Accountability Now

Yes....I've seen this one posted by every Mom on facebook and say it like its the end of the argument. This article is nothing more than a regurgitation of the same facts that are posted on various health link sites. I laugh at it everytime becuase it comes across as being so absolute...as if there is zero discussion to be had. Thankfully there still are reasearchers out there that are starting to recongnize the increased side effects from such vaccines and their chemical make up. Again....vaccines are currently safe for the vast majority of people but not so much for a minority. My position is that we need to stop thinking that vaccines are unquestionable and continue to look at possible side effects. Nothing is absolute. Vaccines don't cause autism....it aggrevates the condition of autism. Again...see post above about studies showing alumimum in adjuvants and its effects. Also, why did they remove aluminum from Tums if it was so healthy? Also, see comment above about directly injecting aluminum versus ingesting it. There are actually a number of scientists and credible researchers looking at this with their intent being to help children...mostly their own. There is a group called DAN doctors (Defeat Autism Now) who have directly seen the effects of vaccines and have now dedicated their lives to researching it. These guys aren't alternative or whacko doctors....they are full blow western medicine doctors who are involved. Even they advocate for vaccines but also advocate for vaccine safety.

Actually it is. Its has long considered not to be toxic which is the reason they used to make Tums with it however they have removed it in favor of Calcium. With that said, there is a difference between Aluminum that you injest versus Alumnium that you have injected directly into your blood stream. The aggregate effects of using alumnium as an adjuvant are starting to be noted. Researchers have now isolated a syndrom called ASIA (Autoimmune/Inflammation Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants.) The syndrome basically includes the acceloration of autoimmunity/inflamation after the addition of adjuvants with aluminum largely discussed. A more recent study out of UBC discusses the very topic of using Aluminum as an adjuvant.

Do you always create strawmen when you debate? Is whooping cough or the measles 100% fatal? Is the flu 100% fatal? Far from it. Don't change the arguement just to try and make a point. In fact if you would have read the abstract of the study I posted and its conclusion you would see its possible that the vaccine doesn't even help prevent mortality. So...why would I stick a needle full of chemicals in my body when its inconclusive as to what it will do?

Thanks for the personal attack. Greatly appreciate it when I see that someone has no sense of debate. With that said, I'm curious what you think of a few of these studies suggesting the flu vaccine isn't as great as you want it to be. http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/rccm.200802-282oc Confounding meaning that the people who naturally get flu shots are more likely to be healthier in the first place. Here's a more recent study: But I guess these guys must be idiots too....

And what is 23% going to do for herd immunity? I thought the purpose of vaccines was to gain herd immunity to protect those who can't get it.

By recent I mean the Jenny McCarthy movement. The people who say no vaccines....I would think are mostly religious folks who have always said it. Lol. I guess that would be me. I think the influenza vaccine is junk. What is it at this year....23% effective in the US? Until they get something that actually works then why even bother. At least the other vaccines are 99% effective for the first x amount of years. And this would be my case in point....because I don't accept the vaccines veribage through and through, I would be considered an anti-vaxer even though I have prevented a logical argument. I think you and I have been though this one before but I'll have another go. The research that I have seen which is pushed through by DAN doctors and other Jenny McCarthy like sources doesn't say that that vaccines cause autism, rather that the chemicals in the vaccine aggrivate the condition. Just like stress doesn't cause MS but it aggrevates the condition. The vaccines of past and current do contain heavy metals such as alumnium which when injected in the blood stream can act as a toxin....for certain people. Those people being the ones with kidney or liver malfunction and can't eliminate the heavy metals. So yes...in those cases....these chemicals become toxic as they build up in the system and are never released. The ironic thing is that anti-vaxxers aren't any better....they used the recent court cases (Hannah Poling for one) where they misused courts decision to say that vaccines do cause autism however if you read the actual court ruling it says the vaccines 'aggrevated' the condition. The science does actually show that side effects do happen and they are constantly monitioring if there any changes in side effects. Why? You are adding more heavy metals at once, heavy metals that are know to be toxic. Do you not think its accpetable to question the long term effects of this? Do you honestly believe that science is 100% right all the time and should never be questioned? Questioning the chemicals means exactly that. If you have alumnimum as your adjuvant and you increase the number of times its directly injected in your blood stream then you have to question what effect that chemical will have on your system. Again... for most people it will have little to no effect. However for some with preexisting biological conditions, it will have an effect. As such, I feelt that more research and studies need to be done on tests that can show who is susceptible to such doses. Let's face it...everyone thought that penicllian was the wonder drug until they found out that certain people were allergic to it.

