Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson Claims Government 'Science' Overrides Medical Freedom

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Metallicus

Don't smoke. Science overrides medical freedom.
Don't use salt. Science overrides medical freedom.
Don't drink sodas. Science overrides medical freedom.
Don't eat meat. Science overrides medical freedom.


I am so sick and tired of having assholes in government taking away my freedoms and telling me what to do!

Don't collect radioactive waste in your backyard. Science overrides backyard freedom.

a reply to: mbkennel

You do know there might already be a small amount of radioactivity in your soil. I think by cosmic radiation exposure, you get 300 mrem annual? Flying gets you an additional 100 mrem each flight.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Aazadan

It seems you have utter trust in the government and large pharmaceuticals. The ones who over sold and allowed the over use of antibiotics? You don't believe in a well inform voting population that scrutinizes evey aspect of government to be governments watch dog?

It was the private sector that chose to over use antibiotics, they're the ones who continue to overuse them too. The government could step in and say enough is enough, but they don't have a solution to the problem either.

originally posted by: RammsteinEscobar
personally i have to ask, if vaxers are afraid of non-vaxers because they're putting them at risk doesn't that technically mean vaccinations dont work? i mean you got vaccinated to "prevent" disease and illness

Vaccines work by preventing the disease from gaining a foothold in a population and expanding. If enough people lack the vaccine, the disease is able to get a foothold, from there it's able to mutate and infect those who are vaccinated. It's not that they don't work, it's that they don't work unless the vast majority of the population has it.

If you're the only person vaccinated in a city and that disease breaks out, you effectively have zero protection.

a reply to: Aazadan

Like I said, the same people that cause the problems with antibiotics are the ones pushing vaccines.

Your arguments seem more like half heart talking points....

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Aazadan

It seems you have utter trust in the government and large pharmaceuticals. The ones who over sold and allowed the over use of antibiotics? You don't believe in a well inform voting population that scrutinizes evey aspect of government to be governments watch dog?

It was the private sector that chose to over use antibiotics, they're the ones who continue to overuse them too. The government could step in and say enough is enough, but they don't have a solution to the problem either.

Seems like your politicians and large drug companies are at work for you.

From:
www.opensecrets.org...

Title: "Farm and Pharmaceutical Lobbies Push Back Against Antibiotics Legislation"

Seems like lobbyists help prevent government putting the stop to unsustainable antibiotics use?

Oh, the right answer is all persons are responsible to keep public servants with in the law and balance to their power.

One last thought, the Irish survived despite a brutal British Government.

a reply to: neutronflux

Who do you think lobbyists serve? That's the private sector telling government to not regulate it.

I fully expect the legislative solution to this issue to come from private industry, and government then enacts it. That's what they do. Government doesn't employ the experts who know how to do everything, the private sector tells government how to act.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: neutronflux

Who do you think lobbyists serve? That's the private sector telling government to not regulate it.

I fully expect the legislative solution to this issue to come from private industry, and government then enacts it. That's what they do. Government doesn't employ the experts who know how to do everything, the private sector tells government how to act.

Which is it, government provides the services we need?
Or private industry provides the services we need?

Tells the government how to act and make billions at the same time.

Seems a conflict of interest

a reply to: neutronflux

People tell government how to act.

And it is a conflict of interest, the alternative though is to take actions based on the opinions of the uniformed and uninvested instead. Is that really a better plan?

a reply to: Aazadan

Then we are back to the examples how antibiotics were abused. Why should I trust big government and pharmaceutical companies again?

a reply to: neutronflux
Oh, you mean the government and pharmaceutical companies who conspired together to do testing on citizens without informed consent? The government who made it impossible to sue the companies for the damages caused by their vaccines?
I simply don't know how anyone could find it in their logical mind to trust such entities.
Libertarians would remove the subsidies and special treatment of corporate entities. That's another reason I'm voting for Johnson.

2.7 Marketplace Freedom
Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association. We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to business, labor, or any other special interest. Government should not compete with private enterprise.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Aazadan

Then we are back to the examples how antibiotics were abused. Why should I trust big government and pharmaceutical companies again?

You have to trust one or the other. Without government regulations, big business can do whatever it wants. Do you trust the companies to restrain yourself, or would you rather have a government in place that you get some say in how it's run?

I'm still trying to figure out what the phrase "medical freedom" means. You have a right to refuse treatment, I suppose, but you do not have a right to infect others.

a reply to: diggindirt

Oh, you mean the government and pharmaceutical companies who conspired together to do testing on citizens without informed consent? The government who made it impossible to sue the companies for the damages caused by their vaccines? I simply don't know how anyone could find it in their logical mind to trust such entities.

^^This.... right there!^^
Amen.

Especially when we have people saying that we 'Have to trust one or the other'.

They work hand in hand... the true definition of fascism.

a reply to: DJW001

I'm still trying to figure out what the phrase "medical freedom" means.

I believe in vaccination to a certain degree.
As a libertarian, I don't believe that the government should force someone to get a vaccination.

You have a right to refuse treatment, I suppose, but you do not have a right to infect others.

So, if you believe in forced vaccination, and you run into a person that is not vaccinated against polio, let's say.... and you are vaccinated against polio.....
Just how are they a danger to you?
Will they give YOU polio?
Sounds like your vaccination isn't worth crap if that is the case.
If they can't give you polio, your argument seems a bit hollow.

a reply to: butcherguy

Vaccinations only work if the vast majority of people have them. When only a small number of the population have them the diseases can mutate. If 25% of the population were to go without vaccinations, they're making the choice for 100% of the population to not have vaccinations.

originally posted by: DJW001
I'm still trying to figure out what the phrase "medical freedom" means. You have a right to refuse treatment, I suppose, but you do not have a right to infect others.

Better put nature on trail. I tried to file harassment changes against mosquitoes, but it didn't go far.

a reply to: Aazadan

I guess talcum now causes cancer. I thought it was a spoof on class action lawsuits. It's a real thing. I guess taking numerous vaccines have no risk. Vaccines a perfect storm of corrupt politicians, large government budgets, and big pharmacists that allowed over use of antibiotics.

If I don't use antibiotics, then I am at fault for someone else getting sick?

If I use antibiotics, then someone gets sick from super bacteria from my over use of antibiotics, then I am responsible for them getting a super bug?

Where did Zika and HIV come from?

originally posted by: Aazadan

You have to trust one or the other. Without government regulations, big business can do whatever it wants. Do you trust the companies to restrain yourself, or would you rather have a government in place that you get some say in how it's run?

Hate to tell you this cupcake, but there are governments that control the central economy pretty much doing what the want. North Korea, China, Iran, any place ethnic cleansing has take place.....

Or in Illinois and pay to play Senate seat? Or a sectary of state tanking millions from foreign nationals. Or where constituents compete against lobbyists.

From a government where the EPA lied about WTC dust not being hazardous. Please reassure us about the infallibility of our government?

A woman can abort a baby, but I cannot control what is injected into my children?