2011.03.05 Q'uo on Vaccines

[AnthroHeart]

It Took Two Months and Nearly a Million Dollars to Save an Unvaccinated 6-Year-Old From Tetanus

~ Ed Cara
Thursday 7/3/2019 5:54pm

A new case report from the Centers for Disease Control released Thursday starkly highlights the costs of not vaccinating children. It details an unvaccinated 6-year-old boy’s encounter with tetanus—and the hugely expensive, two-month-long effort it took to save his life.

Tetanus is caused by the namesake bacteria Clostridium tetani. More accurately, it’s what happens when the soil-loving C. tetani gets into your body—usually through an open cut—and spews out an extremely potent toxin. This toxin can quickly paralyze and send your muscles into constant spasms, beginning with the jaw (if you know anything about tetanus, it’s probably that it causes lockjaw). These spasms can then spread to the chest, back, and gut, leading to painful fractures, problems breathing, and even the complete loss of bowel control. It’s a brutal disease, one that can take months to fully recover from. Even with treatment, 10 percent of victims ultimately die.

Thankfully, we’ve had a working vaccine for tetanus since the 1920s, and vaccination has virtually eliminated the disease in countries with decent healthcare. Most every person in the U.S. is fully vaccinated for tetanus by the time they enter school, with the first of five shots happening at the age of 2 months (booster shots every 10 years afterward are recommended). Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case for the unnamed child in this report, since his family had chosen to not vaccinate him for any condition.

According to the authors, the 6-year-old boy from Oregon had gotten a forehead scrape while playing outside on a farm sometime in 2017. The wound was cleaned and sutured at home, but six days later the boy began experiencing lockjaw and muscle spasms. He then started arching his back and neck involuntarily and eventually could barely breathe, prompting his family to call for help.

The boy was airlifted to the hospital, unable to even drink water because he couldn’t open his mouth. There, he was given several tetanus shots. He then spent the next 47 days in intensive care, needing a ventilator to breathe and constant medications through an IV to control his pain, blood pressure, and muscle spasms. Three days later, he was able to walk 20 feet with help, but he still needed two more weeks of rehab to fully recover the use of his legs and body.

All told, he ended up spending 57 days in the hospital, with a bill of $811,929, and that’s excluding the air transport and rehab care. For context, that’s about 72 times the average cost of a hospital stay for a kid, according to research cited by the authors. And it’s monumentally more expensive than the childhood diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine (DTaP), which can cost around $30 per dose without insurance (the adult boosters are around $60).

The doctors say it’s the first case of childhood tetanus reported in Oregon in 30 years. Between 2009 to 2015, though, there were 197 tetanus cases and 16 deaths reported in the U.S. And some of these rare cases have been even more expensive, with hospital bills for one adult victim reaching over $1 million.

The report doesn’t go into why his family was against vaccination in the first place. And lead author Judith Guzman-Cottrill, a professor of pediatrics at Oregon Health and Science University, told Gizmodo that she couldn’t disclose any family-specific details about the case, including their reasons for abstaining. But she noted the case should provide an important reminder about getting your shots, especially for tetanus. That’s because tetanus is only spread by direct contact with contaminated surfaces, and not from person-to-person like the flu. So relying on others to be vaccinated—otherwise known as herd immunity—won’t protect you from the bacteria, which is practically everywhere in soil.

“Thus, routine vaccination for all, plus boosters, are very important to prevent disease,” Guzman-Cottrill told Gizmodo.

The story ends mostly happily for the boy. A month later, he was completely back to normal, running and using his bike again. But it seems no lessons were learned on his family’s part. Despite the brutal ordeal and pleading by the doctors, they again chose not to vaccinate him for tetanus or any other diseases.

https://gizmodo.com/it-took-two-months-a...37421?IR=T

Well the doctors gave him vaccinations, so there was no need for the family to do so again.

[redchartreuse]

Parents whose children are hurt by vaccination

How do we arrive at that conclusion?  How do we know the harm was from the vaccine?  And if... as is likely the case... it turns out to be a combination of genetic, and environmental factors that make a child more susceptible to vaccine harm... how do we know how much was the genes, how much was the environment, and how much was the vaccine?

If we look at the lot number of the vaccine in question, and see that ten thousand doses of the vaccine were produced in the same lot.  And we also see that the 9999 other doses did not appear to result in an injury... then what basis is there to claim that the vaccine was the primary cause of the harm?

want to feel valued,

I would 100% agree, but who the heck feels valued in a courtroom?  I mean... it would be nice if people could get that sense of being valued when interacting with their own government.  But what does that have to do, specifically, with vaccines?

properly compensated,

Properly is a vague term.  Reimbursed for medical expenses and other tangible losses?  Sure.   Millions of dollars for their grief?  Why?  Why should people be "compensated" when something horrible happens in their lives?  What would this actually accomplish in terms of improving the situation to the benefit of all?  And even if people get something to "compensate" for their grief... how much should that really be?  Is 250K enough?  No?  1 million?  10 million?  A billion?  

You know... if I were a judge awarding compensation for grief in a vaccine injury case (and actually had the power to do so) here's what I would do.  I would take that money and put it into a trust, with the beneficiary being the harmed or deceased child.  I would appoint the parents as trustees, and direct them to use that money to fund further vaccine and safety research at public universities.  I would also (if possible) direct the public university receiving the funds to issue scholarships at par value, to be used by people who have been determined to have been harmed by vaccines.

Here is the (sad) reality of the situation.  When people are systematically rewarded for being victimized, it creates a sort of perverse incentive for people to not look out for themselves, to further their victim bias, and to even fabricate (consciously or unconsciously) victim narratives, in order to seek further compensation from the system.

Is this a reflection of our spiritual values?  Is this truly the world we want to create?  And is it working?

and be heard about their loss.

Yes, though again is the courtroom the proper venue for this?  Wouldn't it be better if a grieving parent were given, say, a year's worth of counseling with a trained psychologist, to help them process their grief?  And what would this actually cost?  $5K maybe $10K?  

Why don't we do this?  And why aren't the aggrieved asking for this?

I think the issue is that much of this revolves around parents who are 'ex-vaxxers' - they vaccinated and killed or maimed their child due to the vaccination, however unlikely - are not satisfied with the compensation process, and thus really genuinely seek to raise the issue online.

Because... unresolved grief?  Could this possibly be the real issue here?  I think likely so.  

Truly, if you believe the vaccination system is safe enough, then these parents are heroes, having sacrificed their children for the betterment of all.

Yes, I can see that.  For sure.  Yet- once again- what does this specifically have to do with vaccines?   Don't we equally treat our other heroes like dirt as well?  Our veterans get treated like dirt.  Our police officers?  Our teachers?  

Why do we- as a society- treat all of these people like dirt, and then turn around and fawn all over sports and movie stars?  Why do we even call them "stars"?  (HINT:  Could it be... rabidness?)

Are we- as a society- to place our value... our money... our time... upon the things that really matter?  The things that will make a difference?

Or are we more focused on an insane competition to determine who is the "biggest victim" or who is the "biggest loser" and then showering riches upon them?

And if its the latter, whose agenda does this serve?  Could it be... Russian social media trolls?

Are we really surprised they and their friends are outraged at such treatment and get rabid?

No, I don't think it should be that surprising at all.  Put perhaps what IS surprising is our failure to recognize rabidity as a manifestation of unresolved grief.  While also keeping in mind that many, many, people go through very deep and painful grieving processes without becoming rabid.  

Angry?  Yes.  Outraged?  Perhaps. Hostile?  No.  Entitled to fat cash settlements?  Definitely not.  Sorry, I really don't mean to offend, however I feel totally repulsed by the attitude that people deserve outrageous sums of money for emotional distress.  All this does is reward people for choosing not to process their emotions, to become rabid, and to continue to not work on balancing their emotional nature with their intellectual one.

