Forcing perfectly healthy people to take medical treatments at the point of a gun.

a reply to: GetHyped


I know this sounds cold, so flame away

It's called Natural Selection. In nature, having a weakened immune system and dying from a virus is no different than a lion killing the slowest gazelle. It happens, that's natural, that's life.

The whole decision about whether or not to vaccinate is the same thing. It the pro-vaccine crowd is right then they will survive and multiply as the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks. If the anti-vaccine group is right then they will survive and multiply. It's just natural selection at work, and time will tell who is the slowest gazelle.

----------------------------

We all die sometime. Some of us sooner rather than later. We cannot preserve life indefinitely, yet. But one thing we can preserve, if we choose to, is freedom. For ourselves, and future generations. In the aftermath of 9-11, we lost two things: over 3,000 lives, and our freedoms to the Patriot Act. Of the 3,000 lives, how many would be alive today if not for the attack on the Towers? Maybe half? More? How many would be alive 50 or 60 years from now? Eventually, all the people that died on 9-11 would have died.

But the freedoms we lost, we will never be "given" back. The only way we could give our decedents the same freedom we had is by shedding blood, and a lot of it.

I see this whole vaccination choice the same way. We could take away people's freedom of choice, force vaccinations, and hope it extends lives that will eventually be lost anyway. Or, we could risk lives to preserve the freedom of choice for ourselves and our descendants.

If we are not going to choose the latter, then we might as well disband the military while we are at it, since people shouldn't risk lives to preserve freedom.

There was a CBC special on vaccinations recently. I stopped watching CBC after that program. What they did was bring in doctors to promote vaccines and explain the necessity of the risk. To counter the vaccines they researched a - wait for it... - a naturopathist - who was SELLING alternatives. That was their counter to vaccines, a nut job naturopathist selling sugar pills or some crap. Their was no unbiased report here. It was "here is why vaccines are good" and "here is your alternatives". Total BS. If they had a case to promote vaccine, why try and pull the wool over my eyes?

CBC, your OUT!

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Imagine you are stranded on an island with 100 people. And you are in charge.

Imagine that some bird brought a bird flu onto your island and people are getting sick.

It hasn't spread to all the population yet.

One of the people on the island figures out a way to make a vaccine that can keep everyone from getting sick.

But some people don't want to risk taking the vaccine because the way it was made wasn't 100% free of contaminants.

The disease is slowly spreading........

Do you force them to take the vaccine? Or let them risk infection and passing the disease to others?

tick tock.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Imagine you are stranded on an island with 100 people. And you are in charge.

Imagine that some bird brought a bird flu onto your island and people are getting sick.

It hasn't spread to all the population yet.

One of the people on the island figures out a way to make a vaccine that can keep everyone from getting sick.

But some people don't want to risk taking the vaccine because the way it was made wasn't 100% free of contaminants.

The disease is slowly spreading........

Do you force them to take the vaccine? Or let them risk infection and passing the disease to others?

tick tock.

Oh My God. There has to be something nefarious surrounding vaccines otherwise how could the BS get this thick?

a reply to: grey580

Would this be Gilligan's Island? The guy can make a vaccine out of bamboo and coconut shells but can't fix the boat?



Sorry, couldn't resist.

a reply to: grey580

Well, we aren't stranded on an island, we aren't in danger of extinction and there are monetary profits involved.

I understand what you mean, but the issues are different and they requires different answers.

If one can argue for vaccination by force through a "Vaccine Czar", then the same for "Climate Czars", "Internet Czars", "Ebola Czars" etc. Why not forced sterilization? Why let people have kids then? If kids are the problem then just stop having them. I'll let you force vaccinate me when I can force sterilize your kids....deal? Maybe we could make a law that if one needs a vaccine to survive than they should be marked for sterilization, so the genes don't continue. Only genes that can survive and withstand natures most virulent bugs should be allowed to reproduce. And then we are done with vaccines. Same with allergies right? But since the environment maybe so polluted no genes will ever be able to keep up with all the changes. If people are too weak to survive now, then maybe we need to bring back things like DDT? Most of the rest of the world didn't get sprayed with DDT like we did, we effectively eradicated most of these diseases spread by bugs. But in the 70s a progressive showed that DDT causes cancer and it was banned and Africa never was able to take advantage of it. Same with sanitation for Africa, billions for vaccines but nothing with regard to sanitation or pollution. these places with all these diseases are pollutant dumping grounds....disease need more than just viruses to kill us, they need weakened systems, pollution, etc. People with vested interests, desire a carbon tax, they desire legal immunity for vaccine damages, and drugs as well. These are investments, 401ks, industry and workers employed by these businesses. People also own stocks, what would be better than a forced purchase for a stock portfolio? People like to say it's for the kids and that the kids are rarely harmed by them, but what happens when you or your kid end up with a auto immune disorder of "unknown origin/cause"? And your doctor tells you that, "well, you can take these steroids for the rest of your life" as the "solution"? When I hear that come out of the mouth of a health professional, I actually desire that they could be sterilized, I think to myself, if you can force vaccines, I can legislate and force your kids to be sterilized to make the planet "green" for the Climate "Czars" that everyone agrees with in science. See how in Climate and medical drugs the science maybe all in, no need for you to investigate the history of these "scientists" since they are all in agreement now, nevermind the past, and nevermind that there are skeptics in all of these fields and honest people that will not lie to get a nice check in the mail from the largest industry in the world "chemicals". Also when you look into NGO's....there are billions to be made "promoting" so called "global warming" and "man made climate change"....apparently people can only imagine that oil companies would ever conspire or just the Koch Brothers...forget about the hundreds of billions that flow out of Tides, Ford and Rockefeller and Gates Foundations.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

It is unbelieveable what they are able to convince people of through the church of scientism!

No one has the authority to tell anyone what to inject into themselves let alone their newborn.

If you wish to go through the standard process dictated by big pharma and their verified "science" you go right ahead, however to demonize parents who would like to allow their child to develop naturally is absurd.

Do people not realize the origins of big pharma!?

Check out Bayer for example and their role in the infamous IG Farben, then tell me that I should inject anything that they create into myself or my child.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: grey580

Would this be Gilligan's Island? The guy can make a vaccine out of bamboo and coconut shells but can't fix the boat?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

The professor isn't dumb. He knows he's got a hot movie starlet that he can make the moves on.
He just needs time to convince her to see things his way.
He'll fix the boat after she is in love with him.

I am not religious at all, but I have to agree with those people saying it should ultimately be the choice of the parent. I think there are a few important vaccines that every child really should receive but humans survived before vaccines so I have no right to force artificial vaccines onto anyone else, even if I think those vaccines could really help. It's like saying fluoride in the water is ok, because it keeps our teeth a little bit whiter, even though we know there are health risks involved and many people are against it. Personally I haven't had a single vaccine in more than 8 years and in that time I've been sick no more than 3 or 4 times. If I'm not getting sick often then I have absolutely 0 reason to go get any vaccines.

I think many parents think that same way, because they grew up in a time where vaccines pretty much didn't exist. But I did have several vaccinations as a child and I would recommend that children receive the most important vaccinations. What really bothers me is that children aren't just receiving the most critical vaccinations now, they are being dosed with a huge range of vaccinations, it's completely ridiculous and highly likely to be a direct cause of autism and related problems. It's no wonder that parents are so scared of pumping their kids full of these absurd chemical regimes, I don't blame them at all. It can be very difficult to know what is safe and what's not in this world.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: abe froman
Anyone not vaccinating their child is an idiot and should be charged with criminal negligence and child abuse.

I disagree.

The worse you can say about an "anti-vacc idiot" is that they are wrong. At least they made an effort to inform themselves about something, they didn't blindly trust what pharmaceutical companies or government told them, and they made a decision that they believed was in the best interest of their children based on the information they had available and their ability to process that information [level of education].

Even if they are wrong, they tried to do what they thought was right.

One could just as easily say that it's neglect to allow your children to be pumped full of chemicals, when all you know about said chemicals is what the company that sold them tells you.

Save the abuse and neglect charges for the parents that let their children become gang-bangers, or prostitutes.

Wrong.
Anti-vaxxers, the majority anyway, subscribe to a belief and irrespective of the science, facts and evidence presented to them refuse to change that belief.
Those who properly research and ask those who comprehend more than they do tend to stop being anti-vax.
Thankfully the vast majority of rational, sane adults are like this.
But as they say, one bad apple...

You're very wrong. I've studied, I'm educated and I don't subscribe to anything. I know what I know. Your "rational, sane adults" on the other hand, are the ones who don't study and accept what they are told (or sold) by the government and Big Pharma.

originally posted by: grey580

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: grey580

Would this be Gilligan's Island? The guy can make a vaccine out of bamboo and coconut shells but can't fix the boat?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

The professor isn't dumb. He knows he's got a hot movie starlet that he can make the moves on.
He just needs time to convince her to see things his way.
He'll fix the boat after she is in love with him.

Touche`



To answer your hypothetical, simple. I give everyone the choice to take the vaccine or not. Observe what they do, then do the opposite. After all, there is a guy on the island that can make a vaccine, and for some reason they choose ME to be the leader? These people are idiots.

