PETITION AGAINST FORCED VACCINES

External Since: Dec 21, 2006 Posts: 345

In message <Ot15k.172$TL6.90@trnddc01>, Mike wrote:

> No, it is not because mumps is harder on adults than on children. Older
> adults occasionally die of mumps complications. For now, it is a rare
> event because non-immune old people are rare. Once there is a stronger
> supply of non-immune people, the mortality can be expected to rise.

Only if they are exposed.

That's rather the point of vaccination, though.

--
| "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against |
| unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct |
| before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson |
+-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs DeleteThis @lumbercartel.com> ---------+

External Since: Nov 26, 2007 Posts: 302

On Jun 15, 1:09 am, Mike <m....DeleteThis@xyz.com> wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Let's test your alleged beliefs for consistency.
> >> 1. Should a minor be able to get a prescription drug (say, Ritalin) from
> >> a doctor without consent or knowledge of his / her parents? (And I do
> >> not mean accidents or other emergency situations or even abortions)
>
> > No.
>
> >> 2. Same question for a non-mandatory vaccine.
>
> > No.
>
> Great news!
>
> Now, as a children's and parent's advocate, would you please write to
> your state assembly person and express opposition to a certain provision
> of bill A10942 just introduced not in UK but in your very own New York
> State assembly. Here is a link for you.
>
> http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A10942&sh=t

This is the bill to amend and how it fits into existing law, in its
entirety is what is important. It is like reading out of context.

> Here is the provision (page 6):
>
> A licensed physician, or in a hospital, a staff physician, may diagnose,
> treat or prescribe CURATIVE OR PREVENTIVE TREATMENT AGAINST SEXUALLY
> TRANSMISSIBLE DISEASE OR INFECTION, INCLUDING VACCINES, for a person
> under the age of {twenty-one} EIGHTEEN years without the consent or
> knowledge of the parents or guardian of said person, where such
> person is infected with a sexually transmissible disease, or has been
> exposed to infection with a sexually transmissible disease, OR IS AT
> RISK OF EXPOSURE TO A SEXUALLY TRANSMISSIBLE INFECTION.
>
> (capitals original; probably denote additions to the existing law)
>
> And who "is at risk of exposure"? Probably everybody. It does not say
> "imminent risk" (which would be even funny). So, this means that a
> 15-years old (or 12-years old) girl can get a Gardasil shot without her
> parents knowing about that (we will leave aside the payment issue).

The girl has the option of getting it. It is not mandatory. There are
circumstances where a girl's parents do not address the realityof
their daughter's behavior and, to deny the gir the option of getting
it may be a death sentence.

HOWEVER, if a girl is that promiscuous, I doubt that she would
actually get the shot anyway. I also note that this was introduced in
the Rules Committee, and not in the Health Committee. I wonder why?

> As somebody with a legal training you can propose desirable changes. As
> an additional public service you can post this letter in this groups.

I would like the girl referred for mandatory counseling, even withoput
parental permission, as she is seriously in need of intervention.