Reason Magazine supports forced vaccinations; "no libertarian case for vaccine refusal"

[rambone]

Reason Magazine says that there is "no principled libertarian case for vaccine refusal," in Ronald Bailey's "pragmatic argument for coercive vaccination."

I thoroughly debunk this tripe and set the record straight on libertarianism. Reason has a faction of militant "science" promoters who care absolutely nothing about liberty.

Reason Magazine openly advocates forced vaccination | Police State USA (http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/reason-magazine-forced-vaccination/)




If you want to write for Police State USA.... contact me with a writing sample. admin@policestateusa.com

[Brian4Liberty]

Reason magazine is all over the place. Seems that they cater to corporate donors at times.

[jllundqu]

Wow... that doesn't even make sense that a supposed 'free thinking' magazine would argue against a person's god-given right to choose what is best for himself (herself)...

What frauds.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Yeah but this is water under the bridge since Reason leads the way in libertarian resistance on issues as fundamentally important as trans fat bans in fast food restaurants

[jkr]

AHEM!


FUCK REASON

phew, its been a while...

[Kotin]

AHEM!


FUCK REASON

phew, its been a while...


I will say it again..


FUCK REASON. what a complete crock of shit!

[angelatc]

Reason magazine is all over the place. Seems that they cater to corporate donors at times.


Sure. Beltway libertarians.

Here's a ink to the real article, not the blog that is telling us what he said: http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/06/vaccine-free-riders-1

[Brian4Liberty]

Forum hiccup.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah but this is water under the bridge since Reason leads the way in libertarian resistance on issues as fundamentally important as trans fat bans in fast food restaurants

Their first thought seems to be what "what would the largest corporations want us to say"?

[Ender]

Wow... that doesn't even make sense that a supposed 'free thinking' magazine would argue against a person's god-given right to choose what is best for himself (herself)...

What frauds.

Frauds, indeed.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Their first thought seems to be what "what would the largest corporations want us to say"?

Yep. They are the reason why the left's critique of libertarians as corporate whores isn't 100 percent bullshit.

[angelatc]

So much stupid ... both in the article and in the comments.

[compromise]

Reason are a mixed bag.

On one hand, they attempt to portray libertarianism as mainstream and productive by doing everything they can to distance themselves from the Gigi Bowman wing of the liberty movement ideologically, sometimes to their detriment.
On the other, they fuel the Gigi Bowman wing of the liberty movement by heaping lavish praise upon the likes of Gary Johnson and Robert Sarvis and criticizing liberty-minded Republicans.

[ZENemy]

"Just get your damn vaccines people" said the pretty looking robot lady.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I05xIFyBIPs

[brandon]

Here's a real out there question for the people opposed to mandatory vaccination (I'm on the fence): If an unvaccinated person transmits a preventable disease to another person, does the person that became infected have the right to sue for damages? If the person dies should the unvaccinated person be charged with negligent homicide?

[Ender]

Here's a real out there question for the people opposed to mandatory vaccination (I'm on the fence): If an unvaccinated person transmits a preventable disease to another person, does the person that became infected have the right to sue for damages? If the person dies should the unvaccinated person be charged with negligent homicide?

Uhhhhh....

If the person that contacts the disease is already vaccinated, then sue Big Pharma. If they are not vaccinated, then they made the same choice as the person with the disease, who was not vaccinated.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Here's a real out there question for the people opposed to mandatory vaccination (I'm on the fence): If an unvaccinated person transmits a preventable disease to another person, does the person that became infected have the right to sue for damages? If the person dies should the unvaccinated person be charged with negligent homicide?

No and no. Any other questions?

[angelatc]

Here's a real out there question for the people opposed to mandatory vaccination (I'm on the fence): If an unvaccinated person transmits a preventable disease to another person, does the person that became infected have the right to sue for damages? If the person dies should the unvaccinated person be charged with negligent homicide?

Haven't there been cases of people winning damages for STD transmission? I don't think this is any different really.


I don't think you could get it through criminal court, as it would be hard to prove that the infection passed directly from person A to person B. But civil court would probably award some damages.

[Christian Liberty]

Haven't there been cases of people winning damages for STD transmission? I don't think this is any different really.


I don't think you could get it through criminal court, as it would be hard to prove that the infection passed directly from person A to person B. But civil court would probably award some damages.

The "Fiscally conservative/socially liberal" bit is not helping.

[bolil]

Careful, there is no reason to inflame the young. The way I see it statist sternographies, like this, help the ingenuous vette their sources. Fuck reason, come to me with a needle and I will give you prick. Wont be a flesh one :). Next they will be calling for the incarceration of everyone because, "Nature dur dur dur durrrr," that's why.

As if a needed another reason. Thiel, pull your nominal libertarian head out of your statist ass.

[Christian Liberty]

The "Fiscally conservative/socially liberal" bit is not helping.

I meant to quote "compromise" here, not you.

[compromise]

The "Fiscally conservative/socially liberal" bit is not helping.

Yeah, or "free markets, free minds" as Reason say. Just saying that stuff alienates both conservatives and liberals instantly.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Yeah, or "free markets, free minds" as Reason say. Just saying that stuff alienates both conservatives and liberals instantly.

But they always have a great quote for the New York Times or Washington Post to justify government. The asshole in the leather jacket is always great when he's getting pummeled by blithering idiots on the Bill Maher show too.

[moostraks]

Haven't there been cases of people winning damages for STD transmission? I don't think this is any different really.


I don't think you could get it through criminal court, as it would be hard to prove that the infection passed directly from person A to person B. But civil court would probably award some damages.

It's different in that the vaccinated have received a product that has not performed as it was sold to have performed. So the responsibility rests on the vaccine manufacturer to pay for damages.

[brandon]

It's different in that the vaccinated have received a product that has not performed as it was sold to have performed. So the responsibility rests on the vaccine manufacturer to pay for damages.

Vaccines, like condoms, don't claim 100% effectiveness rates.

[Ender]

Vaccines, like condoms, don't claim 100% effectiveness rates.

Then another reason that no one should be advocating force.

[T.hill]

But they always have a great quote for the New York Times or Washington Post to justify government. The asshole in the leather jacket is always great when he's getting pummeled by blithering idiots on the Bill Maher show too.

Nick Gillespie? He handled Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow extremely well, mopped the floor with em.

[Contumacious]

Reason Magazine says that there is "no principled libertarian case for vaccine refusal," in Ronald Bailey's "pragmatic argument for coercive vaccination."

I thoroughly debunk this tripe and set the record straight on libertarianism. Reason has a faction of militant "science" promoters who care absolutely nothing about liberty.

Reason Magazine openly advocates forced vaccination | Police State USA (http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/reason-magazine-forced-vaccination/)




If you want to write for Police State USA.... contact me with a writing sample. admin@policestateusa.com

What is the difference between preventing you from shooting at me or mine with a firearm or preventing you from infecting me with a communicable disease while at a public place?

.

[Keith and stuff]

Reason magazine is all over the place. Seems that they cater to corporate donors at times.
That's a great point.

Reason is worse than Bloomberg on this issue. At least he let's people opt out for religious reasons.
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/health&id=9355853


NEW YORK (WABC) -- New York City will soon require young children who go to preschool or day care to get flu shots.

The Board of Health voted Wednesday in favor of the mandatory vaccine for children under 6.

Health officials say the measure will save lives. And Dr. Jay Varma, deputy commissioner for disease control, says the measure could keep as many as 20,000 city kids from getting sick.

The initiative takes effect in 30 days. The vaccine will be required for about 150,000 children.

Parents may opt out for medical and religious reasons.

"We estimate that 10 to 25,000 kids won't suffer the flu because of that vaccine . For every 100 kids under the age of 5, 40 of them will get sick in any year from the flu," said Dr. Jay Varma, Deputy Commissioner for Disease Control for New York City.

[Ender]

What is the difference between preventing you from shooting at me or mine with a firearm or preventing you from infecting me with a communicable disease while at a public place?

.

2 different kinds of "force".

Why don't we castrate you, in case you might rape someone?

[ravedown]

it was pointed out on another site that not long after that article was published, an "anonymous source" donated $50k to Reason's fundraiser. not hard to connect the dots....hey, gotta keep the lights on you know.

[Contumacious]

2 different kinds of "force".

Why don't we castrate you,

I can not be castrated my nuts are made out of steel.


in case you might rape someone?


Incorrect it is the SAME FORCE

Are you saying that if you are coughing your lungs out at WalMart that you are not going to infect me with an airborne communicable disease?


A communicable disease is an illness transmitted through contact with microorganisms. People, animals, food, surfaces, and air can all be carriers of the microorganisms that pass infectious illnesses from one host to the next. The exchange of fluids or contact with a contaminated substance or individual may be enough to allow a communicable disease to spread.

.

[ObiRandKenobi]

what an ahole

[bolil]

I can not be castrated my nuts are made out of steel.




Incorrect it is the SAME FORCE

Are you saying that if you are coughing your lungs out at WalMart that you are not going to infect me with an airborne communicable disease?



.

No, but I guess I am saying that by going to Walmart you are willingly exposing yourself to pathogens. Shit, you do that everytime you breathe. Solution? Ban breath. smh. It is possible YOU are the carried of a disease. Only one way to find out. Comply and you'll be okay, maybe, now get ready for the needle.

"Grab that man, he has a runny nose!" they exclaimed, "and put him in a cage." If you eat chips you are a public health hazard. You might get fat, and then kids will see you all fat and shit and think its okay. Solution? Incarcerate chubby people. RIght? Man, I don't like how you drivers pollute my air with carcinogens, guess Ill use state power to take your keys. ;)

[Ender]

I can not be castrated my nuts are made out of steel.




Incorrect it is the SAME FORCE

Are you saying that if you are coughing your lungs out at WalMart that you are not going to infect me with an airborne communicable disease?



.

Dude- this I know:

If YOU were coughing your lungs out at WalMart that you would NOT infect me with an airborne communicable disease, and if you did, I'd soon be over it. I am healthy and do not succumb to illness.

Also- vaccines are BS. The AMA & Big Pharma distort to make it seem like they cure when they do not. Smallpox, for instance, was not wiped out by vaccine. It was wiped out by clean living. Countries that did not vaccinate had almost NO deaths because of smallpox, as compared to countries that used the vaccine and had 10's of 1000's of deaths.

If you want to vaccinated, go for it; you try and force me and mine and we'll have a serious problem.

[Anti Federalist]

Uhhhhh....

If the person that contacts the disease is already vaccinated, then sue Big Pharma. If they are not vaccinated, then they made the same choice as the person with the disease, who was not vaccinated.

That always gets dodged by the vaxxers.

I should be able to sneeze a snotload of mucus teeming with disease into your face, and the vaccine should prevent you from getting sick.

Right?

[Anti Federalist]

What is the difference between preventing you from shooting at me or mine with a firearm or preventing you from infecting me with a communicable disease while at a public place?

.

There is no vaccine for the common cold.

Are you going to start shooting people for sneezing?

See?

Even "freedom folks" are not immune to the desire to push other people around.

Fed.

Entertained.

Exercise petty power over their fellow men.

[Contumacious]

No, but I guess I am saying that by going to Walmart you are willingly exposing yourself to pathogens. )

So , from your standpoint , spreading infectious diseases is an individual right?

.

[dannno]

So , from your standpoint , spreading infectious diseases is an individual right?

.

If you could prove that somebody purposely placed a pathogen in some sort of container or something and delivered it to your for the express purpose of getting sick then no.

If you are asking if I am allowed to live my life and travel and come into contact with people voluntarily and those same people can voluntarily not associate themselves with me, then yes.

[angelatc]

That always get dodged by the vaxxers.

?


No it does not always get dodged by the pro-science crowd. It's just that the anti-science crowd apparently stick their fingers in their ears and yell LALALALALA every time it's explained why it isn't actually that simple.

Then about a day later, they again state, "That always gets dodged by the vaxxers," pretending that nobody ever thought of THAT before.

It is one of the most annoying things about the blatant dishonesty in the cult that I can think of.

[Ender]

So , from your standpoint , spreading infectious diseases is an individual right?

.

YOU are responsible for taking care of yourself. THAT is your individual right. If you are that afraid of illness- stay home.

Medicine should be the last resort, not a forced action that can still kill you.

[Ender]

No it does not always get dodged by the pro-science crowd. It's just that the anti-science crowd apparently stick their fingers in their ears and yell LALALALALA every time it's explained why it isn't actually that simple.

Then about a day later, they again state, "That always gets dodged by the vaxxers."

It is one of the most annoying things about the blatant dishonesty in the cult that I can think of.

The most annoying things about the blatant dishonesty in the cult that YOU worship is the unwillingness to actually find out the truth.

[Contumacious]

Dude- this I know:

If YOU were coughing your lungs out at WalMart that you would NOT infect me with an airborne communicable disease, and if you did, I'd soon be over it. I am healthy and do not succumb to illness.


I see. So , I have an individual right to inflict an injury upon your person so long as the same is not deadly and you fully recover?


The AMA & Big Pharma distort to make it seem like they cure when they do not. Smallpox, for instance, was not wiped out by vaccine. It was wiped out by clean living. Countries that did not vaccine had almost NO deaths because of smallpox, as compared to countries that used the vaccine and had 10's of 1000's of deaths.

Well, there we concur.Both entities are conflicted by monetary interest.

But don't your allegations have to be proven in the proper forum?

.

[Ender]

I see. So , I have an individual right to inflict an injury upon your person so long as the same is not deadly and you fully recover?



Well, there we concur.Both entities are conflicted by monetary interest.

But don't your allegations have to be proven in the proper forum?

.

Vaccines kill- do you have a right to inflict me with possible death so that you don't have to stay home for a few days with the flu?

[Anti Federalist]

I see. So , I have an individual right to inflict an injury upon your person so long as the same is not deadly and you fully recover?

Have you ever farted in public?

If so, what right do you have to assault my lungs with your ass gas, components of which are known to the State of California to be carcinogens?

I demand that you be subjected to involuntary surgery to implant an ass gas extraction and collection device to prevent this heinous assault.

Furthermore, I demand that the state monitor you and your family for compliance, and jail or fine you if found in non compliance.

[angelatc]

No, but I guess I am saying that by going to Walmart you are willingly exposing yourself to pathogens. Shit, you do that everytime you breathe. Solution? Ban breath. smh. It is possible YOU are the carried of a disease. Only one way to find out. Comply and you'll be okay, maybe, now get ready for the needle.

"Grab that man, he has a runny nose!" they exclaimed, "and put him in a cage." If you eat chips you are a public health hazard. You might get fat, and then kids will see you all fat and shit and think its okay. Solution? Incarcerate chubby people. RIght? Man, I don't like how you drivers pollute my air with carcinogens, guess Ill use state power to take your keys. ;)


But - playing devils advocate here ... you brought up going out in public. Let's look at drunk driving as an example. Now the law clearly says that driving drunk is a crime, but a lot of us here think that no real crime occurs until someone else is harmed. Based on that premise - if you choose to expose yourself to alcohol, knowing that you might end up hurting someone who just happened to be on the same road with you, pretty much all of us say that you should be held responsible for damages.

So, if you know the dangers of not being vaccinated, but you still choose to not get the shots, and as a result you do indeed end up causing harm, why should you be entirely exempt from the consequences of that choice?

[angelatc]

The most annoying things about the blatant dishonesty in the cult that YOU worship is the unwillingness to actually find out the truth.

I've been here for what - six years? I've read practically every blog post and trash article the anti-vaxxers have thrown out there, and I've spent hours pointing out why they're wrong and what they're lying about.

So how dare you say I am unwilling to find out the truth, when it always comes down to some dark shadow conspiracy that requires natural cynics like me to set aside facts and simply "believe."

[Contumacious]

If you could prove that somebody purposely placed a pathogen in some sort of container or something and delivered it to your for the express purpose of getting sick then no.

So if it is the medical and scientific community opinion, that there is a reasonable probability that you will be infected with a disease which will be easily transmitted to others , do you believe that you have a right to refuse vaccination and quarantine?

[Ender]

(NaturalNews) The CDC is engaged in a very clever, statistically devious spin campaign, and nearly every journalist in the mainstream media has fallen for its ploy. No one has yet reported what I'm about to reveal here.

It all started with the CDC's recent release of new statistics about swine flu fatalities, infection rates and vaccination rates. According to the CDC:

• 61 million Americans were vaccinated against swine flu (about 20% of the U.S. population). The CDC calls this a "success" even though it means 4 out of 5 people rejected the vaccines.

• 55 million people "became ill" from swine flu infections.

• 246,000 Americans were hospitalized due to swine flu infections.

• 11,160 Americans died from the swine flu.

Base on these statistics, the CDC is now desperately urging people to get vaccinated because they claim the pandemic might come back and vaccines are the best defense.

But here's the part you're NOT being told.

The CDC statistics lie by omission. They do not reveal the single most important piece of information about H1N1 vaccines: How many of the people who died from the swine flu had already been vaccinated?

Many who died had already been vaccinated

The CDC is intentionally not tracking how many of the dead were previously vaccinated. They want you (and mainstream media journalists) to mistakenly believe that ZERO deaths occurred in those who were vaccinated. But this is blatantly false. Being vaccinated against H1N1 swine flu offers absolutely no reduction in mortality from swine flu infections.

And that means roughly 20% of the 11,160 Americans who died from the swine flu were probably already vaccinated against swine flu. That comes to around 2,200 deaths in people who were vaccinated!

How do I know that swine flu vaccines don't reduce infection mortality? Because I've looked through all the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials that have ever been conducted on H1N1 vaccines. It didn't take me very long, because the number of such clinical trials is ZERO.

That's right: There is not a single shred of evidence in existence today that scientifically supports the myth that H1N1 vaccines reduce mortality from H1N1 infections. The best evidence I can find on vaccines that target seasonal flu indicates a maximum mortality reduction effect of somewhere around 1% of those who are vaccinated. The other 99% have the same mortality rate as people who were not vaccinated.

So let's give the recent H1N1 vaccines the benefit of the doubt and let's imagine that they work just as well as other flu vaccines. That means they would reduce the mortality rate by 1%. So out of the 2,200 deaths that took place in 2009 in people who were already vaccinated, the vaccine potentially may have saved 22 people.

61 million injections add up to bad public health policy

So let's see: 61 million people are injected with a potentially dangerous vaccine, and the actual number "saved" from the pandemic is conceivably just 22. Meanwhile, the number of people harmed by the vaccine is almost certainly much, much higher than 22. These vaccines contain nervous system disruptors and inflammatory chemicals that can cause serious health problems. Some of those problems won't be evident for years to come... future Alzheimer's victims, for example, will almost certainly those who received regular vaccines, I predict.

Injecting 61 million people with a chemical that threatens the nervous system in order to avoid 22 deaths -- and that's the best case! -- is an idiotic public health stance. America would have been better off doing nothing rather than hyping up a pandemic in order to sell more vaccines to people who don't need them.

Better yet, what the USA could have done that would have been more effective is handing out bottles of Vitamin D to 61 million people. At no more cost than the vaccines, the bottles of vitamin D supplements would have saved thousands of lives and offered tremendously importantly additional benefits such as preventing cancer and depression, too.

The one question the CDC does not want you to ask

Through its release of misleading statistics, the CDC wants everyone to believe that all of the people who died from H1N1 never received the H1N1 vaccine. That's the implied mythology behind the release of their statistics. And yet they never come right out and say it, do they? They never say, "None of these deaths occurred in patients who had been vaccinated against H1N1."

They can't say that because it's simply not true. It would be a lie. And if that lie were exposed, people might begin to ask questions like, "Well gee, if some of the people who were killed by the swine flu were already vaccinated against swine flu, then doesn't that mean the vaccine doesn't protect us from dying?"

That's the number one question that the CDC absolutely, positively does not want people to start asking.

So they just gloss over the point and imply that vaccines offer absolute protection against H1N1 infections. But even the CDC's own scientists know that's complete bunk. Outright quackery. No vaccine is 100% effective. In fact, when it comes to influenza, no vaccine is even 10% effective at reducing mortality. There's not even a vaccine that's 5% effective. And there's never been a single shred of credible scientific information that says a flu vaccine is even 1% effective.

