NO on Mandatory vaccines bill SB277

Yes, I was aware of this. It's an interesting history. The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program...that's where Hitler got it from... and they even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz. Merck is a Nazi company...big vaccine company...don't feel their agenda is any different then or now.

In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island (this name comes up in human experimentation many times) that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation's social service agencies and associations. California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. The state's two leading sterilization mills in 1933 were Sonoma State Home with 388 operations and Patton State Hospital with 363 operations. Other sterilization centers included Agnews, Mendocino, Napa, Norwalk, Stockton and Pacific Colony state hospitals. https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

I just came across this information about the American History of Compulsory Vaccines, and it's ties to Eugenics (I didn't know what that meant. Think Hitler and a master race.):
https://vaccineimpact.com/2015/the-a...s-to-eugenics/

---

Quote:

---

I just came across this information about the American History of Compulsory Vaccines, and it's ties to Eugenics

---

everything was tied to eugenics then.

well, not quite. But, for example, take a look at the history of IQ tests. The early 20th century was full of crazy ideas about how to perfect the human race. Weird, as I write it, that seems familiar for some reason. Anyway, that's a pretty indirect taint by association. Vaccines aren't really the sole surviving vestiges of a plan for lebensraum...

you might also find the history of lobotomies a source of analogy to something. Hell if I know what, but it's gruesome and quirky enough that it's got to be useful for some argument somewhere. Walter Freeman just kind of wandered the country helping the afflicted. Gynecology and psychology have equally sordid pasts. None of it all that relevant in my mind, but I know many waccos feel differently.

Interesting that people panic when they discover toxic substances in their houses, but are o.k. with it in their bodies. I wonder how many people in our community can relate to these positions of being concerned about toxins in environments, but not in vaccines.

"Lumber Liquidators came under fire when it was discovered that they were selling flooring containing very high levels of formaldehyde. People panicked, the retail giant's stocks fell, and across the country, health questions ran rampant. Why all the fuss over flooring, when formaldehyde is also found in vaccines? Why is it that we can question the cancer-causing chemical when it's in our floors, but we're crazy anti-vaccination folks when it comes to injecting it in our bloodstream?" Sorry, but this is from a source that many people criticize. Not sure if the link will work, but you can find the information by searching. https://www.naturalnews.com/049216_formaldehyde_vaccine_ingr…

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

Interesting that people panic when they discover toxic substances ...
formaldehyde...

---

people panic very easily. Your body is full of toxins that it makes itself but you wouldn't want to come into external contact with. Chemicals like sodium chloride can easily kill you, or make a tomato more tasty in smaller quantities. Benghazi!! Squirrel!!! really, everyone should learn to avoid reacting to presence of 'toxins' or 'contaminants' or any substance just by its scary name. Prominant use of those terms in an argument are often signs that it's just going for the emotional reaction - cooties!!! - since they're so distracting. But as other threads here are bringing out, people panic or react emotionally way before more thoughtful reasoning kicks in.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

Your body is full of toxins that it makes itself but you wouldn't want to come into external contact with.

---

coincidentally enough, I just came across this:

Quote:

---

What many people may not know is that our own bodies produce and use formaldehyde as a part of our normal metabolism (Final Report on Carcinogens Background Document for Formaldehyde [PDF], 2010). When we are exposed to methanol (e.g., via inhalation or ingestion of foods like citric fruits and juices, vegetables or fermented beverages), our bodies break it down into formaldehyde and other byproducts. Our bodies produce formaldehyde as a result of DNA demethylation (an important process for controlling gene expression, e.g., in developing embryos) and other biological processes. It is such a regular part of human metabolism, that our normal, naturally produced blood concentrations are generally about 2-3μg of formaldehyde per gram of blood (or about 2.12-3.18μg/mL)*. And it is actually a pretty important chemical; our bodies use formaldehyde to form DNA and amino acids (Toxicological Profile for Formaldehyde [PDF], ATSDR, 1999).

Role in Metabolism

Formaldehyde plays an essential role in our metabolism. As part of the metabolic process, formaldehyde, whether from an external source or produced by our bodies, is converted into formate (PDF) by the enzyme formaldehyde dehydrogenase. The resulting formate can then be eliminated in the urine, further broken down into CO₂ and exhaled, or used by our cell machinery to synthesize nucleotides and nucleobases, such as purines and thymidine.

---

so, if you're using a juicer for your health, you're probably increasing your exposure to formaldehyde!

I don't say this just to try to ridicule people's beliefs - it's a meme I use on myself, too - but I find it helpful to visualize Sterling Hayden's regard for precious bodily fluids to give some perspective. We live in a messy stew of chemicals and competing biological elements, and more importantly, that's what shaped our evolution.

Thank you for this information. Maybe toxicity has to do with the "amount" of exposure or ingestion? Some people are more sensitive to common foods and other substances because of certain chemicals or compounds found in them.

When my mother, who had smoked for over 60 years, read that tobacco contains formaldehyde, she quit cold turkey. If she had known that it was a naturally occurring substance in her body, she would have continued smoking.

Cannabinoids are also part of our chemistry, but those who oppose cannabis use may not want to admit that.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

...so, if you're using a juicer for your health, you're probably increasing your exposure to formaldehyde!...

---

"The dose makes the poison"

Paracelsus

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

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

This has been known since the Renaissance - get a grip folks.

Richard

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

...Maybe toxicity has to do with the "amount" of exposure or ingestion? ...

---

I think that's absolutely true.

I'm not a doctor, though apparently I have an internet doppelganger who is, but I think the amount of any substance is of crucial importance in regards to its health effects. I also think that the normal tendency toward simplification of knowledge makes most folklore, and a lot of research, pretty useless as guidance to diet and exposure. For example, there's no magic substance that 'cures cancer' or, for that matter, causes it. Biological systems are mathematically chaotic. That doesn't mean 'chaos' in the sense of random crazy behavior, but chaos in the sense that the outcomes are functions of an incredibly complex set of conditions while at the same time tend to cluster in predictable patterns. Some substances may always make large contributions, others may only rarely impact the system as a whole. But we all want to find something tractable so we can try to exert control or at least explain what's happening.

So for example, when you say "people are sensitive to .. substances.. because of certain chemicals .. found in them" you unfortunately have no real way to know that's true, at least in the sense I think you mean it. For example, maybe it's the odor triggering a learned response from childhood trauma. Maybe it's intestinal flora reacting to something that's harmless (whether you ARE your biome is a different question). Placebo effects are huge too. I find the whole field fascinating, but I do think that few of us (including me) are really qualified to have anything more than heart-felt opinions. The data's just not complete, unambiguous or easy to understand.

This was on the internet this morning ... it seems well documented ... I'm coming across these stories all of the time now ... what's going on? ...

https://yournewswire.com/whooping-co...ated-children/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

This was on the internet this morning ... it seems well documented ... I'm coming across these stories all of the time now ... what's going on? ...

---

it seems so because the barrier to publishing on the internet is so low. Consider it gossip. Word count doesn't equal meaning. It's no way to distinguish worthy from unworthy. Cats aren't the dominant life form, regardless of their internet presence.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by geomancer:

"The dose makes the poison"
--Paracelsus ...

---

Interesting dude.

Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article regarding Paracelsus's views:

"Because everything in the universe was interrelated, beneficial medical substances could be found in herbs, minerals and various chemical combinations thereof. Paracelsus viewed the universe as one coherent organism pervaded by a uniting lifegiving spirit, and this in its entirety, Man included, was 'God'. His views put him at odds with the Church, for which there necessarily had to be a difference between the Creator and the created."

Scott

Podfish,

This article was backed by a report from Fox news ... are we to believe that Fox news now engages in gossip?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

it seems so because the barrier to publishing on the internet is so low. Consider it gossip. Word count doesn't equal meaning. It's no way to distinguish worthy from unworthy. Cats aren't the dominant life form, regardless of their internet presence.

---

I count Fox News as "doubt worthy", and would check other more reliable sources.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

This article was backed by a report from Fox news ... are we to believe that Fox news now engages in gossip?

---

https://img194.imageshack.us/img194/...1206081330.png
California lawmakers advance vaccine bill amid heated debate

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...9_10-50-35.png

SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers on Wednesday advanced a bill that would require schoolchildren in the state to be vaccinated amid impassioned pleas from parents and doctors, even activist Robert Kennedy Jr.