A hypothetical occurs to me, though. If there was a vaccine that would prevent someone from choosing security over freedom, would you force it on people? At first, I thought I would, then the irony struck me.

I have noticed in the past few days that there seems to be a lot more anti-vacc stories being shared on the social medias. Its like as if they are trying to stir debate and distract us from whats really going on?

But also note this: In one thread there were around 100 comments, only 3 were from "anti-vaccers", 6 were of a neutral POV, and the rest were accusations of anti-vaccers being "idiots" and "baby killers". It says a LOT about the position you hold when you have to resort to pejorative language and insult, in a discouse that is basically one sided anyway.

I dont have a horse in this race, I dont have kids and dont ever want kids, but I can see how the "debate" is "progressing".

If it gets to the point where governments are forcing heroin to be injected to the whole population, I might not complain but I know most of you would.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yeah, Yeah, it's always "for the children". Give me a break. Repeating fear propaganda is not helpful.

a reply to: Aleister

Your right to be a corporate government slave zombie does not trump my right to choose.

a reply to: Pardon?

At least the poster made an argument. Unlike you.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: abe froman
Anyone not vaccinating their child is an idiot and should be charged with criminal negligence and child abuse.

I disagree.

The worse you can say about an "anti-vacc idiot" is that they are wrong. At least they made an effort to inform themselves about something, they didn't blindly trust what pharmaceutical companies or government told them, and they made a decision that they believed was in the best interest of their children based on the information they had available and their ability to process that information [level of education].

Even if they are wrong, they tried to do what they thought was right.

One could just as easily say that it's neglect to allow your children to be pumped full of chemicals, when all you know about said chemicals is what the company that sold them tells you.

Save the abuse and neglect charges for the parents that let their children become gang-bangers, or prostitutes.

Wrong.
Anti-vaxxers, the majority anyway, subscribe to a belief and irrespective of the science, facts and evidence presented to them refuse to change that belief.
Those who properly research and ask those who comprehend more than they do tend to stop being anti-vax.
Thankfully the vast majority of rational, sane adults are like this.
But as they say, one bad apple...

Wrong. There is no real scientific research being done on these issues. Only corporate government for agenda/profit pseudoscience.

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus

originally posted by: abe froman
Anyone not vaccinating their child is an idiot and should be charged with criminal negligence and child abuse.

I appreciate everyone's right to hold on to whatever ridiculous views,secular or religious, they cling to but, this doesn't extend to the harming of others through action or inaction.

While I understand your point, it is not as if vaccines are 100% safe. Anyone getting a vaccination is, statistically speaking, taking a chance. So what would you say to those people who, pushed into getting vaccinated, ended up with some debilitating illness? Too bad for you? It would be one thing if it were 100% safe, but this is not the case. There have been people who had horrible reactions. There would not be many scientists willing to even attempt to prove that there was a correlation between vaccinations and adverse health effects. I don't know how much literature is available on such reactions, but one would be hard-pressed to prove that negative reactions did not occur based upon the medical literature alone...because the medical literature does not represent the pinnacle of medical knowledge. It is a fluid and ever-increasing record.

Anyway, my main point was that should people be forced to vaccinate when there is a chance for serious problems? And I know what some will say, so let me ask this: what odds are acceptable. If there were a 50/50 chance that a person would have some horrible reaction, of course people wouldn't push for a certain vaccination. If there is a 1% chance, is this an acceptable risk? Should this be up to the person getting vaccinated, since they are the ones who have to live with the negative aspects, if they arise? But then you mentioned that other people would have to suffer for some people not vaccinating, but why would other people suffer if they got vaccinations? They shouldn't get sick in the first place.

good point.Also the vaccines aren't even 100% effective. So what is the point. Take the vaccine at risk of your own health because it MIGHT prevent disease?

for two different species within the human vaccine can also be different and those who receive safe and chirping at all angles of their usefulness and safety they in theme and are part of the global war you see them in all similar topics on ATS, you separate yourself for humanity into two parts red and blue , and based on this, see how any event affect these species in different ways but always in favor of the cuprum blue blood and red iron blood destruction

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

This is correct and why I say something needs to be done to keep people who don't vaccinate from endangering those who would but can't because the child is too young.

To me, if we take the libertarian position of "your rights end where mine begin," then there exists a need to recognize that your right not to vaccinate should not give you the right to endanger someone who would be vaccinated given time.

This latest measles kerfuffle shows the unraveling of the vaccination umbrella of herd immunity.

You mean this measles kerfuffle is proof that vaccines are ineffective seeing that even the vaccinated can get infected..