Messages

>The report says that one patient died on heart disease.  She
>had a serious heart condition that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to
>do with the injection.  One apparently died from an infection
>from the site where she was injected.  I can't remember the
>third.

The first one says, "the patiend died of a blood clot 3 hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine."

The second one collapsed, and the autopsy found heart abnormalities.  I would think there would be a record if she already had these problems.  There isn't.  

The third one had some heart problems, but nothing that would cause her to DROP DEAD at the age of 12.

I don't see anything about an infection.

>Amen!

Only because you are mad that I answered EVERY question you asked, and you looked foolish.  Grow up and learn something.

Never mind, I have better things to do than try to convince people as slow as some of you here.  I refuse to argue with someone I have to educate.  I'll stick with asking people who actually know what they're talking about and don't slam me just I'm not a sycophant.

>All you've
>done throughout this entire thread is attack people for having
>a dissenting view, and you are the one using words like
>'bashing', 'nasty', 'obsessed', 'stupid' when talking about
>other posters, which has NOTHING to do with the real subject
>of the thread.  

Yeah, and telling me that I am stupid for opposing the vaccine is the height of maturity, huh?  Get real.  

>Obviously you have never posted to this forum prior to this
>thread or read from this forum in the past, or you would know
>that these kind of 'spirited' dialogs go on quite frequently.

Actually, I have.  When I posted several years ago, I didn't have this number of rude people crawling out of the woodwork to bash me.  Or is that just how this forum is now?

> And for me personally, you've completely lost all integrity.
>I'm quite proud of my 'thick skin' because I never resorted
>slams or name-calling

*LOL*  Do I need to post YOUR quotes that prove otherwise?

>END OF THREAD............

Ooh...You declared the thread ended, I guess I should run and hide now.  

>YOu can simply ONLY provide him with the
>info, the decision is his and the BM, the courts REALLY look
>down upon the new wife/ old wife bickering, and when push
>comes to shove the mother not the step mother usually wins,
>usually = SM is awarded custodial or parental rights in an
>adoption, and in absence of this, you will loose.  

What will I "lose?"  For getting information for my husband, at his request???  What on earth do you think I'm doing, filing stuff in court under MY name?  Telling the doctor that *I* don't want SD to get the shot?  No, my HUSBAND, the FATHER, asked me to find out what HE can do.  HE is the one who doesn't want her to get the shot, and it is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE for him to ask me to support him, and to help him by checking on his legal rights.  

>The court can remove you, it does not matter if you are a
>danger or not, if you are an INTERFERENCE or BAD INFLUENCE
>then they can remove or limit you, remember the courts can do
>what they want at their discretion.  And they have immunity.

I've told you, there is NO WAY they can do that.  Sorry, but yeah, you have to be a danger to the child for them to do that, and bio-parent saying "I don't like her" still doesn't cut it.  ESPECIALLY when, if by some miracle she was able to get that ordered, the child in question is 16 years old and and LIVING WITH US.

>Just because you are taking BM back to court does not mean
>that the courts will rule in your DHs favor.  

I can GUARANTEE that at this point, they will.  There are too many factors.  

>Until there is a
>ruling, again the existing court order stands and again you
>have no rights or claim to do anything, and I am again
>cautioning you as has everyone else - your involvement, it can
>backfire on you and your family.  

Why don't you understand that I'm not "doing" anything?  What on earth do you think I'm doing that can "backfire?"  Seriously, I don't know what the hell you are talking about.  Checking on what my HUSBAND can do legally, at HIS request, is perfectly acceptable.  In fact, the courts KNOW that I've done it before and have no problem with it.  DH's attorney even referred to me as "co-counsel" TO THE REFEREE in court, and they had no problem with it.  

>re: the comment about bashing, no one can help the way you
>interpret a reply to a post, I did not see any "bashing" I saw
>good healthy advice

Then I guess you haven't read all the posts.  Or does telling someone they are stupid not count as "bashing" to you?

>I fail to understand why every reply from you is
>laced with adversity instead of a thank you.

What, I should "thank" people for telling me that I'm stupid?  I should "thank" people for attacking me for being opposed to this vaccine?  When people actually posted information RELATED to what I asked, I have thanked them.  But you're nuts if you think I'm going to bow down and kiss the feet of people who refuse to see what I'm actually saying, and instead build up straw men to tear down.

>So basically you're saying you can pick and choose who you
>believe, right?  If the FDA is part of the governemnt and if
>VAERS is part of the govenment, you just pick whichever one
>suits your needs, right?