So how effective are these vaccines, really? There are a couple thousand vaccinated dead people whose own deaths help answer that question: They're not nearly as effective as you've been led to believe.

They may not be effective at all.

Crunching the numbers: Why vaccines just don't add up

Think about this: 80% of Americans refused to get vaccinated against swine flu. That's roughly 240 million people.

Most of those 240 million people were probably exposed to the H1N1 virus at some point over the last six months because the virus was so widespread.

How many of those 240 million people were actually killed by H1N1? Given the CDC's claimed total of deaths at 11,160, if you take 80% of that (because that's the percentage who refused to be vaccinated), you arrive at 8,928. So roughly 8,900 people died out of 240 million. That's a death rate among the un-vaccinated population of .0000372

With a death rate of .0000372, the swine flu killed roughly 1 out of every 26,700 people who were NOT vaccinated. So even if you skipped the vaccine, you had a 26,699 out of 26,700 chance of surviving.

Those are pretty good odds. Ridiculously good. You have a 700% greater chance of being struck by lightning in your lifetime, by the way.

What it all means is that NOT getting vaccinated against the swine flu is actually a very reasonable, intelligent strategy for protecting your health. Mathematically, it is the smarter play.

Because, remember: Some of the dead victims of H1N1 got vaccinated. In fact, I personally challenge the CDC to release statistics detailing what percentage of the dead people had previously received such vaccines.

The headline to this article, "Thousands of Americans died from H1N1 even after receiving vaccine shots" is a direct challenge to the CDC, actually. If the CDC believes this headline is wrong -- and that the number of vaccinated Americans who died from H1N1 is zero -- then why don't they say so on the record?

The answer? Because they'd be laughed right out of the room. Everybody who has been following this with any degree of intelligence knows that the H1N1 vaccine was a medical joke from the start. There is no doubt that many of those who died from H1N1 were previously vaccinated. The CDC just doesn't want you to know how many (and they hope you'll assume it's zero).

Where are all the real journalists?

I find it especially fascinating that the simple question of "How many of the dead were previously vaccinated?" has never been asked in print by a single journalist in any mainstream newspaper or media outline across the country. Not the NY Times, not WashingtonPost.com, not the WSJ, LA Times or USA Today. (At least, not that I'm aware of. If you find one that does, let me know and I'll link to their article!)

Isn't there a single journalist in the entire industry that has the journalistic courage to ask this simple question of the CDC? Why do these mainstream journalists just reprint the CDC's statistics without asking a single intelligent question about them?

Why is all the intelligent, skeptical reporting about H1N1 found only in the alternative press or independent media sites?

You already know the answer, but I'll say it anyway: Because most mainstream media journalists are just part of the propaganda machine, blindly reprinting distorted statistics from "authorities" without ever stopping to question those authorities.

The MSM today, in other words, is often quite pathetic. Far from the independent media mindset that used to break big stories like Watergate, today's mainstream media is little more than a mouthpiece for the corporatocracy that runs our nation. The MSM serves the financial interests of the corporations, just as the CDC and WHO do. That's why they're all spouting the same propaganda with their distorted stories about H1N1 swine flu.

But those who are intelligent enough to ask skeptical questions about H1N1 already realize what an enormous con the pandemic was. In the end, it turned out to be a near-harmless virus that was hyped up by the CDC, WHO and drug companies in order to sell hundreds of millions of doses of vaccines that are now about to be dumped down the drain as useless.

Sources for this story include:

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/027956_H1N1_vaccine_CDC.html#ixzz2nDOAk2kc

[Christian Liberty]

What's so complicated about private property rights, people?

Its really not complicated in the slightest. You want to require people to get vaccinated to come on your property, that's your right. I seriously doubt that it would actually work on the market, but you go ahead and try it if you want. You have no right to make a uniform law that everyone gets vaccinated, which is a blatant pre-crime.

I'm honestly not really pro vaccine or anti vaccine. I am almost certain that its still possible to get sick with the disease after being vaccinated. That doesn't necessarily mean it won't reduce the odds. I don't know.

But I want nothing to do with this "pre-crime" crap. Anyone who supports forcing people to get vaccinated at gunpoint is evil. Anyone who acts on that desire should be punished by lethal self-defense.

[Christian Liberty]

There is no vaccine for the common cold.

Are you going to start shooting people for sneezing?

See?

Even "freedom folks" are not immune to the desire to push other people around.

Fed.

Entertained.

Exercise petty power over their fellow men.

I'm not sure the liberty movement is really all that big, honestly. I'm OK with including minarchists and constitutionalists in the movement. Heck, I could even include theonomists like Gary North and the late Rushdoony. But these petty tyrants? Forget it. I don't want anything to do with them.

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/VvkBchH.gif

[Ender]

I've been here for what - six years? I've read practically every blog post and trash article the anti-vaxxers have thrown out there, and I've spent hours pointing out why they're wrong and what they're lying about.

So how dare you say I am unwilling to find out the truth, when it always comes down to some dark shadow conspiracy that requires natural cynics like me to set aside facts and simply "believe."

Reading MSM does not make you an expert in health. You are the one that criticizes those that believe in natural health and live the lives to prove it. Vaccinate away but don't ever try to force me or my family into it. And I mean, in my best Will Smith imitation: "evah".

[angelatc]

(NaturalNews) The CDC is engaged in a very clever, statistically devious spin campaign, and nearly every journalist in the mainstream media has fallen for its ploy. No one has yet reported what I'm about to reveal here.


I wish you had started a different thread, because I don't think it's right to derail this thread with this particular article.

[dannno]

So if it is the medical and scientific community opinion, that there is a reasonable probability that you will be infected with a disease which will be easily transmitted to others , do you believe that you have a right to refuse vaccination and quarantine?

If you lived in a death camp in Germany in 1940 and you were Jewish and the Nazis told you that there is a reasonable probability that you will be infected with a disease which will be easily transmitted to others, do you believe you have the right to refuse the vaccine and quarantine?

[Matt Collins]

Reason Magazine says that there is "no principled libertarian case for vaccine refusal," in Ronald Bailey's "pragmatic argument for coercive vaccination."
That's just one person's opinion, the magazine is not monolithic.

[angelatc]

Reading MSM does not make you an expert in health. You are the one that criticizes those that believe in natural health and live the lives to prove it. Vaccinate away but don't ever try to force me or my family into it. And I mean, in my best Will Smith imitation: "evah".

I can assure you that reading Natural News makes you an expert in absolutely nothing. The "science" that Adams touts is laughable to anybody who paid attention in 8th grade biology.

I believe that drunk drivers should be allowed to try to make it home safely, even though their bad choices might indeed endanger someone else. I'm certainly not about to cry that vaccines should be mandated.

But I also won't let the drunken idiots try to tell today's young people that there's really no bigger odds of having an accident if they make that choice.

[Contumacious]

YOU are responsible for taking care of yourself.

Well, I do. I Jog 2 miles a day , snow rain , heat gloom of night notwithstanding.



THAT is your individual right.

Isn't standing my ground also a right. Isn't preventing you from adversely affecting MY health a right? Isn't preventing you from affecting MY income my right, I don't get pay if I don't work.

.

[Contumacious]

Have you ever farted in public?

Yes, but my wife tells me that they smell like French Perfume.


If so, what right do you have to assault my lungs with your ass gas, components of which are known to the State of California to be carcinogens?

Methane is nontoxic (http://www.ehow.com/about_5377204_dangers-methane-gas.html) on its own .

[bolil]

But - playing devils advocate here ... you brought up going out in public. Let's look at drunk driving as an example. Now the law clearly says that driving drunk is a crime, but a lot of us here think that no real crime occurs until someone else is harmed. Based on that premise - if you choose to expose yourself to alcohol, knowing that you might end up hurting someone who just happened to be on the same road with you, pretty much all of us say that you should be held responsible for damages.

So, if you know the dangers of not being vaccinated, but you still choose to not get the shots, and as a result you do indeed end up causing harm, why should you be entirely exempt from the consequences of that choice?

First, whom is to blame? So person A infect person B, who infected A? Shouldn't the buck stop with them. But who infected them? And that person, and that person, and that person, and that person, and that person, and that person, and that person. Et fucking cetera. Driving a an individual choice, made spontaneously. In other words, drunk ain't contagious.'

Honestly, as far as I am concerned, by even being on a road you assume a staggering level of responsibility for your own well being. Same with going to Walmart. Perhaps the boys in blue should administer flu tests before entry into any public place, right? For the kids or whatever the fuck.

Shit, debtors prison has been done away with but it was a good racket while it lasted. Lets replace it with containment. Common cold? Rape cage.

[Ender]

I can assure you that reading Natural News makes you an expert in absolutely nothing. The "science" that Adams touts is laughable to anybody who paid attention in 8th grade biology.

I believe that drunk drivers should be allowed to try to make it home safely, even though their bad choices might indeed endanger someone else. I'm certainly not about to cry that vaccines should be mandated.

But I also won't let the drunken idiots try to tell today's young people that there's really no bigger odds of having an accident if they make that choice.

Read the article angelic; it has references and I promise you won't die from it. ;)

[DamianTV]

There is a lot of debate as to whether or not vaccines are both safe, and effective.

What should NOT be at the heart of the debate is the Infringement of anyones Right to decide for themselves whether to be vaccinated or not. ANY Forced Action by one person on to another is a violation of the very principles of Liberty. This is where Reason Magazine has made its most fatal error in this statement.

[angelatc]

Read the article angelic; it has references and I promise you won't die from it. ;)

So much for your reading comprehension. I didn't say it didn't have references. I said it didn't belong in this thread.

[angelatc]

There is a lot of debate as to whether or not vaccines are both safe, and effective.
.


No, there is no legitimate debate about whether vaccines are safe and effective.

[bolil]

There is a lot of debate as to whether or not vaccines are both safe, and effective.

What should NOT be at the heart of the debate is the Infringement of anyones Right to decide for themselves whether to be vaccinated or not. ANY Forced Action by one person on to another is a violation of the very principles of Liberty. This is where Reason Magazine has made its most fatal error in this statement.

Precisely. Reason tipped their hand, and if we were serious they would be ridiculed and reminded of this constantly. Forced vaccinations? How about compulsory schooling? Hypocrite website. Vive les RPF.

[bolil]

No, there is no legitimate debate about whether vaccines are safe and effective.

Oh no? Funny, I had a vaccination for something when I was young and wound up with sepsis. Almost died, as a baby, because of vaccination.

Right, the debate is over, both sides are full of shit. Make your own choice, and when let strangers stick your kids with needles keep in mind God will not hold them accountable, but you.

I heard cutting babies foreskins off was a good for preventing cheese-dick later on. Let's go violate some babies! Tis for the future, which we already sold. Try mandating vaccinations, give it a shot, fuck if anything needed a shot it was whatever the fuck is called a revolution.

They ain't our children, just children, savvy? You can't pass a law that violates their rights, and if you want to then wtf are you doing here? Huffpo loves that type.

[PaulConventionWV]

Dude- this I know:

If YOU were coughing your lungs out at WalMart that you would NOT infect me with an airborne communicable disease, and if you did, I'd soon be over it. I am healthy and do not succumb to illness.

Also- vaccines are BS. The AMA & Big Pharma distort to make it seem like they cure when they do not. Smallpox, for instance, was not wiped out by vaccine. It was wiped out by clean living. Countries that did not vaccinate had almost NO deaths because of smallpox, as compared to countries that used the vaccine and had 10's of 1000's of deaths.

If you want to vaccinated, go for it; you try and force me and mine and we'll have a serious problem.

Contumacious's post just shows you the culture of fear that vaccination "science" has created by stipulating that "herd immunity" is a must. Now, it's all of a sudden everyone's business whether you choose to inject yourself because, hey, it affects everyone, right? No, but it's a convenient way to get everyone to comply, isn't it? Now, instead of the clear lines we have between aggression and non-aggression, we have self-proclaimed libertarians who choose to muddy the waters by quantifying airborne pathogens as a type of force. God help us all.

[Ender]

No, there is no legitimate debate about whether vaccines are safe and effective.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6ndZNLYUA



And, so much for YOUR reading comprehension- sorry if it's over your head.

And this thread is precisely where it belongs.

[Christian Liberty]

Should breathing be illegal then?

[2young2vote]

Forced vaccination sounds like something we would get with nationalized healthcare. We all take risks in life, but reducing risks should be voluntary, not mandatory. I drive as little and safely as possible because I do not want to get into a potentially life-threatening crash, but I am still taking the risk. Just like reducing the risk of damage in a car crash, you can reduce the risk of sickness each year (supposedly) by getting vaccinated. Someone who does want to reduce their risk of getting sick can get vaccinated, someone who doesn't want a reduced risk can simply not get vaccinated.

[Ender]

Oh no? Funny, I had a vaccination for something when I was young and wound up with sepsis. Almost died, as a baby, because of vaccination.

Right, the debate is over, both sides are full of shit. Make your own choice, and when let strangers stick your kids with needles keep in mind God will not hold them accountable, but you.

I heard cutting babies foreskins off was a good for preventing cheese-dick later on. Let's go violate some babies! Tis for the future, which we already sold. Try mandating vaccinations, give it a shot, fuck if anything needed a shot it was whatever the fuck is called a revolution.

They ain't our children, just children, savvy? You can't pass a law that violates their rights, and if you want to then wtf are you doing here? Huffpo loves that type.

Had a cousin that went deaf because of a polio vaccination.

[PaulConventionWV]

So , from your standpoint , spreading infectious diseases is an individual right?

.

Way to twist the issue. If by "spreading infectious diseases" you mean have a social life, go outside the confines of my room and interact with people, then you're damn right I'm saying that. The risk of getting sick is a risk we take by exposing ourselves to society. People used to understand that you can't blame the transfer of pathogens on anyone who is not said pathogen, but I guess they didn't have a centralized bureaucracy to deal with these things, did they?

[bolil]

Way to twist the issue. If by "spreading infectious diseases" you mean have a social life, go outside the confines of my room and interact with people, then you're damn right I'm saying that. The risk of getting sick is a risk we take by exposing ourselves to society. People used to understand that you can't blame the transfer of pathogens on anyone who is not said pathogen, but I guess they didn't have a centralized bureaucracy to deal with these things, did they?
Furthermore, any pathogen is possessed of its own intellect, its own will. Would hold culpable a land owner from whose property a deer emerged and killed a motorist?

That land owner should have taken preventative measures, no? Like a vaccine, for deer, AKA claymore mines.

[PaulConventionWV]

No it does not always get dodged by the pro-science crowd. It's just that the anti-science crowd apparently stick their fingers in their ears and yell LALALALALA every time it's explained why it isn't actually that simple.

Then about a day later, they again state, "That always gets dodged by the vaxxers," pretending that nobody ever thought of THAT before.

It is one of the most annoying things about the blatant dishonesty in the cult that I can think of.

Talk about cult behavior, why don't we discuss your willingness to blindly trust what strangers tell you because they have "authority"? Yes, a degree and a consensus is all you need to soak up the absolute truth of the world like a sponge while those who oppose you are inferior specimens. Must be nice.

SCIENCE IS MY JEEZUS!!

[angelatc]

First, whom is to blame?

It's all hypothetical, but my answer is the person who made the choice not to get vaccinated and then spread the disease is to blame. The precedent is there in the case of STDs. If Bob gives Jane herpes, she can sue him. He could try to collect damages from the person who gave him the disease, but that does not alleviate his responsibility to Jane.



Driving a an individual choice, made spontaneously. In other words, drunk ain't contagious.'

But the anaolgy was not that getting drunk was contagious. The analogy was that getting drunk was akin to not getting a vaccine, in the respect that your choice could end up causing harm to another, albeit inadvertantly.


Honestly, as far as I am concerned, by even being on a road you assume a staggering level of responsibility for your own well being. Same with going to Walmart. Perhaps the boys in blue should administer flu tests before entry into any public place, right? For the kids or whatever the fuck. Shit, debtors prison has been done away with but it was a good racket while it lasted. Lets replace it with containment. Common cold? Rape cage.

We were talking about civil court last time I checked.

[PaulConventionWV]

I've been here for what - six years? I've read practically every blog post and trash article the anti-vaxxers have thrown out there, and I've spent hours pointing out why they're wrong and what they're lying about.

So how dare you say I am unwilling to find out the truth, when it always comes down to some dark shadow conspiracy that requires natural cynics like me to set aside facts and simply "believe."

I am in awe of your inability to see your own gullibility. You simply believe the scientists, but hey, that's okay because scientists are an absolute good and cannot be questioned... especially when there's government funding involved. We all know that government makes things better and more accurate. Never mind qualified dissenting opinions either, because by virtue of the fact that they dissent, they have disqualified themselves from being qualified.

[angelatc]

Oh no? Funny, I had a vaccination for something when I was young and wound up with sepsis. Almost died, as a baby, because of vaccination.

Right, the debate is over, both sides are full of shit. Make your own choice, and when let strangers stick your kids with needles keep in mind God will not hold them accountable, but you.

I heard cutting babies foreskins off was a good for preventing cheese-dick later on. Let's go violate some babies! Tis for the future, which we already sold. Try mandating vaccinations, give it a shot, fuck if anything needed a shot it was whatever the fuck is called a revolution.

They ain't our children, just children, savvy? You can't pass a law that violates their rights, and if you want to then wtf are you doing here? Huffpo loves that type.

This is why there's no use talking to an ideologue. You guys all end up debunking your own strawmen. Nobody here is arguing for mandatory vaccines, so you can stop trilling about that.

Again, there is no absolutely real debate over vaccines. Almost all medical doctors, scientists, research technicians, healthcare administrators, and anybody with an ounce of common sense agree that vaccines are safe, effective, and lifesaving not because they've been brainwashed by the MSM, not because the government lies about everything just because it can, but because there is a HUGE body of evidence demonstrating both the efficacy and safety of vaccines.

The small annoying vocal minority that argues against the use of vaccines consists of non-scientific “alternative” healthcare peddlers and their gullible victims.

A legitimate debate requires evidence on both sides of the debate. Seeing as there is simply absolutely no evidence that vaccines do no actually protect us or een do harm en masse, there simply is no real debate.

[bolil]

It's all hypothetical, but my answer is the person who made the choice not to get vaccinated and then spread the disease is to blame. The precedent is there in the case of STDs. If Bob gives Jane herpes, she can sue him. He could try to collect damages from the person who gave him the disease, but that does not alleviate his responsibility to Jane.




But the anaolgy was not that getting drunk was contagious. The analogy was that getting drunk was akin to not getting a vaccine, in the respect that your choice could end up causing harm to another, albeit inadvertantly.



We were talking about civil court last time I checked.

If Jane fucked Bob, it is on her. If Jane is too horny to consider STDs, or if she is too stupid to think about them, those herpes are hers. If she is aware, and some other dumb-fuck sleeps with her and contracts herpes ITS ON HIM. Responsibility for your own actions. If someone rapes Jane and she contracts herpes, well that fuck can spend the rest of his life in prison supporting her. And if Jane, and her family desires, they can have a barbeque once a year where they kick the shit out of him.

[bolil]

This is why there's no use talking to an ideologue. You guys all end up debunking your own strawmen.

Again, there is no absolutely real debate over vaccines. Almost all medical doctors, scientists, research technicians, healthcare administrators, and anybody with an ounce of common sense agree that vaccines are safe, effective, and lifesaving not because they've been brainwashed by the MSM but because there is a HUGE body of evidence demonstrating both the efficacy and safety of vaccines.

The small annoying vocal minority that argues against the use of vaccines consists of non-scientific “alternative” healthcare peddlers and their gullible victims.

A legitimate debate requires evidence on both sides of the debate. Seeing as there is simply absolutely no evidence that vaccines do no actually protect us or een do harm en masse, there simply is no real debate.

Yet here we are debating. I guess it isn't real to some people unless it is followed with a dot gov. I don't give a fuck if every doctor in the world said, "Vaccinate everyone," the fact remains that if you are going to stick a needle in me, you better fucking kill me... we know how that ends.

