Jay Cutler And Wife Kristin Cavallari Come Out As Vaccine Truthers

**sputnik** · March 17th, 2014, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Quazar

I'll add my 2 cents into this even though I don't have children. But I wonder what I would do if I did.

As long as a consumer cannot sue a vaccine maker if someone uses the product and has a serious adverse reaction - I don't think they should be mandated. The US Supreme Court decided this several years ago. Here is a brief interpretation of their decision in the case of Bruesewitz v. Wyeth:

The Act specifically states that vaccine manufacturers are not liable for injuries and death that "result from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings."

The Court pointed to the "even though" clause, basically saying that it lists the measures a manufacturer must take for injury to be considered unavoidable, thus limiting liability. So, as long as a vaccine maker manufactured the drug properly and included proper directions and warnings, it is not liable for anything--included vaccine defects related to design.

Say you bring your child in for his first routine vaccines and they have a horrible neurological side effect from that vaccine. A side effect that causes a serious lifetime disability. You cannot sure the maker of the vaccine - by getting the vaccine - you have basically given your rights away and hold the company harmless. Meanwhile you have a brain damaged/paralyzed or other severely compromised child who is going to need care for the rest of his life. How is that child going to be taken care of? How can you force people to take a product and then if something goes wrong with that product they have no course of action. It is a dangerous place to be. Your government forces you to get vaccinated and if something goes wrong you're out of luck. And statistically - things will go wrong for some. Now you still may decide that it is worth taking the risk. But that should be YOUR educated choice, not the government's.

how many people used to die or suffer lifelong disabilities from the diseases that these vaccines have all but eradicated?
how many kids every year end up with severe brain damage because of adverse reactions to vaccines?
exactly.

this is one case where the greater good wins.

**MsDark** · March 17th, 2014, 01:53 PM

I'll just wager a guess that no one posting here has witnessed a human being (especially a child/infant) die from a vaccine preventable disease.

**witchcurlgirl** · March 17th, 2014, 01:55 PM

The US Court of Federal Claims is known as 'Vaccine Court' and they hear cases regarding vaccine injuries, and they've awarded damages to more people than when you could sue for malpractice in civil court. Of course, like most facts the anti vaxxers don't pay any mind to that. Also, who do you sue if you don't vaccinate and your kid gets brain damaged by measles- which used to happen to about 1000 children a year before we had the vaccinations

**Quazar** · March 17th, 2014, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by sputnik

how many people used to die or suffer lifelong disabilities from the diseases that these vaccines have all but eradicated?
how many kids every year end up with severe brain damage because of adverse reactions to vaccines?
exactly.

this is one case where the greater good wins.

So you're OK with your government forcing you to take medication and if something goes wrong too bad for you?

I'm not saying I'm against vaccines at all. I think they can be lifesaving and I'm glad I had the ones that I had when I was younger many years ago. What I am saying is that in the US - the laws do not favor the people - they favor the interests of big business - in this case Big Pharma. And our legislation is going increasingly in favor of these big industrial complexes (Banking/Pharma/AgriBiz etc). To start forcing people to do things and then take away their rights if something goes wrong is a dangerous path to go down. The Supreme Court should have never made that ruling in the first place. But since they did - it has to make us think harder about these choices and may scare more people away. In other countries where they have universal healthcare - families wouldn't go bankrupt over a medical calamity like they would here. So you take your chances getting a disease or having a serious adverse reaction. Either way you're on your own.

**witchcurlgirl** · March 17th, 2014, 02:03 PM

I think Big Pharma would be much more interested in all the money they could make of the drugs to treat these illnesses and their long term damaging effects than what they make on a vaxx. The idea is to hook people on the drugs, and have them keep buying them, not make it so they don't need them.

**sputnik** · March 17th, 2014, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Quazar

So you're OK with your government forcing you to take medication and if something goes wrong too bad for you?

I'm not saying I'm against vaccines at all. I think they can be lifesaving and I'm glad I had the ones that I had when I was younger many years ago. What I am saying is that in the US - the laws do not favor the people - they favor the interests of big business - in this case Big Pharma. And our legislation is going increasingly in favor of these big industrial complexes (Banking/Pharma/AgriBiz etc). To start forcing people to do things and then take away their rights if something goes wrong is a dangerous path to go down. The Supreme Court should have never made that ruling in the first place. But since they did - it has to make us think harder about these choices and may scare more people away. In other countries where they have universal healthcare - families wouldn't go bankrupt over a medical calamity like they would here. So you take your chances getting a disease or having a serious adverse reaction. Either way you're on your own.

are you for real? see witchcurlgirl's posts directly above and below yours, it will save me the effort of typing essentially the same thing.

**MmeVertigina** · March 17th, 2014, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Quazar

So you're OK with your government forcing you to take medication and if something goes wrong too bad for you?

I'm not saying I'm against vaccines at all. I think they can be lifesaving and I'm glad I had the ones that I had when I was younger many years ago. What I am saying is that in the US - the laws do not favor the people - they favor the interests of big business - in this case Big Pharma. And our legislation is going increasingly in favor of these big industrial complexes (Banking/Pharma/AgriBiz etc). To start forcing people to do things and then take away their rights if something goes wrong is a dangerous path to go down. The Supreme Court should have never made that ruling in the first place. But since they did - it has to make us think harder about these choices and may scare more people away. In other countries where they have universal healthcare - families wouldn't go bankrupt over a medical calamity like they would here. So you take your chances getting a disease or having a serious adverse reaction. Either way you're on your own.

Quazar, my PMs do not work on here. I wanted to ask if this was along the lines of what you were saying (I wanted to ask it privately and tried twice, if you can PM me, go right ahead) Democracy Web | Majority Rule, Minority Rights: Essential Principles

Democracy therefore requires minority rights equally as it does majority rule. Indeed, as democracy is conceived today, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated thatminority is from the majority society; otherwise, the majority's rightslose their meaning.

What does majority rule with minority rights mean Sorry to post it here, fucking PMs.

**sputnik** · March 17th, 2014, 04:37 PM

also, does this mean the pregnant woman who got measles and miscarried (or her baby was born with awful birth defects) gets to sue the anti-vax fuckwits who chose not to vaccinate their kids and then exposed their infected progeny to the poor pregnant woman?

Originally Posted by MmeVertigina

Quazar, my PMs do not work on here. I wanted to ask if this was along the lines of what you were saying (I wanted to ask it privately and tried twice, if you can PM me, go right ahead) Democracy Web | Majority Rule, Minority Rights: Essential Principles What does majority rule with minority rights mean Sorry to post it here, fucking PMs.[/B][/B][/B]

wtf? anti-vax tards are not a minority that must be protected from tyranny of the majority. are you for fucking real? that's like saying that the obama birthers should have minority protection from the tyranny of common sense.

**MsDark** · March 17th, 2014, 04:45 PM

So how about these?

I'm cool with mixing with non-vaxxers if this is in effect. Heck, they don't even require an eye shield mask for the people at my job who are unable to receive the flu shot. But they are now forbidden from entering the buildings without at least a nose/mouth mask.

**MmeVertigina** · March 17th, 2014, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by sputnik

also, does this mean the pregnant woman who got measles and miscarried (or her baby was born with awful birth defects) gets to sue the anti-vax fuckwits who chose not to vaccinate their kids and then exposed their infected progeny to the poor pregnant woman?

wtf? anti-vax tards are not a minority that must be protected from tyranny of the majority. are you for fucking real? that's like saying that the obama birthers should have minority protection from the tyranny of common sense.

Jeez, idk, I am CMV negative and had a stillbirth (as well as miscarriages, one very recent hence why I do not have the emotional energy to devote to a true debate on here), I don't know who I would sue if it had been because of CMV. There is no vax for that btw, so every time I am pregnant I have to be careful. My kids are also CMV negative. I am also not immune to German Measles or Rubella. Yes, I was vaxed and have caught it twice (it is possible) since. I remember I had it once when a friend was having a baby shower and I declined the invite, her family was like...come anyway...just stand far away! Uhmmm no.

I was asking Quazar if that is what she was referring to as far as having rights to choose what is best for us, and also having rights to defend oneself in court if those rights are being manipulated. See the link on the prior page as far as payout by the vaccine court.

I assure you I am as real as it gets on here. This was a question that was directed at one person, if my PMs worked it would have been sent that way.
This is a debate that will never end and has been going on for as long as vaccines have been around, I think it is good that people ask questions and don't go for a broad stroke approach to healthcare. Every person has a right to choose the medicines that they put into their body.

I made choices that some no-vaxers would disagree with and some choices that people who fully vax without worry would disagree with. I support my friends who choose not to vax, including the one who has undergone chemo while living with children who were not vaxed and did end up with the chicken pox (she shared her reasons for not vaxing with me and it made sense for her family). I also support them because this was their right.

There are many things that people do that effect my family negatively, but it is their right to do so. I cannot tell someone who smokes to put out their cigarette because it could kill my child, it is not my right to ask that of them. I can ask them to not smoke in my home. I do go out in public though, so I have to deal with this daily, it sucks. It also sucks when I see kids with pox on them out shopping at Target and I have to keep my one child who cannot be vaxed away from them, but this is their right to do so.

I defend people's rights while supported by the law even when they do not apply to me and I do not like the result.

Originally Posted by MrsDark

So how about these?

I'm cool with mixing with non-vaxxers if this is in effect. Heck, they don't even require an eye shield mask for the people at my job who are unable to receive the flu shot. But they are now forbidden from entering the buildings without at least a nose/mouth mask.

I'm cool with that, as long as people who have been vaccinated with vaccines which are no longer effective wear them too, and people who get the nasal flu vaccine and are shedding all over everyone else.
(What is funny is that we actually do have these masks on hand out of necessity, funny but not funny, such is life...)