It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Important -- how to in 10 sec shut up a ProVaccine person

page: 12
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick




If we exercise those protocalls then no babies are in much danger.

Measles are contagious before there are any symptoms.
What protocols are you referring to? Keep all people away from all other people? Put everyone who was at Disneyland in quarantine? Why?


Tell us why they would pull out the big guns for ebola and not for something as bad or worse?
Who said measles is a bad or worse than ebola?




posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Given the massive public and media outcry against anti-vaxxers as the diseased chickens are coming home to roost, I think you're engaging in some serious doublethink here.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: VictorVonDoom




And, of course, I understand the unvaccinated concept. I also understand that the human race has survived a lot of things before vaccines came around, we'll survive this one, too.

I don't think that measles will wipe out the human race any more than any other disease has. What does concern me is my infant nephew getting measles and suffering severe consequences.


A valid concern. But keep in mind that your child could also get measles from someone that was vaccinated. Also, your nephew has a better chance of dying from a myriad of other things. You do your best, you make choices that you think are in the best interests of the child.

Thing is, YOU make those choices. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want some snake-worship church in West Virginia to tell you what's best for your nephew.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

In 1918 they did not have the same tech we have now.

Swine flu was labeled as like that event but somehow most of us survived it and even without the extreme measures we gave ebola.

Vaccines are not the answer to sickness but other things are.

Hygine
Prevenitive maintance
Quareentine protocalls
Contact tracing
Exceptional nursing
When we as a nation started to adress those areas is when we started eradicating virsus
When we started immunizing is when we brought back many of those virsus
The number one problem is not the population but the travelers.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: deadeyedick








If we exercise those protocalls then no babies are in much danger.



Measles are contagious before there are any symptoms.

What protocols are you referring to? Keep all people away from all other people? Put everyone who was at Disneyland in quarantine? Why?




Tell us why they would pull out the big guns for ebola and not for something as bad or worse?
Who said measles is a bad or worse than ebola?

Not much logic in your line of reasoning.
That is where contact tracing and monitoring comes in.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: FurvusRexCaeli

The only arguments for which I have any sympathy at all are the philosophical ones based on individual rights. And every one of those is still an argument for an individual right to act on one of the irrational arguments above.


That's the only argument I care about. I believe that people should be free to make their own choices, even if I think those choices are stupid. I'm not anti-vaccine, I'm pro-choice. Real pro-choice, not the fake Democrats-before-Obamacare pro-choice.

I don't believe people have the right to choose to harm or endanger other people through action or inaction that is totally unreasonable. If they make that choice, they should be held responsible for it. If someone chooses not to get vaccinated, contrary to medical advice, then they should pay damages to every person they harm through their choice. (I think refusing to vaccinate reaches the legal definition of recklessness.) They should pay higher insurance premiums than the rest of us, to cover the unnecessary burden on the health care system. They should also be kept isolated from the rest of society during outbreaks, and quarantined after international travel, in order to protect public health. All of this should be at their expense, since they chose to live this dangerous lifestyle. These are common sense measures that anti-vaxers should be adopting if they want anyone to take their movement seriously.

This is the difference between the what I guess we're calling the vaccinators and the anti-vaxers: responsibility. If you are harmed by a vaccine (which is vanishingly unlikely), or if it even looks like you were harmed by a vaccine, the VICP will award you a sizeable sum of money from the vaccine excise tax. If post-licensure surveillance shows a strong correlation between the vaccine and a significant adverse effect, the CDC will pull its recommendation or the FDA will pull it from the market. The vaccine producer's stock price will crater and heads will roll. If I am harmed by an anti-vaccinator, they will just grin and shrug and offer one of a number of excuses. "You were vaccinated, maybe you should sue $PHARMA for selling you a faulty product." "How do you know it came from me? You could've gotten it from anyone." "It's just $DISEASE, you'll get over it." Meanwhile, I'm miserable, I'm out of pocket up to my deductible, and I miss some days of work, which can have a severe downstream effect on other people's lives. Not to mention, I could be disabled or killed by some of these diseases.

Choice is a privilege of those who are responsible enough to be held accountable for their choices. Anti-vaxers do not fit that bill.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom


But keep in mind that your child could also get measles from someone that was vaccinated.
Yes. But the more people that are vaccinated the lower the chances that he will encounter someone who is contagious.


Also, your nephew has a better chance of dying from a myriad of other things.
Yes. But death is not the only undesirable outcome, is it?



I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want some snake-worship church in West Virginia to tell you what's best for your nephew.
No. But then, there isn't a lot of science on their side of the argument, is there? In any case, no one is being forced to vaccinate.




edit on 2/8/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Sounds like you are all saying that it is impossible to stop measles.

That is a lie and a cop out and stopping it does not require everyone to get shots.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

You don't study infectious disease much do you?



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Once you've finished training on straw men you should try moving on to actual arguments.


You still have the right to choose what you want to believe. Today anyway. It has been my experience that once you give an inch, you will find yourself a mile down the road.

If you haven't experienced this for yourself, look outside of your comfortable pod. You may see that others have not fared as well. Our government and big business work well together, and it is more for the betterment of their bottom line than for the betterment of life on planet earth.

As long as they can live in Elysium, they care not about your children or anyone else's. If I am wrong, they have to prove it. Right now. We are just pawns in a game that we "think" we control, and in the end, even the running man loses.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick




measles is not killing folks in the thousands.




145,700 people died from measles in 2013


You must have meant measles is not killing thousands in the US at this time.

Death from measles usually occurs with 1 in 1,000 the percentages are much higher for someone with measles to have debilitating complications.





If the cdc would have used the same measures with meseales that they did with ebola then it would not have spread.



And since you brought up Ebola total death count is less than 9,500. Measles is easily spread ebola is not.

The CDC can't track and monitor every unvaccinated person in the US that either came from or traveled in a country measles is rampant.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

That's why I never got a response to my query. They don't believe that people should choose not to get vaccinated. Some don't believe that people should even have a choice to get vaccinated.

I'd like to know how the folks that believe vaccinations should be mandatory, would like to enforce that policy.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace



They don't believe that people should choose not to get vaccinated. Some don't believe that people should even have a choice to get vaccinated.

No. They believe that they have a right to not be exposed to those who are not immunized. They really don't care if you aren't vaccinated. They just don't want their kids to be around yours.
edit on 2/8/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Does that right trump the right of the other individuals?

I'm pro-vaccination myself. I believe it's not intelligent to turn down the vaccinations. However, I don't believe it should be compulsory.

Edit: I completely understand not wanting kids around unvaccinated kids.

My question is really for those that believe the vaccinations shouldn't be an option. I'm feeling that type of sentiment in here.
edit on 2/8/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace


Does that right trump the right of the other individuals?
No. You have a right to not vaccinate. You do not have a right to put others at risk because of that right. Your rights end where mine start.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EternalSolace

You do not have a right to put others at risk because of that right.


Is the only way to negate that risk compulsory vaccinations? Or do we take away the freedom of non vaccinated people until they get vaccinated?

There's a line here that needs to be addressed that we all seem to be skirting around.

What do we do with the unvaccinated?



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

I only see two viable options which neither are friendly.

1. Mandated vaccinations like they did with smallpox which worked out pretty well in eradicating the disease.

or

2. Hold those who negligently spread the diseases liable in a court of law. In law negligence is
failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another. There have been some papers written on that course of action.

Funding the Costs of Disease Outbreaks Caused by Non Vaccination

COMPENSATING THE VICTIMS OF FAILURE TO VACCINATE: WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS?

Free to Choose but Liable orthe Consequences:Should Non- Vaccinators Be Penalized for the Harm They Do?

Of course, you can find more papers on the subject but those seem to be talked about the most.

Personally I think option two is the best course of action given those choices. I am actually a little surprised there haven't been any suits brought to date but I am certain it will eventually happen.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Is the only way to negate that risk compulsory vaccinations?
No. The risk cannot be negated but it can be greatly mitigated.


What do we do with the unvaccinated?
Attempt to educate them. Failing that, reduce their exposure to the general population. Don't allow the children to attend schools would be a feasible approach.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
You say, "2. Hold those who negligently spread the diseases liable in a court of law. In law negligence is
failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another. There have been some papers written on that course of action. " and yet----the very companies making the vaccines sought and got passed legislation that prevents people harmed by their product from suing for compensation. (www.law.cornell.edu...)
If they are convinced by scientific studies that their product is harmless to humans, why the monumental effort to get legislation passed that would prevent them from being sued? Why not just use their "proof" that all vaccines are safe to combat these lawsuits?
Could it be that such lawsuits would show something BigPharma didn't want revealed in a court of law?



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

If they are convinced by scientific studies that their product is harmless to humans, why the monumental effort to get legislation passed that would prevent them from being sued?
It wasn't.


No State may establish or enforce a law which prohibits an individual from bringing a civil action against a vaccine manufacturer for damages for a vaccine-related injury or death if such civil action is not barred by this part.

www.law.cornell.edu...


You know that vaccines do come with warnings, right? Do those warning state or imply that "their product is harmless?"




top topics



 
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join