Vocal minority? When do you get off? Yeah? No debate? Then why did I almost die before i even started recording memories on account of a vaccine? Sepsis is a bitch, all it takes is a penetration. How do needles work again?

Now, lets talk about antibiotics. What is happening, now that they are being over prescribed? (It goes into the pro forced vaccination crowd's ridiculous, and blatantly hypocritical, sentiments about public health

[angelatc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6ndZNLYUA



And, so much for YOUR reading comprehension- sorry if it's over your head.

And this thread is precisely where it belongs.

If you think a piece claiming that the 2009/10 H1N1 vaccine program was ineffective and shrouded in mystery should be debunked in a thread about mandatory vaccines, then I can only assume your brain organizes information much differently than mine does. Because logically, I can't make any sense out of your position.

But I do know that adding a Cosby YouTube into any argument automatically seriously serves to undermines any position of authority you may have had.

I mean, seriously?

[bolil]

Yet here we are debating. I guess it isn't real to some people unless it is followed with a dot gov. I don't give a fuck if every doctor in the world said, "Vaccinate everyone," the fact remains that if you are going to stick a needle in me, you better fucking kill me... we know how that ends.

Vocal minority? When do you get off? Yeah? No debate? Then why did I almost die before i even started recording memories on account of a vaccine? Sepsis is a bitch, all it takes is a penetration. How do needles work again?

Now, lets talk about antibiotics. What is happening, now that they are being over prescribed? (It goes into the pro forced vaccination crowd's ridiculous, and blatantly hypocritical, sentiments about public health

HAHA! If there was no debate, why are you typing? I guess there is debate.

[PaulConventionWV]

That's just one person's opinion, the magazine is not monolithic.

They do represent the magazine, though. Companies hire employees with the knowledge that every employee will, in one way or another, represent the company. This is especially true in writing.

[bolil]

If you think a piece claiming that the 2009/10 H1N1 vaccine program was ineffective and shrouded in mystery should be debunked in a thread about mandatory vaccines, then I can only assume your brain organizes information much differently than mine does. Because logically, I can't make any sense out of your position.

And you would stand behind coerced vaccinations? Tell you what, you have been designated an intellectual virus. The only cure is culling. Now, how do you feel about forced vaccinations? It doesn't really matter. If it comes down to that, fuck it, death is freedom.

[bolil]

It's all hypothetical, but my answer is the person who made the choice not to get vaccinated and then spread the disease is to blame. The precedent is there in the case of STDs. If Bob gives Jane herpes, she can sue him. He could try to collect damages from the person who gave him the disease, but that does not alleviate his responsibility to Jane.




But the anaolgy was not that getting drunk was contagious. The analogy was that getting drunk was akin to not getting a vaccine, in the respect that your choice could end up causing harm to another, albeit inadvertantly.



We were talking about civil court last time I checked.
and the fuck it is. A person DRINKS, that is, TAKES and ACTION to get drunk. A person is not infected by their own volition. Are you that ignorant as regards NAP? Shit, holding man culpable for nature conjures up the precum of monsanto. They will fuck you, and then send you a bill.

[angelatc]

Yet here we are debating. I guess it isn't real to some people unless it is followed with a dot gov. I don't give a fuck if every doctor in the world said, "Vaccinate everyone," the fact remains that if you are going to stick a needle in me, you better fucking kill me... we know how that ends.

Vocal minority? When do you get off? Yeah? No debate? Then why did I almost die before i even started recording memories on account of a vaccine? Sepsis is a bitch, all it takes is a penetration. How do needles work again?

Now, lets talk about antibiotics. What is happening, now that they are being over prescribed? (It goes into the pro forced vaccination crowd's ridiculous, and blatantly hypocritical, sentiments about public health


No we are not debating. Like the last sentence says, a debate requires both sides to have evidence.

Of course genuine debates do exist in science, but they end up being resolved through more experiments and better theories.

[angelatc]

and the fuck it is. A person DRINKS, that is, TAKES and ACTION to get drunk. A person is not infected by their own volition. Are you that ignorant as regards NAP?


I don't believe in the NAP. Try again.

[angelatc]

And you would stand behind coerced vaccinations? Tell you what, you have been designated an intellectual virus. The only cure is culling. Now, how do you feel about forced vaccinations? It doesn't really matter. If it comes down to that, fuck it, death is freedom.


Speaking of fucking ignorant, I've fucking told you my fucking position on fucking mandatory fucking vaccines about 100 fucking times. I don't fucking support mandatory fucking vaccines.

(Maybe putting it in your native tongue will help?)

[PaulConventionWV]

No, there is no legitimate debate about whether vaccines are safe and effective.

I've come to realize that that line, "There is no debate!" is the signature of someone who is trying to hide the real debate.

[bolil]

I don't believe in the NAP. Try again.

LOL .don't believe in the NAP, well, I don't believe in gravity and yet am subject to it.

Don't believe in the NAP? What, you believe in coercion then? That's nice, makes for a peaceful world, too.

Shit, I can even call myself a unicorn? Don't make it so, though, does it?

So you can say, stupidly, that you don't believe in the NAP (WHAT THE FUCK?!?!LOL) but that doesn't mean it doesn't apply. Would you knock on my door and force a needle into my kids arm? No, I think not, such behavior isn't good for ones health. But you can't be one of those who would send others to do a thing you lack the stomach for, could you?

[donnay]

Speaking of fucking ignorant, I've fucking told you my fucking position on fucking mandatory fucking vaccines about 100 fucking times. I don't fucking support mandatory fucking vaccines.

(Maybe putting it in your native tongue will help?)

You do speak out of both sides of your mouth. You should be a politician--Eduardo could be your PR person. :rolleyes:

[bolil]

Speaking of fucking ignorant, I've fucking told you my fucking position on fucking mandatory fucking vaccines about 100 fucking times. I don't fucking support mandatory fucking vaccines.

(Maybe putting it in your native tongue will help?)

If you want to use my native tongue, use less big words. You don't support them, but you do. Have you considered running for congress? The vulgarity you have down, now work on the finer points. Get the vernacular right, knowhaIsayin? Or come off like a fucking retard. Its up to you.

I'll send a primer on basic grammar to you, pronto. "Speaking of ignorant, I've already told you my position of mandatory vaccines. Sure, I prevaricate when I say I do not support mandatory vaccinations, because I only support forced ones. We all know forced and mandatory are two different things entirely, don't we?" FIFY.

Right, we forced our troops into the Stan. There was nothing mandatory about it. smh.

[PaulConventionWV]

This is why there's no use talking to an ideologue. You guys all end up debunking your own strawmen. Nobody here is arguing for mandatory vaccines, so you can stop trilling about that.

Again, there is no absolutely real debate over vaccines. Almost all medical doctors, scientists, research technicians, healthcare administrators, and anybody with an ounce of common sense agree that vaccines are safe, effective, and lifesaving not because they've been brainwashed by the MSM, not because the government lies about everything just because it can, but because there is a HUGE body of evidence demonstrating both the efficacy and safety of vaccines.

The small annoying vocal minority that argues against the use of vaccines consists of non-scientific “alternative” healthcare peddlers and their gullible victims.

A legitimate debate requires evidence on both sides of the debate. Seeing as there is simply absolutely no evidence that vaccines do no actually protect us or een do harm en masse, there simply is no real debate.

"Just because it can..."? Are you seriously trying to say that the government has no interest in controlling the health of the population? You see the government's agenda on other things, but in this case you just give it a pass because, well, the government doesn't control things "just because it can." What makes it so arbitrary just on this issue? The government has a vested interest in Obamacare, school funding, etc, but when it comes to vaccinations, all of a sudden they would have absolutely no reason to try and control health. Never mind the FDA eliminating competition and providing a market of billions for the pharmaceutical industries. I mean, surely you're not too blind to see that the pharmaceutical industry is being supported by government, but then agian, if you did see that, then you would have to be absolutely stupid not to make the connection to vaccines.

[moostraks]

This is why there's no use talking to an ideologue. You guys all end up debunking your own strawmen. Nobody here is arguing for mandatory vaccines, so you can stop trilling about that.

Again, there is no absolutely real debate over vaccines. Almost all medical doctors, scientists, research technicians, healthcare administrators, and anybody with an ounce of common sense agree that vaccines are safe, effective, and lifesaving not because they've been brainwashed by the MSM, not because the government lies about everything just because it can, but because there is a HUGE body of evidence demonstrating both the efficacy and safety of vaccines.

The small annoying vocal minority that argues against the use of vaccines consists of non-scientific “alternative” healthcare peddlers and their gullible victims.

A legitimate debate requires evidence on both sides of the debate. Seeing as there is simply absolutely no evidence that vaccines do no actually protect us or een do harm en masse, there simply is no real debate.

The vaccine inserts show that vaccines do cause harm. it is disingenuous to act as if your position is one of moral high ground because the die off of those who are harmed isn't significant by your standards.

[mosquitobite]

Contumacious's post just shows you the culture of fear that vaccination "science" has created by stipulating that "herd immunity" is a must. Now, it's all of a sudden everyone's business whether you choose to inject yourself because, hey, it affects everyone, right? No, but it's a convenient way to get everyone to comply, isn't it? Now, instead of the clear lines we have between aggression and non-aggression, we have self-proclaimed libertarians who choose to muddy the waters by quantifying airborne pathogens as a type of force. God help us all.

Amen.

They WORSHIP their herd immunity.

[bolil]

Amen.

They WORSHIP their herd immunity.

Same dumber-than-shit herd that bred super bacteria for... errr. public safety reasons? LOL, yeah, vaccinate. Make sure you give your children a copy of the Chicago Tribune so they have a resistance for pandered bullshit. If I ever have a child, Ill be dead before a stranger sticks ANYTHING in them. Old school, I am, just lingering on. If you were not arguing for mandatory state administered vaccines, then why doth thou protest our protestations?

Cause disease can kill you? Welcome to fucking life. (If you would try to use my vernacular, make sure you accent only major points with vulgarity ;)

[NewRightLibertarian]

Just look around at the health of your average man. A lot of good those vaccines are doing, eh?

[DamianTV]

No, there is no legitimate debate about whether vaccines are safe and effective.

Taking a Subjective Opinion and twisting it to be an Objective Truth does not make it the truth.

Thou shalt not kill.

But somehow, its IS okay for one person to order another person to end the life of anyone. That somehow makes the order to kill both Moral and Lawful. Loopholing.

Theft and Collection of Taxes is similar. It is generally not considered to be moral for me to come directly to you and deprive you of money I want for Welfare. But get someone else to do it suddenly makes it both Moral and Lawful.

So lets cut the crap. If you want me to be Forcibly Vaccinated, then cut out the Middleman and the excuses that so many people hide behind, and have YOU come to my front door and have you try to Forcibly Vaccinate me. I will warn you that I will fully resist your Forced Actions on to me or my Family with minimum necessary force that I am willing to extend to become Lethal. I do not want to, but I am willing to put a bullet in your skull to stop you from forcing a Vaccine on me.

(Not trying to threaten, playing out a Hypothetical worst case scenario, youre perfectly safe from me and I wont touch your family, period.)

Im not going to come to your door, and again, cut out the Middleman (Govt) and try to hide behind a series of excuses to take something from you or try to force you to do ANY action. Why? Because I know I would be in the Wrong to do that because it infringes on your Rights, and you would fully be within your Rights to defend yourself and your Family against ANY aggresses that I could possibly make on to you.

Now, if you think that you are so correct in Forcing Vaccinations, you come to my front door and just try it.

This PLANET has survived for BILLIONS of years without Vaccines. The very concept that we will not survive without Vaccines is complete BS. So for anyone to think that our Science of today is as modern as we are going to get is a load of crap. Most people understand that. The shit that currently exists in our world is toxic. Hell, we cant even take the safest of things like Water for granted any more as it is so loaded up with toxic chemicals that even our water, and very air we breathe is killing us.

Our food is Toxic. Our clothing is Toxic. Our Paint is Toxic. Our Toys are Toxic. Our Medicines are Toxic. Damn near everything in our lives is becoming or has already been turned Toxic. What makes Vaccines so magically safe? Biased Studies? Im not going to bother trying to debate with you on the legitimacy of those studies as we both know that some vaccines can be both safe and effective, but not all, and its not necessarily the vaccines itself. I think it is very possible it could be the preservatives that could be dangerous. You are right on a lot of accounts, but you miss the point on others that Studies are Unbiased, thus, they cant be considered to be truly Objective.

I think it is this "Blind Faith" in these Studies and other statments that has gotten us into the problems we have today in so many different aspects of our lives. Banks are perfectly safe and protect the Value of your Money, according to the Bankers. We wont abuse our Powers of Surveillance on the German Citizens, until we find out someone is Jewish, according to Hitler. We wont abuse the Power we have over the people, unless we find that a person opposes our Total Control, according to Mao. It is that "Blind Faith" that I think we can agree causes many of those that are "still asleep" to "stay asleep". War is good for the Economy, according to the Warmongers. Pot should be outlawed, according to anyone who stands to lose money due to Pot being legalized, both Dealers and Legal Industry.

Do I trust every Industry claim that their products (not just vaccines) are safe? Fuck no. Do I trust every claim where the Industry knowingly distributes something that is toxic? Fuck no. If I were, that would be on me because I'd be following that same set of actions I just condoned. Blind Faith. I need to do my own damn research. Thats on me if I do or dont. I dont have all the correct answers. I can admit I flat out dont know. Make your claims that such and such a study says this thing or method is safe, thats fine, but its still on me to validate your claims one way or the other.

At the same time, I do expect that you may take the time to validate any claims that I make through your own efforts. Even if I did have the "correct answer", even something as saying 111 x 111 is 12,321, I would actually HOPE that you dont take it at face value and check it for yourself (which is simple enough to plug into a calculator to either validate or invalidate my statement). Figuring the solution to that problem can be just as easily calculated in your head, it just requires a slightly different perspective in the way a person thinks about math. Another trick is with Elevens. 43 x 11 = 473. Just add the two numbers together and put the sum in the middle. Sums going over ten are a bit harder, 87 x 11 = 947. Blind Faith is the problem, and if you take the time to check my facts I just stated, you'd find one of those math statements is incorrect (I did that on purpose), just to prove the consequences.

Point is, what it seems like you are doing here is claiming that ONLY your answer can be the correct one, and you seem to EXPECT me to exhibit that same pattern of "Blind Faith" in your claims. Any responsible person can not do that.

I went off on Zippy too, and it wasnt intended as a Personal Attack on him, but his ideas. Its not that I want to start a fight with anyone. What I'd like to see people do instead of only trying to discredit any claims anyone else makes is to offer up Solutions or Possible Solutions. I know Im just as guilty of that as well, not offering Solutions to Problems, so Im trying to hold myself to a higher standard. You and Donnay have been going back and forth on this Credit / Discredit cycle, and Im mostly staying out of it. Donnay consistently tries to offer Alternatives and Solutions. I know I need to offer more Solutions. I think You, Zippy, and ME would all do better if we try to offer Solutions that offers our Respect to each other even when we disagree. But if we do not try to come to a Solution that works for anyone, we are no better than the Warmongers.

We both need to Lead by Example by our behaviors, even if we do not agree on everything.

/vent

[Thor]

Ben Swann fans the flames...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfqpZqEP6gg

[Mini-Me]

There's a lot of fighting going on here between Angela and other board members about the merits of vaccination, but I think it's important to recall that someone did call for mandatory vaccination, and it came from Reason of all places. That is where the outrage is coming from.

Ultimately, I think Ronald Bailey is grossly distorting the definition of force and aggression: Aggression is about making a voluntary choice to use your free will to subjugate others, and it can be extended to include recklessly but actively contaminating the environment (other people's property, air, etc.) on a scale that exceeds the "wear and tear" of ordinary living (like dumping chemicals into the water supply, or pumping toxins into the air, etc.). Bacteria and viruses have always infected us and spread through us, and they've been the norm of human life since before history began, so I find it hard to imagine how anyone could conflate someone walking around with an illness as usual (let alone just walking around with greater probabilistic susceptibility to an illness) with pollution on the level of corporations contaminating nearby properties to an unlivable condition.

On the subject of force, this author may be able to engage in enough sophistry and mental gymnastics to reframe the notion of disease transmission as some form of "force," but that cannot hide the blatant use of force that mandatory vaccinations require. Stabbing someone in the arm against their will is force by any libertarian's definition, and you don't need any mental gymnastics to see it. Moreover, preemptive force cannot be construed as defensive force when you're using it against a mere potential threat of force. In a standoff or hostage situation, libertarians can justify shooting first as defensive force when they are defending against a credible and imminent threat of force greater than or equal to the defensive force used. Mandatory vaccines do not qualify. Instead, the kind of preemptive force required by mandatory vaccines is the same kind of preemptive force advocated by the Bush Doctrine in the context of preemptive warfare. In other words, Ronald Bailey is quite literally arguing for the Bush Doctrine in the context of preemptive vaccination. I thought there was a reason we aren't neoconservatives?

It is surely possible to spread diseases by "force," i.e. on purpose, like if you get infected by something and deliberately cough in people's faces (or have sex with as many people as possible if you're HIV-positive - just an example of course, so no need for an HIV debate here ;)). However, most of the time, diseases spread by complete accident. Sometimes, that's just life. We call it force when you shove someone, but we do not call it force when you trip and fall into them. A victim may be entitled to restitution nevertheless (if you accidentally knocked them into a table and gave them a concussion or something), but how would it be libertarian to preemptively force the purchase of extra-balance-preserving shoes from e.g. New Balance (not that I dislike New Balance) as a preventative measure? That is after all the very kind of thing this author is suggesting, except in the case of New Balance it's a lot less invasive. ;) If you take this "preventative" logic to its natural conclusion, you can justify literally ANY amount of force in the name of "keeping people safe," up to and including enacting laws that ban you from leaving your house (because you might track water onto the convenience store floor, which an old lady will slip on and die from).

It seems to me that the mandatory vaccination crowd is not a fan of either individual liberty or even democracy but pure institutional authoritarianism and paternalism. After all, a small handful of refuseniks is never going to be enough to seriously damage "herd immunity." The only way "herd immunity" could ever be damaged is if a LARGE percentage of people chose not to take vaccines. If that ever happened, the forced vaccination crowd would say something like, "So what if so many people disagree with me? No matter how many there are, even if it became a majority, their opinions about what to do with their bodies don't matter. Only OUR opinions about what to do with their bodies matter, because we side with Science (TM)...and don't give me that tripe about science being about the scientific method. Science is about faith in the authority of the most prolifically journal-published scientists!" So...by that logic, why don't we let appointed institutional leaders in ALL areas make autocratic decisions for everyone about what's best for them? It worked well in the good old USSR!

For the record, I'm mostly vaccinated. I believe in the utility of vaccines, but the benefits of probabilistic immunization have to be weighed against the potential risks, and that's a personal decision. In many cases, the benefits outweigh the risk to me. In others, they don't. I can't weigh in on the autism debate, but I do know that people have occasionally died from vaccines. That's a fact I have never seen contested, and I think it lays bare the obvious: Forced vaccines are about stripping people's free will to make their own risk/reward judgments, supplanting it with your own, and violating their ownership of their body to stab them with a needle, for your own presumed benefit. You can sugar-coat it all you like, but at the end of the day it is not libertarian in the least.

Even aside from the issue of personal liberty, the coercive vaccination crowd seems to forget: Putting all of your eggs in one basket and creating a monoculture is rarely a good idea. Nature is VICIOUS when it comes to annihilating monocultures in one fell swoop. Here's some science for you: Monocultures are how extinction happens. If something ever goes *really* wrong with a particular vaccine, you don't want it to be the vaccine everyone was forced to take under pain of rape cage. "Whoops, we didn't know this mass-manufactured vaccine was contaminated with extra DNA bits that would accidentally sterilize everyone. Here's your $2 settlement stake after the class action lawyers' cuts. Enjoy watching humanity's extinction."

[otherone]

I'm confused. Some people believe that mandatory vaccination is a legitimate excuse for the existence of the state? That vaccinations are a power granted to the state to "protect" people without regards to their Rights? How is this any different than seat belt laws or the TSA?

