Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 41

Thread: The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover sterilization

  1. #1

    Exclamation The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover sterilization

    Same logic, same legal principle, in a SCROTUS decision that has not been directly reversed.

    If you grant the premise that the state can inoculate you against your will, then you grant the premise that the state can sterilize you against your will.


    We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence.

    It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

    The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

    Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
    Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the 8-1 majority in Buck v Bell.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
    Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him. - Aristotle's Politics Book 5 Part 11



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Yes indeed it can and DID happen in this country. North Carolina was one, just to point to an example. Lots of eugenicists swayed public opinion and continue to this day by using phony overpopulation theories. Same with the 'herd immunity' concept, as the herd are being led to slaughter by lies and pseudo-science.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  4. #3
    It also covers all other forms of eugenics, including being sent to the gas chambers "for the common good".

    Remember, everything Hitler did was legal.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    It also covers all other forms of eugenics, including being sent to the gas chambers "for the common good".

    Remember, everything Hitler did was legal.
    Glad you mentioned that.

    From the same wiki article on the ruling:

    The Virginia statute which the ruling of Buck v. Bell supported was designed in part by the eugenicist Harry H. Laughlin, superintendent of Charles Benedict Davenport's Eugenics Record Office in Cold Spring Harbor, New York.

    Laughlin had, a few years previously, conducted a number of studies on the enforcement of sterilization legislation throughout the country and had concluded that the reason for their lack of use was primarily that the physicians who would order the sterilizations were afraid of prosecution by patients whom they operated upon.

    Laughlin saw the need to create a "Model Law" which could withstand a test of constitutional scrutiny, clearing the way for future sterilization operations.

    Adolf Hitler closely modeled his Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring on Laughlin's "Model Law".

    The Third Reich held Laughlin in such regard that they arranged for him to receive an honorary doctorate from Heidelberg University in 1936.

    At the Nuremberg trials after World War II, Nazi doctors explicitly cited Holmes's opinion in Buck v. Bell as part of their defense
    Once you grant the premise that the state can medicate you against your will, then everything else follows.

    You are no longer an individual, you are nothing but state owned cattle, to be disposed of as the powers that be see fit.

  6. #5
    Is someone here advocating compulsory vaccines and sterilization?

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by amy31416 View Post
    Is someone here advocating compulsory vaccines and sterilization?
    Not directly but indirectly.

    Anyone who blames unvaccinated people for spreading disease are indirectly pushing for compulsory vaccines.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by amy31416 View Post
    Is someone here advocating compulsory vaccines and sterilization?
    I've seen a couple.

    Smart3 comes to mind.

    I think Josh_LA and his sock puppets did as well.

    There's been a few others.

    But let's take it further, beyond vaccines, to things like forced blood draws at "no refusal" DUI checkpoints.

    Or how the medical fascists, under the ACA, will increasingly wield control over you through different medical programs.

    It all goes back to this ruling, which essentially says your body belongs to the state, and the state can fold, spindle and mutilate it any way it pleases.
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 04-18-2014 at 01:08 PM.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by amy31416 View Post
    Is someone here advocating compulsory vaccines and sterilization?
    Me, me, me!

    So long as we start with kops, DA's, judges and politicians...



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Me, me, me!

    So long as we start with kops, DA's, judges and politicians...
    Hmm...now I'm torn.

    But yeah, the only person I've seen advocating those things for poor or ordinary people was Josh_LA--didn't know he was still making sock puppets. I think I have Smart3 on ignore...guess that was for good reason, though I don't recall exactly why I put him on ignore any longer.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by amy31416 View Post
    Hmm...now I'm torn.

    But yeah, the only person I've seen advocating those things for poor or ordinary people was Josh_LA--didn't know he was still making sock puppets. I think I have Smart3 on ignore...guess that was for good reason, though I don't recall exactly why I put him on ignore any longer.
    Pretty sure "PRB" is his latest.

    Haven't seen Smart3 in a while, I'm not even sure where it was I saw him supporting that idea, but I do recall it.

    Was probably in that thread on the Reason article defending compulsory vaccinations.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by amy31416 View Post
    Is someone here advocating compulsory vaccines and sterilization?
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...e-refusal-quot

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Not directly but indirectly.

    Anyone who blames unvaccinated people for spreading disease are indirectly pushing for compulsory vaccines.
    Really Donnay, really? Not only is that a HUGEEE stretch in logic, but a number of have explicitly said we're not for mandatory vaccines. Intentionally mischaracterizing our positions on serves to make you even less credible to some of us or people like us.


    Even Ron Paul talked about this from a "personal responsibility angle".

    The logic you're using is effectively this "Bob said that that man didn't get medical treatment because he had no health insurance; Bob is indirectly pushing for single-payer/mandatory health insurance/health subsidies." It's poor logic and a big leap; unless someone specifically states that they're for mandatory vaccinations (which there may very well be, but don't count me for a few others amongst that group), don't characterize us in that light or put words in out mouth.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I'll have to assume that someone in the thread is all in for forced vaccines...I'm multi-tasking here and can't read hundreds of posts. I think it'd be interesting to see if those who are against vaccines would ban them...although I doubt many would admit it even if they do.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Fox McCloud View Post
    Really Donnay, really? Not only is that a HUGEEE stretch in logic, but a number of have explicitly said we're not for mandatory vaccines. Intentionally mischaracterizing our positions on serves to make you even less credible to some of us or people like us.
    Really Fox McCloud? When you go around saying that because of unvaccinated people, the vaccinated people suffer because the "Herd Immunity" is what stops disease, you are in essence advocating that EVERYONE SHOULD BE VACCINATED!

    Examples:
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...es-Back-to-NYC
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...munity-At-Risk
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Speak-Volumes
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Epidemic-Level
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ere-Vaccinated
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ine-Propaganda
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ed-by-vaccines
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Really Fox McCloud? When you go around saying that because of unvaccinated people, the vaccinated people suffer because the "Herd Immunity" is what stops disease, you are in essence advocating that EVERYONE SHOULD BE VACCINATED!

    It's suggesting/advocating that people get vaccinated, yes, but that's a LONG way from mandating that everyone get vaccinated because the state is pointing a gun at you and saying "do it or else".

    So yeah, don't mischaracterize; it's rude, dishonest, and scummy--I doubt you'd want me to characterize you as something you're not; please extend me the same courtesy.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by amy31416 View Post
    I'll have to assume that someone in the thread is all in for forced vaccines...I'm multi-tasking here and can't read hundreds of posts. I think it'd be interesting to see if those who are against vaccines would ban them...although I doubt many would admit it even if they do.
    Yeah there were a couple.

    No, I would not be in favor banning vaccines, and if I were to get bit by a rabid animal, I'd get vaccinated for it.

    To me there are two issues:

    1) Is the risk/reward assessment for each medication taken, and the possible side effects. This can vary from person to person, from medication to medication. "Whatever you think is best for you and yours" is my response here. Simple enough. I have my opinions, which one can take or leave as they wish. Pepperoni or green peppers...whatever blows your skirt up.

    2) Is the compulsory viewpoint, that essentially states complete strangers and government officers have the right to oversee every aspect of my medical choices, and further, have the right to force me, ultimately at gunpoint, to comply with their wishes based on some perceived societal good, for the betterment of the herd.

    That is straight up eugenics and will be met with vigorous pushback on my part.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Fox McCloud View Post
    It's suggesting/advocating that people get vaccinated, yes, but that's a LONG way from mandating that everyone get vaccinated because the state is pointing a gun at you and saying "do it or else".

    So yeah, don't mischaracterize; it's rude, dishonest, and scummy--I doubt you'd want me to characterize you as something you're not; please extend me the same courtesy.
    Those suggesting/advocating that people get vaccinated and advocating for parents to be arrested, for neglect, if they don't vaccinate their children, obviously, do not realize they are indirectly pushing for government to force vaccinations on all of us.

    Now whether you want to believe it or not, that's simply up to you.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Yeah there were a couple.

    No, I would not be in favor banning vaccines, and if I were to get bit by a rabid animal, I'd get vaccinated for it.

    To me there are two issues:

    1) Is the risk/reward assessment for each medication taken, and the possible side effects. This can vary from person to person, from medication to medication. "Whatever you think is best for you and yours" is my response here. Simple enough. I have my opinions, which one can take or leave as they wish. Pepperoni or green peppers...whatever blows your skirt up.

    2) Is the compulsory viewpoint, that essentially states complete strangers and government officers have the right to oversee every aspect of my medical choices, and further, have the right to force me, ultimately at gunpoint, to comply with their wishes based on some perceived societal good, for the betterment of the herd.

    That is straight up eugenics and will be met with vigorous pushback on my part.
    I think it would be fair for a non-vaccinating parent to inform other parents that their child is not vaccinated. I have my opinions as well, and I wouldn't want to take unnecessary risks--I wouldn't let my kid play with other unvaccinated children. My daughter plays with other children, and some of their siblings are unvaccinated infants. I'm okay with people doing whatever they decide is best for their children, but it's unfair to others who might have kids that are vulnerable. I put my daughter on a schedule that, to the best of my knowledge, was best for her. And I kept her away from everyone who could potentially pass anything on to her prior to her getting big enough for the full round of vaccines (she was born a month early and weighed 5lbs.) What if she had older siblings and I couldn't isolate her from the risk factors that I chose because other people who decided not to vaccinate exposed an older sibling? Is that fair--absolutely not.

    With freedom comes a lot of responsibility.

    I honestly don't care about the eugenics argument, it won't change anybody's mind because forced vaccines and sterilizations are such distant concepts in people's minds, and Oliver Wendell Holmes is an illogical sleaze for making that part of his case (disabilities are not contagious, derrrrrr). But I am glad that you have the sense to get a rabies vaccine if necessary--after seeing the utter lack of logic with the 'flu vaccine girl, walking backwards, etc. I was simply starting to think that anti-vaccine people were simply insane, and it started making sense to me that doctors get pissy when someone like myself wants to adjust the vaccine schedule.

    Oh, and there was a poster here who wouldn't get the rabies vaccine if bitten by a rabid animal. He said he'd "take his chances." And those chances are nil when it comes to survival--now that's just $#@!ing insanity.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Those suggesting/advocating that people get vaccinated and advocating for parents to be arrested, for neglect, if they don't vaccinate their children, obviously, do not realize they are indirectly pushing for government to force vaccinations on all of us.

    Now whether you want to believe it or not, that's simply up to you.
    Where have I have I ever suggested this? Where has anyone of this board suggested this. You keep changing your definition of what "indirectly pushing for forced vaccination" is; it started off with anyone who says that non-vaccinated people spread it, then it equivocating advocacy for compulsion, and now it's those saying parents should be arrested for neglect?

    Advocacy != compulsion. I advocate for people to get health insurance, but that certainly doesn't mean I think or want it to be mandatory.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Fox McCloud View Post
    ...

    Vaccinations are already mandatory so when a news article comes out demonizing those who are not vaccinated and accuses them of being responsible for killing other people then the writer or anybody promoting those articles should start out by saying that vaccinations SHOULD NOT be mandatory, but that people who are not vaccinated should consider getting them. Instead they throw people who don't get vaccinated into some sort of group or category like "anti-vaxxers" and accuse them of being anti-intellectual and dangerous. It sounds like they want them to be taken as a group to a concentration camp and executed or something, at least that is how it comes off.

    I don't understand why people who are pro-vaccine yet anti-compulsory vaccinations don't put more energy towards ending compulsory vaccinations so that they can educate people about getting them without the fear that they will be promoting a hidden agenda.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Same logic, same legal principle, in a SCROTUS decision that has not been directly reversed.

    If you grant the premise that the state can inoculate you against your will, then you grant the premise that the state can sterilize you against your will.




    Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the 8-1 majority in Buck v Bell.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
    For the relativists who, in their steadfast corruption and appalling ignorance, maintain there is no such thing as "evil", I have but a single word: $#@! you.

    The evil which gallops roughshod across the face of this planet cannot be rightly contained in the perceiving mind of the average man. This is so because he is the anchor by which the Four Horsemen attach themselves to this world as leeches upon a man's back. They are the means by which such evil is made not only possible, but is nourished to perfect blossom to which we now daily bear witness. Without the average man, the "meaner", such evil could not exist as it would hold the same prospects for success as a man in an evacuated chamber of living past the few seconds of life remaining to him.

    Wrapping my head around it reduces my otherwise rational mind to a state of utterly insensate paralysis.

    There is no hope here.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by amy31416 View Post
    I think it would be fair for a non-vaccinating parent to inform other parents that their child is not vaccinated. I have my opinions as well, and I wouldn't want to take unnecessary risks--I wouldn't let my kid play with other unvaccinated children. My daughter plays with other children, and some of their siblings are unvaccinated infants. I'm okay with people doing whatever they decide is best for their children, but it's unfair to others who might have kids that are vulnerable. I put my daughter on a schedule that, to the best of my knowledge, was best for her. And I kept her away from everyone who could potentially pass anything on to her prior to her getting big enough for the full round of vaccines (she was born a month early and weighed 5lbs.) What if she had older siblings and I couldn't isolate her from the risk factors that I chose because other people who decided not to vaccinate exposed an older sibling? Is that fair--absolutely not.
    You did what you think is best and that's all any of us can do.

    But how minimal is the risk of the bolded part?

    Does your daughter go with you to the store, or church, or shopping or to the park?

    How many people would she come in contact with that may be either ill or unvaccinated that you are unaware of?

    And again, disregarding any "herd immunity" discussions, if the vaccines are as safe and effective as they are claimed to be, then why would it matter if she had contact with unvaccinated people?

  26. #23
    Not intentionally malevolent.

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    For the relativists who, in their steadfast corruption and appalling ignorance, maintain there is no such thing as "evil", I have but a single word: $#@! you.

    The evil which gallops roughshod across the face of this planet cannot be rightly contained in the perceiving mind of the average man. This is so because he is the anchor by which the Four Horsemen attach themselves to this world as leeches upon a man's back. They are the means by which such evil is made not only possible, but is nourished to perfect blossom to which we now daily bear witness. Without the average man, the "meaner", such evil could not exist as it would hold the same prospects for success as a man in an evacuated chamber of living past the few seconds of life remaining to him.

    Wrapping my head around it reduces my otherwise rational mind to a state of utterly insensate paralysis.

    There is no hope here.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Fox McCloud View Post
    It's suggesting/advocating that people get vaccinated, yes, but that's a LONG way from mandating that everyone get vaccinated because the state is pointing a gun at you and saying "do it or else".

    You were doing fair to middling until you dropped that gem. It is NOT a long way. It is, in fact, a very short way and history backs this unequivocally. The list of "should be" issues that have turned into "must be" commandments is long, tedious, dangerous, and heartbreaking.

    Donnay went a bit too far in her assertion, but you have erred in similar fashion, just from the opposing standpoint. I have had exchanges with endess numbers of people who believe and advocate precisely as donnay asserted, whether the issue is vaccinations, taxation, or what have you. That she made her assertions in an overly-broad tone, it does not follow that she was more incorrect than otherwise. Likewise, you were correct to point out that the two issues are not coupled causally or by any other obvious linkage.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Same logic, same legal principle, in a SCROTUS decision that has not been directly reversed.

    If you grant the premise that the state can inoculate you against your will, then you grant the premise that the state can sterilize you against your will.
    Reminds me of:
    "It's for your own good."
    "I wish you'd stop being so good to me, Captain."

    ...

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    You were doing fair to middling until you dropped that gem. It is NOT a long way. It is, in fact, a very short way and history backs this unequivocally. The list of "should be" issues that have turned into "must be" commandments is long, tedious, dangerous, and heartbreaking.
    Many many people are gun, science, higher-education, technology, gaming, or exercise advocates (the list goes on); that means they support it, they back it---and I still assert, that's a long way from mandating and compulsion.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by amy31416 View Post
    I think it would be fair for a non-vaccinating parent to inform other parents that their child is not vaccinated. I have my opinions as well, and I wouldn't want to take unnecessary risks--I wouldn't let my kid play with other unvaccinated children.
    You have apparently failed to grasp the primary results of vaccination.

    If you are vaccinated against pathogen X, you presumably have developed immunity to it. Having developed said immunity, you are in the main impervious to developing whatever diseases associated with pathogen X. That does NOT mean that you cannot be a carrier, either long term or short.

    For example, though you are strongly immune to pneumococcus, it is virtually certain that you carry the pathogen in your lungs every day of your life. The reason you do not develop pneumonia is that your immune system is strong and trained to defend against the bacterium.

    Even if your body kills off all of a given pathogen, you may still be a temporary carrier by virtue of coming into contact with it. You touch a door handle or some other object with which many other hands have made contact. You are now a carrier, like it or not. You may not develop disease, but having shaken hands with another may well introduce enough of the bug to infect them, too.

    Given all this, it is the unvaccinated person who has the most to fear If you carry a bug against which you are immune, it is an easy matter to transfer pathogens from yourself to one who is unvaccinated. Such a person may do the same, but what do you care if you are already immune?

    As you can see, something does not track in the reasoning of the paranoid pro-vacciners. They appear to view the subject 180* out of phase with reality.

    My daughter plays with other children, and some of their siblings are unvaccinated infants. I'm okay with people doing whatever they decide is best for their children, but it's unfair to others who might have kids that are vulnerable.


    Why would your children be vulnerable if they have been vaccinated, unless the process is itself not quite what some would have you think?

    I put my daughter on a schedule that, to the best of my knowledge, was best for her. And I kept her away from everyone who could potentially pass anything on to her prior to her getting big enough for the full round of vaccines (she was born a month early and weighed 5lbs.) What if she had older siblings and I couldn't isolate her from the risk factors that I chose because other people who decided not to vaccinate exposed an older sibling? Is that fair--absolutely not.
    And under the circumstances YOU cite, the state of having been vaccinated would have helped your child ZERO and may in fact have endangered her more.


    With freedom comes a lot of responsibility.
    Perhaps, but not of the brands you here suggest.

    I honestly don't care about the eugenics argument, it won't change anybody's mind because forced vaccines and sterilizations are such distant concepts in people's minds,

    And you think that this could not change almost over night? Surely you cannot be that naive.


    Oh, and there was a poster here who wouldn't get the rabies vaccine if bitten by a rabid animal. He said he'd "take his chances." And those chances are nil when it comes to survival--now that's just $#@!ing insanity.
    Flawed example. Rabies vaccines are administered REACTIVELY, not proactively. One does not run off to the doctor and get their child vaccinated with a preventative rabies vaccine. They get the series after having been bitten. If one waits too long, all the rabies vaccine on the planet will not be able to help you. Also, chances of survival are low, but most definitely not nil.
    Last edited by osan; 04-18-2014 at 09:45 PM.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Fox McCloud View Post
    Where have I have I ever suggested this? Where has anyone of this board suggested this. You keep changing your definition of what "indirectly pushing for forced vaccination" is; it started off with anyone who says that non-vaccinated people spread it, then it equivocating advocacy for compulsion, and now it's those saying parents should be arrested for neglect?

    Advocacy != compulsion. I advocate for people to get health insurance, but that certainly doesn't mean I think or want it to be mandatory.
    Who is accusing you here? Guilty conscience, maybe?

    Anyone who thinks everyone should be vaccinated is walking in line with the propaganda put out by Big pHARMa and government.

    Forty-nine (49) vaccines from newborn to 6 years old is a lot for an undeveloped brain and other organs to be barraged with. I hear some speak of responsibility in this thread, but I am curious, how does one act responsible and yet ignorant of the toxic ingredients in vaccines?

    Whatever the reason, it is hardly conducive to a free society. Yet in many areas of the country people are being forced medicated to drink fluoride--and there are bunches of people who agree fluoride is good for your teeth. Again, if you tell a lie over and over, people begin to believe it.

    For me, I would rather live in anarchy than to live in tyranny--in this case it is medical tyranny and I loathe it.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    You did what you think is best and that's all any of us can do.

    But how minimal is the risk of the bolded part?

    Does your daughter go with you to the store, or church, or shopping or to the park?

    How many people would she come in contact with that may be either ill or unvaccinated that you are unaware of?

    And again, disregarding any "herd immunity" discussions, if the vaccines are as safe and effective as they are claimed to be, then why would it matter if she had contact with unvaccinated people?
    Of course she comes into contact with these other people, but I'm not quite as concerned now that she's vaccinated and she's bigger and stronger. I still take precautions and observe and act while her immune system continues to evolve...but knowing that so many more people don't vaccinate makes me more vigilant--and she doesn't go to a store and play with other children there. She plays at a park with other children that I know. She doesn't go to church and I've never had anyone other than immediate family members responsible for her in my absence. When she was under 10 lbs and unvaccinated, and when she was under one year of age and hadn't had the time to develop and for me to evaluate her "sickly" factor--I kept her away from other people who weren't vetted. That's my responsibility.

    At this point, she's only in contact with other children who are vaccinated.

    And why would you disregard "herd immunity?" Vaccines are safe for me, my parents, my family, my husband, his family--not a single person has had an adverse reaction. My father did have lifelong minor issues after getting through whooping cough as a child though. My husband is deathly allergic to fish--so she won't have any until I get a full battery of tests run.

    I protect her from immediate threats, and that includes people who aren't vaccinated because, as you should know, vaccines aren't 100% effective. I don't risk her life to make a point, to be a rebel or to have a political stance. What you do is okay by me, but is it really asking too much for those who choose not to vaccinate to inform other parents so they too can make a choice?

    I understand that there's a possibility that vaccination may not be an acceptable risk to some people--why would those who don't vaccinate not understand that your unvaccinated child may not be an acceptable risk to me? I think it's because they think they're superior and know better. And to that I say--piss off.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    You have apparently failed to grasp the primary results of vaccination.

    If you are vaccinated against pathogen X, you presumably have developed immunity to it. Having developed said immunity, you are in the main impervious to developing whatever diseases associated with pathogen X. That does NOT mean that you cannot be a carrier, either long term or short.

    For example, though you are strongly immune to pneumococcus, it is virtually certain that you carry the pathogen in your lungs every day of your life. The reason you do not develop pneumonia is that your immune system is strong and trained to defend against the bacterium.

    Even if your body kills off all of a given pathogen, you may still be a temporary carrier by virtue of coming into contact with it. You touch a door handle or some other object with which many other hands have made contact. You are now a carrier, like it or not. You may not develop disease, but having shaken hands with another may well introduce enough of the bug to infect them, too.

    Given all this, it is the unvaccinated person who has the most to fear If you carry a bug against which you are immune, it is an easy matter to transfer pathogens from yourself to one who is unvaccinated. Such a person may do the same, but what do you care if you are already immune?

    As you can see, something does not track in the reasoning of the paranoid pro-vacciners. They appear to view the subject 180* out of phase with reality.





    Why would your children be vulnerable if they have been vaccinated, unless the process is itself not quite what some would have you think?



    And under the circumstances YOU cite, the state of having been vaccinated would have helped your child ZERO and may in fact have endangered her more.




    Perhaps, but not of the brands you here suggest.




    And you think that this could not change almost over night? Surely you cannot be that naive.




    Flawed example. Rabies vaccines are administered REACTIVELY, not proactively. One does not run off to the doctor and get their child vaccinated with a preventative rabies vaccine. They get the series after having been bitten. If one waits too long, all the rabies vaccine on the planet will not be able to help you. Also, chances of survival are low, but most definitely not nil.
    Vaccines are not 100% and there is never going to be a way to determine if someone is immune, given all the strains and mutations that arise. You have apparently failed to grasp that. Go take some damned science classes, I'm not your teacher.

    The more you guys push, the more convinced I am that I don't want any part of this illogical, unreasonable bull$#@!. My daughter is very healthy and these "evil" vaccines have not caused her, me or anyone else I know a single problem aside from me having to overcome needlephobia.

    Expose yourself to diseases, that's fine by me--just leave my kid out of your crap and hang it up. I can't and don't want to force you to do anything, and you have no business trying to force me to NOT do something that is absolutely not harmful to you or to my kid, and if it weren't for vaccines I would have probably had to have 10 of them to have a couple survive to adulthood. Vaccines are part of the "training" program for the immune system--I guess you just don't like that the immunity is not built up from eating dirt in a cow pasture?

    Of course even a vaccinated person can become a carrier, but it's for a far shorter duration and much less likely.

    And survival chances without the rabies vaccine ARE nil without massive medical intervention. I initially wrote "practically" nil, but that's not true. You will die from rabies without hardcore medical intervention, and I'm not talking about smoking some pot, eating garlic and getting acupuncture. If I'm wrong, prove it.

    All this reminds me of the fellow in the boat that's sinking who turns down the rescue folks who come by and then questions why God didn't help him.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The American History Of Compulsory Vaccination and its Ties to Eugenics
    By Created4 in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-27-2023, 05:38 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-14-2015, 05:39 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-06-2014, 04:58 PM
  4. Why not cash for sterilization?
    By RonPaulMall in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 04-28-2014, 04:08 PM
  5. Self sterilization
    By tod evans in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-17-2014, 05:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •