LDS Religious Exemptions from Vaccination

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't know why it happens, must just be a coincidence. Sorry for my grammar, I don't have a lot of husbands. I noticed I put husbands'. 

No problem, I have no moral objections to polyandry.

[cinepro]

11 hours ago, waveslider said:

Okay, I guess everyone better throw away all their silver, and white gold jewelry because it is so highly toxic. Wake up and realize it isn't as toxic as you think. It certainly isn't as toxic as Mercury and Lead. Talking about Mercury based concoctions is what the OP is all about.

Rosemary Jacobs would be so relieved to hear it...

http://www.rosemaryjacobs.com/

When Rosemary Jacobs was a teenager, her life changed drastically because of a doctor’s mistake. He prescribed nose drops containing silver for a recurring sinus infection. The silver turned her skin permanently silver gray -- a medical condition known as argyria.

If Rosemary's doctor had gotten information from medical journals instead of from ads from drug companies, he never would have prescribed a drug that contained silver. He would have read the warnings about the dangers of taking the metal internally. He would have known that it could result in an incurable condition called argyria in which silver binds with tissue deep inside the skin and permanently discolors it.
Many argyric people become recluses, but Rosemary decided that she would not let the reactions of others keep her from leading the life she wanted to lead. She became a Montessori teacher, learned several languages and studied and worked in several different countries.
She decided that if others were disturbed by her appearance, they had an option. They could look away. When strangers called her names in the street, she yelled back at them.
But In 1995, Rosemary learned that silver was being legally sold all over the world as a “dietary supplement,” and promoted with fraudulent claims of safety and efficacy. So she went on the warpath, trying her damndest to warn the public of the danger.
Rosemary predicted new cases of argyria. The salesmen scoffed. Some told vicious lies about her, but unfortunately she was right. There are now many cases of argyria caused by silver dietary supplements. Most tragic of all there are cases in children and teenagers.
This is Rosemary’s memoir of living with argyria, and of her fight to keep others from being disfigured by colloidal silver and other unregulated supplements containing silver.

Edited November 9, 2016 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, waveslider said:

There is much more going on than what you quickly scanned. If you read a little more you will see that these are some of the top doctors, scientists and professionals in their fields, and there are a plethora of cancer survivors that Western medicine wrote off as hopeless and should get their affairs in order, who have lived more than two decades from these so called quack remedies, without cancer still, who are living proof that it works far better than the same old three approaches to cancer that haven't changed much in over 50 years, where they call someone cancer free who survives 5 years after their first diagnosis, even if they are riddled with cancer 5 years later and die. False hope is relative. Some of their methods have even saved a high school friend of mine who is alive and well, cancer free, many, many years after a nasty bout of breast cancer.

If you or someone you know has cancer you owe it to yourself to at least watch this:

 

To you was the whole Enlightenment thing just something that happened to other people?

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Can that be the case when you have people traveling to the US from all parts of the world, does the US require proof of vaccination to enter the country, if not are we only as safe as the vaccination level of other countries?

Yes that can be the case, and is currently the case for some vaccines.  International travel certainly increases our risk and incidence of infectious disease, especially for the highly contagious diseases like measles.   Keep in mind however, that international travel has been happening for a very long time and the increased risk due to international travelers is already reflected in our annual disease transmission rates.  The risk in the US can be no higher than current reported transmission rates in the US, and are not equal to transmission rates abroad.

16 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Should we feel safe enough that those around us haven't been, and will never be exposed to serious illnesses that we just skip on vaccines altogether. 

 That should be a personal decision made after weighing the risks for disease against the risk for serious adverse reactions to each vaccination.  That is the only point I am trying to make.  My only qualm is the mandate and how difficult it is to get a religious exemption for some.  I am not trying to convince others to not vaccinate, and I have no problem with your personal views on vaccination. 