[Christian Liberty]

I'm confused. Some people believe that mandatory vaccination is a legitimate excuse for the existence of the state? That vaccinations are a power granted to the state to "protect" people without regards to their Rights? How is this any different than seat belt laws or the TSA?

It isn't.

Sometimes "libertarians" are our own worst enemies.

[Anti Federalist]

Methane is nontoxic (http://www.ehow.com/about_5377204_dangers-methane-gas.html) on its own .

The Smell of Farts
Flatus often stinks! There are several chemicals that contribute to the smell of farts:
•skatole (by-product of meat digestion)
•indole (by-product of meat digestion)
•methanethiol (a sulfur compound)
•dimethyl sulfide (a sulfur compound)
•hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg odor, flammable)
•volatile amines
•short chain fatty acids

http://chemistry.about.com/od/medicalhealth/f/What-Is-The-Chemical-Composition-Of-Farts.htm

[Anti Federalist]

Very nicely done.

+rep.


There's a lot of fighting going on here between Angela and other board members about the merits of vaccination, but I think it's important to recall that someone did call for mandatory vaccination, and it came from Reason of all places. That is where the outrage is coming from.

Ultimately, I think the Reason author is grossly distorting the definition of force: Force is about making a voluntary choice to use your free will to subjugate others, or to negligently but actively contaminate the environment (other people's property, air, etc.) on a scale that exceeds the "wear and tear" of ordinary living (like dumping chemicals into the water supply, or pumping toxins into the air, etc.). Bacteria and viruses have always infected us and spread through us, and they've been the norm of human life since before history began, so I find it hard to imagine how anyone could conflate someone walking around with an illness (as usual) with pollution on the level of corporations contaminating nearby properties to an unlivable condition.

It is surely possible to spread diseases by "force," i.e. on purpose, like if you get infected by something and deliberately cough in people's faces (or have sex with as many people as possible if you're HIV-positive - just an example of course, so no need for an HIV debate here ;)). However, most of the time, diseases spread by complete accident. Sometimes, that's just life. We call it force when you shove someone, but we do not call it force when you trip and fall into them. A victim may be entitled to restitution nevertheless (if you accidentally knocked them into a table and gave them a concussion or something), but how would it be libertarian to preemptively force the purchase of extra-balance-preserving shoes from e.g. New Balance (not that I dislike New Balance) as a preventative measure? That is after all the very kind of thing this author is suggesting, except in the case of New Balance it's a lot less invasive. ;) If you take this "preventative" logic to its natural conclusion, you can justify literally ANY amount of force in the name of "keeping people safe," up to and including enacting laws that ban you from leaving your house (because you might track water onto the convenience store floor, which an old lady will slip on and die from).

It seems to me that the mandatory vaccination crowd is not a fan of either individual liberty or even democracy but pure institutional authoritarianism. After all, a small handful of refuseniks is never going to be enough to seriously damage "herd immunity." The only way "herd immunity" could ever be damaged is if a LARGE percentage of people chose not to take vaccines. If that ever happened, the forced vaccination crowd would say something like, "So what if so many people disagree with me? No matter how many there are, even if it became a majority, their opinions about what to do with their bodies don't matter. Only OUR opinions about what to do with their bodies matter, because we side with Science (TM)...and don't give me that tripe about science being about the scientific method. Science is about faith in the authority of the most prolifically journal-published scientists!" So...by that logic, why don't we let appointed institutional leaders in ALL areas make autocratic decisions for everyone about what's best for them? It worked well in the good old USSR!

For the record, I'm mostly vaccinated. I believe in the utility of vaccines, but the benefits of probabilistic immunization have to be weighed against the potential risks, and that's a personal decision. In many cases, the benefits outweigh the risk to me. In others, they don't. I can't weigh in on the autism debate, but I do know that people have occasionally died from vaccines. That's a fact I have never seen contested, and I think it lays bare the obvious: Forced vaccines are about stripping people's free will to make their own risk/reward judgments, supplanting it with your own, and violating their ownership of their body to stab them with a needle, for your own presumed benefit. You can sugar-coat it all you like, but at the end of the day it is not libertarian in the least.

Even aside from the issue of personal liberty, the coercive vaccination crowd seems to forget: Putting all of your eggs in one basket and creating a monoculture is rarely a good idea. Nature is VICIOUS when it comes to annihilating monocultures in one fell swoop. Here's some science for you: Monocultures are how extinction happens. If something ever goes *really* wrong with a particular vaccine, you don't want it to be the vaccine everyone was forced to take under pain of rape cage. "Whoops, we didn't know this mass-manufactured vaccine was contaminated with extra DNA bits that would accidentally sterilize everyone. Here's your $2 settlement stake after the class action lawyers' cuts. Enjoy watching humanity's extinction."

[Ender]

Ben Swann fans the flames...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfqpZqEP6gg

Ben Swann is Da Bomb!

[donnay]

Taking a Subjective Opinion and twisting it to be an Objective Truth does not make it the truth.

Thou shalt not kill.

But somehow, its IS okay for one person to order another person to end the life of anyone. That somehow makes the order to kill both Moral and Lawful. Loopholing.

Theft and Collection of Taxes is similar. It is generally not considered to be moral for me to come directly to you and deprive you of money I want for Welfare. But get someone else to do it suddenly makes it both Moral and Lawful.

So lets cut the crap. If you want me to be Forcibly Vaccinated, then cut out the Middleman and the excuses that so many people hide behind, and have YOU come to my front door and have you try to Forcibly Vaccinate me. I will warn you that I will fully resist your Forced Actions on to me or my Family with minimum necessary force that I am willing to extend to become Lethal. I do not want to, but I am willing to put a bullet in your skull to stop you from forcing a Vaccine on me.

(Not trying to threaten, playing out a Hypothetical worst case scenario, youre perfectly safe from me and I wont touch your family, period.)

Im not going to come to your door, and again, cut out the Middleman (Govt) and try to hide behind a series of excuses to take something from you or try to force you to do ANY action. Why? Because I know I would be in the Wrong to do that because it infringes on your Rights, and you would fully be within your Rights to defend yourself and your Family against ANY aggresses that I could possibly make on to you.

Now, if you think that you are so correct in Forcing Vaccinations, you come to my front door and just try it.

This PLANET has survived for BILLIONS of years without Vaccines. The very concept that we will not survive without Vaccines is complete BS. So for anyone to think that our Science of today is as modern as we are going to get is a load of crap. Most people understand that. The shit that currently exists in our world is toxic. Hell, we cant even take the safest of things like Water for granted any more as it is so loaded up with toxic chemicals that even our water, and very air we breathe is killing us.

Our food is Toxic. Our clothing is Toxic. Our Paint is Toxic. Our Toys are Toxic. Our Medicines are Toxic. Damn near everything in our lives is becoming or has already been turned Toxic. What makes Vaccines so magically safe? Biased Studies? Im not going to bother trying to debate with you on the legitimacy of those studies as we both know that some vaccines can be both safe and effective, but not all, and its not necessarily the vaccines itself. I think it is very possible it could be the preservatives that could be dangerous. You are right on a lot of accounts, but you miss the point on others that Studies are Unbiased, thus, they cant be considered to be truly Objective.

I think it is this "Blind Faith" in these Studies and other statments that has gotten us into the problems we have today in so many different aspects of our lives. Banks are perfectly safe and protect the Value of your Money, according to the Bankers. We wont abuse our Powers of Surveillance on the German Citizens, until we find out someone is Jewish, according to Hitler. We wont abuse the Power we have over the people, unless we find that a person opposes our Total Control, according to Mao. It is that "Blind Faith" that I think we can agree causes many of those that are "still asleep" to "stay asleep". War is good for the Economy, according to the Warmongers. Pot should be outlawed, according to anyone who stands to lose money due to Pot being legalized, both Dealers and Legal Industry.

Do I trust every Industry claim that their products (not just vaccines) are safe? Fuck no. Do I trust every claim where the Industry knowingly distributes something that is toxic? Fuck no. If I were, that would be on me because I'd be following that same set of actions I just condoned. Blind Faith. I need to do my own damn research. Thats on me if I do or dont. I dont have all the correct answers. I can admit I flat out dont know. Make your claims that such and such a study says this thing or method is safe, thats fine, but its still on me to validate your claims one way or the other.

At the same time, I do expect that you may take the time to validate any claims that I make through your own efforts. Even if I did have the "correct answer", even something as saying 111 x 111 is 12,321, I would actually HOPE that you dont take it at face value and check it for yourself (which is simple enough to plug into a calculator to either validate or invalidate my statement). Figuring the solution to that problem can be just as easily calculated in your head, it just requires a slightly different perspective in the way a person thinks about math. Another trick is with Elevens. 43 x 11 = 473. Just add the two numbers together and put the sum in the middle. Sums going over ten are a bit harder, 87 x 11 = 947. Blind Faith is the problem, and if you take the time to check my facts I just stated, you'd find one of those math statements is incorrect (I did that on purpose), just to prove the consequences.

Point is, what it seems like you are doing here is claiming that ONLY your answer can be the correct one, and you seem to EXPECT me to exhibit that same pattern of "Blind Faith" in your claims. Any responsible person can not do that.

I went off on Zippy too, and it wasnt intended as a Personal Attack on him, but his ideas. Its not that I want to start a fight with anyone. What I'd like to see people do instead of only trying to discredit any claims anyone else makes is to offer up Solutions or Possible Solutions. I know Im just as guilty of that as well, not offering Solutions to Problems, so Im trying to hold myself to a higher standard. You and Donnay have been going back and forth on this Credit / Discredit cycle, and Im mostly staying out of it. Donnay consistently tries to offer Alternatives and Solutions. I know I need to offer more Solutions. I think You, Zippy, and ME would all do better if we try to offer Solutions that offers our Respect to each other even when we disagree. But if we do not try to come to a Solution that works for anyone, we are no better than the Warmongers.

We both need to Lead by Example by our behaviors, even if we do not agree on everything.

/vent


Well said. +rep

[Contumacious]

Contumacious's post just shows you the culture of fear that vaccination "science" has created by stipulating that "herd immunity" is a must. Now, it's all of a sudden everyone's business whether you choose to inject yourself because, hey, it affects everyone, right? No, but it's a convenient way to get everyone to comply, isn't it? Now, instead of the clear lines we have between aggression and non-aggression, we have self-proclaimed libertarians who choose to muddy the waters by quantifying airborne pathogens as a type of force. God help us all.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4617945783206262&w=250&h=175&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7
James Eagan Holmes

Would you accept as his defense the claim that moviegoers knew or should have known that by going to a public place they were subjecting themselves to the possibility that they would be shot at?

Would you accept as his defense the claim that by going to a public place without wearing bullet proof vests and other protection that they were not REALLY concerned about their health?

Did the police have a right to shoot at the suspect given the fact that Mr. Holmes has NEVER CONSENTED to have government bureaucrats penetrate his body with possibly deadly substances, ie, lead, ?

.

[Contumacious]

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4617945783206262&w=250&h=175&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7
James Eagan Holmes

Would you accept as his defense the claim that moviegoers knew or should have known that by going to a public place they were subjecting themselves to the possibility that they would be shot at?

Would you accept as his defense the claim that by going to a public place without wearing bullet proof vests and other protection that they were not REALLY concerned about their health?

Did the police have a right to shoot at the suspect given the fact that Mr. Holmes has NEVER CONSENTED to have government bureaucrats penetrate his body with possibly deadly substances, ie, lead, ?

.

:rolleyes:

[juleswin]

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4617945783206262&w=250&h=175&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7
James Eagan Holmes

Would you accept as his defense the claim that moviegoers knew or should have known that by going to a public place they were subjecting themselves to the possibility that they would be shot at?

Would you accept as his defense the claim that by going to a public place without wearing bullet proof vests and other protection that they were not REALLY concerned about their health?

Did the police have a right to shoot at the suspect given the fact that Mr. Holmes has NEVER CONSENTED to have government bureaucrats penetrate his body with possibly deadly substances, ie, lead, ?

.

This post is an example of what happens when NAP and herd immunity is taken to its logical extremes. I am speechless

[mosquitobite]

Besides which, if taken to the next logical conclusion...
If vaccines work, then they are essentially wearing those "bullet proof" vests.

If it makes them feel more in control of an out of control world....well bless their little hearts. Might as well wear a bike helmet while driving too!

[Contumacious]

This post is an example of what happens when NAP and herd immunity is taken to its logical extremes. I am speechless

No stonewalling.

In the matter of The State of Colorado vs James Eagan Holmes :

Would you accept as his defense the claim that moviegoers knew or should have known that by going to a public place they were subjecting themselves to the possibility that they would be shot at?

Would you accept as his defense the claim that by going to a public place without wearing bullet proof vests and other protection that they were not REALLY concerned about their health?

Did the police have a right to shoot at the suspect given the fact that Mr. Holmes has NEVER CONSENTED to have government bureaucrats penetrate his body with possibly deadly substances, ie, lead, ?

.

[mosquitobite]

No stonewalling.

In the matter of The State of Colorado vs James Eagan Holmes :

Would you accept as his defense the claim that moviegoers knew or should have known that by going to a public place they were subjecting themselves to the possibility that they would be shot at?

Would you accept as his defense the claim that by going to a public place without wearing bullet proof vests and other protection that they were not REALLY concerned about their health?

Did the police have a right to shoot at the suspect given the fact that Mr. Holmes has NEVER CONSENTED to have government bureaucrats penetrate his body with possibly deadly substances, ie, lead, ?

.

Does the state have the authority to mandate that everyone wear a bullet proof vest? Because that's what this thread is about.

[angelatc]

The vaccine inserts show that vaccines do cause harm. it is disingenuous to act as if your position is one of moral high ground because the die off of those who are harmed isn't significant by your standards.


Not moral high ground. Intellectual high ground.

The vaccine inserts do not show that vaccines cause harm. The vaccine inserts show that vaccines, like anything else you put in your body, can have side effects.

Like it or not, the number of people who develop side effects to vaccines is incredibly minute. You're more likely to get hit by lightening if I may cherry pick a statistic. And compared to the number of people who would have been maimed or killed if the vaccine did not exist, it's simply ridiculous to walk around smugly claiming that vaccines cause more harm then the diseases they prevent.

MiniMe had the best post. It's a personal risk v reward, but the risk isn't only a personal one. Sick people spread diseases. And when they eventually decide to make vaccines mandatory, the people here trilling that they are dangerous will be the ones to blame. They handed them the ammo.

[juleswin]

No stonewalling.

In the matter of The State of Colorado vs James Eagan Holmes :

Would you accept as his defense the claim that moviegoers knew or should have known that by going to a public place they were subjecting themselves to the possibility that they would be shot at?

Would you accept as his defense the claim that by going to a public place without wearing bullet proof vests and other protection that they were not REALLY concerned about their health?

Did the police have a right to shoot at the suspect given the fact that Mr. Holmes has NEVER CONSENTED to have government bureaucrats penetrate his body with possibly deadly substances, ie, lead, ?

.

No to all 3 questions. He committed a crime and should face judgement for it.

[Contumacious]

Does the state have the authority to mandate that everyone wear a bullet proof vest? Because that's what this thread is about.

Some of the previous posters have taken the position that by visiting public places your are ACCEPTING the risk of being exposed to pathogens and WAIVING any objections.

.

[mosquitobite]

Some of the previous posters have taken the position that by visiting public places your are ACCEPTING the risk of being exposed to pathogens and WAIVING any objections.

.

Everyday you step out of your bed is a risk. Life is full of risks.

Only control freaks think it is possible to eliminate every risk. The war on terror is just such an example.

The current vaccines in use came about only in the middle/latter half of the 20th century. After we had plumbed water, indoor toilets, washing machines, cars (no more horse manure in the streets), and germ theory (washing hands).

It is an utter illogical leap to pretend that if EVERY SINGLE vaccine was outlawed today that we would all suddenly keel over from infectious disease. We have better sanitary conditions than much of the world where such disease might still be prevalent. We have better MEDICAL advances and access than over half the world does.

So if you wish to live in fear, fine. But do not try to force your fear onto me or mine.

[Contumacious]

No to all 3 questions. He committed a crime and should face judgement for it.

Is it an act of aggression to infect me with a pathogen?

Had Mr. Holmes pumped Sarin or some other nerve gas into the theater equally convince you that was guilty of a crime?
.

[mosquitobite]

Is it an act of aggression to infect me with a pathogen?

Had Mr. Holmes pumped Sarin or some other nerve gas into the theater equally convince you that was guilty of a crime?
.

If you are wearing your bully proof vest or your gas mask (which is what vaccines would supposedly be in your analogy) then do you still feel this pity for these innocents who are not?

[rambone]

What is the difference between preventing you from shooting at me or mine with a firearm or preventing you from infecting me with a communicable disease while at a public place?.

You believe in myths. Neither of these can be "prevented."


Incorrect it is the SAME FORCE

Are you saying that if you are coughing your lungs out at WalMart that you are not going to infect me with an airborne communicable disease?
If that is "force", by your standard, do you think it should be a crime to cough while in public?


So, if you know the dangers of not being vaccinated, but you still choose to not get the shots, and as a result you do indeed end up causing harm, why should you be entirely exempt from the consequences of that choice?
YOU make the choice to step out of your plastic bubble and walk into public.... into an uncontrolled environment where risk and disease exist. You can't expect the world outside your bubble to be controlled like a prison so you can avoid NATURE.


So if it is the medical and scientific community opinion, that there is a reasonable probability that you will be infected with a disease which will be easily transmitted to others , do you believe that you have a right to refuse vaccination and quarantine?
Quarantine? Oh you mean indefinite detention without trial, suspension of habeas corpus, pissing all over the Bill of Rights.


No, there is no legitimate debate about whether vaccines are safe and effective.
My sister blacked out and had seizures for several minutes -- in the clinic -- immediately after getting her last vaccine. Vaccines maim, paralyze, and kill people every year. That's a documented fact. There is no way to have a "legitimate debate" with someone who denies that side effects exist.

[Christian Liberty]

Quarantine? Oh you mean indefinite detention without trial, suspension of habeas corpus, pissing all over the Bill of Rights.

We established a long time ago that the poster in question doesn't give a crap about freedom or liberty.

Comparing diseases that a human CANNOT control with nerve gas DELIBERATELY released into the air is an absolutely stupid argument. But then, he knows that. He just doesn't give a crap about freedom. Dennis Kucinich probably supports more actual freedom than he does.

[Contumacious]

Everyday you step out of your bed is a risk. Life is full of risks.

Only control freaks think it is possible to eliminate every risk.

So when it comes to your RIGHT to spread pathogens well I don't really have a right to stand my ground.

.

[angelatc]

There is no way to have a "legitimate debate" with someone who denies that side effects exist.


Nobody legitimately ever denies that side effects exist, (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?435395-Reason-Magazine-supports-forced-vaccinations-quot-no-libertarian-case-for-vaccine-refusal-quot&p=5339770&viewfull=1#post5339770) but that doesn't ever stop the strawman from appearing.


So my point still stands - there is no legitimate debate.

[Christian Liberty]

So when it comes to your RIGHT to spread pathogens well I don't really have a right to stand my ground.

.

You're talking about pre-crime here, not to mention that pathogens act independently of the person "Spreading" them.

[mosquitobite]

Comparing diseases that a human CANNOT control with nerve gas DELIBERATELY released into the air is an absolutely stupid argument.

Besides, the latest study on DTaP shows the vaccinated are highly likely to be asymptomatic carriers, so they should be the ultimate criminal. At least if I'm coughing you can avoid me.

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm

Their position is that if they kill you with a silencer, it's ok. they still have the intellectual and moral high ground.

[juleswin]

Is it an act of aggression to infect me with a pathogen?

Had Mr. Holmes pumped Sarin or some other nerve gas into the theater equally convince you that was guilty of a crime?
.

I dont think this is a black and white sort of issue. For example, for your first question, the answer can be yes, if the infected person came to my face and coughed when they know they have an airborne and contagious disease. This is an attack on my person when an infected person does that, on the other hand a person with influenza coughing with a contagious range, maybe covering his/her mouth is not committing an act of aggression.