Not what I've said, but...Yeah, I believe the one I think represents the truth better.  So do you.  As for VAERS and the FDA, have I EVER said that there is some big government conspiracy???  *LOL*  No, I pointed out that the FDA simply jumped the gun, so to speak.  The reports on VAERS prove it.  Works together pretty well.

> have learned
>that I can give DH my opinion, but that is where it stops,
>period.  What DH does with it is strictly up to him and I have
>absolutely no say-so in the matter, no matter how emotionally
>involved I might be.

Good for you.  Did you miss the part ENTIRELY when I mentioned that I had asked this ON BEHALF OF MY HUSBAND?  That he ASKED ME about it?  

>Another poster made the suggestion that you back off before
>you're ordered to by the court.  I strongly recommend it as
>well.  If you REALLY want to help your SD, it would be the
>best thing for her, before you do any damage to her
>relationship with her father.

Um..."back off" how?  Stop caring about her?  Stop supporting my husband when it comes to his daughter?  The idea that doing those things would somehow "damage" her relationship with her father is just plain ridiculous.  Why do you insist on setting up straw men?  Do they make you feel big and powerful?

>Just remember one thing...........all who have posted here in
>response to you are giving their opinions and views of the
>situation, their 'recommendations'.  Absolutely NO one has
>'ordered' you to do anything.......they can't.  So don't go
>'assuming' we're trying to force you to do anything, nothing
>could be further from the truth.  

Oh, no, telling me that I'm stupid, that I'm ruining my husband's relationship with his daughter by helping him when asked, implying that my kids are going to get sick and die if I don't give them this vaccine...NONE of that is intended to compel me to do anything, huh?  Get real.

>But if you post here, you
>will get dissenting views.  If you don't like what you
>see/hear, you don't have to continue posting here.

I have no problem with dissenting views.  It's the nastiness that bothers me, especially in a place where people are supposed to be HELPING others.  So I guess I WON'T continue posting here.  I can get dissenting views without subjecting myself to nasty people who are so obsessed with control and power that they project their issues onto me.  

Hope you have fun bashing the next person who asks for a little help and support!  I just REALLY hope that they have skin as tough as mine, and don't fall apart when you ream them for something you don't agree with.

>So basically you're saying you can pick and choose who you
>believe, right?  If the FDA is part of the governemnt and if
>VAERS is part of the govenment, you just pick whichever one
>suits your needs, right?

Not what I've said, but...Yeah, I believe the one I think represents the truth better.  So do you.  As for VAERS and the FDA, have I EVER said that there is some big government conspiracy???  *LOL*  No, I pointed out that the FDA simply jumped the gun, so to speak.  The reports on VAERS prove it.  Works together pretty well.

> have learned
>that I can give DH my opinion, but that is where it stops,
>period.  What DH does with it is strictly up to him and I have
>absolutely no say-so in the matter, no matter how emotionally
>involved I might be.

Good for you.  Did you miss the part ENTIRELY when I mentioned that I had asked this ON BEHALF OF MY HUSBAND?  That he ASKED ME about it?  

>Another poster made the suggestion that you back off before
>you're ordered to by the court.  I strongly recommend it as
>well.  If you REALLY want to help your SD, it would be the
>best thing for her, before you do any damage to her
>relationship with her father.

Um..."back off" how?  Stop caring about her?  Stop supporting my husband when it comes to his daughter?  The idea that doing those things would somehow "damage" her relationship with her father is just plain ridiculous.  Why do you insist on setting up straw men?  Do they make you feel big and powerful?

>Just remember one thing...........all who have posted here in
>response to you are giving their opinions and views of the
>situation, their 'recommendations'.  Absolutely NO one has
>'ordered' you to do anything.......they can't.  So don't go
>'assuming' we're trying to force you to do anything, nothing
>could be further from the truth.  

Oh, no, telling me that I'm stupid, that I'm ruining my husband's relationship with his daughter by helping him when asked, implying that my kids are going to get sick and die if I don't give them this vaccine...NONE of that is intended to compel me to do anything, huh?  Get real.

>But if you post here, you
>will get dissenting views.  If you don't like what you
>see/hear, you don't have to continue posting here.

I have no problem with dissenting views.  It's the nastiness that bothers me, especially in a place where people are supposed to be HELPING others.  So I guess I WON'T continue posting here.  I can get dissenting views without subjecting myself to nasty people who are so obsessed with control and power that they project their issues onto me.  

