Should MMR be compulsory - Please Vote in the next 24 hours

[G DA SILVA-HILL]

Should the MMR jab be compulsory? - UK on-line poll - please vote!
28th November 2008 - vote ends in the next 24 hours, and pass it on please.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... h-children
Grace DaSilva-Hill
Homeopathy, EFT, NAET
www.healingwithgrace.co.uk

[Rochelle]

The Yes's are winning at the moment. Lets all vote NO!!
Rochelle
Registered Homeopath
EFT(Advanced) Practitioner
www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk

[Hennie Duits]

Keep pushing - poll closes in 20 hours from now (that is 20 hours from
04.35 GMT+01.00).
Yes have 48.6%
No have 51.4%
Too close - go gettum. They need to know *real* well! This is about the
health of future generations, you know. My children, you children, all
children. Go! Write, or at least vote!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... h-children

rochelle schreef:

[Hennie Duits]

19 hours to vote. Vote!

Hennie Duits schreef:

[Shannon Nelson]

I started having fun with my answer--but either their site or my
computer was being soooooo slow, so I only got up to #4 typed in. But
for those people still looking for further justifications for saying
"yes" to the jab, here's my "devil's advocate" below.
----------------------------
I vote emphatically no, but... Makes sense to say Yes to compulsory
vaccination if:

1) You have full faith in the good judgment of government (economic
crisis, anyone?), pharmaceutical companies and regulators (have some
Vioxx?);

2) You believe that chemical "medicine" is better health care than
good food (oh yeah, we're losing our choices about that too--GMOs,
anyone?) and proper care (um, who's teaching us about "good food and
proper care", now that drug companies rule?);

3) You believe that all children are physiologically equal (well,
let's just let the weak ones be weeded out by our vaccine programs);

4) You're okay with being, and having our children, forcibly
injected with unknown substances because "it's the law"--no matter
*what* reasons you might have for declining--after all, "the government
" knows everything worth knowing: about every issue of contamination,
allergy or individual sensitivity; the government always knows what's
right and what's wrong about its programs and employees, and is always
quite up-front and prompt about notifying its people of any problems,
conflicts of interest or uncertainty. So you figure we can *count* on
them to let us know if anything needs to change.

5) You figure the government has already done exhaustive and
thorough, large-scale and long-follow-up studies on all of the health
issues, so if they say it's safe and effective, by gum we *know* that
it's safe and effective, right? (Fluoride, anyone? How about some
nice, plastic chew toys? Okay, how about some nice, comforting
ciggies? Well then, have some butter. I mean margarine. I mean
butter. With your eggs. I mean no eggs. I mean hormone replacement
therapy...)

6) You figure the government uses laws only when absolutely
necessary, and only in an appropriate way. So if in the future it were
to become clear that vaccines *aren't*--or aren't *always*--safe and
effective for everyone, the government would let us know, and then
they'll "take back" the law, so we could get to choose. Because even
if "everyone" is now getting the shots, so we no longer have a
"control" group to compare with, and no one has any way of knowing or
guessing whether it's linked or not with this or that chronic
disease--well, surely the government will have already done those
studies, so we won't *need* a control group.

(Okay, enuf from me...)
Cheers, all!
Shannon