The fact is that a significant increase in international travel is not going to have a significant increase on disease transmission rates for many vaccine preventable diseases (not all).  For example, hepatitis B rates among children are not likely to increase above the current rate of  0.02 cases per 100,000 (0.00002% chance) even with international travel happening all around us.  The primary transmission to children is through child birth from an infected mother.  It is a blood and body fluid borne illness and is about as easy to contract as aids.

Pertussis, on the other hand, is a disease that probably would increase with an increase in international travel because it is more contagious. However even a highly vaccinated public will not reduce the incidence significantly.  In 2015 55% of the reported pertussis cases were from vaccinated patients, 9% were unvaccinated, and 36% had an unknown vaccination history.  If the ratio of the unknown 36% equals the ratio of the known 64%, then the overall ratio would be 85% vaccinated vs. 15% unvaccinated.  National vaccination rates for pertussis are 83.1% (4 doses) and 94.1% (3 doses)  That says to me that vaccination (as far as pertussis goes) is no more likely to prevent disease.

http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/downloads/pertuss-surv-report-2015-provisional.pdf

In fact, recent studies suggest that the pertussis vaccine may be partly responsible for the recent increase in pertussis rates nation wide.  The study showed that the vaccine does not prevent infection, but may hide symptoms.  This creates "silent carriers", or asymptomatic carriers.  These are people who are infected and infectious and don't know it and are therefore more likely to spread the disease to the rest of the population instead of staying home sick in bed.

It used to be that medical professionals recommended that all those in close contact with newborns get a pertussis shot to create a blanket effect around the child.  That recommendation is starting to change because of the new study.  That previous recommendation may have been putting babies at greater risk for pertussis because the family members may have been spreading the disease to the child unawares, because they were infected or infectious and not aware.  In this case, it is better to get sick yourself and stay away from the baby while you are infectious, then to put your baby at risk by getting vaccinated. Pertussis is only life threatening for young infants.  We don't see deaths above 6 months of age and most are below 3 months of age. 

Each vaccine has their pros and cons. 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2016 by pogi

[waveslider]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

Rosemary Jacobs would be so relieved to hear it...

http://www.rosemaryjacobs.com/

 

 

I know all about that. It is caused by the misuse of silver nitrates, Silver compounds, and high doses of intake, or application to eyes and things. In the proper amounts and if it is pure, it doesn't happen. This is why I make my own, because I don't trust these companies. I have taken it daily for a couple of years in a row before, I spend too much time in the Sun because I surf and I live in Hawaii, and I have never even come close to getting Argyria. The only grey I have is in my hair, and it isn't bluish grey. Education is the key.

If it was so highly toxic then why do they still use it in burn creams, and Diabetes stalkings. Of which I know a veteran who was given those things because he got the flesh eating bacteria from a stay in the V.A. hospital. It seems that doctors are still prescribing it for antibiotic purposes, although not in it's pure, colloidal form, because big pharma can't patent it and make billions of dollars off of it, so they give the compound forms, which can cause Argyria more easily, as well as the micro fiber form, of which you thought was toxic.

[waveslider]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

To you was the whole Enlightenment thing just something that happened to other people?

I don't understand what it is you are asking exactly? It isn't about enlightenment as much as studying and learning. These doctors, scientists and professionals are the ones who have become enlightened from their research and have become some of the top professionals in their fields. I just learn what they have researched, and watch as they defy the narrative that media sells in order to gain I higher bottom line for the drug companies. Sick people make them money. Healthy people make them go broke.

[Yirgacheffe]

15 hours ago, waveslider said:

My kids were going to school at the time and I was exposed to all kinds of colds and things from them and their friends. My kids always got well in 24 hours

I've worked in a school for years, I came down with strep throat once, and was off one day.  Out of all my kids and all their years of school only twice did I have any of my kids out more than one day except like you said when it came to lice.  And I have had a cyst shrink to nothing and all I changed was my diet and more exercise.

