Forced health care vs religous beliefs

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
#21
I dont get it, if the child at the park was vaccinated why did the child die because the other one was not vaccinated?

What made the other child die (if that child was vacinated against what the sick one had?)
Only just saw this post - I'm not familiar with the specific story, but the basic principle is that vaccines are less effect if not all people in proximity are immunised. This is because most bacterial and viral infections grow and change at the cellular level, at different rates. This is why you catch a cold every year instead of just once or maybe twice in your life like chickenpox, and why you need regular boosters for things like flu - it's not because it's strong, but because it changes rapidly enough to evade your immune system's developed 'sensors'.

If a virus or bacteria changes too much, then your immune system doesn't recognise it quickly enough, and you get sick.

Humans tend to only catch diseases that come from other humans (stuff like bird flu etc, is the really dangerous stuff, because it can make the jump from animals to people, and your immune system has zero defence) So, what happens in an only partially immunised 'herd' or group of people, disease version 1 can't infect the people who are immunised (their immune system is too good), but it can infect those who are unimmunised.

A side effect, though, of partial population cover is that the infection, if it infects a host and survives for a time, can mutate to some extent (into 'version 2'). The bigger the proportion of people who are not immunised, the more time a strain has to incubate (and the more possible strains there might be). If left unchecked, it gets to the point where all the people who are immunised against version 1 are unprotected, because the virus is up to version 10, and is effectively an unknown organism to your immune system (which is 'trained' to recognise certain diseases by vaccines).

Part of the idea behind vaccination is to protect the herd long term by preventing diseases from finding hosts, so eventually the bacterial/viral organisms die out. Some diseases are gone in the West but prevalent elsewhere, and some things like measles, mumps, whooping cough, are on the rise again in some Western countries when they had virtually disappeared. I'm one of two people who I know have had whooping cough, and that's because we both reacted to the triple antigen as babies and so didn't get the full course of the WC component. But it's a disease on the rise, and probably one of the more lethal of the common vaccine diseases.
 
Jan 7, 2015
6,057
78
0
#22
First thought........this Bill must pass......then must stand up to the appeals that will follow if it does pass......neither of which is a certainly.

Second thought........I do not see children being FORCIBLY injected......as in the Police hunting them down, handcuffing them, taking them to a Medical Facility and holding them down while someone jabs a needle in their arm. Could be wrong, but I don't see that happening.
A lot of people didn't see a form of forced health care coming, or the gay marriage agenda being forced upon states either. LOL
 
Jan 7, 2015
6,057
78
0
#24
Thousands of people were sterilized without their knowledge by US government.

State Secret: Thousands Secretly Sterilized - ABC News

Quote from article "From the early 1900s to the 1970s, some 65,000 men and women were sterilized in this country, many without their knowledge, as part of a government eugenics program to keep so-called undesirables from reproducing."

Ya'll step right up an get your shots....there good fur ya! :)
 

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
#25
They say it's about protecting the entire herd. Right!

US moves to allow blood donations from gay men | New York Post

Does allowing HIV infecting people to give their infected blood to others "protect the herd?"
To be fair, they check all donations for HIV beforehand anyway, as well as various types of hepatitis, and I think some other transusionable diseases. Or at least, that's how we do it here (and how we have done it since the mid eighties). We also already have the same policy here as you guys are proposing in the article you linked, and have done for some time, so I don't think the safety of the 'herd' is really stake. No outbreak of HIV here, in case you were wondering - certainly not any outbreak attributed to a spate of infected transfusions. :)
 
Jan 7, 2015
6,057
78
0
#26
To be fair, they check all donations for HIV beforehand anyway, as well as various types of hepatitis, and I think some other transusionable diseases. Or at least, that's how we do it here (and how we have done it since the mid eighties). We also already have the same policy here as you guys are proposing in the article you linked, and have done for some time, so I don't think the safety of the 'herd' is really stake. No outbreak of HIV here, in case you were wondering - certainly not any outbreak attributed to a spate of infected transfusions. :)
There is a small window of time where HIV cannot be detected, plus humans make mistakes all the time...so why even take the chance?
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#27
Thousands of people were sterilized without their knowledge by US government.

State Secret: Thousands Secretly Sterilized - ABC News

Quote from article "From the early 1900s to the 1970s, some 65,000 men and women were sterilized in this country, many without their knowledge, as part of a government eugenics program to keep so-called undesirables from reproducing."

Ya'll step right up an get your shots....there good fur ya! :)
You know who spearheaded that program, don't you? Margaret Sanger, founder of the organization that became Planned Parenthood.

Washington Times: Margaret Sanger, racist eugenicist extraordinaire

Fortunely, she never thought of the idea of sabotaging vaccinations. They're safe. Get 'em for your kids. Not doing so is being not only hysterical stupidity, but a bad citizen.
 
Jan 7, 2015
6,057
78
0
#28
You know who spearheaded that program, don't you? Margaret Sanger, founder of the organization that became Planned Parenthood.

Washington Times: Margaret Sanger, racist eugenicist extraordinaire

Fortunely, she never thought of the idea of sabotaging vaccinations. They're safe. Get 'em for your kids. Not doing so is being not only hysterical stupidity, but a bad citizen.
Yea, she was all about fulfilling the lusts of the flesh, without all the undesired consequences of pregnancy, freeing their minds so to speak in order to have more sex and pleasure. A child of her father the devil for sure. Here's a quote from a article about her ideas on birth control...

"Margaret Sanger spent much of her 1914 exile in England, where contact with British neo-Malthusianists helped refine her socioeconomic justifications for birth control. She was also profoundly influenced by the liberation theories of British sexual theorist Havelock Ellis. Under his tutelage she formulated a new rationale that would liberate women not just by making sexual intercourse safe, but also pleasurable. It would, in effect, free women from the inequality of sexual experience."
 

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
#29
There is a small window of time where HIV cannot be detected, plus humans make mistakes all the time...so why even take the chance?
Because if I'm at the point where I need a blood transfusion, then I probably have bigger problems than worrying about maybe getting HIV.

Its possible, of course, in about the same way its possible I could be struck by lightening, or be driven off the road by a drunk drived. The alternative is to stay at home forever.

Given the deferral rates for gay men are, I think still 12 months here, a HIV positive sample is probably not coming from them. We have not had a transfusion case of HIV in nearly 20 years, and that donation was from a heterosexual female who didn't know her partner (fresh from Africa) had HIV.

I can't say its a risk that bothers me, but perhaps that's just me.
 
K

kennethcadwell

Guest
#30
I dont get it, if the child at the park was vaccinated why did the child die because the other one was not vaccinated?

What made the other child die (if that child was vacinated against what the sick one had?)

You see the falsehood that is put out is that these vaccinations 100% protect you from getting sick.
The problem with this is that even the department for disease control says it only does that, keeps it in control as new versions of the viruses do come out and some cases the vaccine was inaffective. Then you have issues like the flu virus that a new strain comes out pretty much every year, and the flu shot only covers the previous strains of the virus.

Then the other issue is that some vaccinations are given at different times in a childs development.
So if a vaccination is given at a child's 12 month year old stage, then they will be prone to catching that from another kid who is sick with it because they did not get vaccinated when they were to get it. I have a baby right now that is 4 months old, and her pediatrician said she gets shots every two months up to 12 months old. Then she will get another at 24 months old, and then from there right before she starts school.
 
Jan 7, 2015
6,057
78
0
#31
Because if I'm at the point where I need a blood transfusion, then I probably have bigger problems than worrying about maybe getting HIV.

Its possible, of course, in about the same way its possible I could be struck by lightening, or be driven off the road by a drunk drived. The alternative is to stay at home forever.

Given the deferral rates for gay men are, I think still 12 months here, a HIV positive sample is probably not coming from them. We have not had a transfusion case of HIV in nearly 20 years, and that donation was from a heterosexual female who didn't know her partner (fresh from Africa) had HIV.

I can't say its a risk that bothers me, but perhaps that's just me.
But my point is why even allow them to donate blood in the first place, that would remove the risk of transference greatly. And again note what the article says.....

"All blood donations are screened for HIV, however, the test only detects the virus after it’s been in the bloodstream about 10 days. That allows a brief window when the virus that causes AIDS can go undetected."

A brief window, is still a window of opportunity for the spreading of the virus to others by blood transfusion. And the numbers are not yet known because they have not fully implemented the program to allow gays to give blood yet. But why even task the risk? Because it's all about the gay rights agenda, and not health care.

Also big pharma benefits from forced health care and forced injections....the root of all evil is the love of money.
 
Jan 7, 2015
6,057
78
0
#32
I dont get it, if the child at the park was vaccinated why did the child die because the other one was not vaccinated?

What made the other child die (if that child was vacinated against what the sick one had?)
Because it makes for a good propaganda tool. "Your the reason we are all sick!" LOL
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#33
Yea, she was all about fulfilling the lusts of the flesh, without all the undesired consequences of pregnancy, freeing their minds so to speak in order to have more sex and pleasure. A child of her father the devil for sure. Here's a quote from a article about her ideas on birth control...

"Margaret Sanger spent much of her 1914 exile in England, where contact with British neo-Malthusianists helped refine her socioeconomic justifications for birth control. She was also profoundly influenced by the liberation theories of British sexual theorist Havelock Ellis. Under his tutelage she formulated a new rationale that would liberate women not just by making sexual intercourse safe, but also pleasurable. It would, in effect, free women from the inequality of sexual experience."
In other words, she wanted to make sexual encounters as unbinding on women as it is on men. If she wanted to be a man, I'm surprised she didn't attempt to pioneer transgender treatment and surgery.
 
D

DesiredHaven

Guest
#34
Only just saw this post - I'm not familiar with the specific story, but the basic principle is that vaccines are less effect if not all people in proximity are immunised. This is because most bacterial and viral infections grow and change at the cellular level, at different rates. This is why you catch a cold every year instead of just once or maybe twice in your life like chickenpox, and why you need regular boosters for things like flu - it's not because it's strong, but because it changes rapidly enough to evade your immune system's developed 'sensors'.

If a virus or bacteria changes too much, then your immune system doesn't recognise it quickly enough, and you get sick.

Humans tend to only catch diseases that come from other humans (stuff like bird flu etc, is the really dangerous stuff, because it can make the jump from animals to people, and your immune system has zero defence) So, what happens in an only partially immunised 'herd' or group of people, disease version 1 can't infect the people who are immunised (their immune system is too good), but it can infect those who are unimmunised.

A side effect, though, of partial population cover is that the infection, if it infects a host and survives for a time, can mutate to some extent (into 'version 2'). The bigger the proportion of people who are not immunised, the more time a strain has to incubate (and the more possible strains there might be). If left unchecked, it gets to the point where all the people who are immunised against version 1 are unprotected, because the virus is up to version 10, and is effectively an unknown organism to your immune system (which is 'trained' to recognise certain diseases by vaccines).

Part of the idea behind vaccination is to protect the herd long term by preventing diseases from finding hosts, so eventually the bacterial/viral organisms die out. Some diseases are gone in the West but prevalent elsewhere, and some things like measles, mumps, whooping cough, are on the rise again in some Western countries when they had virtually disappeared. I'm one of two people who I know have had whooping cough, and that's because we both reacted to the triple antigen as babies and so didn't get the full course of the WC component. But it's a disease on the rise, and probably one of the more lethal of the common vaccine diseases.
Thanks, I just dont trust the vaccine companies, I just dont
 

Nautilus

Senior Member
Jun 29, 2012
6,488
53
48
#35
I was reading in the news this morning about hundreds of parents being arrested in Pakistan over refusal of meds for their children against polio. Here's the article Pakistan arrests parents for refusing children's polio vaccinations

We here in the US already have a type of forced health care, but how many believe the government has the right to force people to take meds, even if it is against their religous beliefs?
If you are an adult who for yourself chooses not to receive medical care then whatever thats fine. If they are a child and not receiving medical care bputs them in danger well then they should be taken from whatever set of terrible parents would do that. I feel the same about anti-vaxxers.
 

blue_ladybug

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2014
70,869
9,601
113
#36
Thanks, I just dont trust the vaccine companies, I just dont
I haven't had a vaccine shot since I was little, when I got inoculated for all the childhood diseases.. I could have rabies and not know it..lol.. *starts foaming at the mouth* :eek:

yes i'm strange..y'all just need to deal with it.. :p
 
D

DesiredHaven

Guest
#37
You see the falsehood that is put out is that these vaccinations 100% protect you from getting sick.
The problem with this is that even the department for disease control says it only does that, keeps it in control as new versions of the viruses do come out and some cases the vaccine was inaffective. Then you have issues like the flu virus that a new strain comes out pretty much every year, and the flu shot only covers the previous strains of the virus.

Then the other issue is that some vaccinations are given at different times in a childs development.
So if a vaccination is given at a child's 12 month year old stage, then they will be prone to catching that from another kid who is sick with it because they did not get vaccinated when they were to get it. I have a baby right now that is 4 months old, and her pediatrician said she gets shots every two months up to 12 months old. Then she will get another at 24 months old, and then from there right before she starts school.
Yeah I dont really believe them
 
K

kennethcadwell

Guest
#39
Yeah I dont really believe them
Like I said I can see in some cases when it comes to major deadly diseases, but when it comes to things like flu shots I don't even bother because I did get them at one point and still got sick that year.

The other thing is though is that responsibility falls on the hands of the individuals as well.
For example the big Ebola scare we just had; These people who were told to stay in there houses for up to 21 days to make sure they did not have it, that refused to comply. That is just ridiculous on their part, and as far as I am concerned should have been arrested for putting others lives at stake.
 
D

DesiredHaven

Guest
#40
I haven't had a vaccine shot since I was little, when I got inoculated for all the childhood diseases.. I could have rabies and not know it..lol.. *starts foaming at the mouth* :eek:

yes i'm strange..y'all just need to deal with it.. :p
None of my dogs or goats ever got vacinated and they have all lived long lives. well unfortunately three are being put down this month though, but that has nothing to do with vaccines but older age and the lameness that comes around that time. But each one has surpassed their typical lifespan without any of that. All of them being around the others (and neighbors dogs, and other farm animals).

But even the foods our dogs eat make them sick (manifesting in ear infections, dull coats, and various skin irritation). We took ours off the commercial grocery store stuff (which had us returning to the vets office for their endless ear infections and allergies) and put them on the raw meat diet along with the dinovite nutrition additive stuff and their ears and their skins and coats were fully restored in just a matter of weeks. That stuff really really works. This stuff saved us thousands of dollars we would have continued to pay out to vets to treat.

No wonder the vet wasnt pushing the raw food diet, theres was nothing left for them to treat afterward.

I dont trust any of them.
 
Last edited: