While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
Anyone have peer-reviewed studies on vaccines we are giving to kids today that you think are bad, or shouldn't be used?
I already know of the faults of this year's flu vaccine, but I'm unfamiliar with legitimate arguments against vaccines that are supported by science, especially when it comes to say meningitis, measles, whooping cough, etc.
In many different states, e.g. Texas, California, Washington, Oregon, etc. there have been those that do not vaccinate; almost on cue, we have measles outbreaks in those regions that do not require vaccines for that disease.
So, why should people not use vaccines that work over 95% of the time, with rare side effects? And yes, people/kids that do have serious side effects shouldn't vaccinate, but they must rely on other people to not be carriers of the disease.
I'll take the establishment argument, since nobody else is doing so: If you refuse to carry a child, it affects you and the fetus and nobody else. If you refuse a vaccine, you affect the herd immunity and someone else's child may well catch something that will kill them from you.
If you have the right to refuse a vaccine, you could be voluntarily exposing others to something that could possibly kill them. Wouldn't a more apt comparison be the right to eat a peanut butter sandwich or cookies around someone's kid that was allergic to peanuts?
The problem with the "herd immunity" argument is that getting any injection is a health risk in itself. So you're telling me I should get a vaccine (and risk my health) because at some future undetermined time, you're health may be at risk. You want my child to risk their health now because of some future, potential risk that probably will never even be an issue in 90% of the population.
If the idea is that we don't want to put each others children in harms way, then how can you force someone to take a (usually) unnecessary health risk right now (injecting chemicals into the body)? Furthermore, there is absolutely no guarantee the vaccine will actually work while, if you get a vaccine injury, the Pharma companies have 100% immunity from any kind of legal liability.
I would counter that the injection itself is a lower risk than what would happen if you, and others of similar mindset, did not get the vaccinations. We're already seeing measles outbreaks in unvaccinated populations, such as the Disney incident.
Further, there are children (almost wrote "people" here, but a shill has to use the "think of the children" argument at least once, amirite?) who can only be protected by herd immunity such as those with compromised immune systems. While this may not affect your current child, you may be putting at risk a future child of yours by not joining in the collective effort.
If these diseases are not kept out of our population, but instead allowed into small pockets, it's likely we'll see new strains develop due to survival stresses - such as MRSA - and some of those may well be both more life-threatening and able to ignore our current vaccination program.
Lastly, eventually, yes, these vaccines will stop working, but the pharmaceutical companies are for once making vaccines that have little profit, as the workers and owners of these companies don't particularly want to see their children dead either (ooh, another one!). They have to have the legal immunities lest their purely humanitarian efforts end up breaking the company under the weight of lawsuits from the ill-informed and unlucky.
(Sorry, I need more debate practice. I haven't done contra debate in ages. I think my ending sounded a little sarcastic.)
I would counter that the injection itself is a lower risk than what would happen if you, and others of similar mindset, did not get the vaccinations
But it's not just about the vaccine being a lower risk. It's also the fact that we are not actually sure how well these vaccines work. In this Disneyland outbreak, the majority of the sick people are vaccinated. Was it that 20% of the vaccinated people that were exposed to Measels got it or was it 90% of vaccinated people exposed ended up getting Measels? It's impossible to tell and there are not ongoing efficacy studies going on.
Further, there are children (almost wrote "people" here, but a shill has to use the "think of the children" argument at least once, amirite?) who can only be protected by herd immunity such as those with compromised immune systems.
The other side of this argument is that the "herd" is putting my child at risk right now for some future, potential risk that may never come. I understand that vaccine injuries are rare but they are real and it's disingenuous and dangerous for people not to acknowledge that. So what if I get my kid vaccinated and he's the 1 out of 1000 that just reacts bad for whatever reason and ends up with his whole life fucked up? And then in my state there's not a serious outbreak of any disease for the next 100 years. Why did I put my child in harms way again?
But those are all points that reasonable people could see differently and make different valid arguments for. The real problem in all of this is how the debate is being framed in the meta sense. It's not that there are two sides to the argument and we all have different opinions that need discussing and figuring out, it's that this is right, that is wrong and if you go against it you are an extremist.
Because every time any issue becomes ossified to one side or another, it becomes dogma, vaccines become a religion. There can be no rational discussion, there can be no doubting, you are either a believer or you are a heretic. And throughout history, we all know what happens to the heretics. If vaccines become mandatory, it literally means that the State own all children for all intents and purposes because your most private and sacred object, your body, is now out of your power, you no longer get to choose what does or does not enter your body. And the State ownership of our bodies and our children is what we should really be worried about, not Measels.
Lastly, eventually, yes, these vaccines will stop working
The MMR vaccine will be around forever regardless of whether Measels continues to exist or whether the vaccine stops working. That vaccine is a revenue stream so there are powerful people that have an interest and keeping that stream nice and fat and flowing. I assure you that Merck will never do a study to test the long term efficacy of their vaccines and I'd like to see you call for that kind of study. Are you some kind of anti-vax nut job?
ISO: Someone more versed in the argument and more intelligent (that part shouldn't be hard, at least) willing to take the pro-vaccination stance.
I'm really pretty ambivalent to the argument and tired of seeing it, but felt that there was a little too much backslapping and sheeple-mocking in this thread and not enough actual discussion. I also really don't see forced immunizations anytime soon, but we'll see.
Polio and smallpox are eradicated. Vaccines work. People willing to put everyone at risk for a pandemic to avoid a tiny risk of vaccine side effects for themselves are being selfish and myopic.
Remember, each of our bodies is essentially a big bioreactor for viruses. Declining vaccination is leaving the door to the bioweapons lab unlocked. It's negligent. We all need to take personal responsibility, and avoid becoming vectors for disease.
Hopefully they wouldn't. Anti-vaxxers are cheaters in the social contract- they benefit from the risks taken by others getting vaccinated, without contributing themselves.
I have. I also support people being held legally culpable for diseases they negligently transmit to others.
If ISIS was running around deliberately infecting people with measles, I bet your attitude on the matter would be different. You wouldn't allow them to continue doing it, and place the burden on the public to individually protect themselves from bioweapon infection.
News flash: We all have compromised immune systems. Eating nutrition-free, GMO foods, drinking fluoridated water, sitting indoors all day, being chronically stressed and lonely -- this is the average American. Question is, are vaccines the answer to this?
I was trying to get discussion rather than groupthink. Groupthink might make you feel good, but discussion helps grow our defense when dealing with people that disagree with you. But, go ahead and downvote. I'm sure my negative karma will stop the tanks from rolling in.
Well...you heard it hear folks. Nothing is ever going to happen... Everyone just go back to your shit lives. or maybe...its all incremental and occurs as they breakdown society over time. can you not see it in front of your own face, or did you blink too much?
Lots of people. I turned down a job offer because multiple vaccinations were required. And it's a requirement for many US school children.
EDIT: If anything should be required, it should be having a healthy level of vitamin D, whether by sun exposure or supplementation. Every gene in the body depends on Vitamin D to work properly. It is necessary for health; vaccines are not.
If I ran Medicare, I would require every recipient to have the 25(OH)D blood test once a year (no charge). If they are low, which 90% of them will be, they would be given D3 drops to raise their level above 60 ng/ml.
This would drasticaly reduce not only infectious diseases, but cancer, heart disease, diabetes, autoimmune disease, psychiatric disorders, obesity, and on and on. We evolved living outdoors, now we live indoors and eat animals who live indoors.
The vaccine push has the agenda to destroy us, not help us. If they cared about helping citizens to be healthier, they would be taking an entirely different tack.
Nobody (in the USA at least) is being forced to vaccinate. Everyone can choose not to. That might have other ramifications, like you can't send your kid to public school, but there are no fines, no jail time for not vaccinating. Nobody is holding anyone down against their will and jabbing them with needles.
You say my logic is flawed then follow with insults rather than refutations...
Education is a right. Putting contingencies on it is depriving my child of his right to an education. Requiring vaccinations to attend a public school that my taxes pay for is not liberty, it's oppression.
If you don't want you autoimmune compromised snowflake to die because their body isn't equipped to fight off diseases, then send it's on you to send it to a hermetically sealed private school.
The onus is on you, not me, to protect your defective offspring.
What about everyone else's right for your disease carrier to not infect their kids?
The onus is on you, not me, to protect your defective offspring.
Within the next couple years, there will be at least one negligence case tried WRT anti-vac. It will be interesting to see how that gets ruled, won't it?
Lots of people. I turned down a job offer because multiple vaccinations were required. And it's a requirement for many US school children.
EDIT: If anything should be required, it should be having a healthy level of vitamin D, whether by sun exposure or supplementation. Every gene in the body depends on Vitamin D to work properly. It is necessary for health; vaccines are not.
If I ran Medicare, I would require every recipient to have the 25(OH)D blood test once a year (no charge). If they are low, which 90% of them will be, they would be given D3 drops to raise their level above 60 ng/ml.
This would drasticaly reduce not only infectious diseases, but cancer, heart disease, diabetes, autoimmune disease, psychiatric disorders, obesity, and on and on. We evolved living outdoors, now we live indoors and eat animals who live indoors.
The vaccine push has the agenda to destroy us, not help us. If they cared about helping citizens to be healthier, they would be taking an entirely different tack.
31 comments
14 33degree 2015-02-07
I'm Pro-Choice when it comes to vaccines.
7 TheKingOfSocialMedia 2015-02-07
Self Authority for all.
2 battle 2015-02-07
According to most of reddit, no. Just look at all the comments in this thread.
-2 AutoModerator 2015-02-07
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
3 battle 2015-02-07
If it's not required, then fuck off, bot.
0 pep_unit 2015-02-07
my thoughts exactly
1 rabbits_dig_deep 2015-02-07
from yesterday (2/6/15): University of California to require all students to get measles shot
0 TheSonofLiberty 2015-02-07
Anyone have peer-reviewed studies on vaccines we are giving to kids today that you think are bad, or shouldn't be used?
I already know of the faults of this year's flu vaccine, but I'm unfamiliar with legitimate arguments against vaccines that are supported by science, especially when it comes to say meningitis, measles, whooping cough, etc.
In many different states, e.g. Texas, California, Washington, Oregon, etc. there have been those that do not vaccinate; almost on cue, we have measles outbreaks in those regions that do not require vaccines for that disease.
So, why should people not use vaccines that work over 95% of the time, with rare side effects? And yes, people/kids that do have serious side effects shouldn't vaccinate, but they must rely on other people to not be carriers of the disease.
1 TheBigBadDuke 2015-02-07
if you are worried about getting sick vaccinate yourself. don't force other people to vaccinate against their will.
1 TheSonofLiberty 2015-02-07
Other people not vaccinating harms the people that cannot vaccinate for medical reasons.
Also, if you said that during smallpox or polio epidemics, you would be laughed at.
So what is the reason behind not vaccinating?
-4 ceilte 2015-02-07
I'll take the establishment argument, since nobody else is doing so: If you refuse to carry a child, it affects you and the fetus and nobody else. If you refuse a vaccine, you affect the herd immunity and someone else's child may well catch something that will kill them from you.
If you have the right to refuse a vaccine, you could be voluntarily exposing others to something that could possibly kill them. Wouldn't a more apt comparison be the right to eat a peanut butter sandwich or cookies around someone's kid that was allergic to peanuts?
(This subject has been raised multiple times on Reddit, btw. Also, check http://www.activistpost.com/2014/01/big-pharma-and-corporate-media-team-up.html out.)
8 33degree 2015-02-07
The problem with the "herd immunity" argument is that getting any injection is a health risk in itself. So you're telling me I should get a vaccine (and risk my health) because at some future undetermined time, you're health may be at risk. You want my child to risk their health now because of some future, potential risk that probably will never even be an issue in 90% of the population.
If the idea is that we don't want to put each others children in harms way, then how can you force someone to take a (usually) unnecessary health risk right now (injecting chemicals into the body)? Furthermore, there is absolutely no guarantee the vaccine will actually work while, if you get a vaccine injury, the Pharma companies have 100% immunity from any kind of legal liability.
-3 ceilte 2015-02-07
I would counter that the injection itself is a lower risk than what would happen if you, and others of similar mindset, did not get the vaccinations. We're already seeing measles outbreaks in unvaccinated populations, such as the Disney incident.
Further, there are children (almost wrote "people" here, but a shill has to use the "think of the children" argument at least once, amirite?) who can only be protected by herd immunity such as those with compromised immune systems. While this may not affect your current child, you may be putting at risk a future child of yours by not joining in the collective effort.
If these diseases are not kept out of our population, but instead allowed into small pockets, it's likely we'll see new strains develop due to survival stresses - such as MRSA - and some of those may well be both more life-threatening and able to ignore our current vaccination program.
Lastly, eventually, yes, these vaccines will stop working, but the pharmaceutical companies are for once making vaccines that have little profit, as the workers and owners of these companies don't particularly want to see their children dead either (ooh, another one!). They have to have the legal immunities lest their purely humanitarian efforts end up breaking the company under the weight of lawsuits from the ill-informed and unlucky.
(Sorry, I need more debate practice. I haven't done contra debate in ages. I think my ending sounded a little sarcastic.)
8 33degree 2015-02-07
But it's not just about the vaccine being a lower risk. It's also the fact that we are not actually sure how well these vaccines work. In this Disneyland outbreak, the majority of the sick people are vaccinated. Was it that 20% of the vaccinated people that were exposed to Measels got it or was it 90% of vaccinated people exposed ended up getting Measels? It's impossible to tell and there are not ongoing efficacy studies going on.
The other side of this argument is that the "herd" is putting my child at risk right now for some future, potential risk that may never come. I understand that vaccine injuries are rare but they are real and it's disingenuous and dangerous for people not to acknowledge that. So what if I get my kid vaccinated and he's the 1 out of 1000 that just reacts bad for whatever reason and ends up with his whole life fucked up? And then in my state there's not a serious outbreak of any disease for the next 100 years. Why did I put my child in harms way again?
But those are all points that reasonable people could see differently and make different valid arguments for. The real problem in all of this is how the debate is being framed in the meta sense. It's not that there are two sides to the argument and we all have different opinions that need discussing and figuring out, it's that this is right, that is wrong and if you go against it you are an extremist.
Because every time any issue becomes ossified to one side or another, it becomes dogma, vaccines become a religion. There can be no rational discussion, there can be no doubting, you are either a believer or you are a heretic. And throughout history, we all know what happens to the heretics. If vaccines become mandatory, it literally means that the State own all children for all intents and purposes because your most private and sacred object, your body, is now out of your power, you no longer get to choose what does or does not enter your body. And the State ownership of our bodies and our children is what we should really be worried about, not Measels.
The MMR vaccine will be around forever regardless of whether Measels continues to exist or whether the vaccine stops working. That vaccine is a revenue stream so there are powerful people that have an interest and keeping that stream nice and fat and flowing. I assure you that Merck will never do a study to test the long term efficacy of their vaccines and I'd like to see you call for that kind of study. Are you some kind of anti-vax nut job?
0 ceilte 2015-02-07
ISO: Someone more versed in the argument and more intelligent (that part shouldn't be hard, at least) willing to take the pro-vaccination stance.
I'm really pretty ambivalent to the argument and tired of seeing it, but felt that there was a little too much backslapping and sheeple-mocking in this thread and not enough actual discussion. I also really don't see forced immunizations anytime soon, but we'll see.
Thanks, 33degree. :)
2 rabbits_dig_deep 2015-02-07
from yesterday (2/6/15): University of California to require all students to get measles shot
2 bl0o0od 2015-02-07
Polio and smallpox are eradicated. Vaccines work. People willing to put everyone at risk for a pandemic to avoid a tiny risk of vaccine side effects for themselves are being selfish and myopic.
Remember, each of our bodies is essentially a big bioreactor for viruses. Declining vaccination is leaving the door to the bioweapons lab unlocked. It's negligent. We all need to take personal responsibility, and avoid becoming vectors for disease.
1 ceilte 2015-02-07
Good argument! What would your opponent counter this with?
2 bl0o0od 2015-02-07
Hopefully they wouldn't. Anti-vaxxers are cheaters in the social contract- they benefit from the risks taken by others getting vaccinated, without contributing themselves.
-3 TheBigBadDuke 2015-02-07
fine, vaccinate yourself if you are worried.
1 bl0o0od 2015-02-07
I have. I also support people being held legally culpable for diseases they negligently transmit to others.
If ISIS was running around deliberately infecting people with measles, I bet your attitude on the matter would be different. You wouldn't allow them to continue doing it, and place the burden on the public to individually protect themselves from bioweapon infection.
3 rabbits_dig_deep 2015-02-07
News flash: We all have compromised immune systems. Eating nutrition-free, GMO foods, drinking fluoridated water, sitting indoors all day, being chronically stressed and lonely -- this is the average American. Question is, are vaccines the answer to this?
NO.
1 ceilte 2015-02-07
I was trying to get discussion rather than groupthink. Groupthink might make you feel good, but discussion helps grow our defense when dealing with people that disagree with you. But, go ahead and downvote. I'm sure my negative karma will stop the tanks from rolling in.
-8 thc1967 2015-02-07
Who is forcing anyone to get a vaccine?
11 TheKingOfSocialMedia 2015-02-07
It's coming for sure. Some people will beg for it.
-6 thc1967 2015-02-07
Yeah people keep saying that gun confiscation is coming too. They've said it every year since Eisenhower. Maybe longer.
12 megaman420 2015-02-07
Well...you heard it hear folks. Nothing is ever going to happen... Everyone just go back to your shit lives. or maybe...its all incremental and occurs as they breakdown society over time. can you not see it in front of your own face, or did you blink too much?
1 thc1967 2015-02-07
Or maybe stop imaging shit to be afraid of and deal with it when it seems likely to happen.
4 bgny 2015-02-07
Homework: Look up incrementalism, gradualism, and the Fabian Society.
7 rabbits_dig_deep 2015-02-07
Lots of people. I turned down a job offer because multiple vaccinations were required. And it's a requirement for many US school children.
EDIT: If anything should be required, it should be having a healthy level of vitamin D, whether by sun exposure or supplementation. Every gene in the body depends on Vitamin D to work properly. It is necessary for health; vaccines are not.
If I ran Medicare, I would require every recipient to have the 25(OH)D blood test once a year (no charge). If they are low, which 90% of them will be, they would be given D3 drops to raise their level above 60 ng/ml.
This would drasticaly reduce not only infectious diseases, but cancer, heart disease, diabetes, autoimmune disease, psychiatric disorders, obesity, and on and on. We evolved living outdoors, now we live indoors and eat animals who live indoors.
The vaccine push has the agenda to destroy us, not help us. If they cared about helping citizens to be healthier, they would be taking an entirely different tack.
-9 thc1967 2015-02-07
Who forced you to get THAT JOB? Oh. Wait. Nobody. You turned it down.
Who forces people to send their kids to public school?
5 megaman420 2015-02-07
You are not a bright bulb. Is some one force you to be ignorant? no? Then what is your excuse? Your logic fits that of a pile of twigs.
-3 thc1967 2015-02-07
My logic is solid. Your fear misguides you.
Nobody (in the USA at least) is being forced to vaccinate. Everyone can choose not to. That might have other ramifications, like you can't send your kid to public school, but there are no fines, no jail time for not vaccinating. Nobody is holding anyone down against their will and jabbing them with needles.
You say my logic is flawed then follow with insults rather than refutations...
Whose logic is flawed?
1 Doctor_Brain-Wave 2015-02-07
Education is a right. Putting contingencies on it is depriving my child of his right to an education. Requiring vaccinations to attend a public school that my taxes pay for is not liberty, it's oppression.
If you don't want you autoimmune compromised snowflake to die because their body isn't equipped to fight off diseases, then send it's on you to send it to a hermetically sealed private school.
The onus is on you, not me, to protect your defective offspring.
1 bl0o0od 2015-02-07
The word virus comes from the latin word for poison. When you spread viruses, you're poisoning people. Do you have the right to poison people?
If I send my kid to public school with active ebola, will you keep quiet as your "defective" offspring succumbs to the disease?
You've got a very entitled attitude.
1 thc1967 2015-02-07
What about everyone else's right for your disease carrier to not infect their kids?
Within the next couple years, there will be at least one negligence case tried WRT anti-vac. It will be interesting to see how that gets ruled, won't it?
1 rabbits_dig_deep 2015-02-07
You say that having schools and employers requiring it is not pressure? What then is pressure?
1 megaman420 2015-02-07
Don't feed the shit.
-2 thc1967 2015-02-07
OP is talking right to refuse. Regardless the pressure you face, anyone faces, they can still refuse, right?
7 rabbits_dig_deep 2015-02-07
Lots of people. I turned down a job offer because multiple vaccinations were required. And it's a requirement for many US school children.
EDIT: If anything should be required, it should be having a healthy level of vitamin D, whether by sun exposure or supplementation. Every gene in the body depends on Vitamin D to work properly. It is necessary for health; vaccines are not.
If I ran Medicare, I would require every recipient to have the 25(OH)D blood test once a year (no charge). If they are low, which 90% of them will be, they would be given D3 drops to raise their level above 60 ng/ml.
This would drasticaly reduce not only infectious diseases, but cancer, heart disease, diabetes, autoimmune disease, psychiatric disorders, obesity, and on and on. We evolved living outdoors, now we live indoors and eat animals who live indoors.
The vaccine push has the agenda to destroy us, not help us. If they cared about helping citizens to be healthier, they would be taking an entirely different tack.
11 TheKingOfSocialMedia 2015-02-07
It's coming for sure. Some people will beg for it.
1 ceilte 2015-02-07
Good argument! What would your opponent counter this with?
-3 TheBigBadDuke 2015-02-07
fine, vaccinate yourself if you are worried.