Now this will be different for a more fatal and no curable, imaginary disease like HIV(or even Tuberculosis) like airborne disease. Now, a person with such should be banished from society just like they used to do to lepers in the olden days and you will get no objections from me if they refused to take the necessary precautions to protect others.

So, yea, it depends on what disease we are talking about and the actions/inaction taken by the infected person.

[angelatc]

Besides, the latest study on DTaP shows the vaccinated are highly likely to be asymptomatic carriers, so they should be the ultimate criminal. At least if I'm coughing you can avoid me.

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm

Their position is that if they kill you with a silencer, it's ok. they still have the intellectual and moral high ground.


Thanks for helping remind everybody why smart people can legitimately claim intellectual high ground. The FDA study does not say that the vaccinated are highly likely to be asymptomatic carriers. It says they are capable of being asymptomatic carriers but only after being exposed to the disease.

Since the odds of coming into contact with the disease rises right along with the rate of unvaccinated population, smart people are able to conclude that the vaccines indeed limit the spread of disease even within a population of vaccinated asymptomatic carriers.

[Contumacious]

You believe in myths. Neither of these can be "prevented."


.

A libertarian argument for vaccination (http://the-libertarian.co.uk/a-libertarian-argument-for-vaccination/)

"But why do I think it should be compulsory in one way or another? The short answer: the non-aggression principle. By choosing not to have your children or yourself vaccinated, you are putting other people at risk of disease and death. An example is the infamous case in Australia, where a 4-week-old died of whooping cough, as she was too young to have the shot, while others around her hadn’t been vaccinated."

.

[mosquitobite]

A libertarian argument for vaccination (http://the-libertarian.co.uk/a-libertarian-argument-for-vaccination/)

"But why do I think it should be compulsory in one way or another? The short answer: the non-aggression principle. By choosing not to have your children or yourself vaccinated, you are putting other people at risk of disease and death. An example is the infamous case in Australia, where a 4-week-old died of whooping cough, as she was too young to have the shot, while others around her hadn’t been vaccinated."

.

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm


FEAR PORN!!!

[angelatc]

Bet her parents got vaccinated to protect her!



You'd rather talk than read, it seems:


a 4-week-old died of whooping cough, as she was too young to have the shot, while others around her hadn’t been vaccinated."


The whole reason the rest of the population needs to be vaccinated against pertussis is to protect infants, since they're the most likely to suffer death as a side effect.

[jtstellar]

here's the obama controversy where he wants to force buy everyone their own health insurance for their own good, while denying that claim you have LP guys stating it is for people's own good to force vaccinate every single person.. certainly helps making the argument in the libertarian perspective.. this is why i never buy into the purity fucking bs when ppl compare lp to republicans.. lesser evil at best and it depends on issues only

[mosquitobite]

You'd rather talk than read, it seems:

The whole reason the rest of the population needs to be vaccinated against pertussis is to protect infants, since they're the most likely to suffer death as a side effect.

Except, I read the whole damned linked article and NO WHERE did they prove that.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/grieving-parents-speak-out-against-anti-vaccination-extremists/story-fni0cwl5-1226650422913

Says she caught it in the hospital, where, I'm sure, medical care-givers must be immunized.

Keep on with your fear porn though. Works for the neo-cons!

[Mini-Me]

A libertarian argument for vaccination (http://the-libertarian.co.uk/a-libertarian-argument-for-vaccination/)

"But why do I think it should be compulsory in one way or another? The short answer: the non-aggression principle. By choosing not to have your children or yourself vaccinated, you are putting other people at risk of disease and death. An example is the infamous case in Australia, where a 4-week-old died of whooping cough, as she was too young to have the shot, while others around her hadn’t been vaccinated."

.

Comprehensive response:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?435395-Reason-Magazine-supports-forced-vaccinations-quot-no-libertarian-case-for-vaccine-refusal-quot&p=5339277&viewfull=1#post5339277

TL;DR version: You and the author are quite literally arguing in favor of the Bush Doctrine's view on preemptive force against potential violent/forceful threats. There's a huge difference between "shooting first" in legitimate last-resort self-defense against an imminent and credible threat, and using arbitrary preemptive force against anything you think *might* threaten you in the future. Very careful you must be about conflating the two, or to the dark side it will lead.


here's the obama controversy where he wants to force buy everyone their own health insurance for their own good, while denying that claim you have LP guys stating it is for people's own good to force vaccinate every single person.. certainly helps making the argument in the libertarian perspective.. this is why i never buy into the purity fucking bs when ppl compare lp to republicans.. lesser evil at best and it depends on issues only

The issue isn't really about the author going wrong by being "too pure" of a libertarian and taking the NAP "too far." The issue is about him fundamentally misunderstanding the meaning of defensive force altogether, to the point where his views on self-defense aren't libertarian at all but neoconservative. You can apply the same argument to preemptive warfare against uppity Middle Eastern countries...as some people notoriously do. ;) Once you pervert a fundamental principle so thoroughly (often from trying to find an excuse to indulge in authoritarianism on some pet issue), there's no end to the kind of logical errors you can make.

[angelatc]

Except, I read the whole damned linked article and NO WHERE did they prove that.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/grieving-parents-speak-out-against-anti-vaccination-extremists/story-fni0cwl5-1226650422913

Says she caught it in the hospital, where, I'm sure, medical care-givers must be immunized.




Says the person trying to change the subject after wondering aloud if the infant had been vaccinated. *snort*

I would like to point out that your source is the Australian anti-vax queen. It is unverified, and was in the article as evidence that these people are loons:


On May 3, 2009, Dorey wrote [on her anti-vax blog] that Dana caught whooping cough in the hospital as a newborn: "The only thing that is fairly certain, according to Dana's doctor, is that she probably did come into contact with pertussis in the hospital - not after she went home."

According to her mother, they don't know where she caught it, but the vaccine rate in the area was dangerously low and there was an active outbreak of pertussis that they weren't warned about;

https://www.facebook.com/notes/dana-mccaffery-whooping-cough-awareness/danas-story/302506833170327



We wrongly assumed our family was protected because we were all vaccinated at birth. However, we did not know that:
- The Northern Rivers region has one of the nation’s lowest childhood vaccination rates
- The vaccination wanes after 10-12 years, so almost 90% of adults are no longer immunised
- Vaccination is only effective if the majority of the community does it.



Dana contracted Pertussis in the first weeks of her life. No one else in our family has tested positive for Pertussis or had a cough. We have tortured ourselves with questions: Was it in the hospital? Was it from our son’s school or daughter’s childcare centre? Was it at the GPs? Was it at a birthday party? Or was it a loving relative or friend who doesn’t know they have the bacteria?

It doesn’t matter… we are all innocent victims in this.

We are devastated that Dana’s death is the catalyst for change and dearly wish we had the chance to wrap her in cotton wool as families across Australia are doing now.

Lismore Base Hospital has been admitting up to two children per week for Pertussis and Dana was the third newborn airlifted from this region to Brisbane in as many weeks. But, no one in our community knew.


So go ahead, tell the mother of the dead baby that she is wrong, and that her kid would be better of if nobody ever got vaccines.

[rambone]

The whole reason the rest of the population needs to be vaccinated....

Are the people maimed, paralyzed, and killed by vaccines any less important than babies who die from whooping cough?

You already acknowledged that the side effects exist, yet you still want "the rest of the population" subjected to risky one-size-fits all solution.

[mosquitobite]

Are the people maimed, paralyzed, and killed by vaccines any less important than babies who die from whooping cough?

You already acknowledged that they exist, yet you still want "the rest of the population" subjected to risky one-size-fits all solution.


This is the disconnect that bothers me most.

Everyone knows there are some people who are allergic to penicillin and therefore we shouldn't give them that drug. Some people are allergic to formaldehyde. Some people are allergic to eggs. Some people are allergic to latex.

But vaccines? SCREW THE WORLD! One size fits all! For the greater good and all! Sounds purely evil, from my point of view.

They could at least TRY to figure out the common denominator on all those who have vaccine reactions so that children can be tested for such PRIOR to vaccination. But nope, that's just ignorance. Vaccines are 100% safe says the government! Now go get your flu shot!

[mosquitobite]

Says the person trying to change the subject after wondering aloud if the infant had been vaccinated. *snort*


According to her mother, they don't know where she caught it, but the vaccine rate in the area was dangerously low and there was an active outbreak of pertussis that they weren't warned about;

https://www.facebook.com/notes/dana-mccaffery-whooping-cough-awareness/danas-story/302506833170327




So go ahead, tell the mother of the dead baby that she is wrong, and that her kid would be better of if nobody ever got vaccines.

I said I bet her parents got vaccinated. Not the baby. Seems neither side has the intellectual high ground, huh sister!

[angelatc]

This is the disconnect that bothers me most.

Everyone knows there are some people who are allergic to penicillin and therefore we shouldn't give them that drug. Some people are allergic to formaldehyde. Some people are allergic to eggs. Some people are allergic to latex.

But vaccines? SCREW THE WORLD! One size fits all! For the greater good and all! Sounds purely evil, from my point of view.

They could at least TRY to figure out the common denominator on all those who have vaccine reactions so that children can be tested for such PRIOR to vaccination. But nope, that's just ignorance. Vaccines are 100% safe says the government! Now go get your flu shot!


Speaking of disconnect - People who are at high risk of having reactions to vaccines are not supposed to get them. But you already knew that.

And of course you know that there are indeed teams of people looking at the reasons some people have reactions while others don't. (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110525/full/473436a.html)

You just decided to pretend you didn't so you could pretend to be smart.

Which is really pretty funny, when you think about it. What does it say about your belief system and your audience if you have to pretend to be ignorant to agree with them?

[Anti Federalist]

Nothing like some sickness to bring out the closet authoritarians.

Let the powers that be launch a bio-weapon "terror" attack.

This country will go Full Nazi Retard in 48 hours.

"Civilized" people would barbeque their first born on the front lawn, if that's what government told them to do.

[juleswin]

Nothing like some sickness to bring out the closet authoritarians.

Let the powers that be launch a bio-weapon "terror" attack.

This country will go Full Nazi Retard in 48 hours.

"Civilized" people would barbeque their first born on the front lawn, if that's what government told them to do.

I think majority of humans naturally have an authoritarian streaks in em, it just takes the right trigger to bring it out. I hate to see the day mine is exposed.

[angelatc]

I said I bet her parents got vaccinated. Not the baby. Seems neither side has the intellectual high ground, huh sister!

Oops -my bad!

But you were wrong about that too, so it all worked out.

Actually, it sort of works for you - allows you to change the subject again now that it's been alleged that the baby didn't actually pick up the disease in the hospital just because the anti-vaxxer said she did.

Great ploy to keep from admitting you are wrong, though. You are a slippery weasel!

[mosquitobite]

Oops -my bad!

But you were wrong about that too, so it all worked out.

Actually, it sort of works for you - allows you to change the subject again now that it's been alleged that the baby didn't actually pick up the disease in the hospital just because the anti-vaxxer said she did.

Great ploy to keep from admitting you are wrong, though. You are a slippery weasel!

Uh read the article, again I suppose. The DOCTORS told the parents that the baby most likely got it in the hospital.

[moostraks]

Nothing like some sickness to bring out the closet authoritarians.

Let the powers that be launch a bio-weapon "terror" attack.

This country will go Full Nazi Retard in 48 hours.

"Civilized" people would barbeque their first born on the front lawn, if that's what government told them to do.

No doubt. Young mothers on some of the birth boards are some of the worst folks I have seen because they by and large seem to grasp that corporations could be greedy but think that the medical establishment has some magic fairy dust to prevent big pharma from colluding with doctors for profit. Hello? What's up with that? Fear sells...

[angelatc]

Uh read the article, again I suppose. The DOCTORS told the parents that the baby most likely got it in the hospital.


You read it again: That's a claim that the anti-vax queen made on her blog. It is in the article as evidence that she just simply makes crap up.

Here's the quote again:
On May 3, 2009, Dorey wrote that Dana caught whooping cough in the hospital as a newborn: "The only thing that is fairly certain, according to Dana's doctor, is that she probably did come into contact with pertussis in the hospital - not after she went home."

Dorey is the anti-vax blogger who has no credibility what-so-ever.

Do you want me to go back up and quote the mother, who clearly says they have no idea where she got it, too?

[Contumacious]

We established a long time ago that the poster in question doesn't give a crap about freedom or liberty.

My confused opponent equates VIOLENT NONSENSICAL CONFRONTATION with Libertarianism. He is equally confused about PATHOGENS.

A pathogen is any organism — such as a virus, a fungus, or a bacterium — that causes a disease in another organism. But from his standpoint when it comes to pathogens I do not have a right to stand my ground.


Comparing diseases that a human CANNOT control with nerve gas DELIBERATELY released into the air is an absolutely stupid argument. But then, he knows that. He just doesn't give a crap about freedom. Dennis Kucinich probably supports more actual freedom than he does.


Excuse moi, but that is the crux of the debate

A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins or one of its surface proteins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and keep a record of it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters.

.

[angelatc]

No doubt. Young mothers on some of the birth boards are some of the worst folks I have seen because they by and large seem to grasp that corporations could be greedy but think that the medical establishment has some magic fairy dust to prevent big pharma from colluding with doctors for profit. Hello? What's up with that? Fear sells...

Idiocy seems to sell just as well.

Profit is what happens when companies make products that work to improve people's lives. Actually, the traditional childhood vaccines don't even earn them very much money - it's the lifestyle drugs (like viagra) and the new vaccines like pneumonia and HPV that drive their bottom lines sky high.

http://www.economist.com/node/17258858

But don't let facts get in the way of the liberal mindset that equates profit to greed and evil. Better to let kids die of a disease that can be prevented than to allow someone to profit from the knowledge of how to prevent it.

[moostraks]

You read it again: That's a claim that the anti-vax queen made on her blog. It is in the article as evidence that she just simply makes crap up.

Here's the quote again:

Dorey is the anti-vax blogger who has no credibility what-so-ever.

Do you want me to go back up and quote the mother, who clearly says they have no idea where she got it, too?

I was curious where this accusation came up. Ran into this regarding the mother's position on it:

TONI McCaffery suspects a daycare centre was the most likely point where her daughter Dana contracted whooping cough in 2009.

Dana was just six days old when Mrs McCaffery took her inside the centre while dropping off her four-year-old daughter Aisling.

Just over three weeks later, Dana was dead, her tiny body ravaged by whooping cough.

After Dana died, Mrs McCaffery set up a spreadsheet to track her movements and pinpoint where her baby had been exposed to the disease, narrowing the potential places down to the shopping centre, the school and the childcare centre.

Then six cases of whooping cough were confirmed at Aisling's childcare centre.

"I feel like I walked my daughter into something deadly," Mrs McCaffery said.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/vaccination-supporters-call-for-end-to-danger-within-daycare/story-fnii5s3z-1226650593940

I can't stand hospitals or doctor's offices as they are hotbeds for newborns to pick up some vial nasty funk. They insist upon so many visits for newborns to assess their well being and I always heaved a sigh of relief when they weren't worse after going. I mean really, the sick section in most doctor's offices is the other section of the lobby like germs will read and stay there. She found a potential likely source that she is saying she believes was the area of exposure. No one will know for sure.

[Mini-Me]

Nothing like some sickness to bring out the closet authoritarians.

Let the powers that be launch a bio-weapon "terror" attack.

This country will go Full Nazi Retard in 48 hours.

"Civilized" people would barbeque their first born on the front lawn, if that's what government told them to do.

In times of crisis, it's more important than ever to listen to the experts.

[angelatc]

In times of crisis, it's more important than ever to listen to the experts.


Unfortunately, listening to Natural News is what will lead to the crisis that will eventually get us all mandatory vaccines.

They're probably part of the plot, intentionally spreading disinformation so that the government can swoop in and save the children, and allow the textbooks to be filled with stories about how people really were too stupid to care for themselves.

[TER]

In many cultures, including the ancient Christian traditions, the mother and newborn baby do not leave the house for 40 days and visitors are limited to just a few close relatives (if any at all) during that time. Definitely no children visitors and no visits to a daycare center which is a breeding ground of pathogens. My wife adhered to this tradition, including delaying the first doctor's office visit until after 40 days. This practice is not as commonly done as it used to be which is unfortunate. Most likely had this family done the same, the baby would not contracted whooping cough. (Of course, I am not blaming the poor mother -may God give her strength- but just simply pointing out that sometimes the traditions of the past are worth keeping.)

[angelatc]

In many cultures, including the ancient Christian traditions, the mother and newborn baby do not leave the house for 40 days and visitors are limited to just a few close relatives (if any at all) during that time. Definitely no children visitors and no visits to a daycare center which is a breeding ground of infections. My wife adhered to this tradition, including delaying the first doctor's office visit until after 40 days. This practice is not as commonly done as it used to be which is unfortunate. Most likely had this family done the same, the baby would not contracted whooping cough. (Of course, I am not blaming the poor mother -may God give her strength- but just simply pointing out that sometimes the traditions of the past are worth keeping.

How do you eliminate children visitors when the baby isn't the first? Pull your kids out of school for a month?

I pointed out in another thread, the name for this is "cocooning" and the same evil doctors who recommend vaccines also recommend this when discussing minimizing the spread of disease. It also involves vaccinating the people who will be coming into contact with the infant. Siblings, working parents, etc.


But one does not replace the other. It isn't an either/or scenario.

[TER]

I pointed out in another thread, the name for this is "cocooning" and the same evil doctors who recommend vaccines also recommend this when discussing minimizing the spread of disease. But one does not replace the other. It isn't an either/or scenario.

Thank you! I didn't know it had a name.

[Contumacious]

You're talking about pre-crime here, not to mention that pathogens act independently of the person "Spreading" them.


I understand your discomfort. Not everything the government does is bad. But let's find a non-governmental approach.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41JWVvw0m8L._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All (http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Choices-Anti-Vaccine-Movement-Threatens/dp/B005HKUA4O/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373674275&sr=1-2&keywords=vaccines+paul+offit)

.

[angelatc]

Thank you! I didn't know it had a name.

I didn't know anything about it until DebK mentioned it, so I started reading. After learning more, I would say this is something I would certainly do now, although I didn't do it when my kids were little.

[juleswin]

In times of crisis, it's more important than ever to listen to the experts.

Rising temperature, increasing drought, ocean acidification, polar bears dying, more deadly storms etc etc. The experts at the UN, NASA, all the top universities and research labs are telling you that global warming is happening and we have to give up our current lifestyle to prevent the disasters which their computer models have predicted. This is no mere disease, this is about saving the entire planet so you better doubly do what they ask of us.

I bet you don't plan on doing a fraction of the things they recommend we do. Its not as easy as just listening to "the experts" especially seeing the conflict of interests that exist between the "experts" and the companies in line to make bank off said crisis.

[moostraks]

Idiocy seems to sell just as well.

Profit is what happens when companies make products that work to improve people's lives. Actually, the traditional childhood vaccines don't even earn them very much money - it's the lifestyle drugs (like viagra) and the new vaccines like pneumonia and HPV that drive their bottom lines sky high.

http://www.economist.com/node/17258858

But don't let facts get in the way of the liberal mindset that equates profit to greed and evil. Better to let kids die of a disease that can be prevented than to allow someone to profit from the knowledge of how to prevent it.

Yep idiocy does sell, when one buys into a spin of things by a sector that does its level best to deflect criticism and deny culpability for the harm its products cause without giving proper respect for the fact that they could be wrong in trusting said organization. Ya know most parents want to do whats best for their children. Most people whose choose not to vac are not idiots but making a hard choice for what is right for their family. Keep flaming as it just show how irrational your own opinion is when you have to stoop to defamation. For the record I don't think you are an idiot, but I also think you have been blessed not to have suffered damages from your experiences. Others have not been as lucky and yet you dismiss their pain as trivial and many are being denied the right to be heard by the very same corporations you are viciously defending. They are skewing the numbers for profit.

As for profit being from what works to improve people's lives do tell me how that is at work within the MIC? Fear sells...

[Eagles' Wings]

In many cultures, including the ancient Christian traditions, the mother and newborn baby do not leave the house for 40 days and visitors are limited to just a few close relatives (if any at all) during that time. Definitely no children visitors and no visits to a daycare center which is a breeding ground of pathogens. My wife adhered to this tradition, including delaying the first doctor's office visit until after 40 days. This practice is not as commonly done as it used to be which is unfortunate. Most likely had this family done the same, the baby would not contracted whooping cough. (Of course, I am not blaming the poor mother -may God give her strength- but just simply pointing out that sometimes the traditions of the past are worth keeping.)We did this with our second child and it is awesome. Thank you for an uplifting post and one that could encourage other families to do the same. +rep

[69360]

What a load of crap. You have the right to choose what is right for you.

I'm not a big fan vaccinations. There are just too many these days and I worry about the effects.

My kids had the minimum for public schools, no more. We don't do the flu shots or tetanus.

If somebody wants less than I do, it's their right.

[PRB]

Reason magazine is all over the place. Seems that they cater to corporate donors at times.

they're pro-immigrant & anti-prison too

[Mini-Me]

Unfortunately, listening to Natural News is what will lead to the crisis that will eventually get us all mandatory vaccines.

They're probably part of the plot, intentionally spreading disinformation so that the government can swoop in and save the children, and allow the textbooks to be filled with stories about how people really were too stupid to care for themselves.

That sounds a bit melodramatic considering the small percentage of "true believers" in Natural News. A lot of people skip out on less important vaccinations like flu shots (where the risk/reward balance isn't quite as compelling), but how many people actually skip on the "basic" infant shot package, really? More importantly, how many skip because of principled anti-vaccination reasons or anything to do with Natural News and that scene? Very few, I'd wager. You just see a lot of them in the Ron Paul camp, because no other camp wants to permit them the freedom to make their own choices.

That said, the narrative wouldn't be hard to construct: I happen to agree with them on a few issues (risks of aspartame, FDA corruption, and that vitamin recommendations are increasingly being lowballed), and I'm not nearly so gung-ho as you are about vaccinations, but I do agree with you on one thing: The "natural health" scene is filled to the brim with hucksters, scammers, and quacks (as much as I hate that word), and it scares me that some people mistrust the pharmaceutical establishment so much that they'll automatically pledge blind faith in anyone outside the mainstream and even disparage real science (by that I mean the practice of the scientific method, double-blind testing methodology, etc.). The poster child for this is homeopathy and its true believers, and some of it is just plain embarrassing.

[angelatc]

Rising temperature, increasing drought, ocean acidification, polar bears dying, more deadly storms etc etc. The experts at the UN, NASA, all the top universities and research labs are telling you that global warming is happening and we have to give up our current lifestyle to prevent the disasters which their computer models have predicted. This is no mere disease, this is about saving the entire planet so you better doubly do what they ask of us.

I bet you don't plan on doing a fraction of the things they recommend we do. Its not as easy as just listening to "the experts" especially seeing the conflict of interests that exist between the "experts" and the companies in line to make bank off said crisis.


Global warming is an excellent example of failed science because the predictions the scientists made didn't come true. But when we talk about vaccines, the experts predicted that the disease would immediately become less prevalent as vaccine rates rose. So far, that has happened in every single country, developed or not, where the vaccines have been introduced.

If it happened only in one instance, it could be a coincidence. Since it happens every time, it likely isn't.

[PRB]

Global warming is an excellent example of failed science because the predictions the scientists made didn't come true.

what were the failed predictions?

[TER]

some people mistrust the pharmaceutical establishment so much that they'll automatically pledge blind faith in anyone outside the mainstream.

I think this is what we need to be careful about, whichever side of the debate you are on. There are good, honest, caring people in the pharmaceutical/allopathic medical fields of study as well as in the alternate/anti-vax groups of people. Likewise, there are 'hucksters and scammers' in both sides as well. We should be careful not to collectivizing each group and demonize them as a whole because both sides can still bring forth good fruit. Both sides of the debate have their garden of flowers, some good to eat and some not good to eat. Like a bee we should go from flower to flower and take only the nectar. And if that flower has no nectar then avoid it or if it is poisonous, then stay away from it. But nevertheless, usually where there is a garden of flowers there is some good nectar to be found.

[Mini-Me]

Rising temperature, increasing drought, ocean acidification, polar bears dying, more deadly storms etc etc. The experts at the UN, NASA, all the top universities and research labs are telling you that global warming is happening and we have to give up our current lifestyle to prevent the disasters which their computer models have predicted. This is no mere disease, this is about saving the entire planet so you better doubly do what they ask of us.

I bet you don't plan on doing a fraction of the things they recommend we do. Its not as easy as just listening to "the experts" especially seeing the conflict of interests that exist between the "experts" and the companies in line to make bank off said crisis.

Wait, did you think I was being serious? :D Don't worry, I was being tongue-in-cheek in response to AF's post about barbecuing first-borns to appease the government.

[PRB]

Rising temperature, increasing drought, ocean acidification, polar bears dying, more deadly storms etc etc. The experts at the UN, NASA, all the top universities and research labs are telling you that global warming is happening and we have to give up our current lifestyle to prevent the disasters which their computer models have predicted. This is no mere disease, this is about saving the entire planet so you better doubly do what they ask of us.

I bet you don't plan on doing a fraction of the things they recommend we do. Its not as easy as just listening to "the experts" especially seeing the conflict of interests that exist between the "experts" and the companies in line to make bank off said crisis.

Whether it's happening and whether you plan for it are 2 different stories.

[angelatc]

That sounds a bit melodramatic considering the small percentage of "true believers" in Natural News. A lot of people skip out on less important vaccinations like flu shots (where the risk/reward balance isn't quite as compelling), but how many people actually skip on the "basic" infant shot package, really? More importantly, how many skip because of principled anti-vaccination reasons or anything to do with Natural News and that scene? Very few, I'd wager. You just see a lot of them in the Ron Paul camp, because no other camp wants to permit them the freedom to make their own choices.

That said, the narrative wouldn't be hard to construct: I happen to agree with them on a few issues (risks of aspartame, FDA corruption, and that vitamin recommendations are increasingly being lowballed), and I'm not nearly so gung-ho as you are about vaccinations, but I do agree with you on one thing: The "natural health" scene is filled to the brim with hucksters, scammers, and quacks (as much as I hate that word), and it scares me that some people mistrust the pharmaceutical establishment so much that they'll automatically pledge blind faith in anyone outside the mainstream. The poster child for this is homeopathy and its true believers, and some of it is just plain embarrassing.


Because they've been brainwashing themselves for 20 years, while most people just ignored them, their ranks grew. I look at my Facebook page and see a lot more of their hysteria being passed around more than it ever was in the past.

Mark Twain said “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” And that's true. These people grab the headlines with their half-truths and flat out lies, and most people don't read any deeper than that.

And I'm certainly not claiming that I've never fallen for it. There's lots of stuff that I believed was true until I was challenged on it. The Irq war was a big one. It was really easy to dismiss the criticisms as liberal propaganda, but I didn't fall into that conspiracy trap. I set out to start disproving the stuff I heard.

When I found out I was mistaken, I changed my position on things. I didn't try to change the facts to make myself right.

As it stands now, there is a certain segment of the population that will never, ever believe that the government isn't using vaccines to make us all sick. But I think it's a mistake to assume they will never convince others. Politics alone should disprove that point. In an environment like Facebook, where we tend to surround ourselves with people we agree with, seeing a lie repeated often enough indeed can become easily accepted as truth.

[angelatc]

what were the failed predictions?


Well, the fact that they decided they needed to rebrand it climate change should give you a clue.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

[moostraks]

Idiocy seems to sell just as well.

Profit is what happens when companies make products that work to improve people's lives. Actually, the traditional childhood vaccines don't even earn them very much money - it's the lifestyle drugs (like viagra) and the new vaccines like pneumonia and HPV that drive their bottom lines sky high.

http://www.economist.com/node/17258858

But don't let facts get in the way of the liberal mindset that equates profit to greed and evil. Better to let kids die of a disease that can be prevented than to allow someone to profit from the knowledge of how to prevent it.

Going to repost this as it is a legitimate response to your position that the intelligent choice is to vaccinate and that those who don't are idiot liberals who want children to die:


Death Has Always Been A Vaccine Complication

From the first human vaccines developed two centuries ago, smallpox and rabies vaccines, death has always been a complication of vaccination.1 2 In 1933, the whole cell pertussis vaccine’s ability to kill without warning was first reported in the medical literature when two infants died within minutes of a pertussis shot.3 In 1946, American doctors detailed the sudden deaths of twins within 24 hours of their second diphtheria-pertussis shot.4 In 1986, the U.S. Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and has awarded over $2 billion dollars in compensation for deaths and injuries caused by vaccines.5

U.S. Infant Mortality Rate High

According to the most recent National Vital Statistics Report, more than 26,000 American babies born alive in 2009 died before their first birthday, which gives the U.S. a very high infant mortality rate of 6 infant deaths per 1,000 live births.6 In 1960, America ranked 12th in infant mortality among all nations of the world. In 2005, we had fallen to number 30. Today in America, there are more premature babies than ever before and more full term babies die before their first birthday than in most European countries.7

Some people argue that not every country calculates their infant mortality statistics the same way, which artificially inflates the poor ranking for the U.S.8 Even if adjustments would boost the U.S. ranking up several notches, there can be no question that a nation, which spends more per capita on healthcare 9 and legally requires their children to get more vaccines than any other country, should have one of the best – not one of the worst – infant mortality rates, especially for healthy babies born full term.

New Study: More Vaccines = Higher Infant Mortality Rate

Now there is a new study published in a peer reviewed medical journal that NVIC has helped to make publicly accessible to everyone, which reveals that developed nations with poor infant mortality rates, like the U.S., tend to give their infants more doses of vaccines before age one.10 The study’s authors found “a high statistically significant correlation between increasing numbers of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates.” To put this into perspective, doctors give American babies 26 doses of vaccines before age one, which is twice as many vaccinations as babies in Sweden and Japan get.

Is it really just a “coincidence” that the infant mortality rate is twice as high in America compared to Sweden and Japan, where half as many vaccinations are given to very young babies?

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome & Vaccination

A mother and father’s worst nightmare is to watch their baby die before reaching their first birthday. When a healthy baby dies unexpectedly shortly after routine vaccinations, often parents ask legitimate questions about whether the vaccines did it. They are usually met with quick denials by doctors and public health officials anxious to defend the safety of vaccines.

The death certificates of many babies, who die shortly after vaccination, list Sudden Infant Death Syndrome or SIDS as the cause of death, which means that no specific symptoms or other reason for death could be found.11 That was true in the 1980s, when I was interviewing parents of babies, who died suddenly after DPT shots, for the 1985 book DPT: A Shot in the Dark,12 which Dr. Harris Coulter and I wrote at a time when SIDS – a newly created medical term - was becoming the leading cause of infant mortality in the U.S 13

Vaccine Deaths Described in 1985 Book

What I found and detailed in our book is that most babies dying after DPT shots were not found dead in their cribs without any symptoms before they died. They were dying after suffering plenty of vaccine reaction symptoms within days of their DPT shot, symptoms like high fever; sudden collapse; hours of persistent crying or high pitched screaming with arching of the back that can be a sign of brain inflammation; severe diarrhea; redness, swelling and pain at the injection site and signs of seizures that too many pediatricians were blowing off as unimportant. Other babies, who received several DPT shots, were described by their mothers as suffering a progressive mental and physical deterioration that got worse after each shot before the baby was found dead in the crib.

Inconvenient Truth: More Full Term Babies Dying in America

Several studies in the 1980s showed an association between infant death and DPT vaccinations.14 15 Today, it is thought that genetic and environmental risk factors combine to leave SIDS babies with signs of petechial hemorrhages, lung congestion and brainstem and neurotransmitter dysfunction.16 Most doctors continue to deny that vaccination is a risk factor for SIDS17 and say that SIDS has declined since pediatricians launched a national campaign in the 1990s to put babies on their backs to sleep,18 but others point out that the only reason SIDS death statistics have gone down is because, today, fewer infant deaths are labeled “SIDS” by doctors and coroners.19

The inconvenient truth remains that the numbers of pre-term births continues to increase in America and there are more full-term babies dying before their first birthday than in most developed nations of the world. 20

Half of U.S. Children Chronically Ill

Health officials have no explanation for this horrible child death statistic. They also have no explanation for the fact that, today, an estimated 43 to 54 percent of all American children suffer with at least one chronic illness requiring health insurance reimbursement, including a staggering 26 percent of children under age six years at high risk for developmental, social or behavioral delays.21 Government officials now admit that, In the past decade, developmental disabilities among American children has increased by a whopping 17 percent and is led by a rise in autism and ADHD.22 23

American Children Used To Be Healthier

This is not the way it used to be in America when I was growing up in the 1950s and early 1960s. Back then, women were not getting vaccinated during pregnancy 24 and there were only a few vaccines given to babies25 and there were few children suffering with learning disabilities, ADHD, autism, asthma and severe allergies,26 27 diabetes,28 29 bi-polar disorders30 and taking a cocktail of prescription medications.31 And the U.S. was ranked number 12 among all nations in infant mortality, not near the bottom of the list.

Child Health Report Card: F

This is not a very good health report card for a nation that, in the last 50 years, has paid tens of trillions of dollars to the pharmaceutical industry, public health agencies and pediatricians telling us to trust their advice about how to keep our children healthy. More health insurance and more “medical homes” will not turn F’s into A’s on that bad health report card.

May 1986: Parents Reported Vaccine Infant Deaths to CDC

Exactly 25 years ago, in May 1986, I joined with mothers and fathers, whose babies died after DPT shots, and gave a presentation to the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta. We told physician members of the CDC’s vaccine policymaking committee, who wanted state legislators to strictly enforce laws legally requiring children to get 23 doses of 7 vaccines starting at two months through age six, that doctors did not really know how many children were dying after vaccination. You can read the transcript of that 1986 CDC meeting32 on NVIC’s website and decide for yourself whether anything has really changed in 25 years except the fact that, now, public health officials are ordering doctors to give children 48 doses of 14 vaccines starting on day of birth through age six, with half of those doses given before age one.

On NVIC’s website at NVIC.org, you can also visit the virtual International Memorial for Vaccine Victims to read about or post a description of a vaccine-related death;33 you can research and read descriptions of deaths following vaccination made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System;34 and you can learn more about vaccine reactions so, if your pediatrician does not educate you, you will be armed with that life saving information.35

Vaccine Safety Assumptions Are Dangerous

A death is a death, no matter what the cause. Every death that occurs after vaccination cannot be automatically presumed to be causally related to the vaccines recently given. However, to assume that all or most infant deaths, which occur within hours, days or weeks after vaccination, are just a “coincidence” and not related to vaccination is both scientifically implausible and dangerous.

It is especially dangerous for individual families, as well as for our entire population, to make assumptions about vaccine safety in a vacuum of knowledge. When high infant mortality rates in America correspond with the high numbers of vaccines babies are being given in the first year of life, credible investigation into the child death and chronic disease epidemic should be our highest national priority and vaccination should not be left off the table.

We must remember these children.
http://www.nvic.org/nvic-vaccine-news/may-2011/in-memoriam--infant-deaths---vaccination.aspx

From:

National Vaccine Information Center

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a national charitable, non-profit educational organization founded in 1982. NVIC launched the vaccine safety and informed consent movement in America in the early 1980's and is the oldest and largest consumer led organization advocating for the institution of vaccine safety and informed consent protections in the public health system.

Our Mission
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is dedicated to the prevention of vaccine injuries and deaths through public education and to defending the informed consent ethic in medicine.

As an independent clearinghouse for information on diseases and vaccines, NVIC does not advocate for or against the use of vaccines. We support the availability of all preventive health care options, including vaccines, and the right of consumers to make educated, voluntary health care choices.

Our Work
NVIC provides assistance to those who have suffered vaccine reactions; promotes and funds research to evaluate vaccine safety and effectiveness, as well as to identify factors which place individuals at high risk for suffering vaccine reactions; and monitors vaccine research, development, regulation, policy-making and legislation. Since 1982, NVIC has advocated that well-designed, independent, on-going scientific studies must be conducted to: (1) define the various biological mechanisms involved in vaccine injury and death: (2) identify genetic and other biological high risk factors for suffering chronic brain and immune system dysfunction after vaccination; and (3) evaluate short and long-term health outcomes of individuals, who use many vaccines, and those, who use fewer or no vaccines, to determine the health effects of vaccination on individuals and the public health.

NVIC works to protect the freedom for citizens to exercise the human right to voluntary, informed consent to any medical intervention or use of pharmaceutical product, such as a vaccine, which carries a risk of injury or death. NVIC is a member of the GuideStar’s Exchange Program, which requires that our organization meet certain transparency requirements. We have also made our annual report available to the public on our website and it can be found here.

[juleswin]

Global warming is an excellent example of failed science because the predictions the scientists made didn't come true. But when we talk about vaccines, the experts predicted that the disease would immediately become less prevalent as vaccine rates rose. So far, that has happened in every single country, developed or not, where the vaccines have been introduced.

If it happened only in one instance, it could be a coincidence. Since it happens every time, it likely isn't.



that wasn't really my main point and I don't really want to argue details, my point is that just the way you criticize donnay for not being 100% pro vaccines and not believing the experts, global warming advocates view you in the same light. As a anti science (you going against NASA, IPCC, most top college professors), denier who would rather see the whole world destroyed than make any meaningful changes to your wasteful lifestyle.

Maybe you can be a little more understanding and see thing from her perspective. Btw no matter what is posted in the forums about vaccines, most people are still going to vaccinate their children against the really bad diseases out there. The only dispute are usually around benign sorta of diseases like flu and chicken pox which has just as much chance of killing a healthy person as the common cold.

[moostraks]

Well, the fact that they decided they needed to rebrand it climate change should give you a clue.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

That just puts you in the idiot liberal section of climate change deniers. But don't let facts get in the way of the liberal mindset that equates profit to greed and evil. Better to let kids die from extreme climate change that can be prevented than to allow someone to profit from the knowledge of how to prevent it.

[Mini-Me]

Because they've been brainwashing themselves for 20 years, while most people just ignored them, their ranks grew. I look at my Facebook page and see a lot more of their hysteria being passed around more than it ever was in the past.

Mark Twain said “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” And that's true. These people grab the headlines with their half-truths and flat out lies, and most people don't read any deeper than that.

And I'm certainly not claiming that I've never fallen for it. There's lots of stuff that I believed was true until I was challenged on it. The Irq war was a big one. It was really easy to dismiss the criticisms as liberal propaganda, but I didn't fall into that conspiracy trap. I set out to start disproving the stuff I heard.

When I found out I was mistaken, I changed my position on things. I didn't try to change the facts to make myself right.

As it stands now, there is a certain segment of the population that will never, ever believe that the government isn't using vaccines to make us all sick. But I think it's a mistake to assume they will never convince others. Politics alone should disprove that point. In an environment like Facebook, where we tend to surround ourselves with people we agree with, seeing a lie repeated often enough indeed can become easily accepted as truth.

That's true, but it's not happening in a vacuum either. A lot of it is more reactionary than anything else: Look at the hard push from government, media, and big pharma for newer vaccines for H1N1 and HPV, coupled with the push for mandatory vaccination. The more insistent and reckless the push becomes, the more it drives vaccine opponents to not only push back more vocally but become more polarized and overextend their arguments...and then the same thing happens to the pro-vaccine side too, because that's how "partisan" politics work.

[TER]

Rising temperature, increasing drought, ocean acidification, polar bears dying, more deadly storms etc etc. The experts at the UN, NASA, all the top universities and research labs are telling you that global warming is happening and we have to give up our current lifestyle to prevent the disasters which their computer models have predicted. This is no mere disease, this is about saving the entire planet so you better doubly do what they ask of us.

I bet you don't plan on doing a fraction of the things they recommend we do. Its not as easy as just listening to "the experts" especially seeing the conflict of interests that exist between the "experts" and the companies in line to make bank off said crisis.

But sometimes we do have to trust in people who are experts. If I have a problem with my car, I go to the mechanic. Of course, I could read some books about engines and spend time practice working on cars, but I do not have the time or the interest really to do so. And if my transmission has failed and I need my car to get around, in such a crisis I do trust in the experts.

I have noticed that there is a great lack of trust in many people in the liberty movement, and not without reason. I too have gone from generally trusting the government into a state of general mistrust. This is what happens when time after time promises are broken and expectations are not met. But we should not then blindly go to the extreme of being against and resistant to anything and everything, that is habitual contrarians, as some do for example with regards to the pharmaceutical community or the government. For at least there are certain standards of practice that are expected, though exceptions of course exist (especially with regards to the government).

But that being said, if we humans cannot have the ability to trust others, especially those whom are considered 'experts' based on the time, talent, and energy they have devoted to become knowledgeable, then we will live in a constant paranoid and fearful state, helplessly lost at times on account of our own arrogance and fear, and when we need help in times of crisis we might avoid the smarter more beneficial path on account of our unwillingness to humble ourselves before others who may indeed be of help.

We must practice discernment in all things of course, and this goes without saying. But at the same time not lose the the ability to trust others.

[angelatc]

that wasn't really my main point and I don't really want to argue details, my point is that just the way you criticize donnay for not being 100% pro vaccines and not believing the experts, global warming advocates view you in the same light. As a anti science (you going against NASA, IPCC, most top college professors), denier who would rather see the whole world destroyed than make any meaningful changes to your wasteful lifestyle.

Maybe you can be a little more understanding and see thing from her perspective. Btw no matter what is posted in the forums about vaccines, most people are still going to vaccinate their children against the really bad diseases out there. The only dispute are usually around benign sorta of diseases like flu and chicken pox which has just as much chance of killing a healthy person as the common cold.

No, I don't care if DonnaY isn't 100% pro vaccines. But she lies about them in order to convince other people not to vaccinate their kids, which is evil.

The flu kills more healthy kids than it kills kids who were already high risk patients.

And from an article about a kid that died from chicken pox: (http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2013/04/11/teens-death-from-chickenpox-highlights-need-for-vaccination-cdc-reports)


Before chickenpox vaccination was included in routine childhood immunization, the disease caused about 11,000 hospitalizations and 100 to 150 deaths in the United States each year. The two dose-vaccine has led to declines of more than 95 percent in chickenpox-related illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths among people who have received routine vaccinations.

In comparison to the people who got the vaccine, from Wiki:


The vaccine is exceedingly safe: approximately 5% of children who receive the vaccine develop a fever or rash, but as of 1 May 2006, there have been no deaths yet attributable to the vaccine despite more than 40 million doses being administered.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varicella_vaccine#cite_note-Wise2000-16) Cases of vaccine-related chickenpox have been reported in patients with a weakened immune system,[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varicella_vaccine#cite_note-Wise2000-16)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varicella_vaccine#cite_note-Quinlivan-17) but no deaths.
The literature contains several reports of adverse reactions following varicella vaccination, including vaccine-strain zoster in children and adults.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varicella_vaccine#cite_note-Long_list-18) A mean of 2,350 reports per year are attributed to varicella vaccine based on 20,004 cases reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Adverse_Event_Reporting_System) (VAERS) database from May, 1995 through December, 2003.


40 million doses, no deaths from the vaccine. Before the vaccine, 100-150 deaths every year from the disease. Using the 95% reduction rate above, the number is now down to ...what - 5 to 10 deaths a year from the disease? And most of those are in the unvaccinated population, no doubt.

But these intellectual giants spend endless amounts of energy trying to convince people that the disease is safer than the vaccine because profits! Conspiracy! Medical mafia!

It's either evil or madness.

[Mini-Me]

But sometimes we do have to trust in people who are experts. If I have a problem with my car, I go to the mechanic. Of course, I could read some books about engines and spend time practice working on cars, but I do not have the time or the interest really to do so. And if my transmission has failed and I need my car to get around, in such a crisis I do trust in the experts.

I have noticed that there is a great lack of trust in many people in the liberty movement, and not without reason. I too have gone from generally trusting the government into a state of general mistrust. This is what happens when time after time promises are broken and expectations are not met. But we should not then blindly go to the extreme of being against and resistant to anything and everything, that is habitual contrarians, as some do for example with regards to the pharmaceutical community or the government. For at least there are certain standards of practice that are expected, though exceptions of course exist (especially with regards to the government).

But that being said, if we humans cannot have the ability to trust others, especially those whom are considered 'experts' based on the time, talent, and energy they have devoted to become knowledgeable, then we will live in a constant paranoid and fearful state, helplessly lost at times on account of our own arrogance and fear, and when we need help in times of crisis we might avoid the smarter more beneficial path on account of our unwillingness to humble ourselves before others who may indeed be of help.

We must practice discernment in all things of course, and this goes without saying. But at the same time not lose the the ability to trust others.

You make a number of good points about trust, and I probably should have been more specific about context. What I meant was I don't trust experts to give me my opinion about controversial subjects, not that experts should be unconditionally mistrusted. :) If I need my car repaired, I'll trust the mechanic...unless he seems shifty and "upsell-y" enough to get a second opinion from another mechanic. I'd say I trust the weather man, but he's pretty hit or miss. I trust experts when I'm trying to learn something about math though, so I guess that's something...so, while I meant something different, I guess I kind of do fall into the "trust issues" camp you're talking about too. ;)

[Contumacious]

I dont think this is a black and white sort of issue. For example, for your first question, the answer can be yes, if the infected person came to my face and coughed when they know they have an airborne and contagious disease. This is an attack on my person when an infected person does that, on the other hand a person with influenza coughing with a contagious range, maybe covering his/her mouth is not committing an act of aggression.

While that may be true in a large department store it is not true in an airplane or similar environment.

[TER]

You make a number of good points about trust, and I probably should have been more specific about context. I don't trust experts to give me my opinion about controversial subjects, but if I need my car repaired, I'll trust the mechanic...unless he seems shifty and "upsell-y" enough to get a second opinion from another mechanic. I'd say I trust the weather man, but he's pretty hit or mess. I trust experts when I'm trying to learn something about math though, so I guess that's something...

:) I wasn't addressing the post specifically at you (or the person whose quote I added in my edit). It was just a general observation I have made these past few years since the r3volution started...

[Anti Federalist]

It's either evil or madness.

Thus spoke Zarathustra.

"Liberals" say the same thing about free-market solutions to government dependency.

Yawn.

[Contumacious]

here's the obama controversy where he wants to force buy everyone their own health insurance for their own good, while denying that claim you have LP guys stating it is for people's own good to force vaccinate every single person.. certainly helps making the argument in the libertarian perspective.. this is why i never buy into the purity fucking bs when ppl compare lp to republicans.. lesser evil at best and it depends on issues only

I will NEVER ask that you be administered medicine for your own good - but I will demand that you be vaccinated for MY own good. It's what Grandma Rand used to call " rational selfishness".

You 'member.

.

[angelatc]

That's true, but it's not happening in a vacuum either. A lot of it is more reactionary than anything else: Look at the hard push from government, media, and big pharma for newer vaccines for H1N1 and HPV, coupled with the push for mandatory vaccination. The more insistent and reckless the push becomes, the more it drives vaccine opponents to not only push back vocally but become more polarized and overextend their arguments...and then the same thing happens to the pro-vaccine side too, because that's how "partisan" politics work.


Oh absolutely. And that's how we are hard wired. When authority commands us to stand in line, we balk instinctively. Which is not a bad trait!

Just because the government says the flu is deadly doesn't mean the flu is deadly. Word. But the inverse is also true in that just because the government says the flu is deadly doesn't mean the flu isn't deadly.

That's the logical fallacy in their position.

[Mini-Me]

I will NEVER ask that you be administered medicine for your own good - but I will demand that you be vaccinated for MY own good. It's what Grandma Rand used to call " rational selfishness".

You 'member.

.

Once again, that's just the Bush Doctrine's view on "self defense" applied to preemptive forced vaccines instead of preemptive war.

[Anti Federalist]

I will NEVER ask that you be administered medicine for your own good - but I will demand that you be vaccinated for MY own good. It's what Grandma Rand used to call " rational selfishness".

You 'member.

.

And using that logic has got us the tyranny we have now.

Yipee...Wait until you see what I come up with, that YOU will have to comply with, for MY own good.

This is hopeless...we're fucked.

[angelatc]

Thus spoke Zarathustra.

"Liberals" say the same thing about free-market solutions to government dependency.

Yawn.

While ignoring the fact that you're arguing as the liberals do - that is, with no facts to back up your position. We wouldn't believe in free market solutions if there wasn't a track record to prove our point. Ditto with government dependency - we can disprove that fallacy all day long.

The anti-vaxxers don't have shit to prove their point, so they just lie and make up stuff.

[PRB]

Well, the fact that they decided they needed to rebrand it climate change should give you a clue.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

The CC in IPCC stands for "climate change", the term has been used since 1988. The claim that "first they called it global warming, now it's climate change" is just not true, at least not from scientists.

The article you linked says neither which prediction failed, nor actual evidence of the claim "Earth temperature hasn't risen for the past 15 years", for this claim to be true, it has to mean the temperature is the same or lower year after year for 15 years, which just isn't the case. Try again if you actually know what you're talking about.

[Anti Federalist]

While ignoring the fact that you're arguing as the liberals do - that is, with no facts to back up your position. We wouldn't believe in free market solutions if there wasn't a track record to prove our point. Ditto with government dependency - we can disprove that fallacy all day long.

The anti-vaxxers don't have shit to prove their point, so they just lie and make up stuff.

Vaccines can be dangerous and can cause severe side effects, including death.

Do you deny that?

[PRB]

While ignoring the fact that you're arguing as the liberals do - that is, with no facts to back up your position. We wouldn't believe in free market solutions if there wasn't a track record to prove our point. Ditto with government dependency - we can disprove that fallacy all day long.

The anti-vaxxers don't have shit to prove their point, so they just lie and make up stuff.

they have Wakefield, unless you believe Wakefield is a liar like the establishment wants you to believe.

[PRB]

Vaccines can be dangerous and can cause severe side effects, including death.

Do you deny that?

Name one thing that can't.

[Anti Federalist]

Name one thing that can't.

Can't.

Not my point.

[angelatc]

The CC in IPCC stands for "climate change", the term has been used since 1988. The claim that "first they called it global warming, now it's climate change" is just not true, at least not from scientists.

The article you linked says neither which prediction failed, nor actual evidence of the claim "Earth temperature hasn't risen for the past 15 years", for this claim to be true, it has to mean the temperature is the same or lower year after year for 15 years, which just isn't the case. Try again if you actually know what you're talking about.

Take it to a global warming thread. I am not as young asn I used to be, and just don't have the energy to take on the vaccine deniers and the global warming apologists simultaneously.

[Anti Federalist]

I will NEVER ask that you be administered medicine for your own good - but I will demand that you be vaccinated for MY own good. It's what Grandma Rand used to call " rational selfishness".

You 'member.

.

Oh, and if I refuse to comply with your "demand"?

Who shows up with a gun to stick in my face?

You?

Or will you send a proxy in a goofy government costume?

[PRB]

Can't.

Not my point.

You have no point, the fact vaccines CAN do just anything EVERYTHING ELSE CAN do, makes the claim pointless. Unless you have something specific to add.

[Mini-Me]

And using that logic has got us the tyranny we have now.

Yipee...Wait until you see what I come up with, that YOU will have to comply with, for MY own good.

This is hopeless...we're fucked.

Don't be sad. As long as you don't count the military, it's not like people are already back to sacrificing their children to Moloch yet.

[angelatc]

they have Wakefield, unless you believe Wakefield is a liar like the establishment wants you to believe.

Ah, the establishment. Never mind that all of Wakefield's co-authors jumped ship, he was convicted of fraud, and stripped of his medical license.

Or that the "establishment" even went after Wakefield using the same dishonest arguments that the anti-vaxxers use - pointing out that he was publishing this study in an attempt to discredit the popular vaccine in order to sell a vaccine that he himself had invented.

Or the "establishment" that didn't actually see the conclusion of his now-retracted 1998 paper that actually very clearly stated that there was NO CAUSAL LINK FOUND between vaccines and autism.

Yes, tell me again how "the establishment" sabotaged poor innocent Dr Wakefield. While of course ignoring how the anti-vaxers lie about practically everything.

[Contumacious]

: You and the author are quite literally arguing in favor of the Bush Doctrine's view on preemptive force against potential violent/forceful threats. There's a huge difference between "shooting first" in legitimate last-resort self-defense against an imminent and credible threat, and using arbitrary preemptive force against anything you think *might* threaten you in the future. Very careful you must be about conflating the two, or to the dark side it will lead.
.

What Is Preemption? A Libertarian Perpective (http://libertycornerii.blogspot.com.br/2005/11/libertarianism-and-preemptive-war-part.html)

To decide whether you can subscribe to the doctrine of preemptive war, put yourself in this scenario. You are a peaceful person who might have acquired some enemies. But your enemies are self-selected -- you did not choose them, they chose you. And they chose you not because of what you did to them but because they resent you in some way. Perhaps they simply don't like you because you are not one of them; perhaps you are wealthier or more accomplished than they; perhaps they view your strength as a threat to their goals and wish, somehow, to weaken you; perhaps you are too religious for their taste (even though you don't insist on forcing your religion on them); perhaps you are not religious enough for their taste (and so you are some sort of "infidel"); perhaps you simply wandered into their neighborhood and violated their "pride" by doing so. Whatever the reason for their enmity, it is irrational by your standards, and you are not about to adopt their standards because if you did you would then lower your standards to meet theirs."

.

[angelatc]

Vaccines can be dangerous and can cause severe side effects, including death.

Do you deny that?


For christs sakes - this again? This is what I mean by intellectual dishonesty. Nobody ever said there were not potential side effects to vaccines.

My point is perfectly illustrated in the post about the chicken pox vaccine.

[Mini-Me]

[/B]
What Is Preemption? A Libertarian Perpective (http://libertycornerii.blogspot.com.br/2005/11/libertarianism-and-preemptive-war-part.html)

To decide whether you can subscribe to the doctrine of preemptive war, put yourself in this scenario. You are a peaceful person who might have acquired some enemies. But your enemies are self-selected -- you did not choose them, they chose you. And they chose you not because of what you did to them but because they resent you in some way. Perhaps they simply don't like you because you are not one of them; perhaps you are wealthier or more accomplished than they; perhaps they view your strength as a threat to their goals and wish, somehow, to weaken you; perhaps you are too religious for their taste (even though you don't insist on forcing your religion on them); perhaps you are not religious enough for their taste (and so you are some sort of "infidel"); perhaps you simply wandered into their neighborhood and violated their "pride" by doing so. Whatever the reason for their enmity, it is irrational by your standards, and you are not about to adopt their standards because if you did you would then lower your standards to meet theirs."

.

So, just to be clear: You're not contesting my point that your view is the Bush Doctrine applied to a new issue. Instead, you're arguing in favor of the Bush Doctrine across the board, including on matters of foreign policy...and you claim this is a libertarian viewpoint. Am I misinterpreting your comments in any way here?

[juleswin]

Ah, the establishment. Never mind that all of Wakefield's co-authors jumped ship, he was convicted of fraud, and stripped of his medical license.

Or that the "establishment" even went after Wakefield using the same dishonest arguments that the anti-vaxxers use - pointing out that he was publishing this study in an attempt to discredit the popular vaccine in order to sell a vaccine that he himself had invented.

Or the "establishment" that didn't actually see the conclusion of his now-retracted 1998 paper that actually very clearly stated that there was NO CAUSAL LINK FOUND between vaccines and autism.

Yes, tell me again how "the establishment" sabotaged poor innocent Dr Wakefield. While of course ignoring how the anti-vaxers lie about practically everything.


Do you blame them? when the only game in town is the govt funding, a researcher better tow the line or risk having to move to the third world or change professions. They have made a scape goat off Dr Andrew Wakefield and sorry angeltac, its really no surprising that his co-writers ran for the hill. The surprising part is that 2 of the 12 remained for a while even after the heat came down on him.

When the truth is finally revealed, I hope people still remember him for the stance he took.

For anyone who is interested in the case, please listen to Wakefield in his own words


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6kOxkPJfRM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx7phe3Djqk

[PRB]

For christs sakes - this again? This is what I mean by intellectual dishonesty. Nobody ever said there were not potential side effects to vaccines.

My point is perfectly illustrated in the post about the chicken pox vaccine.

he admitted he can't give ONE example of something that DOESN'T do the same.

[PRB]

Do you blame them? when the only game in town is the govt funding, a researcher better tow the line or risk having to move to the third world or change professions. They have made a scape goat off Dr Andrew Wakefield and sorry angeltac, its really no surprising that his co-writers ran for the hill. The surprising part is that 2 of the 12 remained for a while even after the heat came down on him.

while researchers do depend on funding (often non-profit) for their work, it's not true that they're always walking on thin ice and are at risk of moving to a third world country because their profession is otherwise useless. somehow the alleged profit motive of establishment researchers is never applied to fraudsters like Wakefield.

[bolil]

Nobody legitimately ever denies that side effects exist, (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?435395-Reason-Magazine-supports-forced-vaccinations-quot-no-libertarian-case-for-vaccine-refusal-quot&p=5339770&viewfull=1#post5339770) but that doesn't ever stop the strawman from appearing.


So my point still stands - there is no legitimate debate.

Because blood infections are not a side effect. Those fucker be primary.

[Contumacious]

Are the people maimed, paralyzed, and killed by vaccines any less important than babies who die from whooping cough?

You already acknowledged that the side effects exist, yet you still want "the rest of the population" subjected to risky one-size-fits all solution.

What then is your solution?

Pre-trial detainees are deprived of their liberty pending trial. It is sad but true.

Compare the period before Louis Pasteur with the one after his discoveries were implemented.

.

[juleswin]

while researchers do depend on funding (often non-profit) for their work, it's not true that they're always walking on thin ice and are at risk of moving to a third world country because their profession is otherwise useless. somehow the alleged profit motive of establishment researchers is never applied to fraudsters like Wakefield.

The way I look at it, I do not think a man as smart as Dr. Andrew Wakefield would try to run a scam over a very powerful industry as big pharma. If anything I see a threat to big pharma in form of lawsuits, lost profit as a bigger cause to react and my god they showed some epic reaction, not just refuting his research but getting the man banned from medicine.

[bolil]

No side effects? What about the trauma incurred by being held down while some stranger sticks a hypodermic in your arm? Pfffft.
Angel, I got heated last night and I apologize for that. Still, though, you are aware you are advocating government tyranny in one of its most cliche forms, right? Forcing people to consume. If you are vaccinated, whats the issue? If you want to bruit about something bruit about the over-prescription/consumption of antibiotics. You thinks AIDS is bad, just you wait. Since I cannot be sure you are not taking antibiotics reasonably, I think I should be able to send armed men into your home to make sure. Oh, and they WILL take your blood, with a needle or lead. Your choice. It is for your protection.

That is what this comes down to, its not about science since not everything in this world is empirical. You might say a good raping keeps people nonviolent, you might build an intellectual apparatus to affirm this fact, don't make that shit right. (see, use vulgarity to accent, not overpower ;))

[Contumacious]

This is the disconnect that bothers me most.

Everyone knows there are some people who are allergic to penicillin and therefore we shouldn't give them that drug. Some people are allergic to formaldehyde. Some people are allergic to eggs. Some people are allergic to latex.

But vaccines? SCREW THE WORLD! One size fits all! For the greater good and all! Sounds purely evil, from my point of view.

They could at least TRY to figure out the common denominator on all those who have vaccine reactions so that children can be tested for such PRIOR to vaccination. But nope, that's just ignorance. Vaccines are 100% safe says the government! Now go get your flu shot!

So should vaccinations be voluntary. You don't know anyone that would say that since he/she is infected with, ie, HIV , that he/she doesn't give a flying fuck if everybody else is?

/

[mosquitobite]

Do you know Ron Paul (an Ob/Gyn)'s position on forced vaccination?

[moostraks]

The anti-vaxxers don't have shit to prove their point, so they just lie and make up stuff.

