# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  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*




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!
*

$#@! REASON
*
phew, its been a while...

----------


## Kotin

> AHEM!
> *
> 
> $#@! REASON
> *
> phew, its been a while...



I will say it again.. 


$#@! REASON. what a complete crock of $#@!!

----------


## 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/2013/12/0...-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 bull$#@!.

----------


## 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.

----------


## 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.  $#@! 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 $#@! 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 $#@! 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*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?se...lth&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.
> ...

----------


## 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?

----------


## angelatc

> Would be nice if the vaccine side effects would be treated as such rather than dismissed offhand for almost any reason other than vaccines so that people can be educated and have the tools to make the choices for themselves.



This is exactly what I am talking about.

Nobody dismisses them "offhand."  The evidence overwhelming indicates that the odds of serious side effects from vaccines is .0000006, if I remember correctly. If you take the flu vaccine out of the equation, it's even less.  And the side effects are so rare, they're not even sure that those side effects are actually from the vaccine.  That's a liberal estimate.

The odds of being left with a serious side effect from getting the actual diseases are far worse. For example, 1 in 1,000 kids who get measles dies from it.


> About one out of 10 children with measles also gets an ear infection, and up to one out of 20 gets pneumonia. About one out of 1,000 gets encephalitis, and one or two out of 1,000 die


 http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/overview.html

More kids would get encephalitis from measles than would get it as an allergic reaction to the vaccine.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Of course they're on the table.  I'm just not the one who put them there.   Again, Amy says this better than I do, but letting the anti-vax movement gain steam only serves to provide a tool for the government to start requiring vaccines.
> 
> Obamacare, digitized medical records...it isn't hard to imagine that  any visit to the pharmacist or the school nurse will result in them requiring you get your vaccine before you can get whatever else it was you actually needed. 
> 
> Heck, if that's what i wanted to happen, I'd start putting out a bunch of garbage pandering to the low info voter, telling them that vaccines are dangerous and having them tell all their friends.  Then I'd let loose a couple of measles infections in the unvaccinated poulations, and then push legislation through on the backs of those dead babies.
> 
> That's how it always happens.  Insisting it shouldn't happen that way doesn't mean it won't happen that way. Because it will, and you know it as well as I do.


OK, I see where you're coming from now.

----------


## angelatc

> OK, I see where you're coming from now.



When all hell breaks loose, I'd still rather have 1,000 unvaxxed guys like you on my side than 10,000 Pajama Boys.  It's all perspective.

----------


## moostraks

> This is exactly what I am talking about.
> 
> Nobody dismisses them "offhand."  The evidence overwhelming indicates that the odds of serious side effects from vaccines is .0000006, if I remember correctly. If you take the flu vaccine out of the equation, it's even less.  And the side effects are so rare, they're not even sure that those side effects are actually from the vaccine.  That's a liberal estimate.
> 
> The odds of being left with a serious side effect from getting the actual diseases are far worse. For example, 1 in 1,000 kids who get measles dies from it. http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/overview.html
> 
> More kids would get encephalitis from measles than would get it as an allergic reaction to the vaccine.


The problem I have with your position is your belief that the statistics you provided are valid and credible. The adverse reactions are not being handled in a manner that provides an accurate picture of the damages caused by the vaccines.

----------


## angelatc

> The adverse reactions are not being handled in a manner that provides an accurate picture of the damages caused by the vaccines.


I am always open to looking at evidence.

----------


## Ender

> Bullcrap!Most of the "pro-vaxxers" here have explicitly said that you should have the liberty to vaccinate or not vaccinate your children.
> 
> I know for a fact that I and Angelatc have stated this EXPLICITLY!Your entire post is a pile of horsecrap lies.
> 
> I have smoked cigarettes non-stop for 47+ years and over two packs a day for more than the last 30.
> If anybody bothered to ask me my opinion,I would tell them to never smoke cigarettes.
> 
> Does this mean that I think smokers should be tortured and thrown in to prison and have their eyes gouged out with rusty spoons?
> 
> ...


And you took this personally because...........?

----------


## Ender

> I am always open to looking at evidence.


That's good.

Maybe if you would stop with the name calling and personal innuendoes, a real conversation might evolve.

----------


## moostraks

> Of course they're on the table.  I'm just not the one who put them there.   Again, Amy says this better than I do, but letting the anti-vax movement gain steam only serves to provide a tool for the government to start requiring vaccines.
> 
> Obamacare, digitized medical records...it isn't hard to imagine that  any visit to the pharmacist or the school nurse will result in them requiring you get your vaccine before you can get whatever else it was you actually needed. 
> 
> Heck, if that's what i wanted to happen, I'd start putting out a bunch of garbage pandering to the low info voter, telling them that vaccines are dangerous and having them tell all their friends.  Then I'd let loose a couple of measles infections in the unvaccinated poulations, and then push legislation through on the backs of those dead babies.
> 
> That's how it always happens.  Insisting it shouldn't happen that way doesn't mean it won't happen that way. Because it will, and you know it as well as I do.


I agree with your assessment regarding the push for mandatory vaccines. I also believe that the very people willing to let loose the disease are the ones seeking to profit from the vaccines. (Read that as not all medical folks are corrupt but a certain group is completely morally bankrupt and behind this sort of an agenda) Sort of like the fact that certain insurance agencies backed Obamacare with a belief they will be winners in the end as providers for state care at a profit.

Now the problem is that your experience with vaccines has been favorable while others have not been so lucky. So you are dismissing as negligible the side effects because you have not suffered and you wish to excoriate anyone who disagrees with you as being an idiot when their mileage varies and they may have very credible reasons for not wanting the vaccines. It isn't stupidity that drives people to not want to inject foreign matter into their children which has a side effect of death or crippling disabilities. People are weighing their odds right now and are aware of the under reporting of vaccine side effects which makes them even more hesitant to take that gamble.

Like self censorship, vaccinating because one fears they will be forced to vaccinate achieves the end goal of giving into to the tyrant rather than making a rational choice. Running around demanding self censorship for the sake of preserving liberty seems counter intuitive to me but what do I know? Once total compliance is achieved then I shudder to think what type of things they will be able to inject us with for our own good and the good of the community. I would rather fight to expose them for the shady corporatists they are than to give value to a hypothetical situation that can be eliminated by shedding light on those with a negative agenda.

----------


## angelatc

> I agree with your assessment regarding the push for mandatory vaccines. I also believe that the very people willing to let loose the disease are the ones seeking to profit from the vaccines. (Read that as not all medical folks are corrupt but a certain group is completely morally bankrupt and behind this sort of an agenda) Sort of like the fact that certain insurance agencies backed Obamacare with a belief they will be winners in the end as providers for state care at a profit.


Excluding the newer vaccines, there's very little profit in vaccines because the patents have all worn off.  If you think about it, it would be far more lucrative to treat the actual illnesses than to prevent them.




> Now the problem is that your experience with vaccines has been favorable while others have not been so lucky. So you are dismissing as negligible the side effects because you have not suffered and you wish to excoriate anyone who disagrees with you as being an idiot when their mileage varies and they may have very credible reasons for not wanting the vaccines.


No, that's not true.  I am not resorting to anecdotal evidence to support my position, not in the least. That's the tool of the anti-vaxxers, and one of my pet peeves.  I'm not an expert in scientific method, but observation is only one component of it. 

For example, someone here once angrily told me that just because I don't know anybody that experienced any adverse reactions to vaccines doesn't explain why she knows several.  My guess would be that means perhaps there's an environmental or genetic issue in play, and that vaccines are not the actual culprit.





> It isn't stupidity that drives people to not want to inject foreign matter into their children which has a side effect of death or crippling disabilities.


Actually, it pretty much is when you consider that most parents don't want their kids to get sick, period, and combine it with the fact that the effects of the vaccines are almost non-existent while the side effects of the diseases are crippling and killing children even as we speak.

So yes, it seems pretty stupid-to-the-bone to risk a 1-in1,000 chance when you can easily and safely cut those odds to  in a million, or more.

While I certainly concede that if I were to whip up a random batch of minerals, chemicals and viruses, it's pretty likely that someone I injected it into would die.  But that's because I don't have a lick of pharmacological experience.  If I tried to land a jet, rest assured the scenario would not end well for essentially the same reason.

However, when people in laboratories do that, they know how they react, how they react together,  and how they react inside the human body.  They know these things because they spend decades studying those things, and they have generations of peer-reviewed evidence and strict testing protocols at their disposal as tools to making safe and effective products.  


Generally speaking, there is simply absolutely no evidence that getting the vaccine is more dangerous than not getting the vaccine. 




> People are weighing their odds right now and are aware of the under reporting of vaccine side effects which makes them even more hesitant to take that gamble.


Awareness of what under-reporting? Still waiting to see that evidence.  From what I read, while it's true that  insignificant reactions (like a sore arm or slight fever) are likely under reported,  the serious reactions (like meningitis and death) are likely to be over reported.  

And a passive reporting system isn't any real substitute for clinical trials and evidence-based medicine. It is certainly a tool, but unless you are a statistics major, the numbers there mean very little regardless.

----------


## IBleedNavyAndOrange

If you haven't figured out that the system is rigged, I don't know what to tell you.... 

Keep voting?



http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-co...capitalism.jpg

----------


## donnay

Vaccine Facts You’re Not Supposed to Know
http://blogs.naturalnews.com/vaccine...sed-to-know-2/

Other info:
http://www.vaccines.net/newpage11.htm
http://www.nvic.org/Vaccines-and-Diseases.aspx
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...-decision.aspx
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/mendelsohn.html

----------


## moostraks

> Excluding the newer vaccines, there's very little profit in vaccines because the patents have all worn off.  If you think about it, it would be far more lucrative to treat the actual illnesses than to prevent them.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not true.  I am not resorting to anecdotal evidence to support my position, not in the least.  
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it pretty much is. Generally, speaking, there is simply absolutely no evidence that getting the vaccine is more dangerous than not getting the vaccine. 
> ...


Kind of busy right now for this, but regarding you thinking I am saying your position is anecdotal, what I am saying is based upon your experience you have chosen the side of vaccine manufacturers and are utilizing their material to substantiate that which you have experienced. Whereas someone who has had a child detrimentally affected by vaccines will choose the side that states that the reactions are under-reported neither side is ignorant but working off of different life experiences. You have chosen statistics that support your argument then use emotional appeal to buttress it all the while discounting those who have had real life negative experiences that are not being acknowledged by the vaccine manufacturers because they are not being acknowledged by the vaccine manufacturers.

As for profit, if you force a product to be purchased that you produce then you will reap a higher profit. There is also a different value of profit than just financial reward to some of those behind the mandatory vaccine movement. 

As you are fond of saying google it regarding those who have had experience with the under reporting. You demand the same sources that are doing the under reporting to self incriminate. Ain't gonna happen.The reported side effects are bad enough for most folks to pause and not pull the trigger on that shot.

I am curious as to what the motive would be in your opinion to force a vaccine agenda if the product sells itself, the profit value is too low in comparison to treating the disease, and the people who are behind this type of agenda can be trusted to do accurate studies and report adverse reactions accurately?