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, waveslider said:

I don't understand what it is you are asking exactly? It isn't about enlightenment as much as studying and learning. These doctors, scientists and professionals are the ones who have become enlightened from their research and have become some of the top professionals in their fields. I just learn what they have researched, and watch as they defy the narrative that media sells in order to gain I higher bottom line for the drug companies. Sick people make them money. Healthy people make them go broke.

I also don't trust dentists. They say to brush with fluoride toothpaste and floss every day. They make their money off of filling cavities, so I don't trust that. I brush my teeth with spray cheese and I floss with candy floss. 

Take that, dental establishment!

[waveslider]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

I also don't trust dentists. They say to brush with fluoride toothpaste and floss every day. They make their money off of filling cavities, so I don't trust that. I brush my teeth with spray cheese and I floss with candy floss. 

Take that, dental establishment!

Well they also filled my cavities with Mercury, when I was a kid, so there is a reason to distrust a little. Baking soda and thread might be a better alternative than cheese wiz and candy floss. But I would still recommend having a dentist check you out a couple of times per year.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

These doctors, scientists and professionals are the ones who have become enlightened from their research and have become some of the top professionals in their fields. I just learn what they have researched, and watch as they defy the narrative that media sells in order to gain I higher bottom line for the drug companies. Sick people make them money. Healthy people make them go broke.

I am not saying that the pharmaceutical industry is not without fault, but It really goes both ways.  If you think that these natural remedies "doctors, scientists and professionals" are not equally corruptible or motivated by self interest, you should think again.  Herbal and natural remedies are one of the biggest fiasco markets out there.  It is a mega billion dollar industry.  They are almost completely unregulated, untested,  and are not subject to the rigorous standards used by the FDA in regulating drug safety.  There is lack of standardization to guard against adulteration and ensure a consistent level of active ingredients.

I am not saying that it is all bad, but the potential for corruption is much greater in the natural remedies field.  Crazy money potential and lack of regulation is a guarantee to attract unethical "doctors, scientists and professionals". 

Edited November 9, 2016 by pogi

[ERMD]

On 11/8/2016 at 1:21 PM, pogi said:

You didn't read both links:

"During the entire course of 8 clinical studies, there were 68 (0.19%) deaths following administration of ROTARIX (N = 36,755) and 50 (0.15%) deaths following placebo administration (N = 34,454). The most commonly reported cause of death following vaccination was pneumonia, which was observed in 19 (0.05%) recipients of ROTARIX and 10 (0.03%) placebo recipients (Relative Risk: 1.74, 95% CI: 0.76, 4.23)."

 

 

 

You need to learn how to interpret scientific data.  This is not saying what you claim it is saying.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, waveslider said:

I don't understand what it is you are asking exactly? It isn't about enlightenment as much as studying and learning. These doctors, scientists and professionals are the ones who have become enlightened from their research and have become some of the top professionals in their fields. I just learn what they have researched, and watch as they defy the narrative that media sells in order to gain I higher bottom line for the drug companies. Sick people make them money. Healthy people make them go broke.

The Enlightenment was an intellectual movement in the 17th and 18th century that emphasized reason and individuality over superstition and tradition. It led to the rise of empiricism in scientific study. Descartes, Locke, Newton, Kant, Goethe, Voltaire, Rousseau, Adam Smith.

I am suggesting you might have chosen not to participate but to not even notice it?  

Edited November 10, 2016 by The Nehor

[cinepro]

8 hours ago, waveslider said:

I know all about that. It is caused by the misuse of silver nitrates, Silver compounds, and high doses of intake, or application to eyes and things. In the proper amounts and if it is pure, it doesn't happen. This is why I make my own, because I don't trust these companies. I have taken it daily for a couple of years in a row before, I spend too much time in the Sun because I surf and I live in Hawaii, and I have never even come close to getting Argyria. The only grey I have is in my hair, and it isn't bluish grey. Education is the key.

If it was so highly toxic then why do they still use it in burn creams, and Diabetes stalkings. Of which I know a veteran who was given those things because he got the flesh eating bacteria from a stay in the V.A. hospital. It seems that doctors are still prescribing it for antibiotic purposes, although not in it's pure, colloidal form, because big pharma can't patent it and make billions of dollars off of it, so they give the compound forms, which can cause Argyria more easily, as well as the micro fiber form, of which you thought was toxic.

I use tons of things as external medicine that I would never consume.  If you can't tell the difference, then I don't know what to say.

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The Enlightenment was an intellectual movement in the 17th and 18th century that emphasized reason and individuality over superstition and tradition. It led to the rise of empiricism in scientific study. Descartes, Locke, Newton, Kant, Goethe, Voltaire, Rousseau, Adam Smith.

I am suggesting you might have chosen not to participate but to not even notice it?  

I wonder how they would feel about the enlightenment with conflicting interest that funds research in order to fit agendas. I do like good science, but bad science isn't helping anyone except those who profit from it.

[waveslider]

38 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I use tons of things as external medicine that I would never consume.  If you can't tell the difference, then I don't know what to say.

I'll let you know as soon as I turn blue. Okay?

[pogi]

18 hours ago, ERMD said:

You need to learn how to interpret scientific data.  This is not saying what you claim it is saying.

To me that says that there is a statistically significant greater chance of death when compared with placebo.

[pogi]

16 hours ago, waveslider said:

...the standard treatments really haven't significantly changed since the 60's.

Actually, there is tons of money going into cancer research with new treatments and therapies being introduced all the time.  We have progressed leaps and bounds from the 60's.

Can you show me solid evidence to show these types of survival rates using homeopathic medicine?  All you get with homeopathic medicine is anecdotal evidence.  They make a bunch of promises with no solid research to back it up. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1948867/

 

Edited November 10, 2016 by pogi

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, waveslider said:

I wonder how they would feel about the enlightenment with conflicting interest that funds research in order to fit agendas. I do like good science, but bad science isn't helping anyone except those who profit from it.

Of course we fund research to meet agendas. That is why more money goes towards cancer research then towards making sharks sentient. We have more interest in the former and are rightly terrified of the latter.

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Actually, there is tons of money going into cancer research with new treatments and therapies being introduced all the time.  We have progressed leaps and bounds from the 60's.

Can you show me solid evidence to show these types of survival rates using homeopathic medicine?  All you get with homeopathic medicine is anecdotal evidence.  They make a bunch of promises with no solid research to back it up. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1948867/

 

Okay, what are some of the radically new therapies that have been introduced, besides chemo, radiation, surgery, or some type of combination of those three, of which approaches have been the standard since the 60's?

The stats can also be fudged, for instance what is meant by the word, "survivor," as in cancer survivor?

".....the definition of the word has become so muddy that the organization that pushed for its use several decades ago is now saying that a new definition is needed."  http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/19/1414.1.full

The, "muddy," definition can throw off a P-curve a lot, in order show whatever stats they want to show. So believe what you want.

Also accredited Oncologists are more apt. to be more successful than your typical homeopathic care person. So why won't you at least check out some of the top oncologists in the world who know that it is against their Hippocratic Oath, to not cause harm, if they use the standard procedures, as are interviewed in the Quest For The Cures series'? Or at the very least, after any particular Oncologist suggests a plan of action to you, or someone you know, with a cancer diagnosis, ask that doctor what type of action he/she would take if it was himself/herself, or his/her spouse who was so diagnosed? The answers you receive just might open your eyes to the reality you deny exists just because governmental regulations won't allow certain things, like for instance a natural occurring element to be classified as a drug, since it can't be patented and owned, but only allow man made compounds and genetically engineered genes, that aren't found in nature, to be patented. So it's true that there are no naturally occurring medicines found in nature that work better than man made drugs?, anywhere on this planet? If you believe that I have some land for sale about a mile North of where I live, on the North shore of Oahu..... Cheap!!!

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Of course we fund research to meet agendas. That is why more money goes towards cancer research then towards making sharks sentient. We have more interest in the former and are rightly terrified of the latter.

I don't know if being terrified by sharks is rational, but rather a phobia, which is irrational. I have personally had enough uncomfortably close encounters with sharks, in my 48 years of surfing, to know that they aren't just going to normally attack, although there are the rare attacks once in a while. It's like me having a rightful fear of bears attacking me, even though there aren't any bears (besides perhaps at the Honolulu Zoo maybe). Sure it could happen if I visit somewhere that has them and take a hike in the woods, or mountains, or something, but it is still very unlikely...... a rightful fear? Only a phobia!

That said I do like the idea of funding research only for important things, if the motives were kept pure. You don't see any conflict of interest when the only things being studied are what will profit the people who fund the research? Here is an example of how the study of better medicines are being suppressed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-vzhUT5irY (warning it may be disturbing to see these children suffering like they are before the new drug takes effect) in Ben Swann's latest video. It took legalizing a drug that is classified as Schedule 1, meaning it has no medical value whatsoever, (even though the U.S. government holds the patent on the active ingredients..... for why? if it is completely worthless?) in Colorado, that so far is showing far better results than the Western medicine standard drugs ever have. FYI it is still illegal to ship it to anywhere else since it can't be shipped across state lines due to Federal regulations. Schedule 1 classification means it is illegal to do any research on, until recently where it finally has been legalized in select areas.

 

Edited November 10, 2016 by waveslider
used a wrong word

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, waveslider said:

I don't know if being terrified by sharks is rational, but rather a phobia, which is irrational. I have personally had enough uncomfortably close encounters with sharks, in my 48 years of surfing, to know that they aren't just going to normally attack, although there are the rare attacks once in a while. It's like me having a rightful fear of bears attacking me, even though there aren't any bears (besides perhaps at the Honolulu Zoo maybe). Sure it could happen if I visit somewhere that has them and take a hike in the woods, or mountains, or something, but it is still very unlikely...... a rightful fear? Only a phobia!

That said I do like the idea of funding research only for important things, if the motives were kept pure. You don't see any conflict of interest when the only things being studied are what will profit the people who fund the research? Here is an example of how the study of better medicines are being suppressed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-vzhUT5irY (warning it may be disturbing to see these children suffering like they are before the new drug takes effect) in Ben Swann's latest video. It took legalizing a drug that is classified as Schedule 1, meaning it has no medical value whatsoever, (even though the U.S. government holds the patent on the active ingredients..... for why? if it is completely worthless?) in Colorado, that so far is showing far better results than the Western medicine standard drugs ever have. FYI it is still illegal to ship it to anywhere else since it can't be shipped across state lines due to Federal regulations. Schedule 1 classification means it is illegal to do any research on, until recently where it finally has been legalized in select areas.

 

I was talking about making sharks sentient not general shark attacks. Imagine how dangerous the next Sharknado would be.

I miss surfing.  

[ERMD]

2 hours ago, waveslider said:

Okay, what are some of the radically new therapies that have been introduced, besides chemo, radiation, surgery, or some type of combination of those three, of which approaches have been the standard since the 60's?

The stats can also be fudged, for instance what is meant by the word, "survivor," as in cancer survivor?

".....the definition of the word has become so muddy that the organization that pushed for its use several decades ago is now saying that a new definition is needed."  http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/19/1414.1.full

The, "muddy," definition can throw off a P-curve a lot, in order show whatever stats they want to show. So believe what you want.

Also accredited Oncologists are more apt. to be more successful than your typical homeopathic care person. So why won't you at least check out some of the top oncologists in the world who know that it is against their Hippocratic Oath, to not cause harm, if they use the standard procedures, as are interviewed in the Quest For The Cures series'? Or at the very least, after any particular Oncologist suggests a plan of action to you, or someone you know, with a cancer diagnosis, ask that doctor what type of action he/she would take if it was himself/herself, or his/her spouse who was so diagnosed? The answers you receive just might open your eyes to the reality you deny exists just because governmental regulations won't allow certain things, like for instance a natural occurring element to be classified as a drug, since it can't be patented and owned, but only allow man made compounds and genetically engineered genes, that aren't found in nature, to be patented. So it's true that there are no naturally occurring medicines found in nature that work better than man made drugs?, anywhere on this planet? If you believe that I have some land for sale about a mile North of where I live, on the North shore of Oahu..... Cheap!!!

The evolution of surgical techniques, chemotherapeutic agents, hormone therapy, gene therapy, immune therapy, and radiation therapy has revolutionized cancer treatment since the 1990s, not just the 1960s. Malignant melanoma frequently disappears when treated with immune therapy.  My wife's mother died of BRCA-2 hereditary breast cancer in 1974 after 2 years of treatment, including a radical mastectomy and aggressive chemotherapy.  My wife is now 9 years out from her diagnosis of the same hereditary cancer, originally undergoing 8 different surgical procedures, including bilateral reconstruction--something which did not exist in the 1970s.  Her reconstructive procedure utilized all her own tissue and did not involve muscle flaps, a technique that was developed in the late 2000s.  She was recently diagnosed with a recurrence, and due to continued development of new medication regimens, still has her hair, and is able to be treated with oral medication and a monthly injection.

So far, she has outlived her mother by 7 years.  The first 2 years were difficult, but she has been herself since.  I call her a survivor.  The 2 years her mom endured were filled with constant sickness and pathologic fractures due to bone metastases.  Treatments are vastly different, more humane, and have tremendously improved the quality of life for most people dealing the spectrum of diseases called "cancer."

Edited November 10, 2016 by ERMD

[ERMD]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

To me that says that there is a statistically significant greater chance of death when compared with placebo.

P value?

[pogi]

On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 2:40 PM, bluebell said:

Also, where the risk of sickness is greater than the risk from the vaccine, the vaccine is a wise choice.  Considering that the number of children ages 0-5 being hospitalized has dropped by 85-90% since the introduction of the vaccine (that's a reduction of 40,000 to 50,000 each year), and severe side effects due to the vaccine are incredibly rare (1 in 20,000-1 in 100,000), that seems like good odds. 

Sorry bluebell, I thought I already responded to your comment, but it didn't seem to post.

You are absolutely right, some people are willing to take the relatively low risk of serious adverse event from the vaccine in order to avoid the 1 in 90 chance of rotavirus infection.  Those odds are perfectly reasonable for some.  I totally respect that decision.  I come from a different perspective however, for me, I would not be willing to put my child at risk of serious adverse event or death from vaccination in order to reduce the chance of a relatively not-so-serious illness (given appropriate care).  When you consider how many millions of rotavirus vaccines are administered annually, a 1 in 20,000-100,000 chance equals a fairly significant amount of serious adverse events and unnecessary deaths annually from vaccination.  .  

Also, you have to consider the fact that you are actually more likely to experience fever, vomiting, anorexia, fussiness/irritability, and diarrhea from the vaccine than you are from the disease itself (1.10% chance vs. 25% chance, give or take depending on side effect).  So, are the odds really in your favor?  It depends on how you look at it.  These symptoms are no doubt more mild than the disease, but my odds of avoiding them all together are way better by avoiding the vaccine all together. 

Kids get sick, but with proper care, they get better in a few days.  After recovery, their immunity will actually be better than any vaccinated person.  I can't imagine having to bury my child due to an adverse event to vaccination for rotavirus. 

I hope that you can see that there actually is a reasonable reason to not vaccinate.  Mandating this vaccine will be a death sentence for some.  We shouldn't take that lightly and should be offered a way to refuse vaccination if we so decide.  I just wish that we had an easier way to do that than by justifying it based on religious beliefs.

[ERMD]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

  After recovery, their immunity will actually be better than any vaccinated person.  

CFR