Just out of curiosity....I wonder how many of the non-vaccinated 10% would be attriibuted to immigrants.

I appreciate and agree with your classification of the group however I can't say that most would do the same. The basis behind the recent anti-vax movement is not actually anti-vax at all. Instead its a movement to bring light to the timing and amount of vaccines given at a certain time. Even the infamous Jenny McCarthy is on record as saying that she is not against vaccines but would like to see the schedule adjusted. However, the media and all pro-vaccine people immediately grab the pitch forks and scream for head to be cut off saying that she is is Anti-Vax. Why is that we are not allowed to question these chemicals being pumped into our blood? Especially when the same people screming haven't gone to get a booster to ensure they are fully immunized themselves.

So you don't see the hypocrisy in your statement? Do we just need to worry about the young being protected or do we all need to be protected. Its an either or thing....not both. Sure...you may lessen the effects of the disease but it doesn't make you less contagious. You are still able to pass it on to those who aren't able to vaccinate at all. The disease is still out there....transmitting to others...which negates herd immunity. If the vaccine wears out over time then you are bound to have 'x' amount of people that will be able to spread it further. If the vaccine wears out signifcantly then 'x' becomes larger and herd immunity is not achieved. Exactly my point. Herd immunity is to protect these people. Again..if 'x' amount of people have the abilty to transmit this disease even though they are somewhat protected then how does this protect the people you mention above? My claim in all of this is that people are quick to gripe about the anti-vaxxers but yet how many of us are actually fully protected? As Wilber stated, there should be just as much emphasis on booster shots OR even better having the tests done to see what your immunity levels are. We have a ton of false security regarding our immunization levels. I rememeber reading a study done after the Quebec measles outbreak. The person who started the outbreak was vaccinated as were a signficant number of people who were ulimately affected most of which were university students (ie 15 years past vaccination date). I have to believe this was a shock to those who thought they were protected but weren't. They did a follow up study as a result of this and found that close to half of the people in the studay who had been vaccinated had completely lost immunity over a 15 year period. That means that 50% of people over 20 years old no longer have immunity to the measles and are able to transit the disease. So how many people in North America are over 20 years old? And half of those have no immunity? Yet we are worried about the 8-10% that choose not to vaccinate? If we truly want herd immunity then we need both.

Exactly. But how many adults actually get these booster shots thus leaving that many people expsosed to the virus and possible canditates for spreading it.

Tell ya what....you find enough people who think the same way you do and get them to vote in the right people that will then change the current laws to the communist approach that you seem to favor and then I will actually take you serious. Until then I have no problem with a CEO of a private company making whatever money the company wants to pay him/her. As long as he is legally earning that money then we have nothing to gripe about no matter how jealous you are.

Here's the problem I have with this. On one end you're saying all that matters is that the most at risk are vaccinated/protected. But on the other hand you are saying herd immunity is what matters. If the vaccine wears off after time then herd immunity isn't possible. So you're left hoping the vaccine will work for those who take it. If it does then nobody needs to worry about those who choose to not vaccinate. If it doesn't then everyone is screwed. I get that the concept of herd immunity is difficult if not impossible to define or express as a number however I can't see how herd immunity is possible if immunity diminishes with time.

Good for him. He negotiated a contract and was paid accordingly. This isn't taxpayers money being given out....its private funds. The only reason I would be upset is if any Target employee did not receive what they were entitled to for severance as per their provincial labor laws. In Alberta, the severance is 1 week per year for most employees and 1 month per year for managers. If Target gave them more than the required amount then that would be fine too.

If you consider 5 years to be several years....then you are correct (as shown above). However I still wonder if it drops lower than 70% after the five years and if so by how much. Again, the measles study I saw showed that almost half of the people in the study had no immunity after 15 or so years regardless of 1 or 2 doses. Just curious if this vacccine is the same. When reading about herd immunity I saw another study that showed the calculations for herd immunity requirements and its showed the required percentage to be around 65% for measleas, Rubella and Flu but didn't mention pertussis.

Is 70% enough to generate herd immunity though? Also, what happens after 5 years? Does it drop even more? I know I had read a study on the measles vaccine and it had shown a significant percentage of people that lost complete immunity after 15-20 years. I wonder if its the same here.

I completely agree. I shopped at our local Target the other day for the 4th or 5th time since it opened and I made the comment as I walked in about it being a 'cleaner' Zellers. I wonder if Zellers will come and buy it back at 1/3 the price.

Because wikipedia says it then it is so? Perhaps you should check with your satire websites and see what they say about it. As per the Aboriginal Affairs site: I guess your 'wikipedia' page forgot the key part.....'where appropriate". So as I said, the above ruling did not include accomodation as it apparently wasn't appropriate. It was the law before the ruling and it didn't conform then. There is no new laws in place because of this just the same old gray area that outlines consultation and accomdate when appropriate.

Nowhere in the ruling did it say they have to 'accommodate'. At best this is a symbolic victory as it did nothing to the actual legislation that past. By the way...what ever happened to Idle No More? Is it idle once again?

I would probably go more with the nobody cares side as they were both Conservative parties who not so long ago were a part of the same party. The Wildrose essentially left as a result of Stelmach getting in and subsequently Redford to follow. Now that Prentice is in office they can all return to being one big happy family.

This is priceless. First and foremost, I love how you think that because you show that because 20% have property tax, that it somehow means that 80% don't. Lets test your math....which is the significantly larger number of the two? Now...about your 20%...do you know who they charge the property tax to? People on reserve leasing out their space to non-aborginal leaseholders. Most of the bands that have a property tax strategy in place are located close to municipalities where they lease space to companies or people from the muncipality. As such they are taxing non-aborginals...not members of the reserve. Various bands also have their own GST which again is to gain tax revenue by charging non-aboriginal people that use their lands such as in the Kamloops. Both strategies to have outside money brought into the reserve which I think are smart on their part. As for the corporations paying taxes. Corportations owned by the band do not pay taxes if 90% of their work is done off the reserve since they are treated the same as local municaplities. The stipulation on this is that the band has to prove they are offering municipal services to qualify. In the end this 90% rule makes it very much like a native that lives on the reserve but works off reserve....they would both pay income tax in that scenario. I guess you don't get it! Its not illegal. The status indian on the reserve buys the vehicle. He can either have it delivered or provide a point of exemption that allows him to not pay the GST. He drives the vehicle which is registered in his name and after a few days turns and sells it to me (or anyone else) as a 'used' vehicle. The same tactic is used when buying new vehicles in the US and avoiding sales tax. I have never done these myself but know of others that have. And if you're not Chinese you pay all the taxes too. What the hell do non-status Indians have to do with a conversation when we are talking about status indians? Do you create these scenarios to deflect from the fact that you can't understand the argument? I'm not sure what is worse...you poor comprhension, lack of math skills or your deluded sense of reality. Maybe they are all equally as bad. Please....if you're going to trash talk about comprehension then at least spell your words correctly when you are trash talking. You really have no idea about business do you. There are costs of doing business and revenues that you charge out to cover those costs and hopefully make a profit. When the landlord charges a final rent value it consists of various costs that typically look like this: Total Payment = Rent + Property Tax + Building Insurance. The property tax is actually spelled out as a cost passed on to the renter in most agreements. The rent portion typically covers the mortgage costs and other costs of owning the building in an ammortized rate as well as a significantly higher percentage on top to provide an ROI. At the end of the day, the landlord will absolutely cover the cost of property taxes and insurance and if he's smart he will at least break even on the mortgage. Of course, that is assuming they are all smart. If they make a profit then they get to buy new slippers as you say but not until the costs like property tax are covered. Come on...do I really need to hold your hand on this. Put your reading skills to the test and look though my past posts. I'll give you a hint, the link will be a bunch of words that has a line underneath it.

Amen Big Guy. So true....