----------


## angelatc

> Vaccine Facts You’re Not Supposed to Know
> http://blogs.naturalnews.com/vaccine...sed-to-know-2/
> 
> Other info:
> http://www.vaccines.net/newpage11.htm
> http://www.nvic.org/Vaccines-and-Diseases.aspx
> http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...-decision.aspx
> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/mendelsohn.html



And this is what passes for conversation with the DonnaY.  Noise. 

  A bunch of articles that have likely been entirely debunked in the past are posted again with absolutely no acknowledgement of the previous discussions about the problems and flaws in them, or even a mention of what point they were intended to address. 

You know why it has to be this way?  There can be no actual debate because there is no debate  - vaccines are legitimately proven to be safe and effective.    They save millions of lives.

----------


## angelatc

> Kind of busy right now for this, but regarding you thinking I am saying your position is anecdotal, what I am saying is based upon your experience you have chosen the side of vaccine manufacturers and are utilizing their material to substantiate that which you have experienced. Whereas someone who has had a child detrimentally affected by vaccines will choose the side that states that the reactions are under-reported neither side is ignorant but working off of different life experiences. You have chosen statistics that support your argument then use emotional appeal to buttress it all the while discounting those who have had real life negative experiences that are not being acknowledged by the vaccine manufacturers because they are not being acknowledged by the vaccine manufacturers.


So what you just said is that I'm choosing to believe in 100 years of clinical evidence combined with anecdotal evidence of looking around me and not ever seeing kids with measles, polio or any number of other childhood diseases any more.   Yes, I would absolutely agree with that.






> As you are fond of saying google it regarding those who have had experience with the under reporting. You demand the same sources that are doing the under reporting to self incriminate. Ain't gonna happen.The reported side effects are bad enough for most folks to pause and not pull the trigger on that shot.


I did Google it, in case you did not notice it.  I did not see what you saw. It looked to me like anyone can file a report.  Does not have to be the drug companies, or even a doctor.  Friends and family members can file reports if they choose to.

But apparently you are seeing something different. That's why I am politely and respectfully asking you again to please provide me with some sources that I can review.




> I am curious as to what the motive would be in your opinion to force a vaccine agenda if the product sells itself, the profit value is too low in comparison to treating the disease, and the people who are behind this type of agenda can be trusted to do accurate studies and report adverse reactions accurately?


<bangs head on table> Live, healthy, children, maybe?

----------


## familydog

> Then educate yourself and look at the overwhelming evidence to form an opinion.  If you don't, someone else will.
> 
> http://education-portal.com/articles...es_Online.html
> 
> Lots of introductory science classes, for free.  Some of them even give college credit.


Ah, so all it takes is a couple college courses to know how billions of people should organize and manage their lives? Wonderful. Your pretension is amazing.

----------


## angelatc

> Ah, so all it takes is a couple college courses to know how billions of people should organize and manage their lives? Wonderful. Your pretension is amazing.


Yeah, that's totally what I said. Not.

What I said was that if you do not understand how vaccines work then perhaps you need to brush up on your science.  And after you have done that, then perhaps you can make a convincing case as to why people should not vaccinate their children, because right now the evidence all pretty strongly implies that they absolutely should.

----------


## PRB

> I am always open to looking at evidence.


naturalnews.com, vactruth.com, infowars.com, mercola.com and jennymccarthybodycount.com are full of evidence, you're just choosing to ignore it.

----------


## PRB

> Every single outbreak of measles we've had in the past few years has been traced back to an unvaxxed idiot traveling abroad.   Maybe the people with dead kids should sue the airlines for bringing the disease into the country.


they definitely should. but to outlaw unvaccination or vaccine freedom is to outlaw risk, which is Fascism!!!!

----------


## PRB

> No, we do not, *if* you believe that you have a "right" to control everything every single person you come into contact with, every day, based on what "threat" they *may* pose to you.


you already said we don't have rights. End of discussion now, ain't it?

----------


## Ender

> And this is what passes for conversation with the DonnaY.  Noise. 
> 
>   A bunch of articles that have likely been entirely debunked in the past are posted again with absolutely no acknowledgement of the previous discussions about the problems and flaws in them, or even a mention of what point they were intended to address. 
> 
> You know why it has to be this way?  There can be no actual debate because there is no debate  - vaccines are legitimately proven to be safe and effective.    They save millions of lives.


Proof, that the articles are bunk, please.

You say the same thing over and over w/o any legitimate proof. 

And please refrain from the personal attacks; it is just as hard for some of us not to call you stupid for believing the same "authorities" that lie to us continually on all matters of health, sex, drugs 'n' rock 'n' roll.

----------


## angelatc

> naturalnews.com, vactruth.com, infowars.com, mercola.com and jennymccarthybodycount.com are full of evidence, you're just choosing to ignore it.


You're trolling me.  I am telling the mods, you big meanie.

(You forgot Whale.to - the site that is so absolutely unreliable that it has the dubious distinction of having  Scopie's Law named after it.)

----------


## Ender

> You're trolling me.  I am telling the mods, you big meanie.
> 
> (You forgot Whale.to - the site that is so absolutely unreliable that it has the dubious distinction of having  Scopie's Law named after it.)


Ah... but "scientific" studies from MSM/Berkley/Harvard/Yale are always reliable.

----------


## familydog

> Yeah, that's totally what I said. Not.
> 
> What I said was that if you do not understand how vaccines work then perhaps you need to brush up on your science.  And after you have done that, then perhaps you can make a convincing case as to why people should not vaccinate their children, because right now the evidence all pretty strongly implies that they absolutely should.


I'm not suggesting people should or shouldn't get a vaccine. You either didn't read my initial post or you didn't understand it. My point is that I don't know what a someone should or shouldn't do with their bodies. Some people (myself included) have adverse reactions to certain vaccines and the costs far outweigh the benefits. Some people travel and interact with large numbers of people frequently and choose to get certain types of vaccinations. The bottom line is that you don't know what is best for other people. But to imply that only educated people get vaccines and that they know what is best for everyone else is arrogant and the antithesis of liberty.

----------


## IBleedNavyAndOrange

FINALLY!!!!!!! You finally understand. I can't believe you get it! I have thought about it a LOT and I reached the conclusion you've offered.





> If you think about it, it would be far more lucrative to treat the actual illnesses than to prevent them.



That's my point exactly. All the name calling, strawmen, etc, etc that you offer in EVERY vaccine related post to someone that doesn't agree with your preset conclusions.... we finally agree and it is by your own admission.

What better way to get a customer for life. You inject them with known poisons like aluminum, MSG, mercury, etc. Then they have reactions to the poisons. Then the treatment to the reactions from the poisons you injected them with is offered by your company.

Its quite brilliant if you actually think about it.

You have immunity from the negative side effects from known poisons and you get all the rewards associated with the treatments.

Finally... you're using logic!

Bravo! Well done.


Now.... ATTACK!!!!

----------


## Ender

> I'm not suggesting people should or shouldn't get a vaccine. You either didn't read my initial post or you didn't understand it. My point is that I don't know what a someone should or shouldn't do with their bodies. Some people (myself included) have adverse reactions to certain vaccines and the costs far outweigh the benefits. Some people travel and interact with large numbers of people frequently and choose to get certain types of vaccinations. The bottom line is that you don't know what is best for other people. But to imply that only educated people get vaccines and that they know what is best for everyone else is arrogant and the antithesis of liberty.


Perfect and +rep.

----------


## angelatc

> Proof, that the articles are bunk, please.



We have been over them 10 times.  Why should we have to go over them again?   And again?  And Again?

Actually, I'm trolling myself.  I already know the answer.   It's because there is no real debate to be had.  The only thing left is for the anti-vaxxers to keep posting their ridiculously bad sources, while all we can do is to point out the same mistakes and lies again and again, knowing that the people we are talking to aren't ever going to admit that those sites are ridiculously bad sources.

----------


## angelatc

> Finally... you're using logic!



That makes one of us.  The other one is creating some bizarre, dark, and entirely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

----------


## moostraks

> So what you just said is that I'm choosing to believe in 100 years of clinical evidence combined with anecdotal evidence of looking around me and not ever seeing kids with measles, polio or any number of other childhood diseases any more.   Yes, I would absolutely agree with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did Google it, in case you did not notice it.  I did not see what you saw.  That's why I am politely and respectfully asking you again to please provide me with some sources that I can review.
> 
> 
> ...


The clinical studies done by the same folks that profit off of the product? The same folks that have a no-liability protection for their marvelously safe product? The same folks who said mercury needed to be pulled form the vaccines before it didn't for the third world because those third world vaccines don't need to be as stringent as the US ones? Studies such as those done by these same folks?




> A division of the pharmaceutical company Bayer sold millions of dollars of blood-clotting medicine for hemophiliacs -- medicine that carried a high risk of transmitting AIDS -- to Asia and Latin America in the mid-1980's while selling a new, safer product in the West, according to documents obtained by The New York Times.
> 
> The Bayer unit, Cutter Biological, introduced its safer medicine in late February 1984 as evidence mounted that the earlier version was infecting hemophiliacs with H.I.V. Yet for over a year, the company continued to sell the old medicine overseas, prompting a United States regulator to accuse Cutter of breaking its promise to stop selling the product.
> 
> By continuing to sell the old version of the life-saving medicine, the records show, Cutter officials were trying to avoid being stuck with large stores of a product that was proving increasingly unmarketable in the United States and Europe.
> 
> Yet even after it began selling the new product, the company kept making the old medicine for several months more. A telex from Cutter to a distributor suggests one reason behind that decision, too: the company had several fixed-price contracts and believed that the old product would be cheaper to produce.
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/bu...ted=all&src=pm

Well while you are banging your head on the table, I am scratching mine trying to figure out what type of person concerned with live, healthy children would follow your proposed scenario and why it would be necessary to mandate vaccines. A good product sells itself and people with good morals would not follow through on something such as your proposed scenario.

----------


## angelatc

> I'm not suggesting people should or shouldn't get a vaccine. You either didn't read my initial post or you didn't understand it. My point is that I don't know what a someone should or shouldn't do with their bodies.



And my point was that if you didn't understand why billions people should get their kids vaccinated, then you should take a basic science class or two. Admittedly, there will be some people in those billions that should not get the shots, a concept that those basic science classes will undoubtedly reinforce.

If you're saying that billions of people should not get vaccines because 1000 of them might get sick from said vaccines while ignoring that millions of them will likely die as a result of not getting vaccines, then maybe you need to add a logic class to your schedule.

----------


## PRB

> Ah... but "scientific" studies from MSM/Berkley/Harvard/Yale are always reliable.


Not always reliable doesn't mean equally unreliable as conspiracy websites.

----------


## PRB

> And my point was that if you didn't understand why billions people should get their kids vaccinated, then you should take a basic science class or two.


That's like saying if you don't believe in God, it's because you've not opened your heart and suspended your reasoning capabilities (I mean, skepticism). So if a person doesn't buy the lies of science funded by the Illuminati, he should learn how to by buying the lies of science funded by the Illuminati?

----------


## angelatc

> The clinical studies done by the same folks that profit off of the product?