It is insanity to see someone arguing that the very case of the deaths and disabilities from the vaccines are not a sufficient argument to use to state they pose a danger to the person being vaccinated. So while in one breath you claim "anti-vaxxers" don't have anything you then say well no one is arguing they cause death or disability. WTH? And these are just the ones that have slipped through the onerous hoops to be legitimized as a repercussion from the vaccine and not the ones where they blame SIDS or shaken baby syndrome or anything else they can try to lay the blame on.

[PRB]

So should vaccinations be voluntary. You don't know anyone that would say that since he/she is infected with, ie, HIV , that he/she doesn't give a flying fuck if everybody else is?

/

everything should be volutary, you damn statist!

[Contumacious]

Nothing like some sickness to bring out the closet authoritarians..

Do I have a right to life and to defend the same?
Do I have a right to stand my ground?
Is assertiveness authoritarianism ?


The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

[PRB]

Do you know Ron Paul (an Ob/Gyn)'s position on forced vaccination?

I do, his position is anti-government on everything except preventing abortion.

[PRB]

Do I have a right to life and to defend the same?
Do I have a right to stand my ground?
Is assertiveness authoritarianism ?


The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

you are free to defend your life, but me being sick is not aggressing against you.

[bolil]

I couldn't care less about Dr. Paul's position on vaccinations. While I'll be writing him in on every ballot that comes my way, he isn't my God. He might be down with state agents forcing needles into peoples arms to 'protect them', though I doubt that. Too bad he doesn't frequent these forums with the truth bombs he sop often drops.

[Contumacious]

I think majority of humans naturally have an authoritarian streaks in em, it just takes the right trigger to bring it out. I hate to see the day mine is exposed.

Do you believe that individuals will VOLUNTARILY decide that they want to protect the rest us by either vaccinating or staying home while their are sick?

.

[Mini-Me]

Do you believe that individuals will VOLUNTARILY decide that they want to protect the rest us by either vaccinating or staying home while their are sick?

.

You should probably just go ahead and kill everyone before they go outside of the house, because they might otherwise harm you. At least that way you'd take things to their logical conclusion and achieve a final solution instead of wasting time with all these probabilistic half measures.

[bolil]

Do I have a right to life and to defend the same?
Do I have a right to stand my ground?
Is assertiveness authoritarianism ?


The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Well, let the druggies out of prison and put the sick people in. Bunch of jerks they are.

Would you call the cops on me if I coughed at YOUR Starbucks? Right? Its a cough, could be consumption (TB). The only way to know is a test. Right? So, how to get a person to take the test, provided they don't want to? The same way you get a person to do anything they don't want to do: Stick a gun in their face. Forced vaccinations. It has been discovered that raping male children makes them less violent... lets make that compulsory, too. Because? I wanna be safe when I walk around in the world. Wait. Oh fuck. Life ends, inevitably, in death. Guess I can't be safe, even when I am.


If you don't want to get sick ever again, take a couple handfuls of sleeping pills and wash em down with a high proof something. Cause death is the final cure, right? Don't need to worry about disease six feet under.

[mosquitobite]

I couldn't care less about Dr. Paul's position on vaccinations. While I'll be writing him in on every ballot that comes my way, he isn't my God. He might be down with state agents forcing needles into peoples arms to 'protect them', though I doubt that. Too bad he doesn't frequent these forums with the truth bombs he sop often drops.

He is anti-forced vaccination. some here would lump him in with cRAzY because he believes the government is most often WRONG and that some vaccines have the propensity to harm.

So all these statists arguing in favor of statism...on the RonPaulforums no less can take their position elsewhere.

[bolil]

He is anti-forced vaccination. some here would lump him in with cRAzY because he believes the government is most often WRONG and that some vaccines have the propensity to harm.

So all these statists arguing in favor of statism...on the RonPaulforums no less can take their position elsewhere.

No surprise there. I agree, forced consumption of anything is statist to the core.

[Ender]

So should vaccinations be voluntary. You don't know anyone that would say that since he/she is infected with, ie, HIV , that he/she doesn't give a flying fuck if everybody else is?

/


Look- I am a healthy guy who has NEVER BEEN VACCINATED, nor do I run to doctors.

I was taught to take care of myself, eat as naturally as possible and develop the understanding of herbs and natural healing. My parents live completely off the medical grid. My grandmother is 70 and looks like she's 45.

Because we take care of ourselves, why should we be punished because you do not? And why should people who choose not to vaccinate be punished when Big Pharma's answers don't work for you and you get the disease anyway?

[Contumacious]

In times of crisis, it's more important than ever to listen to the experts.

True, but we must ALWAYS challenge authority and ascertain that the crisis is real.

.

[Christian Liberty]

I do, his position is anti-government on everything except preventing abortion.

I'm anti-government period... as in, every single time ever. I want all government to be replaced by the free market.

But, I see no inconsistency whatsoever in supporting libertarian, even anarcho-capitalist, positions as far as the institution of government goes, supporting the NAP 100%, and still supporting anti-abortion laws.

That debate is always going to exist as long as there's a debate on when life begins. I don't think anyone's going to be swayed on that issue, but the bottom line is, if you believe life begins at conception there's nothing illogical about wanting to ban abortion and at the same time being 100% anti-government.

[IBleedNavyAndOrange]

All you need to know about vaccines is that the companies that manufacture them aren't liable when a known side effect that is listed on the insert happens.

Can you imagine that?

I offer a product. I say this product causes certain side effects. The side effect happens and I have no liability.

I didn't even mention the poison the CDC claims is in vaccines.

Google - SV40
Google - GBS
Google - Julie Gerberding

Too big to fail.

[PRB]

if you believe life begins at conception there's nothing illogical about wanting to ban abortion and at the same time being 100% anti-government.

yeah, but only if.

[Anti Federalist]

For christs sakes - this again? This is what I mean by intellectual dishonesty. Nobody ever said there were not potential side effects to vaccines.

My point is perfectly illustrated in the post about the chicken pox vaccine.

OK, so there are potential deadly side effects.

Now, regardless of what weight there is to those side effects vis-a-vis effectiveness, you see no need to force people to take vaccines?

[DamianTV]

I do, his position is anti-government on everything except preventing abortion.

Even then and there, he thinks that should be up to each State to decide instead of the decree of the Federal Government. Ron Paul might be just described as an Anti Federalist. (*eyeballs Anti Federalist*) One thing he isnt is an Anarchist.

[Anti Federalist]

You should probably just go ahead and kill everyone before they go outside of the house, because they might otherwise harm you. At least that way you'd take things to their logical conclusion and achieve a final solution instead of wasting time with all these probabilistic half measures.

/Thread AFAIC

[Anti Federalist]

Do you believe that individuals will VOLUNTARILY decide that they want to protect the rest us by either vaccinating or staying home while their are sick?

.

What measures do you plan to use to achieve compliance?

[Contumacious]

Rising temperature, increasing drought, ocean acidification, polar bears dying, more deadly storms etc etc. The experts at the UN, NASA, all the top universities and research labs are telling you that global warming is happening and we have to give up our current lifestyle to prevent the disasters which their computer models have predicted. This is no mere disease, this is about saving the entire planet so you better doubly do what they ask of us.

I bet you don't plan on doing a fraction of the things they recommend we do. Its not as easy as just listening to "the experts" especially seeing the conflict of interests that exist between the "experts" and the companies in line to make bank off said crisis.

I don't buy globull warming either.

But Luis Pasteur's experiments have been replicated.

.

[Anti Federalist]

Do I have a right to life and to defend the same?
Do I have a right to stand my ground?
Is assertiveness authoritarianism ?


The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

No, not as you define it.

You are talking about using deadly force against people who have not committed an act of aggression against you.

[bolil]

Does this thread mean I can sue the girl that gave me crabs? She shoulda known, and with such a precedent I think I could take her for all she is worth: My helmet, my jacket, my pedals, and my boots. LOL

[bolil]

I don't buy globull warming either.

But Luis Pasteur's experiments have been replicated.

.

They are not his experiments. When you see something fall do you say, "Newton, vindicated again."?
Did you know that guns are used to hurt people, if we are going to force vaccinations why not confiscate those as well?

"The state. Vaccinating life since inception. Let's use that, shall we?" Pfffft.

[Contumacious]

And using that logic has got us the tyranny we have now.

Yipee...Wait until you see what I come up with, that YOU will have to comply with, for MY own good.

This is hopeless...we're fucked.

I get your drift.

I am very aware of how the former USSR used psychiatry as a tool of the state.

So , let's come up with non-governmental solutions to the problem.

.

[ZENemy]

Look- I am a healthy guy who has NEVER BEEN VACCINATED, nor do I run to doctors.

I was taught to take care of myself, eat as naturally as possible and develop the understanding of herbs and natural healing. My parents live completely off the medical grid. My grandmother is 70 and looks like she's 45.

Because we take care of ourselves, why should we be punished because you do not? And why should people who choose not to vaccinate be punished when Big Pharma's answers don't work for you and you get the disease anyway?

Same here. No vaccines for me and rarely get sick, I have not even had the common cold in over 7 years, I do IT and touch dozens of computers per day and visit many different offices. Both my parents are in their 60's, they take no pills are not over weight and do not visit the doctor. They do yearly blood test like I do. I will not be getting any type of healthcare EVER (besides my ER coverage) nor will I be taking any vaccines that I do not feel comfortable with.

I know many peoples "line in the sand" is "taking our guns away" but for me, its my health, nobody owns me or my body and I will not be told what to put in it.

[Contumacious]

Vaccines can be dangerous and can cause severe side effects, including death.

Do you deny that?

The choices are

Vaccination
or
Quarantine.

.

[ZENemy]

The very next day after my Girlfriend (a vegan, in great health) got an HPV shot her finger tips on both hands go numb, turn purple and get real cold and from what I hear, this is common and can be permanent. This had never happened to her until after the shot, she has never had any extremities go numb on her before the shot.

One month after the shot she could barely stay awake at work and had a month long flu like infection, never sick, before the shot.

[Contumacious]

So, just to be clear: You're not contesting my point that your view is the Bush Doctrine applied to a new issue. Instead, you're arguing in favor of the Bush Doctrine across the board, including on matters of foreign policy...and you claim this is a libertarian viewpoint. Am I misinterpreting your comments in any way here?


HUH? WTF?

Bush was a criminal scumbag who totally and completely MISUSED the doctrine.

.

[ZENemy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGbjKpvKzGc

[Antischism]

The anti-vaccine movement has absolutely no ground to stand on aside from the shaky foundation its own proponents create with their faulty logic and theories. Here's an entertaining video on the subject which people here might be more open to viewing since Penn is a Libertarian.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLcOz4EKrxg

However, I do agree that they should be voluntary. While I do believe this, I think it's necessary to counter all the FUD being spread by anti-vaccinators using scientific studies and research.

[moostraks]

The choices are

Vaccination
or
Quarantine.

.


Funny seems as if the liberty position should be much like insurance was...You get vaccinated because you believe in the product being sold. Then you can also choose to create vaccine zones wherein everyone is vaccinated such as a vaccine homeowners association, vaccine private daycare, vaccine grocery stores, etc. The liberty position should not be to force people to purchase a product from private agencies under threat of force from government agents because your product of choice, vaccines, is not as effective as you would like and your fear makes you think you should be allowed to force others to take the same risk you chose for yourself, thus demanding they spin the wheel of potential death and disabilities from vaccine side effects.

[Contumacious]

Oh, and if I refuse to comply with your "demand"?

Who shows up with a gun to stick in my face?

You?

Or will you send a proxy in a goofy government costume?

The Health Officer and chief vaccine enforcer in my 'hood looks like this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6X8tn5_kW0U/T1vfAnUR7_I/AAAAAAAAF-c/4j7VPCMToxQ/s1600/sexy+nurse-4.jpg

So give me your zip code so that I can locate yours.

LOL.

[Reason]

AHEM!


FUCK REASON

phew, its been a while...

WTF did I do!?!?!

=P

[Anti Federalist]

I get your drift.

I am very aware of how the former USSR used psychiatry as a tool of the state.

So , let's come up with non-governmental solutions to the problem.

.

Got one.

Shine it on...shit happens in life.

Someone sneezing on a plane is not someone throwing a bag of HIV infected blood at you.

[DamianTV]

I get your drift.

I am very aware of how the former USSR used psychiatry as a tool of the state.

So , let's come up with non-governmental solutions to the problem.

.

I've only got one, and I know its not perfect.

Personal Responsibility.

At the same time, I can not try to force anyone else to behave Responsibly in exactly the same way as I might.

[donnay]

I understand your discomfort. Not everything the government does is bad. But let's find a non-governmental approach.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41JWVvw0m8L._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All (http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Choices-Anti-Vaccine-Movement-Threatens/dp/B005HKUA4O/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373674275&sr=1-2&keywords=vaccines+paul+offit)

.

LOL, Dr. Offit? Offit is the whore for Big pHARMa!



Dr. Offit is the Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He is also a consultant to Merck and the developer of Rotateq, a rotavirus vaccine which he developed with Merck. He has served on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. He is the Director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and sits on the advisory boards of Every Child By Two, PKIDS, the Immunization Action Coalition – all groups committed to defending the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Curiously, only the Immunization Action Coalition reveals its funding – it comes mostly from the pharmaceutical industry and CDC.

Dr. Offit is clearly a very busy guy but somehow, despite his work commitments, he has managed to refashion himself as an expert on autism with the publication of two books on the subject and now as an expert on supplements and alternative medicine with the publication of two new books as well as finding time to conduct numerous interviews in print, radio and online (that is the kind of media coverage only big money can buy). He must be exhausted.

Dr. Offit is a real hitter in the medical industry so people should respect his opinion as an independent voice on all these matters, right? One might want to consider the following before deciding. According to a 2008 report (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-independent-are-vaccine-defenders/) by CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson, “Offit holds a $1.5 million dollar research chair at Children’s Hospital, funded by Merck.” Hmmm. So his position at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia is funded by one of the leading vaccine manufacturers in the world. He also developed Rotateq, a rotavirus vaccine, together with Merck and according to Attkisson, “future royalties for the vaccine were just sold for $182 million cash. Dr. Offit’s share of vaccine profits? Unknown.”

http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/news-views/do-you-believe-in-magic-no-but-we-believe-in-facts/

How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9p9L0E5tUs

[donnay]

It is insanity to see someone arguing that the very case of the deaths and disabilities from the vaccines are not a sufficient argument to use to state they pose a danger to the person being vaccinated. So while in one breath you claim "anti-vaxxers" don't have anything you then say well no one is arguing they cause death or disability. WTH? And these are just the ones that have slipped through the onerous hoops to be legitimized as a repercussion from the vaccine and not the ones where they blame SIDS or shaken baby syndrome or anything else they can try to lay the blame on.

This just proves my point that angelatc does speak out of both sides of her mouth.

[CT4Liberty]

What's so complicated about private property rights, people?

Its really not complicated in the slightest. You want to require people to get vaccinated to come on your property, that's your right. I seriously doubt that it would actually work on the market, but you go ahead and try it if you want. You have no right to make a uniform law that everyone gets vaccinated, which is a blatant pre-crime.

I'm honestly not really pro vaccine or anti vaccine. I am almost certain that its still possible to get sick with the disease after being vaccinated. That doesn't necessarily mean it won't reduce the odds. I don't know.

But I want nothing to do with this "pre-crime" crap. Anyone who supports forcing people to get vaccinated at gunpoint is evil. Anyone who acts on that desire should be punished by lethal self-defense.

I totally agree with this - and thats the crux of it... science or not, does not matter - what matters is property rights.

[CT4Liberty]

All you need to know about vaccines is that the companies that manufacture them aren't liable when a known side effect that is listed on the insert happens.

Can you imagine that?

I offer a product. I say this product causes certain side effects. The side effect happens and I have no liability.

I didn't even mention the poison the CDC claims is in vaccines.

Google - SV40
Google - GBS
Google - Julie Gerberding

Too big to fail.

Actually, its one of the things that actually makes sense. IF I make a product and tell you the potential harm it can do and you still take it, why is it my fault if it happens... what doesnt make sense is then forcing someone to use that product if they determine of their own free will they do not want to take that risk, that the value of the product does not outweigh the risks it presents.... that is what I cant imagine.

[Christian Liberty]

I totally agree with this - and thats the crux of it... science or not, does not matter - what matters is property rights.

My dad presented me with an Al Mohler article because of something I said about government SSM being a relatively unimportant issue. The article basically talked about the issue where a Colorado cakemaker was being forced to make a cake for a gay couple. I pointed out that while my dad (And Al Mohler) were completely correct about the problem, the solution comes in the form of "freedom of association" not this or that policy with regards to gay marriage.

Property rights solve pretty much every political problem:)

[PRB]

The choices are

Vaccination
or
Quarantine.

.

Both should be voluntary.

[bolil]

Angel must have given up, too bad and also good. Don't be a tyrant, ANgel.

[rambone]

I will NEVER ask that you be administered medicine for your own good - but I will demand that you be vaccinated for MY own good.
Did you read Michael Badnarik's quote in the article? A lot of people feel that way. Stabbing unwilling people with needles can be hazardous to your health.


The choices are

Vaccination
or
Quarantine.
Force or force.

You know, you have a choice too. Stay home in your plastic bubble. If you want to experience the world, expect that there will be germs.


What then is your solution?
Freedom.

[rambone]

The anti-vaxxers don't have shit to prove their point, so they just lie and make up stuff.
Except for maimed family members and documented & admitted side-effects. But that ain't shit.


For christs sakes - this again? This is what I mean by intellectual dishonesty. Nobody ever said there were not potential side effects to vaccines.
You insinuate this whenever you act like vaccine skeptics have no rational argument.


We wouldn't believe in free market solutions if there wasn't a track record to prove our point.
Do you believe in a free market for vaccines?

No government help or hindrance. No subsidies. No tax-sponsored commercial advertisements. No coercing shots at government schools. No vaccines.gov. No congressional protection for vaccine makers.

Let the technology stand on its own feet without being propped up by government. Are you down for some free market??

[rambone]

UPDATE: Now Reason staff are arguing for imprisoning sick people.

After 7 days my article has not provoked a response. However, today Reason published two articles nearly simultaneously in what appears to be a choreographed “debate” between Ronald Bailey and another exceedingly pro-vaccine author named Jeffrey Singer.

Singer, to his credit, raises a number of questions that point out to the reader that coercive vaccination would subvert liberty, privacy, and personal autonomy. He then goes on to agree with Bailey on a number of points, comparing people who haven’t vaccinated to pregnant mothers who feed alcohol and cigarettes to their fetuses. They both generally deride anyone who doesn’t live by the mainstream pro-pharmaceutical ideals, and like a couple of broken records they both keep reiterating that any skepticism of vaccination is “pseudoscience.”

Singer goes on to make several weak arguments which Bailey used to further his statist points.

I analyze the responses at the bottom of my original article.

READ MORE: Reason Magazine advocates forced vaccination… and forced quarantine | Police State USA (http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/reason-magazine-forced-vaccination/)

"It is unclear if Singer wants to actually criminalize disease, or if he wants to imprison sick people outside of law, indefinitely, without due process. Either way, the implications are profound and dangerous to liberty. That did not stop Bailey from heartily agreeing...."

http://www.policestateusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/TheCrazies_Biohazard.jpg

[mosquitobite]

So Contumacious works for Reason?

[angelatc]

You insinuate this whenever you act like vaccine skeptics have no rational argument.


The "rational" argument you're using is exactly the same logic used by people who play the lottery every week. ( The only somewhat rational argument would be that because so many people around me get vaccinated, I don't need to.) But the anti-vaxxers preach that the vaccines are far worse than the diseases themselves, which is such an outright despicable lie that it is far beyond ridiculous that it even needs to be addressed.


But because nobody addressed it, it is now spreading itself as truth in the minds of weak minded gullible people, especially those that didn't get enough of a science education in school to recognize a flawed position when they see one. It's one thing just to allow individuals to be wrong about something. But when you see those people start posting lie after lie after lie in an attempt to convince other people to make choices that endanger their children, it isn't rational just to let them advocate for fallacies without strong objection.

I read somewhere that if logic was natural to the human brain, math would be the easiest subject for almost everybody.