I don't know about this. There are a lot of urban legends that make their way around the internet talking about trillions in the reserve. When I last looked at the government audit, it showed about 1.5 billion. If you took that money and divided it amongst the 1 million or so FN people, that would mean about $1500 per person. Not much of an incentive especially if you are reaping some of the rewards like the Onion Lake band or the BC Okanagon bands. I think the buyout would have to be fairly intense and involve a comprehensive transition which would include education, training and other resources for a period of time as well as a wack load of cash. Of course the catch to all this would be knowing that there would be an end game to the current system and future claims. Perhaps the fear of knowing there is no 'fall back' position would actually be incentive enough.

So its convoluted but it clears things up. LMFAO. Which is it? Or do you know what convoluted means? They would pay income tax like everyone else but would still not have to pay GST or provincial tax for goods they buy on the reserve. They also wouldn't be paying property tax. Again...like I said from the beginning...its viewed as an incentive to save on some taxes. Is it truely worthwhile...probably not but it does exist. Lol. You don't get it. They would buy the car and not pay GST. They would drive the car to the reserve. Take a picture of it on the reserve. And then turn around and sell it to me for the same price they bought it for which would NOT include GST. So no....I would not pay the tax. Got it? Trying to deal with your inability to comprehend does make it challenging. Yes...you did. I like the way you cross off property tax even though that is EXACTLY the tax we were talkign about. You said some renters are paying it and MANY aren't. You then went trying to explain it with your shortfall explantion but again shortfalls only reduce taxable income....not property tax. Hence...what are you talking about?? As for your recent strawman example, I like how you find the most remote possibilty and think that discounts my point. How about the other 99.99% of the time the FN bring their status cards. Or how about when they just buy it on the reserve. For the most part they receive a tax benefit from living on the reserve. Plain and simple. I meant what I said....if they can't find work then they are forced outside the reserve and don't have a choice. Your scenario is another possibily where they will make more money outside the reserve and will then give up the benefit of tax free income in order to find gainful employment. In either scenario they would pay income tax but they would still not pay property tax or GST on reserve. All in all, there are tax benefits to living on reserves no matter how many scenarios you want to throw out. Yes people who go to school don't pay income tax but what does this have to do with the tax benefits on the reserve? People also get tax benefits for having kids or for medical reason. Businesses get all sorts of tax breaks. None of these things negate the fact that there are tax breaks by living on the reserve. This is a fact....of course don't let my facts get in the way of your issues. The funny part is that I didn't even speak negatively about the tax breaks or education? I didn't say they weren't deserved. I said I've heard of FN staying on reserves because of these benefits which AGAIN I feel is not a good deal considering the other crap they have to put up with. But of course, you got your knickers in a bunch and decided to rant and rave trying to come up with some scenario that proved I was wrong. However, I'm not. There are benefits of living on the reserve. Not good ones but benefits nonetheless. How about you read the link that I provided and you will get that answer.

He said by both sides...meaning Aboriginal people and the government. Very interesting to hear this coming from someone who is aboriginal.

The entire point I was making was that living on reserve makes them ELIGIBLE for tax exemptions which is attractive to some. The reality is that not all can find work on the reserve and are thus forced to work off reserve and pay taxes or become unemployed (which is a high number in itself). The opportunity to be tax exempt is a benefit of staying on the reserve....plain and simple. How does your point stand? You said its fraud and its not. Like I said, its not ethical and its playing the system but it does happen. What are you taking about? Regardless of how much money a landlord makes (and I'm sure that a vast majority make a good amount of it rather than shortfalls as you suggest), they are still required to pay property tax. There is no escaping that one. So any person renting a place IS indirectly paying for that property tax. No...GST is not paid on the reserve. Its not even charged if the item is bought off reserve and delviered to the reserve. There are also a nubmer of sales tax exemptions for items bought off reserve. I don't know about provincial tax as we don't have it for anyone in Alberta. As for income tax, they only pay it if they can't find work on the reserve and are in fact willing to work off reserve. Again...my whole point is that the incentive to live on the reserve is the eligibiltiy for tax exemptions. Added to this is the incentive to not pay for education or health care. If you would have been paying attention from the start, you would have seen where I said that these so called benefits aren't worth the other crap they have to put up with but they do.