Why do you think that all clinical studies are done by the manufacturers?  They're not.  They're done by a myriad of bodies, and funded in different ways too.

And in any event, clinical studies are only part of the scientific method.  Being able to predict, observe and replicate results all play roles, too.




> Well while you are banging your head on the table, I am scratching mine trying to figure out what type of person concerned with live, healthy children would follow your proposed scenario and why it would be necessary to mandate vaccines. A good product sells itself and people with good morals would not follow through on something such as your proposed scenario.


<bangs head again> I don't advocate for forced vaccines.   But note that I don't believe that "a good product sells itself,"  either.  If that were the case we clearly wouldn't be having these conversations.

----------


## familydog

> If you're saying that billions of people should not get vaccines because 1000 of them might get sick from said vaccines while ignoring that millions of them will likely die as a result of not getting vaccines, then maybe you need to add a logic class to your schedule.


No, that's not what I'm saying. It's not even close to what I am saying.

----------


## PRB

> Why do you think that all clinical studies are done by the manufacturers?  They're not.  They're done by a myriad of bodies, and funded in different ways too.


I bet you conspiracy theorists weren't one of their funding sources.

----------


## PRB

> Why do you think that all clinical studies are done by the manufacturers?  They're not.  They're done by a myriad of bodies, and funded in different ways too.
> 
> And in any event, clinical studies are only part of the scientific method.  Being able to predict, observe and replicate results all play roles, too.
> 
> 
> 
> <bangs head again> I don't advocate for forced vaccines.   But note that I don't believe that "a good product sells itself,"  either.  If that were the case we clearly wouldn't be having these conversations.


If you don't advocate for forced vaccines, then you have a libertarian argument for vaccine refusal, and the science is irrelevant.

----------


## angelatc

> Ah... but "scientific" studies from MSM/Berkley/Harvard/Yale are always reliable.



Why do you have parentheses around scientific?

Do you know what the word means?  Science is simply a methodology of study  - a set of established procedures to document observations, measurements, and experiments, to provide a reliable means of formulating, testing and modifying hypotheses.

What part of that you object to, specifically?  Established protocols?  Relentless documentation?  Endless monitoring and measuring?

----------


## PRB

> Why do you have parentheses around scientific?
> 
> Do you know what the word means?  Science is simply a methodology of study  - a set of established procedures to document observations, measurements, and experiments, to provide a reliable means of formulating, testing and modifying hypotheses.
> 
> What part of that you object to, specifically?  Established protocols?  Relentless documentation?  Endless monitoring and measuring?


because any good conspiracy theorist hates science and thinks they can redefine it to mean whatever they want to suit their agenda.

I know what he thinks it means : things any idiot can see, so if you're not a "scientist" and you can't experiment on your own, then it ain't science. To a conspiracy theorist, what average Joe can prove to himself is science, anything else is elitist lies masking as science to control the ignorant population.

----------


## angelatc

> If you don't advocate for forced vaccines, then you have a libertarian argument for vaccine refusal, and the science is irrelevant.


If the science was not relevant, we wouldn't be bombarded with daily posts darkly asserting that it's all a Big Lie, and that there's poison in them thar vaccines.

----------


## angelatc

> No, that's not what I'm saying. It's not even close to what I am saying.


Then maybe you're saying that the anti-vaxxers should have a right to put out their propaganda without having it endlessly mocked, ridiculed and fact checked?

----------


## angelatc

> because any good conspiracy theorist hates science and thinks they can redefine it to mean whatever they want to suit their agenda.
> 
> I know what he thinks it means : things any idiot can see, so if you're not a "scientist" and you can't experiment on your own, then it ain't science. To a conspiracy theorist, what average Joe can prove to himself is science, anything else is elitist lies masking as science to control the ignorant population.


Its almost like public schools aren't very good, isn't it?

----------


## Ender

> Why do you have parentheses around scientific?
> 
> Do you know what the word means?  Science is simply a methodology of study  - a set of established procedures to document observations, measurements, and experiments, to provide a reliable means of formulating, testing and modifying hypotheses.
> 
> What part of that you object to, specifically?  Established protocols?  Relentless documentation?  Endless monitoring and measuring?


I have a Bachelors in Science- I know that all "scientific" evidence changes continually. I also know that the sources you continually quote are bought and paid for.

----------


## angelatc

> I have a Bachelors in Science- I know that all "scientific" evidence changes continually. I also know that the sources you continually quote are bought and paid for.


Yeah, it's a good thing that the scientific community doesn't know about the possibility of research tainted by funding.  Otherwise they might make researchers disclose potential conflicts of interest in their documentation.                   Which they do. but never mind that.


Did you also take logic?  Because if you did, you can easily identify all the fallacies in your statements.

Let me help you out:

Customer A makes Drug XYZ.
Customer A gives University B,C,D and E research grant money.
University B tests Drug XYZ.
Therefore, Drug XYZ is unsafe.

----------


## moostraks

> Why do you think that all clinical studies are done by the manufacturers?  They're not.  They're done by a myriad of bodies, and funded in different ways too.
> 
> And in any event, clinical studies are only part of the scientific method.  Being able to predict, observe and replicate results all play roles, too.
> 
> 
> 
> <bangs head again> I don't advocate for forced vaccines.   But note that I don't believe that "a good product sells itself,"  either.  If that were the case we clearly wouldn't be having these conversations.


You are so paranoid you think everyone who disagrees with you is saying you want forced vaccines. While your position is to ridicule and demand people voluntarily vaccinate for fear that they will be forced to eventually if they don't, so the outcome is the same, my post was referring to your position that _pro-vaccine folks who want to mandate vaccines would cook up a situation such as exposure to further their agenda._ 

Your good product comes with a potential of death or disability. That isn't exactly a selling feature.



> 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. 
> ...


http://www.nvic.org/nvic-vaccine-new...ccination.aspx

----------


## IBleedNavyAndOrange

I wish there was a web site where the manufacturers of vaccines had all of their inserts in a central location.

http://vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm



I wish there was a web site where parents could post their own anecdotal tales of shooting up their children with poison and what happened afterwards.

http://www.followingvaccinations.com/



Thanks google!

----------


## Ender

> Did you also take logic?  Because if you did, you can easily identify all the fallacies in your statements.


The fallacies are in yours, dear angelic. You make statements, back them up with mercantile sources and then call names and rant at anyone who disagrees. If you really wanted to prove a point, you would do it with calm and reason- instead you dare anyone to disagree with you and if they do, then you scream that they are idiots and do not research.

There is absolutely NO PROBLEM with disagreement. I have learned a great deal in debates with those that do not agree with me; however you do not debate. You state something, attack those that disagree, and then spend entire threads tearing them down.

This shows that either you have a serious problem with not continually being top dog OR you are bought and paid for by Big Pharma.

----------


## Ender

> I wish there was a web site where the manufacturers of vaccines had all of their inserts in a central location.
> 
> http://vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm
> 
> 
> 
> I wish there was a web site where parents could post their own anecdotal tales of shooting up their children with poison and what happened afterwards.
> 
> http://www.followingvaccinations.com/
> ...


AWESOME!

----------


## familydog

> Then maybe you're saying that the anti-vaxxers should have a right to put out their propaganda without having it endlessly mocked, ridiculed and fact checked?


Let me know when you've actually taken the time to digest and understand my initial post. I am not asking you to abandon your religiously held beliefs, but I am simply asking not to have a one-sided conversation.

----------


## Contumacious

> So you think the flu vaccine will stop this?  It was reported that the one man went to the hospital for flu-like symptoms and they gave him medicine and the next thing you know he was on life support and died.  Hmm...


I believe we should voluntarily inoculate ourselves if the vaccine is safe . If not , then we ought not expose others to our condition. I believe that is the Libertarian , non-aggressive approach.

.

----------


## PRB

> Then maybe you're saying that the anti-vaxxers should have a right to put out their propaganda without having it endlessly mocked, ridiculed and fact checked?


yes, it's called free speech.

----------


## angelatc

> You are so paranoid you think everyone who disagrees with you is saying you want forced vaccines.


You think that big pharma is intentionally filling the bodies of children with poison, and that all the governments and universities in the whole wide world are in cahoots with them, but I'm paranoid because when someone says "Well while you are banging your head on the table, I am scratching mine trying to figure out what type of person concerned with live, healthy children would follow your proposed scenario and why it would be necessary to mandate vaccines. " and I see it as an accusation for advocating for forced vaccines, when I've explained my position on that no less than 3 times in this thread alone.




> While your position is to ridicule and demand people voluntarily vaccinate for fear that they will be forced to eventually if they don't, so the outcome is the same, my post was referring to your position that _pro-vaccine folks who want to mandate vaccines would cook up a situation such as exposure to further their agenda._ 
> 
> Your good product comes with a potential of death or disability. That isn't exactly a selling feature.


 Again, if some people are simply determined to believe that it's somehow better to risk a 1-in-1,000 chance (probably bigger - that's just for measles) instead of a 1-in-a-million chance, then I am perfectly happy letting Darwin's law sort it out eventually. 

But if they're going to continually post their lies on a political activism forum with the specific, stated intent of making the babies of the young activists sick, then I'm going to call them out on their bull$#@!, and I'm not going to promise to be nice about it.

----------


## angelatc

> I wish there was a web site where the manufacturers of vaccines had all of their inserts in a central location.
> 
> http://vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm
> 
> 
> 
> I wish there was a web site where parents could post their own anecdotal tales of shooting up their children with poison and what happened afterwards.
> 
> http://www.followingvaccinations.com/
> ...


I don't care how much they make - I could never be special ed teacher.   



Nobody ever said that vaccines did not have side effects. 

Anecdotal evidence is just that - anecdotal.

----------


## angelatc

> The fallacies are in yours, dear angelic.


Well, I guess if you have decided you can redefine science then obviously you can redefine fallacies, too.


Let's change it around - wheres some evidence that vaccines do not work?  

Where's something that shows measles spreads just as fast, and is just as deadly, in vaccinated populations?

----------


## angelatc

> So you think the flu vaccine will stop this?  It was reported that the one man went to the hospital for flu-like symptoms and they gave him medicine and the next thing you know he was on life support and died.  Hmm...


Wow - some perfectly healthy person who didn't get the flu vaccine got sick and died from the flu, and somehow you managed to try blame it on a vaccine or the meds they gave him?  Did I just see that?

Of course I did.  Why it continues to surprise me it the real mystery.


Edited:  Just for you, here's a "credible" source that says bird flu causes organ failure : http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-bird...n-failure.html

----------


## moostraks

> You think that big pharma is intentionally filling the bodies of children with poison, and that all the governments and universities in the whole wide world are in cahoots with them, but I'm paranoid because when someone says "Well while you are banging your head on the table, I am scratching mine trying to figure out what type of person concerned with live, healthy children would follow your proposed scenario and why it would be necessary to mandate vaccines. " and I see it as an accusation for advocating for forced vaccines, when I've explained my position on that no less than 3 times in this thread alone.
> 
> 
> 
>  Again, if some people are simply determined to believe that it's somehow better to risk a 1-in-1,000 chance (probably bigger - that's just for measles) instead of a 1-in-a-million chance, then I am perfectly happy letting Darwin's law sort it out eventually. 
> 
> But if they're going to continually post their lies on a political activism forum with the specific, stated intent of making the babies of the young activists sick, then I'm going to call them out on their bull$#@!, and I'm not going to promise to be nice about it.


I think there are some nefarious folks who have a eugenics agenda, they are a small number who are callous and selfish and can be found in scientific circles (among other places). I think that corporations are concerned with profit. Would be dumb not to be when running a business and I think they cut corners and bribe people to look the other way or downplay the detrimental effects of their product. This is evidenced in main stream (read that as not natural news conspiracy websites which you like to say are the only sources non-vacc have available) articles such as the ones I referenced in the previous post. This is not paranoid but based upon information from their own words of those who speak of eugenics and evidence of poor quality of product which eventually was brought forth after the fact of the deaths.




> In the largest settlement involving a pharmaceutical company, the British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and pay $3 billion in fines for promoting its best-selling antidepressants for unapproved uses and failing to report safety data about a top diabetes drug, federal prosecutors announced Monday. The agreement also includes civil penalties for improper marketing of a half-dozen other drugs.
> 
> The fine against GlaxoSmithKline over Paxil, Wellbutrin, Avandia and the other drugs makes this year a record for money recovered by the federal government under its so-called whistle-blower law, according to a group that tracks such numbers.
> 
> In May, Abbott Laboratories settled for $1.6 billion over its marketing of the antiseizure drug Depakote. And an agreement with Johnson & Johnson that could result in a fine of as much as $2 billion is said to be imminent over its off-label promotion of an antipsychotic drug, Risperdal...
> 
> The settlement, which requires court approval, stems from claims made by four employees of GlaxoSmithKline, including a former senior marketing development manager for the company and a regional vice president, who tipped off the government about a range of improper practices from the late 1990s to the mid-2000s.
> 
> Prosecutors said the company had tried to win over doctors by paying for trips to Jamaica and Bermuda, as well as spa treatments and hunting excursions. In the case of Paxil, prosecutors claim GlaxoSmithKline employed several tactics aimed at promoting the use of the drug in children, including helping to publish a medical journal article that misreported data from a clinical trial.
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/bu...anted=all&_r=0

Glaxo would be the folks that make these:


> We produce more than 30 prescribed vaccines worldwide to prevent potentially life-threatening or crippling illnesses such as hepatitis A, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, woophing cough, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, typhoid, influenza and bacterial meningitis.


http://www.gsk.com/products/our-vaccines.html

And Abbott Labs had a flu vaccine sector: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...35051095048906 

But they wouldn't bribe anyone when it comes to vaccines. They are completely changed since these actions occurred. 


> Whilst these originate in a different era for the company, they cannot and will not be ignored, he said in the statement. On behalf of GSK, I want to express our regret and reiterate that we have learned from the mistakes that were made.


Trust them...well at least their vaccines.

Oh and that profit margin thingy you keep touting, guess WSJ Business section disagrees with your opinion:



> Several big drug companies have invested heavily in new flu-vaccine factories in recent years, in part to try to cash in on pandemic flu viruses, and also because the drug makers see vaccines as an alternative area for growth amid increasing competition for their core drug offerings.


As for your paranoia when reading you were the one who proposed the scenario upon which you are fear mongering your vaccine by choice position. You are the one who said that there could be a "they" who would let loose a disease to mandate vaccines. Your reasoning is because "they" want to see healthy children. There is a disconnect in these statements because people concerned with healthy children would not do as you propose as that takes a certain level of malicious and callous disregard to achieve a goal such as you propose which stems from human concern for healthy children. Maybe you think this would be morally okay as you tout your Darwin theory so you are just projecting? IDK...

----------


## PRB

> Well, I guess if you have decided you can redefine science then obviously you can redefine fallacies, too.
> 
> 
> Let's change it around - wheres some evidence that vaccines do not work?  
> 
> Where's something that shows measles spreads just as fast, and is just as deadly, in vaccinated populations?


Conspiracy theorists : experts of redefinition

----------


## donnay

> Wow - some perfectly healthy person who didn't get the flu vaccine got sick and died from the flu, and somehow you managed to try blame it on a vaccine or the meds they gave him?  Did I just see that?
> 
> Of course I did.  Why it continues to surprise me it the real mystery.
> 
> 
> Edited:  Just for you, here's a "credible" source that says bird flu causes organ failure : http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-bird...n-failure.html


Ever heard of biowarfare?

American flu: Chinese colonel says bird flu is really U.S. biological weapon
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lly-/?page=all

Here's What Happens When You Get Bird Flu 
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-...#ixzz2nxJ2LquM

----------


## angelatc

> I think there are some nefarious folks who have a eugenics agenda, they are a small number who are callous and selfish and can be found in scientific circles (among other places). .


Even if that's true, that does not mean that vaccines cause massive numbers of horrible side effects , or that they are an effective tool in the control and spread of communicable diseases.

 If you can prove that vaccines don't actually reduce the odds of catching the diseases, I'd like to see that.

Or we could  go back to the discussion about the significant adverse effects being under-reported.  You've got time to dig out links, why not dig out the links I said I was having trouble locating?

----------


## angelatc

> I. This is not paranoid but based upon information from their own words of those who speak of eugenics and evidence of poor quality of product which eventually was brought forth after the fact of the deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/bu...anted=all&_r=0



All I saw was that GSK was fined for marketing their products for off label uses, which was illegal.

Not sure why you think that means vaccines don't work....

----------


## angelatc

> Oh and that profit margin thingy you keep touting, guess WSJ Business section disagrees with your opinion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several big drug companies have invested heavily in new flu-vaccine factories in recent years, in part to try to cash in on pandemic flu viruses, and also because the drug makers see vaccines as an alternative area for growth amid increasing competition for their core drug offerings.
> 
> 
> .


It wasn't an opinion.  It was a fact. Read what I said again, in the context at the time.  We were talking about childhood immunizations.  You said it was all about the profit.  I said that wasn't true for the older vaccines, because the patents had all expired.  I specifically said it that way because I am fully aware that the new vaccines are profitable.

The WSJ is talking about the new vaccines, flu vaccines in particular, which can still command premium prices because patents are still in effect. Which is what I would have reiterated, if you had questioned me about it at the time.  

Check this out, circa 2005.  Right about the time that they new vaccine research started taking off again:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/24/3/622.full




> During the past fifty years, the number of pharmaceutical companies making vaccines has decreased dramatically, and those that still make vaccines have reduced resources to make new ones. Pharmaceutical companies are gradually abandoning vaccines because the research, development, testing, and manufacture of vaccines are expensive and because the market to sell vaccines is much smaller than the market for other drug products.
> 
> 
> More at the link

----------


## angelatc

> Ever heard of biowarfare?



If you think it's biowarfare, then you should definitely get the shot.

----------


## PRB

> If the science was not relevant, we wouldn't be bombarded with daily posts darkly asserting that it's all a Big Lie, and that there's poison in them thar vaccines.


but that's because vaccines still aren't forced, but are probably about to be. people who believe they can and still ought to refuse them, don't need to know whether vaccines work.

----------


## Ender

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/20...ccine-madness/

Very detailed history about smallpox vacs:

Here's a snippet:




> Dr. L. A. Parry. He raised a number of questions:
> 
> How is it that smallpox is five times as likely to be fatal in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated?
> 
> How is it that, as the percentage of people vaccinated has steadily fallen (from 85% in 1870 to about 40% in 1925), the number of people attacked with variola has declined pari passu and the case mortality has progressively lessened? The years of least vaccination have been the years of least smallpox and of least mortality.
> 
> How is that in some of our best vaccinated towns “” for example Bombay and Calcutta “” smallpox is rife, whilst in some of our worst vaccinated towns, such as Leicester, it is almost unknown?
> 
> How is it that something like 80% of the cases admitted into the Metropolitan Asylum Board smallpox hospitals have been vaccinated whilst only 20% have not been vaccinated?
> ...

----------


## angelatc

> http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/20...ccine-madness/
> 
> Very detailed history about smallpox vacs:
> 
> Here's a snippet:


So the guy who doesn't believe that vaccines work because "scientific" evidence always changes is going back 100 years to make a case proving...what?  That he has to cherry pick to make a point?

I have a link, too: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/smallpox/9241561106_chp6.pdf


Here's a snippet from your link:




> How is it that in Germany, the best vaccinated country in the world, there are more deaths in proportion to the population than in England — for example, in 1919, 28 deaths in England, 707 in Germany; in 1920, 30 deaths in England, 354 in Germany. In Germany, in 1919 there were 5,012 cases of smallpox with 707 deaths; in England in 1925 there were 5,363 cases of smallpox with 6 deaths. What is the explanation? -


Meaning, why aren't more people dying, like they used to?  






Cut through the chase, Ender. How is it that smallpox is now totally eradicated? Did we pray it away, or what?

----------


## PRB

> So the guy who doesn't believe that vaccines work because "scientific" evidence always changes is going back 100 years to make a case proving...what?  That he has to cherry pick to make a point?
> 
> 
> Cut through the chase, Ender.  How is it that smallpox is now totally eradicated?  Did we pray it away, or what?


it proves that because science isn't always right, then everybody is free to cherry pick what he wants to believe and he can always be certain he's as right as science which is not always right.

----------


## Ender

> So the guy who doesn't believe that vaccines work because "scientific" evidence always changes is going back 100 years to make a case proving...what?  That he has to cherry pick to make a point?
> 
> 
> Cut through the chase, Ender.  How is it that smallpox is now totally eradicated?  Did we pray it away, or what?


Obviously you, the high priestess of "read the article, stupid!" did not read the article, or you would not be asking this question.

Read it and then we shall discuss.

----------


## Ender

http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/09/r...ain-sight.html

Here is an autism site that shows the man who was "in charge" of proving autism was not vax related, lied, embezzled money from the companies who hired him, is on the US hit list, on the run, and hiding so as not to be extradited.

----------


## angelatc

> Obviously you, the high priestess of "read the article, stupid!" did not read the article, or you would not be asking this question.
> 
> Read it and then we shall discuss.


 The noise has  been posted before, albeit with a different title, and we've thrashed it soundly.  Start here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...mallpox+jenner


Oh, are you going to tell me that monkey pox is really just another name for smallpox? That seems to be where your article landed.

----------


## angelatc

> http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/09/r...ain-sight.html
> 
> Here is an autism site that shows the man who was "in charge" of proving autism was not vax related, lied, embezzled money from the companies who hired him, is on the US hit list, on the run, and hiding so as not to be extradited.


*Fallacy: Poisoning the well.* Whether or not he committed fraud with his CDC grant has nothing to do with the quality of the science of the Danish studies that failed to find a link between either the MMR vaccine or thimerosal in vaccines and autism. Thorsen’s fraud didn’t happen until at least a year after the publication of the thimerosal study.

----------


## Ender

> *Fallacy: Poisoning the well.* Whether or not he committed fraud with his CDC grant has nothing to do with the quality of the science of the Danish studies that failed to find a link between either the MMR vaccine or thimerosal in vaccines and autism. Thorsens fraud didnt happen until at least a year after the publication of the thimerosal study.


Ah, good one- the guy embezzled a few million from CDC for his "studies", but that has nothing to do with his otherwise honest findings. Uh. Huh.

AnyHoo-




> *Many in the professional community believe that diseases are being renamed to cover up the fact that the vaccines are failing and in order to keep up the pretence that diseases have been eradicated.* Anla et al reported children being diagnosed with Guillaine Barre Syndrome (GBS) immediately after polio vaccinations in Turkey. In an article published in Neurology India, (4) Anla reported that five children became ill with GBS following a national oral polio vaccination (OPV) campaign to eradicate the disease in Turkey.
> 
> In their discussion they wrote:
> 
> _In our series all children were younger than 5 years of age. GBS was primarily related to OPV administration in all children except Case 4 in whom a history of viral gastroenteritis was present, which was well known as a triggering factor in the etiology of GBS.[13] When OPV was not given during 1999 we diagnosed only 2 children with GBS who were younger than 5 years of age in our clinic. Though the results are variable and the evidence is not robust, it is essential to consider OPV as a potential trigger for GBS in children, especially during a nationwide campaign and the children should be monitored._
> 
> *It was observed that the number of cases of GBS in children increased during the period of the oral polio vaccination (OPV) campaign in Turkey, suggesting a causal relationship.
> *
> If these children were actually suffering from vaccine induced poliomyelitis, renamed GBS, than it is possible that the vaccine had caused the children to contract the disease. Guillain Barre Syndrome is not the only new name that may have been given to patients developing polio after receiving the polio vaccine. Beddow Bayly author of the book The Case against Vaccination, (5) wrote:
> ...

----------


## Ender

> *9. Polio vaccines and AIDS*
> 
> SV-40, the cancer-causing monkey virus found in polio vac- cines and administered to millions of unsuspecting people throughout the world, was just one of numerous simian viruses known to have contaminated polio vaccines [38:57,58;93;94]. As monkey kidney culture is host to innumerable simian viruses, the number found varying in relation to the amount of work expended to find them, the problem presented to the manufacturer is consid- erable, if not insuperable, one early vaccine researcher wrote to a congressional panel studying the safety of growing live polio-virus vaccine in monkey kidneys [95]. As our technical methods im- prove we may find fewer and fewer lots of vaccine which can be called free from simian virus [95].
> 
> According to Harvard Medical School professor Ronald Des- rosier, the practice of growing polio vaccines in monkey kidneys is a ticking time bomb [83:159]. Evidently, some viruses can live inside monkeys without causing harm. But if these viruses were to somehow cross species and enter the human population, new dis- eases could occur. Desrosier continued: The danger in using monkey tissue to produce human vaccines is that some viruses produced by monkeys may be transferred to humans in the vac- cine, with very bad health consequences [83:159]. Desrosier also warns that testing can only be done for known viruses, and that our knowledge is limited to about 2 percent of existing monkey vi- ruses [83:159]. Craig Engesser, a spokesman for Lederle Labora- tories, a large vaccine manufacturing company, acknowledged that you cant test for something if you dont know its there [96].
> 
> Virus detection techniques were crude and unreliable during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s when polio vaccines were initially produced and dispensed. It wasnt until the mid 1980s that new and more sophisticated testing procedures were developed [84:5;96]. That was when researchers discovered that about 50 percent of all Afri- can green monkeysCthe primate of choice for making polio vac- cinesCwere infected with simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), a virus closely related to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the infectious agent thought to precede AIDS [97-100]. This caused some researchers to wonder whether HIVs may simply be SIVs residing in and adapting to a human host [101]. It caused others to suspect that SIV may have mutated into HIV once it was intro- duced into the human population by way of contaminated polio vaccines [59:54+;96-100;102-104].
> 
> Vaccine authorities were so concerned about the possibility that SIV was a precursor to HIV, and that polio vaccines were the means of transmission from monkey to human, that The World Health Organization (WHO) convened two meetings of experts in 1985 to explore the data and consider their options [100,105]. Af- ter all, SIV was very similar to HIV and occurred naturally in the monkey species predominantly used by vaccine manufacturers [98,100]. Nevertheless, WHO concluded that the vaccines were safe and insisted that vaccination campaigns should continue un- abated [100,105].
> ...


Full report here:

http://www.thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf

----------


## PRB

> Ah, good one- the guy embezzled a few million from CDC for his "studies", but that has nothing to do with his otherwise honest findings. Uh. Huh.
> 
> AnyHoo-


because we don't need him to disprove the link between autism and MMR or thimerisol, the link has been proven NOWHERE IN THE WORLD EXCEPT FOR PEOPLE WHO BUY WAKEFIELD'S CRAP.

----------


## Ender

> because we don't need him to disprove the link between autism and MMR or thimerisol, the link has been proven NOWHERE IN THE WORLD EXCEPT FOR PEOPLE WHO BUY WAKEFIELD'S CRAP.


I've never read WAKEFIELD'S CRAP. 

And there are definite links between vaccinations and many diseases.

----------


## rambone

> The number of people who experience a severe allergic reaction with similar side effects (convulsions, coma, death) to the MMR is less than 1 in a million. The effects are literally so rare they can't even be totally sure they are actually side effects to vaccines.





> Nobody dismisses them "offhand."  The evidence overwhelming indicates that the odds of serious side effects from vaccines is .0000006, if I remember correctly. If you take the flu vaccine out of the equation, it's even less.  And the side effects are so rare, they're not even sure that those side effects are actually from the vaccine.  That's a liberal estimate.
> 
> The odds of being left with a serious side effect from getting the actual diseases are far worse. For example, 1 in 1,000 kids who get measles dies from it. http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/overview.html


One in a million, oh wow... 

The side-effects of vaccines are horribly under-reported.  The industry has a vested interest in downplaying and dismissing reactions.  

When my sister started convulsing in the exam room, her doctor told her she it was probably caused by what she ate for breakfast.  He did not even leave open the possibility that her seizures were caused by the toxic shot she took moments earlier.  

"Adverse reactions reported in VAERS have typically been shown to be only 5% or 10% of the true rates." -- Gary S. Goldman, PhD (Read his report)

Naive parents believe these dismissive doctors and don't bother reporting the reactions themselves.  

Oh yeah, as my sister stumbled out of the office, the drug peddler tried to reschedule her for her next two booster shots.  Its all about the Benjamins I guess. 

Seriously, if you think one person in a million are having negative reactions, I have a bridge to sell you.  I know multiple people who have had extreme reactions.  One was temporarily (1-year) paralyzed with Guillian-Barre Syndrome, one is a permanent vegetable.  






> In a free market, I imagine the airlines would refuse to fly you if you couldn't prove you'd been vaccinated.


Why didn't you respond when I asked you about the free market earlier?  Are you good with removing the government completely from the world of vaccination? 




> I actually agree with Singer's position.  http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/1...nd-free-choice


Singer is promoting indefinite detention.  Not a freedom position at all.

----------


## mosquitobite

We should all just hand over our guns.

It would make the world a safer place.

----------


## rambone

> I've never read WAKEFIELD'S CRAP.


You can't possibly be skeptical of vaccines without being accused of being a follower of Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy.  The "enlightened" side is really good at repeating talking points over and over and over and over and over.....

----------


## Ender

You can read or download these studies in full on the site:

http://www.ecomed.org.uk/publication...ase-prevention




> *1. The Health Hazards Of Disease Prevention*
> 
> 
> Dr David Freed
> 
> It seems to me that the ethical background to vaccination – giving potentially harmful medications to healthy individuals in the hope of keeping them that way – has never been clearly addressed… Who gave us the right (a) to invade the bodies of healthy people who never asked us to, and (b) to do it not only without explanation of the possible risks, but in some countries even applying coercive pressures, denying the existence of the risks, and suppressing relevant information?
> 
> *PRESENTATIONS
> 
> ...

----------


## Ender

> You can't possibly be skeptical of vaccines without being accused of being a follower of Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy.  The "enlightened" side is really good at repeating talking points over and over and over and over and over.....


True. 

I learned about vaccines from my parents and grandmother, who are health fanatics. Consequently my whole family is extremely healthy- and unvaxed.

----------


## PRB

> I've never read WAKEFIELD'S CRAP. 
> 
> *And there are definite links between vaccinations and many diseases.*


false until proven true.

----------


## PRB

> You can't possibly be skeptical of vaccines without being accused of being a follower of Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy.  The "enlightened" side is really good at repeating talking points over and over and over and over and over.....


we wouldn't if we actually saw better people with better evidence, so do enlighten us. We don't call ourselves enlighten, I just call myself a blind follower of credentialed, qualified and honest scientists.

----------


## angelatc

> I've never read WAKEFIELD'S CRAP. 
> 
> And there are definite links between vaccinations and many diseases.



Absolutely.  The link is quite clear, the evidence has been documented in thousands of independent studies across the entire globe:  vaccines prevent them.

----------


## Ender

> false until proven true.


It has been proven and I have supplied links to support that.

But just keep feeding at the MSM/Gov/Pharma lying hypocrisy trough and wonder why you have no more freedoms left.

----------


## rambone

> we wouldn't if we actually saw better people with better evidence, so do enlighten us. We don't call ourselves enlighten, I just call myself a blind follower of credentialed, qualified and honest scientists.


It doesn't matter how you feel about scientists or vaccines or whatever.

Bringing up things that the other guy never said (i.e. Wakefield and McCarthy) is a strawman fallacy.  Its happened in *every single* vaccine discussion I've ever had.


Example:

_>> YOU DON"T LIKE VACCINES HUH?  WHY DO YOU PPL LISTEN TO JENNY MCCARTHY!!  WHY DO YOU HATE SCIENCE!?

>> No, actually its because vaccines injured my sister.  I never anything about that woman.  And I have spent my career in a science-based field.  Thanks. _

----------


## osan

I can hardly believe there are goingon 500 posts with "vaccines are bad", "no they're not", "yes they are", "my daddy'll beat up your daddy..."

None of this is relevant to the individual in terms of his rights.  The fact is that there is no truthful argument in favor of forcing vaccines on someone.  If you want to be vaccinated, knock yourself out.  If I don't, keep your mitts to yourself.  It is as simple as that.

Criminy.

----------


## Ender

> I can hardly believe there are goingon 500 posts with "vaccines are bad", "no they're not", "yes they are", "my daddy'll beat up your daddy..."
> 
> None of this is relevant to the individual in terms of his rights.  The fact is that there is no truthful argument in favor of forcing vaccines on someone.  If you want to be vaccinated, knock yourself out.  If I don't, keep your mitts to yourself.  It is as simple as that.
> 
> Criminy.


Absolutely.

----------


## bolil

> So the guy who doesn't believe that vaccines work because "scientific" evidence always changes is going back 100 years to make a case proving...what?  That he has to cherry pick to make a point?
> 
> I have a link, too: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/smallpox/9241561106_chp6.pdf
> 
> 
> Here's a snippet from your link:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL.  Yeah, smallpox is "eradicated."  Such hubris is often punished.  Does vaccination work?  Sure, hard to argue with science.  Does extreme gun contral reduce gun crime?  You are defending forced vaccinations?  Okay, force vaccinations so the state doesn't force vaccinations.

Eradicated.  Antibiotics worked wonders on bacterial infections- for awhile.  Now, the future has antibiotic resistant strains to look forward too.  Thanks to the merger of science of government.

Nah, if you can force me to take a shot I can force you to go on a diet.  Fat hurts us all, don't you know?

----------


## mad cow

> LOL.  Yeah, smallpox is "eradicated."  Such hubris is often punished.  Does vaccination work?  Sure, hard to argue with science.  Does extreme gun contral reduce gun crime?  You are defending forced vaccinations?  Okay, force vaccinations so the state doesn't force vaccinations.
> 
> Eradicated.  Antibiotics worked wonders on bacterial infections- for awhile.  Now, the future has antibiotic resistant strains to look forward too.  Thanks to the merger of science of government.
> 
> Nah, *if you can force me to take a shot I can force you to go on a diet*.  Fat hurts us all, don't you know?


Angelatc has posted many times,one time directly in answer to you,involving many expletives,in this very thread,that she doesn't condone forced vaccinations.Why do you keep on lying?

----------


## bolil

> Angelatc has posted many times,one time directly in answer to you,involving many expletives,in this very thread,that she doesn't condone forced vaccinations.Why do you keep on lying?





> Angelatc has posted many times,one time directly in answer to you,involving many expletives,in this very thread,that she doesn't condone forced vaccinations.Why do you keep on lying?


No, just strongly suggested ones?  Lying?  Sorry, bud, thats not in my nature.  If I have a fault it is ingenuous. Perhpaps I missed it, but the impassioned defense of vaccinations leads me to believe otherwise.  First, you justify.  Then, you force.  Instead, it could be, let it go.  Vaccinate yourself.  Keep your spawn out of daycare, and then what is the issue? Others have advocated the killing of anyone that shows symptoms of any disease.

The simple statment that one does not condone forced vaccinations is revealed as false when one propounds that vaccination is ONLY, can ONLY be, beneficial.  Kind of like Liberty?  Well, then, from that if can be inferred that vaccinations aught be mandated like liberty aught be mandated.  

Don't call me a liar, prick, ever.

----------


## mad cow

> No, just strongly suggested ones?  Lying?  Sorry, bud, thats not in my nature.  If I have a fault it is ingenuous. Perhpaps I missed it, but the impassioned defense of vaccinations leads me to believe otherwise.  First, you justify.  Then, you force.  Instead, it could be, let it go.  Vaccinate yourself.  Keep your spawn out of daycare, and then what is the issue? Others have advocated the killing of anyone that shows symptoms of any disease.
> 
> The simple statment that one does not condone forced vaccinations is revealed as false when one propounds that vaccination is ONLY, can ONLY be, beneficial.  Kind of like Liberty?  Well, then, from that if can be inferred that vaccinations aught be mandated like liberty aught be mandated.  
> 
> Don't call me a liar, prick, ever.


So if I suggest to you that a good nights sleep is beneficial,are you going to assume that I'm going to force you to go to sleep even if I have told you explicitly that I would never force you to go to sleep a short time ago?What if I recommended a restaurant.Does that mean I am forcing you to eat there under pain of death?If you answer yes to either of those questions,I will damn sure call you a liar.

----------


## donnay

> So if I suggest to you that a good nights sleep is beneficial,are you going to assume that I'm going to force you to go to sleep even if I have told you explicitly that I would never force you to go to sleep a short time ago?What if I recommended a restaurant.Does that mean I am forcing you to eat there under pain of death?If you answer yes to either of those questions,I will damn sure call you a liar.


Suggesting and advocating are two different things.

I can _suggest_ you try something--it is my opinion.  But when I _advocate_ something, I become convinced that something is good for you. Nevertheless, I still, as an advocate have no right to force what I have learned on you.  To take a paraphrased quote from the movie the Matrix:  "I can show you the door, you have to be willing to walk through it."

----------


## osan

> Angelatc has posted many times,one time directly in answer to you,involving many expletives,in this very thread,that she doesn't condone forced vaccinations.Why do you keep on lying?


I cannot speak for Bolil but can say that I did not parse the use of "you" as singular, but rather plural.  "You", meaning some group such as government.  I wousl assess the statement as a generalized delineation of a conditional.  If _this_, then _that_.  Simple modus ponens logical premise, P --> Q.  If you can do this to me based on a generalized principle of "threat", I may do that to you on the precise same basis.

A cursory analysis of the logic behind the basis for the justification of force reveals the necessarily arbitrary nature of the basis, no to mention the fact that it is demonstrably false.  But that is all orthogonal to the real point: if you can force me to do A because of the threat ~A poses to you, I can force you to do B because of the threat ~B poses to me.  After all, fair is fair.

QED and all that rot.

----------


## PRB

> It doesn't matter how you feel about scientists or vaccines or whatever.
> 
> Bringing up things that the other guy never said (i.e. Wakefield and McCarthy) is a strawman fallacy.  Its happened in *every single* vaccine discussion I've ever had.
> 
> 
> Example:
> 
> _>> YOU DON"T LIKE VACCINES HUH?  WHY DO YOU PPL LISTEN TO JENNY MCCARTHY!!  WHY DO YOU HATE SCIENCE!?
> 
> >> No, actually its because vaccines injured my sister.  I never anything about that woman.  And I have spent my career in a science-based field.  Thanks. _


That's the question, where DO antivaxxers get their information from if not Wakefield, McCarthy, Inforwars, Naturalnews, vaclib?

----------


## donnay

> That's the question, where DO antivaxxers get their information from if not Wakefield, McCarthy, Inforwars, Naturalnews, vaclib?



International Medical Council on Vaccination 
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/

Don't Vaccinate Before You Educate!
http://homefirst.com/cms/index.php/h...vaccine-choice

Vaccine News and Information from Dr. Joseph Mercola 
http://vaccines.mercola.com/

The Killer Vaccines: An Honest Physician Warns of Serious Dangers
http://w3.newsmax.com/blaylock/1.cfm

The Truth Behind the Vaccine Cover-Up by Russell Blaylock 
http://www.whale.to/a/blaylock.html

Vaccines
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vaccines.html

THE MEDICAL TIME BOMB OF IMMUNIZATION AGAINST DISEASE
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/mendelsohn.html

Doctors Speak - Vaccination Risk Awareness Network 
http://vran.org/about-vaccines/gener...doctors-speak/

Vaccines and Neurological Damage 
http://www.mercola.com/article/vacci...cal_damage.htm

Saying No to Vaccines: A Resource Guide for All Ages
http://www.amazon.com/Saying-No-Vacc.../dp/0979091047

Murder by Injection: The Story of the Medical Conspiracy Against America
http://www.amazon.com/Murder-Injecti.../dp/0880606940

Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America
http://www.amazon.com/Rockefeller-Me...r+medicine+men

----------


## RJB

> That's the question, where DO antivaxxers get their information from if not Wakefield, McCarthy, Inforwars, Naturalnews, vaclib?


I received the bulk of my info from MY OWN BODY.  The sickest I've ever been have been after vaccinations, and it's not from placebo effect.  Because at the time, I thought they were good for me.  

Reading Naturalnews just confirms what I should have known after my first bad reaction.

----------


## PRB

> International Medical Council on Vaccination 
> http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/
> 
> Don't Vaccinate Before You Educate!
> http://homefirst.com/cms/index.php/h...vaccine-choice
> 
> Vaccine News and Information from Dr. Joseph Mercola 
> http://vaccines.mercola.com/
> 
> ...


Of these links, which actually have ONE peer reviewed study that isn't discredited, like Wakefield's? I want quality, not quantity. So yes, ONE good site or article would be better than 100 sites (because anybody can copy another site's information)

----------


## PRB

> I received the bulk of my info from MY OWN BODY.  The sickest I've ever been have been after vaccinations, and it's not from placebo effect.  Because at the time, I thought they were good for me.  
> 
> Reading Naturalnews just confirms what I should have known after my first bad reaction.


what vaccine and what symptoms? I'm not saying I don't believe you, I'm just very curious what you are referring to.

----------


## donnay

> Of these links, which actually have ONE peer reviewed study that isn't discredited, like Wakefield's? I want quality, not quantity. So yes, ONE good site or article would be better than 100 sites (because anybody can copy another site's information)


Oh you mean peer reviewed papers by doctors and scientist paid by Big pHARMa? That peer reviewed?  No conflict of interest there, right?  You originally asked; _"where DO antivaxxers get their information from if not Wakefield, McCarthy, Inforwars, Naturalnews, vaclib?"_

I gave you some of information you asked for.  The difference is; the doctors and scientists who have gone off the medical monopoly's reservation are the courageous ones, the minute they do not toe the line (AMA, Big pHARMa, FDA and other bought and paid for organizations by the medical monopoly), they are character assassinated, discredited immediately and banished from the establishment medical monopoly, all for stepping out of the box and critically thinking, by their own observation and researching the information themselves.

----------


## PRB

> Oh you mean peer reviewed papers by doctors and scientist paid by Big pHARMa? That peer reviewed?


YES.




> No conflict of interest there, right?  You originally asked; _"where DO antivaxxers get their information from if not Wakefield, McCarthy, Inforwars, Naturalnews, vaclib?"_


Yes, and then I realized I asked the wrong question, so I rephrased. 





> I gave you some of information you asked for.  The difference is; the doctors and scientists who have gone off the medical monopoly's reservation are the courageous ones, the minute they do not toe the line (AMA, Big pHARMa, FDA and other bought and paid for organizations by the medical monopoly), they are character assassinated, discredited immediately and banished from the establishment medical monopoly, all for stepping out of the box and critically thinking, by their own observation and researching the information themselves.


Are people who speak out against the establishment always right? Or are they sometimes too, the liars, crooks and just exploiting your doubt and anger for their unotherwise non-existent credibility?

----------


## Ender

> YES.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and then I realized I asked the wrong question, so I rephrased. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are people who speak out against the establishment always right? Or are they sometimes too, the liars, crooks and just exploiting your doubt and anger for their unotherwise non-existent credibility?


Have some credibility with your natural health hatin'.


*There is No Such Thing as a Safe Vaccine and there Never Will Be*

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/p...-safe-vaccine/

http://naturalsociety.com/never-be-s...ne-never-will/

----------


## amy31416

> Have some credibility with your natural health hatin'.
> 
> 
> *There is No Such Thing as a Safe Vaccine and there Never Will Be*
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/p...-safe-vaccine/
> 
> 
> http://naturalsociety.com/never-be-s...ne-never-will/


She's a nephrologist.

----------


## Contumacious

> Have some credibility with your natural health hatin'.
> 
> 
> *There is No Such Thing as a Safe Vaccine and there Never Will Be*
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/p...-safe-vaccine/
> 
> http://naturalsociety.com/never-be-s...ne-never-will/


So what are the responsibilities of someone who tests (+) for the H1N1 virus?

.

----------


## PRB

> She's a nephrologist.


so?

----------


## PRB

> So what are the responsibilities of someone who tests (+) for the H1N1 virus?
> 
> .


responsibilities are for statists. free people don't owe anybody anything, life is not safe or risk free or fair.

----------


## amy31416

> so?


That's a kidney doctor, not an immunologist or epidemiologist. Not an expert on vaccines, and a late-comer to the anti-vax scene. A brief read on her shows her to be more along the lines of a half-baked naturopath who refers to people who don't get vaccines as not believing in God's work/perfection.

----------


## PRB

> That's a kidney doctor, not an immunologist or epidemiologist. Not an expert on vaccines, and a late-comer to the anti-vax scene. A brief read on her shows her to be more along the lines of a half-baked naturopath who refers to people who don't get vaccines as not believing in God's work/perfection.


how much is big pharma paying you to spread this credentialist elitism?

----------


## Contumacious

> *responsibilities are for statists.* free people don't owe anybody anything, life is not safe or risk free or fair.


So , you don't mind it if your neighbor sets up a gun range near your property. If you or yours are hit by  a projectile , oh well, " life is not safe or risk free or fair".

.

----------


## donnay

> She's a nephrologist.


What does that have to do with anything?  You don't think the kidneys are affected by vaccines?


*Common Vaccine Ingredient Linked To Kidney Injury*
Written By: Suzanne Humphries, MD

A June, 2011 New England Journal Of Medicine article titled "Early-Childhood Membranous Nephropathy Due to Cationic Bovine Serum Albumin"[1] recently caught my attention. Namely, because it admits the plausible association between circulating cationic bovine(cow) serum albumin (BSA, a common vaccine ingredient) and a very difficult-to-treat form of kidney disease called idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN). *Skeptics often demand peer-reviewed articles to support the fact that vaccines cause bodily harm. Often, while we know what we see in front of us, "scientific" proof is non-existent due to lack of motivation by researchers in exploring the likely associations.*

Well, here in one of the world’s most respected medical journals lies some very interesting information, and it was conducted by two renowned nephrologists. Dr. Giuseppe Remuzzi is an expert in the field of protein trafficking within the kidney, and Dr. Pierre Ronco is a well-known and highly respected nephrologist.

First, let me explain what nephrotic syndrome and membranous nephropathy are. Nephrotic syndrome is a condition where the kidneys leak large amounts of protein into the urine and is defined in detail HERE. The term just describes a clinical condition that can have one of several causes. This article discusses one cause called membranous nephropathy.

The kidney is composed of millions of microscopic filters that cleanse the blood. This is a schematic of one of those filters.

Approximately one quarter of the blood leaving the heart goes to the kidneys, which filter 140- 180 liters of your blood per day. In health, the kidneys retain your albumin and proteins and filter excess water, toxins and minerals. The filters are composed of membranes that are negatively charged and thus repel negatively charged molecules like your own proteins.

Here is an electron microscope photo of a normal glomerular capillary membrane, the thing that serves as a filter for your blood. It is a close-up photo of the schematic from above.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/com...-kidney-injury

----------


## amy31416

> how much is big pharma paying you to spread this credentialist elitism?


Lame attempt at repetitious humor. 

Try again, you're boring me.

----------


## PRB

> Lame attempt at repetitious humor. 
> 
> Try again, you're boring me.


it's not my fault that antivaxxers don't give me better material to parrot.

----------


## PRB

> So , you don't mind it if your neighbor sets up a gun range near your property. If you or yours are hit by  a projectile , oh well, " life is not safe or risk free or fair".
> 
> .


I would mind, but it's not my right to prevent him from exercising his freedom. To say otherwise would be criminalizing actions before they harm anybody. Pre-crime much?

----------


## amy31416

> it's not my fault that antivaxxers don't give me better material to parrot.


Read up on it more, there's some crazy BS that still surprises me.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...inst-vaccines/

----------


## PRB

> Read up on it more, there's some crazy BS that still surprises me.
> 
> http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...inst-vaccines/


thanks

----------


## Sanguine

The choice to be a $#@!ty parent is free to libertarianism?  You would think that exposing the child you're responsible for to the possibility of a deadly, preventable disease would be considered a terrible idea by anyone with common sense.

----------


## DamianTV

> The choice to be a $#@!ty parent is free to libertarianism?  You would think that exposing the child you're responsible for to the possibility of a deadly, preventable disease would be considered a terrible idea by anyone with common sense.


Youre so right.  I would be such a $#@!ty parent if I didnt obey the Govt.  I definitely should obey and give my kids Autism, or at least cause them to die from an allergic reaction to a vaccine.  It is better that my children possibly suffer and / or die than to be a Libertarian where I'd consider the consequences of my actions for myself.  Its better / easier to require someone else to think for me.  Its better to send my kids to Public School than to Homeschool because Im a Libertarian Dumb$#@! and cant teach my children either basic math, or complex mathematical algorhythms, or history, chemistry, and everything else that is someone elses decree that I am unqualified to do.  Apparently, I need permission to think, and to raise my kids, and to feed my kids healthier food.  My children should also report me to the schools if I happen to own a gun legally.  Oh, and that same school should know whether or not Im a self proclaimed Conservative, or a Liberal.  They should stick cameras in every room in my house for my safety.  They should put an RFID Tracking Chip into the bodies of my children so they can keep getting Federal Bribery / Blackmail Money because printing money and throwing money at problems always solves the problems itself and never ever creates either the potential for abuse, or actual abuse.  I should have voted for Robamaney.  I should always vote to put my financial burdens on someone else.  I should get Obamacare so everyone else can pay for my Health Care Insurance.  I should not expect to receive Treatment, even if I have Obamacare Insurance.  I am so stupid, please forgive me for believing that Non Aggression Principles apply not only to War but to my own Children.  I was so wrong.

And all it took to awaken me to the Truths of Socialism was your wonderful claim that Im a $#@!ty parent if I believe in Libertarianism.

The expression of your ideas shows that you have absolutely no respect for the Rights of others.  I also fear that the only way that you will ever start to think for yourself is to suffer the abuses for yourself or on your family.

----------


## jtstellar

every person, perhaps partially affected by genetics, has different detox-abilities to heavy metals sometimes contained in various types of treatments, tooth fillings, including vaccines.  

i have two autistic cousins in our extended family, preach all you want, but if there's some association down the road 15 years from now, even minor ones of a 3% correlation, which is already statistically significant because that's higher than how they qualified aspirin as heart attack prevention, what would you do then, jump off a cliff in shame because of the indirect harm you do propagandizing against people who now have autism because of it?  once having an autistic kid it's essentially a burden for life, it's not something do gooders can compensate and repent for if they ever turn out wrong.  same old saying--mind your own $#@!ing business and try being a real libertarian for once.  don't like it, try to have your neighborhood mandate it and stay the $#@! out of states or places that have people you feel are of danger to you, but don't try to legislate me from two thousand miles away, $#@! you

----------


## DamianTV

There are sometimes when Bad Batches of Street Drugs go around.  Once in a while, certain types of Foods are contaminated with Samonella and other baddies.  Why are Vaccines somehow Immune to having the occasional Bad Batch?

----------


## Sanguine

> Youre so right.  I would be such a $#@!ty parent if I didnt obey the Govt.  I definitely should obey and give my kids Autism, or at least cause them to die from an allergic reaction to a vaccine.  It is better that my children possibly suffer and / or die than to be a Libertarian where I'd consider the consequences of my actions for myself.  Its better / easier to require someone else to think for me.  Its better to send my kids to Public School than to Homeschool because Im a Libertarian Dumb$#@! and cant teach my children either basic math, or complex mathematical algorhythms, or history, chemistry, and everything else that is someone elses decree that I am unqualified to do.  Apparently, I need permission to think, and to raise my kids, and to feed my kids healthier food.  My children should also report me to the schools if I happen to own a gun legally.  Oh, and that same school should know whether or not Im a self proclaimed Conservative, or a Liberal.  They should stick cameras in every room in my house for my safety.  They should put an RFID Tracking Chip into the bodies of my children so they can keep getting Federal Bribery / Blackmail Money because printing money and throwing money at problems always solves the problems itself and never ever creates either the potential for abuse, or actual abuse.  I should have voted for Robamaney.  I should always vote to put my financial burdens on someone else.  I should get Obamacare so everyone else can pay for my Health Care Insurance.  I should not expect to receive Treatment, even if I have Obamacare Insurance.  I am so stupid, please forgive me for believing that Non Aggression Principles apply not only to War but to my own Children.  I was so wrong.
> 
> And all it took to awaken me to the Truths of Socialism was your wonderful claim that Im a $#@!ty parent if I believe in Libertarianism.
> 
> The expression of your ideas shows that you have absolutely no respect for the Rights of others.  I also fear that the only way that you will ever start to think for yourself is to suffer the abuses for yourself or on your family.



Vaccines don't give you autism.  Andrew Wakefield, the chief researcher behind the study purporting that lie, was patenting a vaccine design and trying to get it passed.  You see, it's not that I believe in government that I say anti-vaccers are idiots, it's because you people will believe anything you want to hear. You just want to hear all about how the government suddenly cares about your kid.  

But of course, because I advocate being a decent human being, I MUST support the surveillance state, and Obamacare, and partisanship, and whatever the $#@! else you said.  By all means, strawman me for telling you that you're a terrible person for exposing your child to infectious diseases for no goddamn reason other than the fact that you'll really believe anything you hear.  After all, that's why you pay attention to InfoWars, right?  Gotta keep the lies going, or Mr. Jones won't have another million dollars by the end of the year!

And for the record, yeah it makes you a $#@!ty parent, if you listen to some random knob that was thoroughly discredited by everyone and their mother, especially over years of study and the dramatically reduced instances of diseases.  Neg rep me all you want, but if you put your child at risk because you like to pretend in a fake conspiracies, then you're either incredibly stupid, or a monumental $#@! for neglecting your kid.

----------


## bj72

> That's the question, where DO antivaxxers get their information from if not Wakefield, McCarthy, Inforwars, Naturalnews, vaclib?


CDC's website, pharmaceutical inserts & pharmaceutical companies' websites...and first hand experience with a broken system. 

Information is there if one takes blinders off. Btw, I was a vaccine proponent prior to experiencing adverse reactions first hand with my own children. I was one of those parents that would shake their head in slight disgust when hearing about a parent (or individual) that did not vaccinate or chose a delayed schedule. Irony. Took me a while to "wake up", research on my own, and digest what was happening. I trusted the vaccine system and my doctors without question until the first hand evidence was too much to ignore. Then I still went to the CDC and pharmaceutical companies' websites for answers.

----------


## rambone

> CDC's website, pharmaceutical inserts & pharmaceutical companies' websites...and first hand experience with a broken system. 
> 
> Information is there if one takes blinders off. Btw, I was a vaccine proponent prior to experiencing adverse reactions first hand with my own children. I was one of those parents that would shake their head in slight disgust when hearing about a parent (or individual) that did not vaccinate or chose a delayed schedule. Irony. Took me a while to "wake up", research on my own, and digest what was happening. I trusted the vaccine system and my doctors without question until the first hand evidence was too much to ignore. Then I still went to the CDC and pharmaceutical companies' websites for answers.


Hey, your family must be another 1-in-a-million case.  Just like my family and a couple others I know.  

My first knowledge of vaccine dangers came from my sister's vaccine-induced seizures... not any conspiracy websites or celebrities.