Under the proposal, parents would no longer be able to send unvaccinated kids to school with waivers citing religious or personal beliefs. Exemptions would be available only for children with health problems.

Supporters say the measure would increase the number of vaccinated young people and improve public health.

Ariel Loop told lawmakers that such a plan could have prevented her child from contracting measles at Disneyland. "My infant shouldn't have had to suffer. He shouldn't, still months later, be having complications with his eyes," she said. "I shouldn't have had to fear for his life."

Opponents, however, say vaccines can be as dangerous as the diseases they aim to fight and that the bill would trample parental rights.

Continues here

I don't get it ... what's the good of vaccination if it doesn't protect you from getting the disease from someone else? Isn't that the point of getting it? If you are so afraid of a disease and think vaccine will prevent you from getting it, your dose should be sufficient; if not, what's the point?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

California lawmakers advance vaccine bill amid heated debate

---

agreed, but as "mainstream media" they will have more pressure on them to report the facts ... it is the interpretation of those facts which is usually questioned ...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

I count Fox News as "doubt worthy", and would check other more reliable sources.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Podfish,

This article was backed by a report from Fox news ... are we to believe that Fox news now engages in gossip?

---

surely that question answers itself.

A lot of the time they use the dodge "people say..." or "some people believe..." which is a CYA technique that removes the burden of having to come up with any pretence of fact-checking. But yea, they engage in gossip too. It's extremely rare for them to apologize. One thing that's gotten them their reputation is that, compared to other news organizations, they rarely retract their mistakes. And it's not likely they make fewer mistakes.

Of course, this isn't to claim that the rest of the pots in the closet are all shiny - only when compared to FOX's kettle.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by gardenmaniac:

I don't get it ... what's the good of vaccination if it doesn't protect you from getting the disease from someone else? Isn't that the point of getting it? If you are so afraid of a disease and think vaccine will prevent you from getting it, your dose should be sufficient; if not, what's the point?

---

'cuz "it's not all about you" to use a cliche.

Vaccines are about shifting the odds. So those fearful of vaccines sieze on cases where someone's purportedly hurt by taking them. It's pretty clear that people overestimate the odds of harmful reactions, but there really isn't a claim that vaccinations are always totally benign. Putting anything in your body - food, tattoo ink, other people - introduces substances that may trigger a reaction. But none of us are hermetically sealed. Doing it voluntarily, though, means we want justification. So the justification is that vaccines make it less likely that you'll be colonized by harmful bacteria, which will use you to incubate their brood and spread it around the world. Some individuals may react to vaccination and be harmed, others will be saved from a destiny as a source of pestilence. Without vaccines, a few will be spared the direct harm, but they may in turn get infected and suffer from that. And many more who would have tolerated the vaccination without harm, will now get infected as well.

There's no option that eliminates all negative health consequences for everyone. It's a mathematical decision - what level of harm for how many people is acceptible to lower the risk of harm (by how much) for the population at large. The individual who opts out is usually imagining themselves in the first group of risk-takers.

Looked at that way, it's clearly a choice to screw your neighbors because you don't want to accept the risk. Some people are identified in advance as being at high risks - some children with immunity deficiencies, for example. Others self-identify as being at high risk because they have their own opinion about the 'science' that determined the efficacy of the vaccines.

I think you've missed my point, which is this:

if/when you are vaccinated - against measles, for example - the purpose of said vaccine is to create immunity so that if exposed, you won't get measles. If everyone has been vaccinated, then there will be no measles to catch, case closed. But if one person who has chosen to NOT get the vaccine comes down w/ measles and you are exposed, shouldn't you have immunity thru the vaccine with which you have been vaccinated? Isn't that the exact reason for having been vaccinated -- so that if/when you are exposed, you will not get sick?, and if not that, what exactly was the point of having been vaccinated in the first place?

There are those, too, whose beliefs include treating the body as a self-regulating and self-healing unit. They eschew most allopathic medical treatments. I may not agree with them, but in this country, it is their right to hold and practice these beliefs. It is not my (or your) place to dictate what they can or cannot do. For the greater good? What happened to freedom of religion, separation of church and state?

So if you believe that vaccination will prevent the spread of disease, by all means get vaccinated. If you are correct, and the vaccine protects you by creating immunity to the disease, then you will be protected - no matter what I have done or not done. If you get measles, what? Vaccination didn't work?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

...Vaccines are about shifting the odds. ...