Even just in terms of time... how long does it take from the moment documents are filed for a civil suit until a judgment is attained.  1 year?  3?  5?  So basically, we are telling the plaintiff to NOT begin resolving the emotional trauma they suffered for at least amount of time.  For if a healed person even wanted to persist with showing up in court, it would be difficult to convince a jury that they still need lots and lots of money.

(Btw, I am drawn to causes of people whose voice isn't heard, or there is a large systemic power imbalance, if you haven't noticed  )

That's awesome!  I think that is very noble and commendable.  And if you are in a position of proximity to those whose voices haven't been heard, perhaps consider the value of helping these people learn how to think for themselves, in addition to however else you are serving them.

Sadly, while many anti-vaxxers truly believe that they are "thinking for themselves" they are not.  You cannot properly think for yourself, unless you are consciously aware of logical fallacies, and take every measure to avoid forwarding arguments based on false reasoning.

Helping people learn how to discern between a valid and false argument... this can only help them.  It will help them communicate.  It will help them to be heard, and also to better listen to others.  Perhaps, it will even help them to seek a real resolution to their grief rather than running into the arms of Russian social media trolls.  Surely, it cannot hurt?  Wouldn't you agree?

I don't think it's unreasonable to consider their #1 request, which is to undo the special law governing vaccine liability. Every single other industry in the US, from normal medicines to cars to planes to chemicals in food, has normal liability and its worked. You don't often see this 1986 NVIC act repealment actually parsed out and discussed on media or by people, for whatever reason. This really isn't that outlandish of a request, especially given the Supreme Court case that upheld federal preemption of immunity shield portion for manufacturers which also had a dissent by Sotomeyer (with Ginsburg) stating we should not allow the federal law to preempt new state law which wants to make manufacturers liable:

Personally, I don't think that is unreasonable at all.  But I also wouldn't know how to make the reasoning. Still I would imagine- if it is reasonable enough, and argued in the right way, then it should start changing the opinions of the courts.

But spinning into a courtroom and shouting "THEY KILLED MY BABY!" and then demanding a million dollars.... I just don't think that is an effective mechanism.  I can empathize with that person who is grieving, but that doesn't make their tactic any more successful.

And I don't know why people aren't more talking about this in the media.  Perhaps we are too busy being distracted by the latest antics by some fanatic.  Perhaps we are spending too much time listening to Russian social media trolls and their minions.  Maybe we have placed too much focus on how to condense our outrage into 140 characters, so that we can blast it out to the world on Twitter?

I really don't know why we aren't having more rational conversations about the validity of these laws.  But I do know that we could be. We are choosing not to.

In holding that §22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act or Act), 42 U. S. C. §300aa–22(b)(1), pre-empts all design defect claims for injuries stemming from vaccines covered under the Act, the Court imposes its own bare policy preference over the considered judgment of Congress. In doing so, the Court excises 13 words from the statutory text, misconstrues the Act’s legislative history, and disturbs the careful balance Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market. Its decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products. Because nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history of the Vaccine Act remotely suggests that Congress intended such a result, I respectfully dissent.

Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011)

I am no legal expert or attorney.  But here's where my thought process goes on this...

The specific kind of claim they are talking about here in this opinion is a "design defect" claim.  What does that mean?  Here is what I found:  

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen...d-damages/

Design defects occur where the product design is inherently dangerous or useless (and hence defective) no matter how carefully manufactured; this may be demonstrated either by showing that the product fails to satisfy ordinary consumer expectations as to what constitutes a safe product or that the risks of the product outweigh its benefits.

OK.  So the definition of a "design defect" rests upon showing that it is either "inherently dangerous" or "useless."   OK.  So "useless" is out, since vaccines do have a clear use.

What about "inherently dangerous"?  Well at first glance, I think anybody would say of course vaccines are "inherently dangerous".  Right?  But then again so is any medication.  I note that, technically speaking, the definition is about whether or not the product design is inherently dangerous, and NOT whether the product itself is inherently dangerous.  So we need to drill further to found out what- specific- legal definition applies here.

Luckily, we have that as well.  OK so we can show that a product design is "inherently dangerous" if it can be shown that:

1.  The product fails to satisfy ordinary consumer expectations as to what constitutes a safe product.  (Vaccines DO satisfy ordinary consumer expectations about the safety of medicines, since all medicines may cause harm.)

2.  The risks of the product outweigh the benefits.  (The benefits of vaccines DO outweigh the risks.)

So then, with about 5 minutes of analysis, we can see why people will never be granted relief on this type of claim.  It's just simply an impossible avenue.  It is guaranteed to be fruitless.

Which is probably why Congress decided to pass a law giving a blanket exemption from bringing this kind of suit against a vaccine manufacturer.  They can never be won, and all that we would be doing by allowing these suits is to basically give permission for people to troll the companies with frivolous lawsuits, endlessly tying up and wasting resources in the process.

So it all appears perfectly sensible to me.  What do you perceive to be wrong with this finding?

Please understand, I am not questioning your feeling that some kind of injustice is happening here.  I am merely questioning the rational argument behind why people should be allowed to pursue these specific types of claims in court.  Perhaps there is another angle...

Let me keep looking... keep educating myself.  What do I find?

https://legaldictionary.net/tort-law/

OK.  So what are the types of tort claims we can pursue?  Which if these might apply to harm caused by a vaccine?

   Negligence  (No, not unless it can be shown that the harm was caused by a negligent event specific to that particular lot of vaccines.)

   Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress  (No.)

   Assault  (No.)

   Battery (No.)

   Trespass (No... well maybe if the vaccination were received to being mandatory and was received against one's will, this could be considered a trespass.  Still seems like a stretch.)

   Products Liability (Maybe.  But probably not.  Consider, for example, a child dies from peanut allergy.  Assuming the presence of peanuts was properly disclosed, would the peanut manufacturer be held responsible?  No.. the allergy is caused by a defect in the child's immune system, not by a defect in the peanut.)

   Defamation Torts (No.)

   Nuisance Torts (No.)

   Privacy Torts (No.)

   Economic Torts  (Yes, but limited to actual medical expenses, funeral expenses, legal expenses, etc.)

   Intentional Torts – the causing of harm by an intentional act, such as intentionally conning someone out of his money.  (No.)

   Negligent Torts – the causing of harm through some negligent act, such as causing a car accident by running a red light.  (No, assuming the product was not defective.)

   Strict Liability Torts – the result of harm incurred due to the actions of another, with no finding of fault by the defendant.  (Hmm... MAYBE?!)

Let's drill down:

Strict Liability Torts

Strict liability refers to the concept of imposing liability on a defendant, usually a manufacturer, without proving negligent fault, or intent to cause harm. The purpose of strict liability torts is to regulate activities that are acknowledged as being necessary and useful to society, but which pose an abnormally high risk of danger to the public.

Such activities may include transportation and storage of hazardous substances, blasting, and keeping certain wild animals in captivity. The possibility of civil lawsuits under strict liability torts keeps individuals or corporations undertaking such dangerous acts diligent in taking every possible precaution to keep the public safe.

Hmm. Sounds pretty close. But it seems that the whole definition relies upon this phrase: abnormally high risk.

Vaccines are not high risk. And they are definitely not abnormally high risk.

However, maybe there is an angle here. Taken on an individual, case-by-case basis- vaccines do present an abnormally high risk.

If we had known- if we had the ability to know- in advance- that a baby would die for having received a vaccine dose.. then yes I think any reasonable person would agree that would be an unacceptable risk.

So, here's how I would angle it. I would argue that- as a society- it is our responsibility for the fact that we should have known by now the reasons why a vaccine might cause harm to a particular child, as compared to the overwhelming level of safety to the general public.

Surely by now... if we truly care for our children... surely we should have already dedicated enough resources to at least have some type of screening available to determine in advance if a particular child was at abnormally high risk of being harmed by a vaccine.

[xise]

It's not about the money as much as what the money stands for. Money cannot bring back a dead baby. But consider that you're told you can only go to a special court, with closed proceedings, that usually takes half a decade, which does not compensate every claim, there is no jury, you have more restrictions on what you can enter into evidence over normal court, your own attorney tells you that its kind of a very limited process and very different than normal court, and you end up getting a max of $250,000 for the dead of your child after years of litigation.

$250,000 cap, let that sink in, that's such a low amount that's basically the lawmakers and gov't spitting in your face saying that profit of vaccine manufacturers is more important than your dead baby. The low cap money relative to death in other types of litigation is intuitively symbolic of how we both put profit and lack of safety first over truly caring for people, and that enrages people. You don't have to take my word for it though; you see this effect in cases outside of the vaccine issue - once again, look at the Ford Pinto design defect, with its exploding fuel tank. What is funny is that people became enraged when Ford estimated they could make a profit if they paid out several hundred thousand dollars per death without fixing the defect, and that was a situation with design defect liability being present (but after Ford lost the case, I think the industry realized it had to pay attention to known design defects, even if not satistically significant).

-----

Your design defect analysis is a bit off. Here's a page that explains it better. https://injury.findlaw.com/product-liabi...esign.html

A company's liability for a design defect occurs when there was a foreseeable risk posed by the product when the product was manufactured as intended and used for its intended purposes.

In many states, plaintiffs also have to show that the risk could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design, which was:

• Feasible, in other words, the manufacturer had the ability to produce it;
  
  
• Economically feasible, in other words, it would not cost too much to make the product with the modification; and
  
  
• Not in opposition to the product's intended purpose, in other words, the product would still perform the function for which it was created.
  

Basically, if you can prove that something is economically feasible and can be made safer, then your claim stands. It's not an easy claim. But it does make us safer than not having that at all. And it allows for large damages in most states when the conduct by the manufacturer is egregious. Poor claims are adjudicated and often dismissed at an early stage of court, and remember the costs are born by the litigant, sometimes including the cost for the opposing lawyer. It's not perfect, but it's worked in every other field since the dawn of this country. A person getting their day in court is crucial to the closure process. You know that is partly why courts came about - so that people would use a public process to resolve their grievances and receive closure instead of taking matters into their own hands. On all these metrics, the vaccine court fails and people do not feel fairly treated or fairly compensated and thus continue to hold on their grief and get organized.

The problem is that without design defect liability, we can deem vaccines safe enough, or manufacturers can, and yet allow for known causes of death or injury as long as they are not statistically significant and have no incentive to reduce edge cases of injury, even if financially viable. 

If you really think there is a health crisis because of vaccine hesitancy, don't you think making vaccine manufacturers liable is a better solution than mandatory vaccination laws and/or pressuring social media sites to censor parents who lost children due to vaccines? What's your proposed solution?

[redchartreuse]

Your design defect analysis is a bit off. Here's a page that explains it better. https://injury.findlaw.com/product-liabi...esign.html

A company's liability for a design defect occurs when there was a foreseeable risk posed by the product when the product was manufactured as intended and used for its intended purposes.

In many states, plaintiffs also have to show that the risk could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design, which was:

• Feasible, in other words, the manufacturer had the ability to produce it;
  
  
• Economically feasible, in other words, it would not cost too much to make the product with the modification; and
  
  
• Not in opposition to the product's intended purpose, in other words, the product would still perform the function for which it was created.
  

Basically, if you can prove that something is economically feasible and can be made safer, then your claim stands. It's not an easy claim. But it does make us safer than not having that at all. And it allows for large damages in most states when the conduct by the manufacturer is egregious. Poor claims are adjudicated and often dismissed at an early stage of court, and remember the costs are born by the litigant, sometimes including the cost for the opposing lawyer. It's not perfect, but it's worked in every other field since the dawn of this country. A person getting their day in court is crucial to the closure process. You know that is partly why courts came about - so that people would use a public process to resolve their grievances and receive closure instead of taking matters into their own hands. On all these metrics, the vaccine court fails and people do not feel fairly treated or fairly compensated and thus continue to hold on their grief and get organized.

The problem is that without design defect liability, we can deem vaccines safe enough, or manufacturers can, and yet allow for known causes of death or injury as long as they are not statistically significant and have no incentive to reduce edge cases of injury, even if financially viable. 

If you really think there is a health crisis because of vaccine hesitancy, don't you think making vaccine manufacturers liable is a better solution than mandatory vaccination laws and/or pressuring social media sites to censor parents who lost children due to vaccines?

https://legaldictionary.net/tort-law/

OK.  So what are the types of tort claims we can pursue?  Which if these might apply to harm caused by a vaccine?

  Negligence  (No, not unless it can be shown that the harm was caused by a negligent event specific to that particular lot of vaccines.)

  Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress  (No.)

  Assault  (No.)

  Battery (No.)

  Trespass (No... well maybe if the vaccination were received to being mandatory and was received against one's will, this could be considered a trespass.  Still seems like a stretch.)

  Products Liability (Maybe.  But probably not.  Consider, for example, a child dies from peanut allergy.  Assuming the presence of peanuts was properly disclosed, would the peanut manufacturer be held responsible?  No.. the allergy is caused by a defect in the child's immune system, not by a defect in the peanut.)

  Defamation Torts (No.)

  Nuisance Torts (No.)

  Privacy Torts (No.)

  Economic Torts  (Yes, but limited to actual medical expenses, funeral expenses, legal expenses, etc.)

  Intentional Torts – the causing of harm by an intentional act, such as intentionally conning someone out of his money.  (No.)

  Negligent Torts – the causing of harm through some negligent act, such as causing a car accident by running a red light.  (No, assuming the product was not defective.)

  Strict Liability Torts – the result of harm incurred due to the actions of another, with no finding of fault by the defendant.  (Hmm... MAYBE?!)

Let's drill down:

   Strict Liability Torts

   Strict liability refers to the concept of imposing liability on a defendant, usually a manufacturer, without proving negligent fault, or intent to cause harm. The purpose of strict liability torts is to regulate activities that are acknowledged as being necessary and useful to society, but which pose an abnormally high risk of danger to the public.

   Such activities may include transportation and storage of hazardous substances, blasting, and keeping certain wild animals in captivity. The possibility of civil lawsuits under strict liability torts keeps individuals or corporations undertaking such dangerous acts diligent in taking every possible precaution to keep the public safe.

Hmm. Sounds pretty close. But it seems that the whole definition relies upon this phrase: abnormally high risk.

Vaccines are not high risk. And they are definitely not abnormally high risk.

However, maybe there is an angle here. Taken on an individual, case-by-case basis- vaccines MAY present an abnormally high risk to some people. And since each life is of immeasurable value, we should make every effort to learn how to identify, and mitigate, those risks. Even if it is a tiny percentage of the population, we should do this.

If we had known- if we had the ability to know- in advance- that a baby would die for having received a vaccine dose.. then yes I think any reasonable person would agree that would be an unacceptable risk.

So, here's how I would angle it. I would argue that- as a society- it is our responsibility for the fact that we should have known by now the reasons why a vaccine might cause harm to a particular child, as compared to the overwhelming level of safety to the general public.

Surely by now... if we truly care for our children... surely we should have already dedicated enough resources to at least have some type of screening available to determine in advance if a particular child was at abnormally high risk of being harmed by a vaccine.

Let's go with your definition with the piece about reasonable alternative design.

OK now we're getting somewhere.  I would say that the "reasonable alternative design" of vaccine development itself should include ongoing investigative research into the factors which may make a child more susceptible to vaccine injury.

I would argue that saving even one life would provide an immeasurable value to society, as compared to the relatively paltry sum of money it would take to figure out, once and for all, how to properly identify a child who is at higher risk of vaccine injury, and then to provide that service free of charge.

What do you think?

[xise]

Surely by now... if we truly care for our children... surely we should have already dedicated enough resources to at least have some type of screening available to determine in advance if a particular child was at abnormally high risk of being harmed by a vaccine.

Let's go with your definition with the piece about reasonable alternative design.

