatus.
Not trusting it is a must for a sane person.
Measles is a serious disease and one should take precaution --but-- while screaming about vaccination --why isnt our same "screaming about vaccination government", concerned about the illegals bringing most of it into our nation? hmmmmmm.....
My son and daughter are vaccinated. As am I and my wife.
They let millions in spreading a disease without a whimper about it but yet scream bloody murder if an American citizen does not want to be vaccinated-- some kind of hypocrisy, some kind of massive discrepancy.
Which is more dangerous to we citizens, more dangerous to us as a constitutionally based Representative Republic?--Tyr

[Kathianne]

Read the article. Where was the part about how most of the infectious disease, measles for one, is increasing in USA due to the much promoted/sponsored/aided by dem party, illegal immigration into our country. O that is right that part was censored..
Did not make it into the article.
Any person that trusts our government blindly is going to end up damaged in their lifetime by being so gullible..
Our government, its bureaucracy is a firmly entrenched beast--that is primarily a liberal dem party apparatus.
Not trusting it is a must for a sane person.
Measles is a serious disease and one should take precaution --but-- while screaming about vaccination --why isnt our same "screaming about vaccination government", concerned about the illegals bringing most of it into our nation? hmmmmmm.....
My son and daughter are vaccinated. As am I and my wife.
They let millions in spreading a disease without a whimper about it but yet scream bloody murder if an American citizen does not want to be vaccinated-- some kind of hypocrisy, some kind of massive discrepancy.
Which is more dangerous to we citizens, more dangerous to us as a constitutionally based Representative Republic?--Tyr

Actually this article was more on the Worldwide problem, which includes migration patterns of the non vaccinated, whether through availability of vaccine or those choosing not to.