---

If you do a search using the words "vaccination lawsuits" you'll get 445,000 pages ... it's very revealing ... most of these links are about actual lawsuits ... most of them were won ...

Mandating a treatment protocol which has this kind of history is questionable ....

in sacramento a couple of days ago, robert f. kennedy jr. spoke before and after the sold-out showing of the movie "Trace Amounts" which is about vaccines and the link to autism.
a showing here - and everywhere - would be good.
jude

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

California lawmakers advance vaccine bill amid heated debate

---

This is an interesting addition to the whole vaccine debate ... what if we're supposed to get sick as children to protect us throughout our lives?

https://vaccineimpact.com/2015/is-ma...all-americans/

the problem with this tidy piece of vaccine fascist logic is that it ignores numerous facts. such as the consistent effort by the cdc to not record negative vaccine reactions, or the powerful paradigm of the hygiene hypothesis and the role it plays in human health, and the history of communicable disease in developed societies.

the most powerful argument for mandated vaccination is protection of babies who are not breastfed and children and adults who are too weak to choose vaccination. the present level of voluntary vaccination does seem to provide protection for the most vulnerable in societies with easy access to vaccination, so the theory is more is better. to agree or not is a matter of conjecture, since science asking this question is nonexistent!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

'cuz "it's not all about you" to use a cliche. Vaccines are about shifting the odds....

---

Your point is a logical one. But it misses the fact that the youngest children can't be vaccinated til they're at the right age (which is 12 months for the mmr, if i read the chart right) leaving these kiddos who are innocent of any decision-making to suffer the potential consequences of being exposed to measles, mumps or rubella or whatever.

here's the link to the chart:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedul...dolescent.html


kathy

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by gardenmaniac:

I think you've missed my point, which is this:

if/when you are vaccinated - against measles, for example - the purpose of said vaccine is to create immunity so that if exposed, you won't get measles...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

the problem with this tidy piece of vaccine fascist logic is that it ignores numerous facts. such as the consistent effort by the cdc to not record negative vaccine reactions,

---

hey, at least the CDC would keep the trains running on time.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by gardenmaniac:

I think you've missed my point, which is this: if/when you are vaccinated - against measles, for example - the purpose of said vaccine is to create immunity so that if exposed, you won't get measles. ...

---

you're less likely to get sick - and not necessarily the you you. The aggregate you. So if you expose a quantity of vaccinated people, and a similar quantity of unvaccinated people, it's not going to be 100% for one group and 0% in the other. There will just be (hopefully a lot) fewer cases in the vaccinated group. If the difference is minor, then any risk from taking vaccines makes less sense to take. But since the difference is not minor, the small risk from vaccines is a reasonable one in the aggregate. Of course, if you do believe 'they' are lying to us and the risk is huge but the benefits are faked, then it's all a scam like the Easter Bunny, fostered on us starting sometime last century by socialistic Petaluma egg farmers for their own gain.

socialistic Petaluma egg farmers? ... now that's interesting ... so if you question the safety of vaccines you probably believe in the Easter Bunny? ... hey, let's just insult each other ... it's so much easier then having a good solid discussion in which all of the facts are looked at and all opinions are considered ...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

...Of course, if you do believe 'they' are lying to us and the risk is huge but the benefits are faked, then it's all a scam like the Easter Bunny, fostered on us starting sometime last century by socialistic Petaluma egg farmers for their own gain.

---

I highly encourage everyone to watch the film, Silent Epidemic; The Untold Story of Vaccines. I thought I knew something about this issue but after watching this movie I realized I didn't know as much as I thought. I'll bet the majority of you will come to the same conclusion. It is literally criminal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJGy...ature=youtu.be

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

the problem with this tidy piece of vaccine fascist logic is that it ignores numerous facts. such as the consistent effort by the cdc to not record negative vaccine reactions...!

---

I came across this petition online ... it seems that Dr. Pan might benefit financially from this legislation ...

https://www.change.org/p/richard-pan...st-this-causes

I tried the link, but it didn't work....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

I came across this petition online ... it seems that Dr. Pan might benefit financially from this legislation ...

https://www.change.org/p/richard-pan...st-this-causes

---