Hope you have fun bashing the next person who asks for a little help and support!  I just REALLY hope that they have skin as tough as mine, and don't fall apart when you ream them for something you don't agree with.

>Yes, my daughter did know what the vaccination is for.  

Good.  Why can't you just end it there?

>For you to want the right to pick what shots your stepdaughter
>gets, you should have a little more consideration that some
>people do want their children to have these shots and that is
>their right.....their choice, not yours.

You're absolutely right, which is why I have no problem with people giving their kids shots, as long as they are informed.  I believe I have stated that quite a few times already.

>I have not read all the posts, I missed a few days and this
>thing took off....but, I did get the notion once that this was
>more a matter of just not wanting bm to get her way.  Now its
>a mission against a vaccine and an effort to keep others from
>having their children protected....or in my opinion at any
>rate.....

Not at all.  I have made it clear, over and over, that I believe the decision to administer vaccines to children is a personal one.  That as long as the parents are informed, I have no problem with it, whether they vaccinate or not.  

And this was not just not wanting BM to get her way.  It was an issue of the father of the child making sure that his daughter was safe, what HE believes to be the safer course.

>As all of us second moms and dads wish to be involved in our
>step childs life, the fact is that you are not a party of the
>courts order therefore you have no say in anything regarding
>the kids unless it specifically states so in the parents court
>order.  

Of course.  However, what I am doing is at the request of my husband, who has joint legal custody of his daughter.  

>You can try and be involved in the kids life but understand
>that the courts can also remove you totally and the
>repercussions of that might be that when the child comes to
>see dad you may have to leave.  

Um, no, it can't.  Unless she can prove I am a danger to SD, she can't make it so that DH can only see his daughter if I'm not there.  Perhaps it's happened in a few isolated cases, but with our history, there is no possible way.  

> No
>matter if the BM is abusive and all the things you said in
>other posts about her, the courts have not removed her from
>the childs life, nor have I seen (I could be wrong) anything
>about supervised visits for the BM, therefore perhaps the
>courts have not deemed her as bad a person you say she is.  

That is because we have not taken it to the courts yet.  We are in the process of doing that.  Oh except for the fact that they didn't care if she moved in with a sex offender.  Which is why we're getting all of our ducks in a row, so to speak:  Because it's obvious to us and the professionals around us that the courts do NOT care about the best interest of the child.

>I read with interest the posts going on back and forth here
>and as another mom I think you are in that protective stage
>and want to do what is right, however you need to understand
>that it is not your cause, and you need to allow the parents
>to make a rational decision and back down a bit.  

I have made it clear that that is EXACTLY what I was doing here.  My husband ASKED ME to find out about making sure his daughter did not get this shot.  So I asked here.  I was pretty disappointed to discover that most people here don't actually care about helping with that, they just want to bash.  Luckily, I got a very good suggestion in another forum, and that has served us well:  SD had her appointment on Monday, and she did not receive the vaccine.

>Perhaps the best thing you can do is be there for the child to
>speak to and not be a part of the bickering that she sees and
>feels in a high conflict post dissolution.

And that is exactly what I have done.  So has my husband.  And after about 10 years, she knows that we are not going to cause problems just to cause problems, and that we wil support her and have her best interests at heart.

>Just because a woman gets annual pap smears doesn't mean she
>won't get cancer.  

Never said it would.  However, cervical cancer is EXTREMELY curable in the early stages.  It has been estimated that 90% of the women who die of cervical cancer could have survived, if they had gotten annual pap tests.  

>Just more proof that you are way too emotionally involved to
>be objective about this.  Like I said before, stay out of this
>issue and let the BF and BM handle it.  You have no say-so in
>the decision anyway.

And like I said, the father (my husband) is the one who said to me, "I don't want my daughter to get this vaccine, what do I have to do?"  Why do you have such a problem with me supporting him?  

You bet I'm "emotionally involved" in my SDs life.  I've known her since she was 6 1/2, and I've been more of a mother to her than her own biological mother.  If you think I'm going to stop helping her because YOU say I shouldn't, too bad.
 

>Actually many states had mandated it and others were
>considering it. However due to the risk factors and reactions
>so far to the vaccine they have rescinded the mandate and it
>is not longer mandatory in those states.

Interestingly, the state that was quickest to try and mandate this vaccine had it signed by executive order, instead of going through the regular channels, by a governor whose campaign was funded by Merck.  Sounds fishy to me.