OK now we're getting somewhere.  I would say that the "reasonable alternative design" of vaccine development itself should include ongoing investigative research into the factors which may make a child more susceptible to vaccine injury.

I would argue that saving even one life would provide an immeasurable value to society, as compared to the relatively paltry sum of money it would take to figure out, once and for all, how to properly identify a child who is at higher risk of vaccine injury, and then to provide that service free of charge.

What do you think?

Just to note, the reasonable alternative design is not strictly required in some states, but given that design defect products liability is usually negligence related (a reasonable person would not have designed it that way), its very difficult to win the negligence argument without putting forth a good alternative design that was known and readily useable by the designer even in states where it is not strictly required.

I agree with should do something and I think the #1 solution is empowering people and the people hurt by making manufacturers liable. 

Screening isn't a bad suggestion, but I have little faith in regulators now that industry these days is so organized and has such a heavy influence on them (EPA, FCC), and there's little incentive for manufacturers to do it. Interestingly I think if you held manufacturers liable it would jumpstart the manufacturer's interest in figuring out screen if they had trouble figuring out the design aspect. So while I personally wouldn't hold my breath that screening mandated by regulators would solve a lot of these problems, I would be totally for such a suggestion of screening.

[redchartreuse]

Just to note, the reasonable alternative design is not strictly required in some states, but given that design defect products liability is usually negligence related (a reasonable person would not have designed it that way), its very difficult to win the negligence argument without putting forth a good alternative design that was known and readily useable by the designer even in states where it is not strictly required.

I agree with should do something and I think the #1 solution is empowering people and the people hurt by making manufacturers liable. 

Screening isn't a bad suggestion, but I have little faith in regulators now that industry these days is so organized and has such a heavy influence on them (EPA, FCC), and there's little incentive for manufacturers to do it. Interestingly I think if you held manufacturers liable it would jumpstart the manufacturer's interest in figuring out screen if they had trouble figuring out the design aspect. So while I personally wouldn't hold my breath that screening mandated by regulators would solve a lot of these problems, I would be totally for such a suggestion of screening.

Here's where I would suggest to look:  at the timeline of development of scientific knowledge and research methods as compared to the approval and release of vaccines.

OK first, I would say that we have to make sure that the term "design" is meant to also include the methodologies and approval process themselves.  I would say you cannot really separate the vaccine itself, from the scientific and legal processes themselves that are used to ensure its safety.  I would then build an argument adhering to this somewhat expanded, but reasonable, definition.  

I would argue:  For vaccine X approved in year Y, even if there was no reasonable alternative design available, based upon:

1.  What was scientifically known, or reasonably known, at the time;
2.  What types of scientific tests were available based upon technology available at the time; and
3.  What types of investigational models themselves were available, based upon available research methods, statistical models, and computer hardware/software at the time.

Nevertheless, at year Z, (1), (2), and/or (3) such information/methods (1a, 1b, 1c...2a, 2b, 2c...3a, 3b, 3c...) became available that would have given us the ability to conduct new research into the risk factors for vaccine harm, and for ways to mitigate or eliminate those risks.

But we did not do this.  And again, even though this is still not due to negligence on the part of the companies- who were only following the laws, but as a society as represented by our government, we should have done something differently.  We should have updated the design to include regular investment in, an active pursuit, of this information.

And so... if we are to make this argument... perhaps reasonable alternative design is still strained.  Maybe we should look away from tort law completely?

Or maybe not... even if you fail, you succeed in getting that argument out into the public record, and creating something newsworthy around it.

Nevertheless, IF this is the case, then why not just propose amendments to the existing law, which require vaccine manufacturers to actively research these things, and to contribute their findings to a pooled resource which can then be mined to find out how we can best identify those babies at risk?

How much money would that really take to get going, if measured in terms of wrongful death awards.  10 wrongful deaths?  100?

Sure... Big Pharma has its lobbyists.  But if something like that were to be proposed... what is there to lobby against?  Why would they even want to?  The cost would be a drop in the bucket in terms of their overall expenses.  Especially if they pool resources.  Those people at those companies... they are parents too.  They want to do the right thing.  They want to look good.  Why would they fight it?

Who- in their right mind- would come out against such a proposal?  Heck forget fighting with the companies, make the government pay for it.  It would be easy to find the money.  Its value is about 1 brick's worth of a $3.1 billion border wall. You know... to protect our innocent babies.  Who doesn't like babies?  

[isis]

Yet here we all are most presumably all vaccinated

We can make different choices for our children, than our parents did. Many of us are.

I MISS YOU, MONICA!!!

[Relax]

It Took Two Months and Nearly a Million Dollars to Save an Unvaccinated 6-Year-Old From Tetanus

~ Ed Cara
Thursday 7/3/2019 5:54pm

A new case report from the Centers for Disease Control released Thursday starkly highlights the costs of not vaccinating children. It details an unvaccinated 6-year-old boy’s encounter with tetanus—and the hugely expensive, two-month-long effort it took to save his life.

Tetanus is caused by the namesake bacteria Clostridium tetani. More accurately, it’s what happens when the soil-loving C. tetani gets into your body—usually through an open cut—and spews out an extremely potent toxin. This toxin can quickly paralyze and send your muscles into constant spasms, beginning with the jaw (if you know anything about tetanus, it’s probably that it causes lockjaw). These spasms can then spread to the chest, back, and gut, leading to painful fractures, problems breathing, and even the complete loss of bowel control. It’s a brutal disease, one that can take months to fully recover from. Even with treatment, 10 percent of victims ultimately die.

Thankfully, we’ve had a working vaccine for tetanus since the 1920s, and vaccination has virtually eliminated the disease in countries with decent healthcare. Most every person in the U.S. is fully vaccinated for tetanus by the time they enter school, with the first of five shots happening at the age of 2 months (booster shots every 10 years afterward are recommended). Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case for the unnamed child in this report, since his family had chosen to not vaccinate him for any condition.

According to the authors, the 6-year-old boy from Oregon had gotten a forehead scrape while playing outside on a farm sometime in 2017. The wound was cleaned and sutured at home, but six days later the boy began experiencing lockjaw and muscle spasms. He then started arching his back and neck involuntarily and eventually could barely breathe, prompting his family to call for help.

The boy was airlifted to the hospital, unable to even drink water because he couldn’t open his mouth. There, he was given several tetanus shots. He then spent the next 47 days in intensive care, needing a ventilator to breathe and constant medications through an IV to control his pain, blood pressure, and muscle spasms. Three days later, he was able to walk 20 feet with help, but he still needed two more weeks of rehab to fully recover the use of his legs and body.

All told, he ended up spending 57 days in the hospital, with a bill of $811,929, and that’s excluding the air transport and rehab care. For context, that’s about 72 times the average cost of a hospital stay for a kid, according to research cited by the authors. And it’s monumentally more expensive than the childhood diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine (DTaP), which can cost around $30 per dose without insurance (the adult boosters are around $60).

The doctors say it’s the first case of childhood tetanus reported in Oregon in 30 years. Between 2009 to 2015, though, there were 197 tetanus cases and 16 deaths reported in the U.S. And some of these rare cases have been even more expensive, with hospital bills for one adult victim reaching over $1 million.

The report doesn’t go into why his family was against vaccination in the first place. And lead author Judith Guzman-Cottrill, a professor of pediatrics at Oregon Health and Science University, told Gizmodo that she couldn’t disclose any family-specific details about the case, including their reasons for abstaining. But she noted the case should provide an important reminder about getting your shots, especially for tetanus. That’s because tetanus is only spread by direct contact with contaminated surfaces, and not from person-to-person like the flu. So relying on others to be vaccinated—otherwise known as herd immunity—won’t protect you from the bacteria, which is practically everywhere in soil.

“Thus, routine vaccination for all, plus boosters, are very important to prevent disease,” Guzman-Cottrill told Gizmodo.

The story ends mostly happily for the boy. A month later, he was completely back to normal, running and using his bike again. But it seems no lessons were learned on his family’s part. Despite the brutal ordeal and pleading by the doctors, they again chose not to vaccinate him for tetanus or any other diseases.

https://gizmodo.com/it-took-two-months-a...37421?IR=T

Well the doctors gave him vaccinations, so there was no need for the family to do so again.

aaaaaaaah... noooo

"Ed Cara
dogrivergrad68
3/07/19 9:50pm

They only gave him one round of the childhood shot and a booster shot used to prevent/treat tetanus in someone not properly vaccinated. But the full schedule that protects us for years as kids is actually five shots in total, over a five year span. So that is what they chose to not get."

and you can be sure they won't give him currently needed or future vaccinations either

[Louisabell]

https://gizmodo.com/it-took-two-months-a...37421?IR=T

I am not an anti-vaxxer, and I do no like to engage in pushing fear mongering information onto already stressed parents. I would like to shed some light on why stories like this (which has been republished on many news sites all over the world) do little to alleviate the fears of anti-vaxxers, and I think it's because stories like the one linked below gets barely any press coverage:

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/family-se...b88344054z

Now, I don't think pushing an agenda based on a case report of one person is useful at all (on both sides) because in a population so large, these events are so statistically insignificant that it shouldn't factor into anyones decision making. That is the problem with basing conclusions on anecdotal information. We need to move beyond this way of thinking, and the pro-vax side doesn't help by continuing to foster that type of thinking.

Moreover, in Australia there is NO compensation program for vaccine injury cases, and you cannot sue over the death of your child over vaccine injury because there is no legal case to sue for grievance alone. So in a country with some of the most pro-mandatory vaccine policies "No Jab No Pay/Play", there is literally no avenue to get any compensation whatsoever for your child if the worst occurred. This man in the story I linked is only able to present a legal case to the health minister because of loss of income as he is no longer able to work. I also find it quite the coincidence that the WA police decided to target his home for a 6AM drug raid.

If vaccine companies were still liable for vaccine injury cases then they would have to pay insurance companies to cover them for indemnity. They would have to negotiate with the insurance company to uphold certain protocols in order to minimise their risk exposure. For example, each batch would have to be tested and safe transport and storage procedures upheld. There would be quite a bit of reporting involved at each junction. By removing the liability on vaccine companies they no longer need to do this. Not only does this make the product cheaper, but it also satisfies the intention of the legislation which is to ensure the consistent supply of vaccines to every person in every part of the country. The government has chosen that this is more important then the few odd cases of vaccine injury caused by the lowering of safety standards. And perhaps they have a case, especially if they want to assure herd immunity with a 99% vaccination rate.

It's easy to assume people think the way they do because they're idiots. It takes a lot more time and effort to hear them out. Many "informed consent" people just want to see well-designed long term studies showing that the current vaccine schedule is safe. You might think this has been well and truly done, but unfortunately many studies are short-term or case controlled and not comparing vaccinated children with non-vaccinated children. Also ONE study is not enough to prove anything, it needs to be repeated. Meta-analyses are the gold standard.  

Anyway, after all this, I am not anti-vax, and if I had children I would vaccinate them. But I would also definitely record and report the whole experience so that if I am that "one in a million" that gets an adverse reaction I would want it well documented.  

[RitaJC]

It's amazing how far this thread has moved away from the point of the OP again... And how much fear seems to be the leading decision making tool...

If all is One, we (and everybody else) is the Creator having an experience of being something else, and death is a complete illusion and impossibility, what is here to fear?

[Relax]

https://gizmodo.com/it-took-two-months-a...37421?IR=T

Now, I don't think pushing an agenda based on a case report of one person is useful at all (on both sides) because in a population so large, these events are so statistically insignificant that it shouldn't factor into anyones decision making. That is the problem with basing conclusions on anecdotal information. We need to move beyond this way of thinking, and the pro-vax side doesn't help by continuing to foster that type of thinking.

"these events are so statistically insignificant that it shouldn't factor into anyones decision making"

("the events" being - a bad reaction to a vaccination - the reaction of the body to getting ill from the disease)

This is a "false equivalency".

Why? Because the disparity in the risks are 'rare vs common'.

Additionally:
an unvaccinated child getting tetanus from one of the ways tetanus is transmitted is statistically 'normal' (that's what being in a physical body is a lot about - susceptibility to varying degrees to disease); so there's no "insignificance" to contracting tetanus if you choose not to have a tetanus vaccination... it's fairly 'par for the course'.

Therefore, an article describing an actual event that occurred isn't fear-mongering... but descriptive statement of cause and effect... if it's fear producing that's because contracting a life threatening illness is frightening

particularly watching a child suffering from a preventable illness - it's stressful through terrifying to completely heartbreaking


Many people having children nowadays have no living memory in their families of a time when whole communities would be decimated from disease.

I'm pro caution, pro checks & scrutiny, pro vaccination and anti 'big pharma'

negative attitudes to vaccination are formed by the first world 'bubble'

[xise]

Food for thought; there may be other Q&A that touch upon the nature and origin of external disease (or the type of disease not caused by the body itself but by external microbes):

23.13 ▶ Questioner: Thank you. Can you tell me what the average life span was at the time of Akhenaten for the Egyptians?
Ra: I am Ra. The average life span of these people was approximately thirty-five to fifty of your years. There was much, what you would call, disease of a physical complex nature.

23.14 ▶ Questioner: Can you tell me of the reasons for the disease? I think I already know, but I think it might be good for the book to state this at this time.
Ra: I am Ra. This is, as we have mentioned before, not particularly informative with regard to the Law of One. However, the land you know of as Egypt at that time was highly barbarous in its living conditions, as you would call them. The river which you call Nile was allowed to flood and to recede, thus providing the fertile grounds for the breeding of diseases which may be carried by insects. Also, the preparation of foodstuffs allowed diseases to form. Also, there was difficulty in many cases with sources of water and water which was taken caused disease due to the organisms therein.

23.15 ▶ Questioner: I was really questioning more about the more basic cause of the disease rather than the mechanism of its transmission. I was going back to the root or thought which created the possibility of this disease. Could you shortly tell me if I am correct in assuming that the general reduction of thought over the long time on planet Earth with respect to an understanding of the Law of One created a condition in which this— what we call disease could develop? Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct and perceptive. You, as questioner, begin now to penetrate the outer teachings.

The root cause in this particular society was not so much a bellicose action although there were, shall we say, tendencies, but rather the formation of a money system and a very active trading and development of those tendencies towards greed and power; thus, the enslaving of entities by other entities and the misapprehension of the Creator within each entity.

Greed, power, and enslaving of other entities as the root or thought that created the possibility of these diseases in ancient Egypt. Interesting.

[Louisabell]

https://gizmodo.com/it-took-two-months-a...37421?IR=T

Now, I don't think pushing an agenda based on a case report of one person is useful at all (on both sides) because in a population so large, these events are so statistically insignificant that it shouldn't factor into anyones decision making. That is the problem with basing conclusions on anecdotal information. We need to move beyond this way of thinking, and the pro-vax side doesn't help by continuing to foster that type of thinking.

"these events are so statistically insignificant that it shouldn't factor into anyones decision making"

("the events" being - a bad reaction to a vaccination - the reaction of the body to getting ill from the disease)

This is a "false equivalency".

Why? Because the disparity in the risks are 'rare vs common'.

Then show it is common and not rare. Not possible through a case report. You're still seeing the article through your own lens. Believe me, this story will not stand up compared to a devastating story of a vaccine injury told by bereaving parents.

You may believe the "cause and effect" mechanisms on one side supersedes the other (based on what you already know), but this article is living by the sword of appealing to people's emotions, and therefore it will also die by that sword.

Unfortunately these articles mainly serve as a way to anger people that are already pro-vax. Just look at the comment section of the article you linked and see how many people are saying medics should not have treated the child to teach the "idiot" parents a lesson. That's just sad.

(Also just to be clear, I wasn't necessarily saying that you printing that news story was fear mongering, but my main fear was that I would be disemminating fear-inducing information in order to make my case, and perhaps I did, so I am sorry about that to the people on this forum. My intention is only to offer understanding of the other side)

[Louisabell]

It's amazing how far this thread has moved away from the point of the OP again... And how much fear seems to be the leading decision making tool...

If all is One, we (and everybody else) is the Creator having an experience of being something else, and death is a complete illusion and impossibility, what is here to fear?

Thank you, this is a good reminder.

[Relax]

https://gizmodo.com/it-took-two-months-a...37421?IR=T

Now, I don't think pushing an agenda based on a case report of one person is useful at all (on both sides) because in a population so large, these events are so statistically insignificant that it shouldn't factor into anyones decision making. That is the problem with basing conclusions on anecdotal information. We need to move beyond this way of thinking, and the pro-vax side doesn't help by continuing to foster that type of thinking.

"these events are so statistically insignificant that it shouldn't factor into anyones decision making"

("the events" being - a bad reaction to a vaccination - the reaction of the body to getting ill from the disease)

This is a "false equivalency".

Why? Because the disparity in the risks are 'rare vs common'.

Then show it is common and not rare. Not possible through a case report. You're still seeing the article through your own lens. Believe me, this story will not stand up compared to a devastating story of a vaccine injury told by bereaving parents.

You may believe the "cause and effect" mechanisms on one side supersedes the other, but if you live by the sword of appealing to one's emotions, you also die by that sword.

Unfortunately these articles mainly serve as a way to anger people that are already pro-vax. Just look at the comment section of the article you linked and see how many people are saying medics should not have treated the child to teach the "idiot" parents a lesson. That's just sad.

(Also just to be clear, I wasn't necessarily saying that you printing that news story was fear mongering, but my main fear was that I would be disemminating fear-inducing information in order to make my case, and perhaps I did, so I am sorry about that to the people on this forum. My intention is only to offer understanding of the other side)

show that diseases are "common" ? is this what you mean?
show that pre vaccine contagious, deadly diseases used to be common place?



30 years ago I had a flatmate with one withered and shortened leg from contracting polio...

she was 25... meeting a person with polio was very rare at that time as it was already heading toward being eradicated....

as a child - like millions of children - I had a vaccination for smallpox - it's now been eradicated... *you're welcome*

I feel quite unemotional atm about this (in terms of posting that article) and only did because I happened upon it a few days ago around the time this thread was revived

I'm not up for arguing

it's an article describing the FACTS of that situation... how can it avoid the 'fear-mongering' label? it'd have to remove the plain facts of what occurred... which would turn it into a blank page...

seeing it through my "own lens" ? what? what "lens" is that ? it's the facts of a situation... is there a way to view what's described in the article through any other "lens" than that it was preventable and awful for that child to endure such illness... and parents incur such debt?


there's an additional irony that many anti-vax parents insist their school be nut free... but are fine with subjecting imuno compromised children to possibly contagious diseases via their allergic un vaxxed child....

I've worked with children with autism so find the anti-autism phobia aspect of anti-vaxxers rhetoric really derogatory.... as many marvellous people are on the spectrum.

As an autism childcare worker (at one time) at a time when vaccines were (supposedly) safer... I knew as many children then - as now - but I worked in a residential institution because parents shunned their children - this isn't done so much any more so it's more 'visible'... and the spectrum has become more clearly diagnosed in the last 10-20 years... it's always been around - and as said earlier the gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield, making the original claim made a major mistake and then doubled down...

the main thing I find sad is that the fear of a vaccine reaction is occluding sensible fear of serious and potentially lethal illnesses

you write:
"Believe me, this story will not stand up compared to a devastating story of a vaccine injury told by bereaving parents."


aaaah - well if this child hadn't survived tetanus.... it would... is that what it takes?

and there are bereaved parents in third world countries losing children to vaccine preventable diseases as I type this...

these parents have a completely different perspective on vaccines because they aren't insulated by privileged first world living in a bubble/slight risk/vague fears made in error by a now de-registered MD

it's like - I used to really piss off my parents with my naivety about about food poverty... they were so grateful to have ANYTHING on their plates... I was fed quality and interesting food and became fussy... it was very hard for them to relate to my attitude - and me to them - they knew hunger - I never did...

and now I have my own version of it - I'm old enough to see people half my age moaning about (what ever mind blowing new technology is loading slightly too slowly :exclamation: ) when my father had holes in his shoes clothes and walked everywhere and has only one photo of himself as a child - and my entire childhood was a black and white television - 4 channels....and a phone connected to a wall with everyone listening in... and younger people will have their own experiences as they live longer - get older and younger people can't relate

people in Africa walk for days to receive vaccinations to avoid their children dying....

it's all perception...

I get worried about getting in the ocean and being eaten by a shark - but without any worry (or not much) drive on roads with speeding a******* - even though I've worked in neurosurgery wards with paraplegic accident survivors....

:exclamation:  :idea:  


(nb: I'm not saying all vaccines are completely risk free...)

[Louisabell]

https://gizmodo.com/it-took-two-months-a...37421?IR=T

Now, I don't think pushing an agenda based on a case report of one person is useful at all (on both sides) because in a population so large, these events are so statistically insignificant that it shouldn't factor into anyones decision making. That is the problem with basing conclusions on anecdotal information. We need to move beyond this way of thinking, and the pro-vax side doesn't help by continuing to foster that type of thinking.

"these events are so statistically insignificant that it shouldn't factor into anyones decision making"

("the events" being - a bad reaction to a vaccination - the reaction of the body to getting ill from the disease)

This is a "false equivalency".

Why? Because the disparity in the risks are 'rare vs common'.

Then show it is common and not rare. Not possible through a case report. You're still seeing the article through your own lens. Believe me, this story will not stand up compared to a devastating story of a vaccine injury told by bereaving parents.

You may believe the "cause and effect" mechanisms on one side supersedes the other, but if you live by the sword of appealing to one's emotions, you also die by that sword.

Unfortunately these articles mainly serve as a way to anger people that are already pro-vax. Just look at the comment section of the article you linked and see how many people are saying medics should not have treated the child to teach the "idiot" parents a lesson. That's just sad.

(Also just to be clear, I wasn't necessarily saying that you printing that news story was fear mongering, but my main fear was that I would be disemminating fear-inducing information in order to make my case, and perhaps I did, so I am sorry about that to the people on this forum. My intention is only to offer understanding of the other side)

show that diseases are "common" ? is this what you mean?
show that pre vaccine contagious, deadly diseases used to be common place?



30 years ago I had a flatmate with one withered and shortened leg from contracting polio...

she was 25... meeting a person with polio was very rare at that time as it was already heading toward being eradicated....

as a child - like millions of children - I had a vaccination for smallpox - it's now been eradicated... *you're welcome*

I feel quite unemotional atm about this (in terms of posting that article) and only did because I happened upon it a few days ago around the time this thread was revived

I'm not up for arguing

it's an article describing the FACTS of that situation... how can it avoid the 'fear-mongering' label? it'd have to remove the plain facts of what occurred... which would turn it into a blank page...

seeing it through my "own lens" ? what? what "lens" is that ? it's the facts of a situation... is there a way to view what's described in the article through any other "lens" than that it was preventable and awful for that child to endure such illness... and parents incur such debt?


there's an additional irony that many anti-vax parents insist their school be nut free... but are fine with subjecting imuno compromised children to possibly contagious diseases via their allergic un vaxxed child....

I've worked with children with autism so find the anti-autism phobia aspect of anti-vaxxers rhetoric really derogatory.... as many marvellous people are on the spectrum.

As an autism childcare worker (at one time) at a time when vaccines were (supposedly) safer... I knew as many children then - as now - but I worked in a residential institution because parents shunned their children - this isn't done so much any more so it's more 'visible'... and the spectrum has become more clearly diagnosed in the last 10-20 years... it's always been around - and as said earlier the gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield, making the original claim made a major mistake and then doubled down...

the main thing I find sad is that the fear of a vaccine reaction is occluding sensible fear of serious and potentially lethal illnesses

you write:
"Believe me, this story will not stand up compared to a devastating story of a vaccine injury told by bereaving parents."


aaaah - well if this child hadn't survived tetanus.... it would... is that what it takes?

and there are bereaved parents in third world countries losing children to vaccine preventable diseases as I type this...

these parents have a completely different perspective on vaccines because they aren't insulated by privileged first world living in a bubble/slight risk/vague fears made in error by a now de-registered MD

it's like - I used to really piss off my parents with my naivety about about food poverty... they were so grateful to have ANYTHING on their plates... I was fed quality and interesting food and became fussy... it was very hard for them to relate to my attitude - and me to them - they knew hunger - I never did...

and now I have my own version of it - I'm old enough to see people half my age moaning about (what ever mind blowing new technology is loading slightly too slowly  :exclamation: ) when my father had holes in his shoes clothes and walked everywhere and has only one photo of himself as a child - and my entire childhood was a black and white television - 4 channels....and a phone connected to a wall with everyone listening in... and younger people will have their own experiences as they live longer - get older and younger people can't relate

people in Africa walk for days to receive vaccinations to avoid their children dying....

it's all perception...

I get worried about getting in the ocean and being eaten by a shark - but without any worry (or not much) drive on roads with speeding a******* - even though I've worked in neurosurgery wards with paraplegic accident survivors....

:exclamation:  :idea:  


(nb: I'm not saying all vaccines are completely risk free...)

I know it's frustrating, but yes, to find common ground it is helpful to first put on the lens of someone who doesn't know what you know, and actually thinks quite opposite to you.

I'm not up for arguing

I don't particularly want to argue any further on this either, especially since I think the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks.

[xise]

RFK Jr in action for a few minutes. Hilarious when he's like:

"I don't want to be doing this work. I'd go back to suing Exxon, Texico, and all the bad guys. But know I know too much. That's my curse. I read this stuff and now I can't unthink this."

I really dig this guy, he's done so much good anti-pollution anti-chemical work (including on working for the plaintiff on the CA Monsanto Roundup case that got the first jury verdict last year finding Monsanto liable). Literally, we suffer from the same distortions about what we care about haha:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztcHfadQ....be&t=4581

(The embedded video option doesn't seem to want to work with the correct timestart)

[flofrog]

Thank you Xise. He is really great.

[krb]

Oh, I guess I'll throw my hat into this ring with a few lines of text. It's quite a long thread and perhaps most has already been said.  Regardless, the following lines are from my "opinion/position".

We're creating many technological "solutions" for problems often caused by the application and use of other technology in our lives. I consider vaccines in this situation. It's one inevitable result of our walking the technological path, and "tech" is a double-edged sword.

Many of these "solutions" are really large scale human experiments in progress... meaning the end result to our biology is unknown. We plod on knowing there will be collateral damage, but have unwavering faith that the ends will justify the means.

The origins of modern allopathic medicine and its funding are known and include "characters" with global population control as one of their stated goals. This is conspiracy fact and not theory. You can read it in their own literature.

You have no personal knowledge of the contents of anything injected into your biological system unless you made the vial yourself. I am amazed at the great FAITH of anyone trusting in receiving injections of unknown contents into their circulatory system to allegedly prevent an illness they don't have... (I'm not applying this to situations of hospitalization). We all understand that injection by-passes every defense the body has. Whatever the contents are, your body will live with the consequences... wellness or sickness

It doesn't appear that pro-vaxer's have much faith in the vaccines, since they seem to quite worried that they or their vaccinated children will still get ill from the un-vaxed.

I'm all for the "pro-vaxers" to be able to line up for as many vaccines as they wish for themselves or their children. Every year the "industry" creates more vaccines for any and all maladies they can possibly think of, so there's plenty to choose from.

The problem I have is that the industry lobbies for making their offerings mandatory... enforced by "law". They play on the fear of the public to cry out... "my children are at risk" ... "there ought to be a law". David Icke has a phrase for this... "Problem-Reaction-Solution".

Bottom line.

Those wishing to force "compliance" by leveraging the system to take away "Free will" in this matter over one's own body... well, especially to the regulars on this forum, I think we know which side of the metaphysical fence that originates from.

Feel free to ignore this offering. It's just an opinion. I also don't wish to argue the point ad infinitum.  

 

[paulnaude]

1950s Buried Cures by the AMA/FDA/CDC. Natures Vitamin C kills Mumps, Measles, Rubella, Polio, Cancer (I know), PLUS others , even neutralises snake bites and its a powerful antibiotic - Big pharma cant / wont make any money from it. If doctors or hospitals use it then they risk losing their licence, strange that ! More hidden cures under big pharma lies. https://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/...e_1988.htm Copy, Print, save .

[RaEatsFoodstuffs]

I wanted to add this information, especially now with COVID going around:

Regarding Bill Gates

Labs. ... Independent labs have found the sterility formula in every vaccine tested.

After denying the charges, WHO finally ADMITTED it had been developing the sterility vaccines for over a decade.

Similar accusations came from Tanzania, Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines.

(As RFK Jr has pointed out - the way it works is, if any of this is false, then Bill Gates should sue him immediately for libel.
However it's not false, so he cannot.)

"Promising to eradicate Polio with $1.2 billion, Gates took control of India 's National Advisory Board (NAB) and mandated 50 polio vaccines (up from 5) to every child before age 5.

Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating vaccine-strain polio epidemic that paralyzed 496,000 children between 2000 and 2017.

In 2017, the Indian Government dialed back Gates' vaccine regimen and evicted Gates and his cronies from the NAB.

Polio paralysis rates dropped precipitously.

In 2017, the World Health Organization reluctantly admitted that the global polio explosion is predominantly vaccine strain, meaning it is coming from Gates' Vaccine Program.

The most frightening epidemics in Congo, the Philippines, and Afghanistan are all linked to Gates' vaccines.

By 2018, ¾ of global polio cases were from Gates' vaccines.

In 2014, the Gates Foundation funded tests of experimental HPV vaccines, developed by GSK and Merck, on 23,000 young girls in remote Indian provinces.

Approximately 1,200 suffered severe side effects, including autoimmune and fertility disorders. Seven died.

Indian government investigations charged that Gates funded researchers committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the injured girls.

The case is now in the country's Supreme Court.

In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a trial of a GSK's experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions to 1,048 of the 5,049 children.

During Gates 2002 MenAfriVac Campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa, Gates operatives forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis.

Between 50-500 children developed paralysis.

South African newspapers complained, "We are guinea pigs for drug makers".

Nelson Mandela's former Senior Economist, Professor Patrick Bond, describes Gates' philanthropic practices as "ruthless" and immoral".

In 2010, Gates committed $ 10 billion to the WHO promising to reduce population, in part, through new vaccines.

A month later Gates told a Ted Talk that new vaccines "could reduce population". In 2014, Kenya's Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a phony "tetanus" vaccine campaign.

A 2017 study (Morgensen et.Al.2017) showed that WHO's popular DTP is killing more African than the disease it pretends to prevent.

Vaccinated girls suffered 10x the death rate of unvaccinated children.

Gates and the WHO refused to recall the lethal vaccine which WHO forces upon millions of African children annually.

Global public health advocates around the world accuse Gates of - hijacking WHO's agenda away from the projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases; clean water, hygiene, nutrition and economic development.

They say he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal fetish - that good health only comes in a syringe.

In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI and PATH, Gates funds private pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines, and a massive network of pharmaceutical -industry front groups that broadcast deceptive propaganda, develop fraudulent studies, conduct surveillance and psychological operations against vaccine hesitancy and use Gates' power and money to silence dissent and coerce compliance.

In this recent nonstop Pharmedia appearances, Gates appears gleeful that the Covid-19 crisis will give him the opportunity to force his third-world vaccine programs on American children."

https://rubyraymedia.com/index.php/top-s...kennedy-jr

And this video is really important to understand what they are planning with the COVID vaccine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka5wWJwIJ10

[confusedseeker]

If I had kids I would not let them come close to Covid vaccine. Statistically they aren't even at risk, no reason to give them one. Strong pass:

https://mobile.twitter.com/The_Real_Fly/...5411715075

[Sacred Fool]

If I had kids I would not let them come close to Covid vaccine. Statistically they aren't even at risk, no reason to give them one. Strong pass:

Do you see a spiritual aspect to this or spiritual lessons involved?
   

[confusedseeker]

If I had kids I would not let them come close to Covid vaccine. Statistically they aren't even at risk, no reason to give them one. Strong pass:

Do you see a spiritual aspect to this or spiritual lessons involved?
   

Definitely. It's Free Will. If you believe the vaccine works and want to take it, go ahead. You should not be forcing people to inject themselves with foreign substances.

[confusedseeker]

One of the vaccines has a compound called Luciferase in it, no joke. They aren't even trying to hide it anymore, the bastards.

[Patrick]

Cool !  We are going to glow in the dark now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciferase

Which covid vaccine contains such an enzyme ?

[AnthroHeart]

I don't know about the Luciferase, though I have heard it.

But why is this the first vaccine with mRNA in it? I mean why do you need RNA in a vaccine?

This was the only video I could find of Gates talking about it:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/7GzeQfleoxPr/

[confusedseeker]

I don't know about the Luciferase, though I have heard it.

But why is this the first vaccine with mRNA in it? I mean why do you need RNA in a vaccine?

This was the only video I could find of Gates talking about it:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/7GzeQfleoxPr/

Everyone on this forum should research Bill Gates and his history as a eugenicist. The media is lying to everyone, and people are starting to wake up.

[confusedseeker]

Cool !  We are going to glow in the dark now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciferase

Which covid vaccine contains such an enzyme ?

Moderna.

I wouldn't take any of these things if you are perfectly healthy and young (under 50).  Risk/Reward.  If the elderly and physically sick want to take, I totally understand, the data suggest that might be a good decision.

The media also never mentions Vitamin D, 80% of hospitalizations with Covid have vitamin D deficiency...they want you to take that vaccine.  This is the big Kahuna.

[Relax]

One of the vaccines has a compound called Luciferase in it, no joke. They aren't even trying to hide it anymore, the bastards.

ummm... are you being sarcastic?

https://simonecelinemarshall.com/lucifer...d-lucifer/

"
Luciférne, Luciférase, and Lucifer

So today’s curiosity: Siouxsie Wiles’ research being called satanic because she researches bioluminescent things called luciferin & luciferase. This is a nice wee rabbit hole to fall down (read on…)

The terms luciferin and luciferase were coined by Raphaël Dubois, a curmudgeonly nineteenth-century scientist, who seems during his lifetime to have made as many enemies as admirers for his research. Michel Anctil, author of Luminous Creatures (2018), gives a pretty good account of what little is known of Dubois’ life, and about the naming of luciferin and luciferase:

Dubois says (presumably Anctil’s own translation?):

“One of these substances was obtained in a crystalline state: it exhibits very unique optical properties which confer to the photogenic tissues we examined a peculiar opalescent shimmer previously described in Pyrophorus and other luminous animals…We propose to designate it with the name luciférne…

The second substance is an active albumin-like compound, like those known as soluble ferments (diastases, zymases, etc.), with which it shares all the general characteristics. We will call it luciférase.”(p.170)

Anctil continues:

“Thus were coined the generic names of the two classical reactants of the bioluminescent chemical reaction, and these names have stuck to this day. Dubois never explained how he decided on these names. The derivation from the Vulgate Latin word lucifer, meaning ‘bringer of light,’ seemed at once appropriate and self-explanatory to Dubois, but he never disclosed the mental process that led to their choice.”

This seems pretty straight-forward: Dubois choice these names, and we don’t know why, other than their etymological connection to words to do with ‘light’.

This is all kind of interesting, and I reckon Dubois was quite a guy, should anyone want to learn more about him. But, so far, this has nothing to do with Satan, the Devil, or Lucifer as yet. I was kind of hoping for some sort of background revelation of Dubois being a devout French catholic who might have been trying to make some connection between bioluminescence and the Devil, but it’s just not there. Maybe growing up in nineteenth century France would have brought one into common knowledge of the Bible, but I can’t find anything of the sort for Dubois.

So, a different tack: Bibles. The Wikipedia article on Lucifer, which I think is where Wiles has got her information from, suggests:

Lucifer (/ˈluːsɪfər/ ‘light-bringer’, corresponding to the Greek name Ἑωσφόρος, ‘dawn-bringer’, for the same planet) is a Latin name for the planet Venus in its morning appearances and is often used for mythological and religious figures associated with the planet. Due to the unique movements and discontinuous appearances of Venus in the sky, mythology surrounding these figures often involved a fall from the heavens to earth or the underworld. Interpretations of a similar term in the Hebrew Bible, translated in the King James Version as “Lucifer” as a proper name, led to a Christian tradition of applying the name Lucifer, and its associated stories of a fall from heaven, to Satan, but modern scholarship generally translates the term in the relevant Bible passage, (Isaiah 14:12), as “morning star” or “shining one” rather than as a proper name, “Lucifer”.[1]

As a name for the Devil, the more common meaning in English, “Lucifer” is the rendering of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל‎ (transliteration: hêylêl; pronunciation: hay-lale)[2] in Isaiah (Isaiah 14:12) given in the King James Version of the Bible. The translators of this version took the word from the Latin Vulgate,[3] which translated הֵילֵל by the Latin word lucifer (uncapitalized),[4][5] meaning “the morning star, the planet Venus”, or, as an adjective, “light-bringing”.[6]

As a name for the planet in its morning aspect, “Lucifer” (Light-Bringer) is a proper name and is capitalized in English. In Greco-Roman civilization, it was often personified and considered a god[7] and in some versions considered a son of Aurora (the Dawn).[8] A similar name used by the Roman poet Catullus for the planet in its evening aspect is “Noctifer” (Night-Bringer).[9]

This is a bit lengthy, but kind of joins the dots a little for us. This is where Wiles gets a bunch of bits and pieces about Christian traditions and earlier traditions, and it’s mostly fine (though honestly, let’s call it a proper noun please!), but necessarily simplistic, because you can’t cover everything in Wikipedia. In fact, if you look at the talk page, this has been a bit of a contentious entry, because someone didn’t want any mention of Jesus being referred to as ‘morning star’, as he is in Revelations. Anyway, it got me thinking, because the KJV is a pretty modern bible, and I wanted to know where did this translation come from. Wikipedia says from the Hebrew bible, via the Latin Vulgate bible, where lucifer means ‘morning star’. Its connection with the planet Venus is a bit of a side issue, but kind of fun.

But, what about French bibles? Dubois is the guy who named these things, and, although he could read English, it seems far more likely that if he were to get these names from the bible, it would have been a French bible. So, I found a few early French bibles, looked up Isiah 14:12, and they say

Comment es-tu tombé du ciel,
astre brillant, fils de l’aurore ?
Toi qui terrassais d’autres peuples,
comment est-il possible |que tu aies été abattu à terre ?

The 1910 Louis Segond bible, one that might have been available to Dubois:

Te voilà tombé du ciel, Astre brillant, fils de l’aurore! Tu es abattu à terre, Toi, le vainqueur des nations!

Compare it with the KJV:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

O Lucifer, son of the morning

Aster brilliant, fils de l’aurore

Note that the son of the morning/aurora gets a mention in Wikipedia. Note that lucifer, in Latin, is never translated as Lucifer in French. This seems to be a very English thing. So, my bet is that, although we don’t really know why Dubois named these guys luciferin & luciferase, I think it’s a pretty safe bet it’s got nothing to do with Lucifer. All of which should be kind of obvious without anything I’ve said."