----------


## PRB

> CDC's website, pharmaceutical inserts & pharmaceutical companies' websites...and first hand experience with a broken system. 
> 
> Information is there if one takes blinders off. Btw, I was a vaccine proponent prior to experiencing adverse reactions first hand with my own children. I was one of those parents that would shake their head in slight disgust when hearing about a parent (or individual) that did not vaccinate or chose a delayed schedule. Irony. Took me a while to "wake up", research on my own, and digest what was happening. I trusted the vaccine system and my doctors without question until the first hand evidence was too much to ignore. Then I still went to the CDC and pharmaceutical companies' websites for answers.


what were the symptoms?

----------


## PRB

> Hey, your family must be another 1-in-a-million case.  Just like my family and a couple others I know.  
> 
> My first knowledge of vaccine dangers came from my sister's vaccine-induced seizures... not any conspiracy websites or celebrities.


how did you conclude in the first place they were vaccine induced?

----------


## rambone

> how did you conclude in the first place they were vaccine induced?


When someone keels over in the exam room and starts seizing after a shot, it doesn't take a panel of pharma reps to confirm what happened. 

As I mentioned earlier, the expert in the room tried to blame her breakfast.  She'd never had a seizure before walking into that office at age 22.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

If only 1 out of a million suffer from some thing that may help the other million, is it right to force that 1 to suffer for the others?

----------


## PRB

> If only 1 out of a million suffer from some thing that may help the other million, is it right to force that 1 to suffer for the others?


I'll ask you the same question, is it right for the million to suffer for one?

----------


## CT4Liberty

> I'll ask you the same question, is it right for the million to suffer for one?


The other 999,999 have nothing to worry about...they are vaccinated, therefore they should not care about the 1... right?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I'll ask you the same question, is it right for the million to suffer for one?


They don't suffer for the 1.  They suffer their own genetics/health and from the environment.  And, if they want a vaccine, so long as it doesn't cause the disease to spread to those that don't, then fine.  _Also, notice the "force" that I used._

----------


## Ender

> Vaccines don't give you autism.  Andrew Wakefield, the chief researcher behind the study purporting that lie, was patenting a vaccine design and trying to get it passed.  You see, it's not that I believe in government that I say anti-vaccers are idiots, it's because you people will believe anything you want to hear. You just want to hear all about how the government suddenly cares about your kid.  
> 
> But of course, because I advocate being a decent human being, I MUST support the surveillance state, and Obamacare, and partisanship, and whatever the $#@! else you said.  By all means, strawman me for telling you that you're a terrible person for exposing your child to infectious diseases for no goddamn reason other than the fact that you'll really believe anything you hear.  After all, that's why you pay attention to InfoWars, right?  Gotta keep the lies going, or Mr. Jones won't have another million dollars by the end of the year!
> 
> And for the record, yeah it makes you a $#@!ty parent, if you listen to some random knob that was thoroughly discredited by everyone and their mother, especially over years of study and the dramatically reduced instances of diseases.  Neg rep me all you want, but if you put your child at risk because you like to pretend in a fake conspiracies, then you're either incredibly stupid, or a monumental $#@! for neglecting your kid.


It is _You_ that is full of bull$#@!. 

I have never been vaccinated and I will never vaccinate my family. Disease is fought naturally from by the body and can be overcome with proper nutrition when the natural anti-bodies are allowed to form. Vaccinations kill that process and destroy the bodies ability to fight disease.

And, yes, you do believe in government if you believe the vaccine propaganda. The truth is hidden on purpose, just like JFK, 911, ME Wars etc. And I didn't learn anything about health from Jones- so don't even go there.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Youre so right.  I would be such a $#@!ty parent if I didnt obey the Govt.  I definitely should obey and give my kids Autism, or at least cause them to die from an allergic reaction to a vaccine.  It is better that my children possibly suffer and / or die than to be a Libertarian where I'd consider the consequences of my actions for myself.  Its better / easier to require someone else to think for me.  Its better to send my kids to Public School than to Homeschool because Im a Libertarian Dumb$#@! and cant teach my children either basic math, or complex mathematical algorhythms, or history, chemistry, and everything else that is someone elses decree that I am unqualified to do.  Apparently, I need permission to think, and to raise my kids, and to feed my kids healthier food.  My children should also report me to the schools if I happen to own a gun legally.  Oh, and that same school should know whether or not Im a self proclaimed Conservative, or a Liberal.  They should stick cameras in every room in my house for my safety.  They should put an RFID Tracking Chip into the bodies of my children so they can keep getting Federal Bribery / Blackmail Money because printing money and throwing money at problems always solves the problems itself and never ever creates either the potential for abuse, or actual abuse.  I should have voted for Robamaney.  I should always vote to put my financial burdens on someone else.  I should get Obamacare so everyone else can pay for my Health Care Insurance.  I should not expect to receive Treatment, even if I have Obamacare Insurance.  I am so stupid, please forgive me for believing that Non Aggression Principles apply not only to War but to my own Children.  I was so wrong.*
> 
> And all it took to awaken me to the Truths of Socialism was your wonderful claim that Im a $#@!ty parent if I believe in Libertarianism.
> 
> The expression of your ideas shows that you have absolutely no respect for the Rights of others.  I also fear that the only way that you will ever start to think for yourself is to suffer the abuses for yourself or on your family.


Truly, you are a Model Citizen.  We mere mundanes have much to learn from thee.

----------


## mosquitobite

> And, yes, you do believe in government if you believe the vaccine propaganda.


What are you talking about?  There is no monetary incentive for vaccines!  There is no corruption.  There is only the high and mighty scientist who is not as corruptible as politicians.

http://nypost.com/2013/12/26/profess...19m-in-grants/

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Truly, you are a Model Citizen.  We mere mundanes have much to learn from thee.


What?

----------


## Anti Federalist

From this thread on forced sterilizations of female prisoners in California.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-In-California





> I am flabbergasted. Is this one of those prank hoax articles? How is this any more "Constitutional" than slavery once was? How is this not "cruel and unusual?"


Nope, real...and so is the SCROTUS ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

And look at this gem from Oliver Holmes writing for the 8-1 majority ruling in favor of the forced sterilization of Carrie Buck.




> 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*.


Compulsory vaxxers are eugenicists.
...

----------


## Anti Federalist

From this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-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

----------


## pcosmar

> Compulsory vaxxers are eugenicists.
> ...





> *society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.*


*THIS*, was the inspiration for Hitler's "Master Race".
http://gedenkstaettesteinhof.at/en/e...reeding-humans




Those that do not remember History are doomed to repeat it.

http://hnn.us/article/1796



> Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a co-called "Master Race."
> 
> But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws,* as well as marriage restrictions,* enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, *barred the marriage of thousands*, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries


Bold parts for the "traditional" Marriage supporters. This was what marriage licenses are for.

----------


## 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.


In light of the Honorable Justice Holmes' *other* opinions, here recently posted, you might want to re-think that.

Or do you think the state *has* the right to forcibly sterilize people to freshen up the gene pool?

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

Vaccines are so good for your health, we need to force you to take them. If your child doesn't get vaccinated, he/she can't go to school. If he/she does not go to school, you will be fined or imprisoned.

----------


## PRB

> Vaccines are so good for your health, we need to force you to take them. If your child doesn't get vaccinated, he/she can't go to school. If he/she does not go to school, you will be fined or imprisoned.


exactly, whatever the government forces you to do, it's not good for you.

----------


## RabbitMan

> The other 999,999 have nothing to worry about...they are vaccinated, therefore they should not care about the 1... right?


Um.  There are kids that can't be vaccinated due to allergies and other issues and depend on the vaccination of the group to prevent them from catching random crap.  You threaten the lives of innocents when you don't vaccinate.  Sorry.

----------


## Weston White

> Um.  There are kids that can't be vaccinated due to allergies and other issues and depend on the vaccination of the group to prevent them from catching random crap.  You threaten the lives of innocents when you don't vaccinate.  Sorry.


1.  So, you admit you are only concerned about kids, and in consequence once those children have grown into adults, who then could care any less about them than people such as you?
2.  vaccinations are not guarantees, realistically they are more of a placebo option for the overly-paranoid.
3.  In many instances there are other options available besides just vaccinations.
4.  People that are compromised by allergies and other issues just have to come to terms and face the unfortunate reality that they have to lead more cautious lives; that they are no exception to others who suffer lifelong illnesses, such as those that are blind, deaf, crippled, or have asthma, diabetes, seizures, high cholesterol, heart complications, peanut allergies, are lactose intolerant, etc.
5.  Sorry.

----------


## Madison320

> 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.


If you got bit by a rabid dog, would you get the rabies shots?

----------


## Madison320

I don't think you should force vaccinations but if it could be proven that an individual knowingly infected someone else, they should be held liable. It would have to be a serious disease like ebola or something.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Um.  There are kids that can't be vaccinated due to allergies and other issues and depend on the vaccination of the group to prevent them from catching random crap.  You threaten the lives of innocents when you don't vaccinate.  Sorry.


You just made the case that it's OK (necessary, in fact) for the government to *force* one group of people to take action for the (perceived) benefit of another. How collectivist of you. If you make that case, what principle do you stand on to make the case that government shouldn't force you to turn over part of the income you've earned so those same kids can eat?

----------


## Ecolibertarian

I feel that this debate is better supported by libertarian principles than some have argued. On the one hand, yes, there is the collectivist aspect: forcing some people to do something to benefit other people. On the other hand, is it aggression if one person passes an infection to another, unintentionally? Or are viruses and bacteria technically the aggressors in that case? 

The concept of herd immunity likewise raises questions about the individual and the collective. Should one person be allowed to endanger herd immunity and put others at greater risk of infection? Maybe yes, because inaction is not the same as positive action. Maybe not, because recklessness without malevolence can be aggression.

I should be able to decide if I take multivitamins. Or cannabis. Or whatever. But whether I should be allowed to make health decisions that can potentially negate the decisions of others to vaccinate is another question.

----------


## Petar

When you take away the competitive market function of being able to choose medications or not, then you open the door for a small group of eugenicists to intentionally poison people. 

If you don't believe that government is capable of such action then you should probably do the world a favor and just remove yourself from the gene pool.

----------


## mello

> It is _You_ that is full of bull$#@!. 
> 
> I have never been vaccinated and I will never vaccinate my family. Disease is fought naturally from by the body and can be overcome with proper nutrition when the natural anti-bodies are allowed to form. Vaccinations kill that process and destroy the bodies ability to fight disease.
> 
> And, yes, you do believe in government if you believe the vaccine propaganda. The truth is hidden on purpose, just like JFK, 911, ME Wars etc. And I didn't learn anything about health from Jones- so don't even go there.


Wow...just wow.

----------


## PRB

> I don't think you should force vaccinations but if it could be proven that an individual knowingly infected someone else, they should be held liable. It would have to be a serious disease like ebola or something.


how do you hold them liable? fine? prison? beating?

----------


## PRB

> Wow...just wow.


you're surprised the libertarian movement has crazy conspiracy theorists?

----------


## PRB

> When you take away the competitive market function of being able to choose medications or not, then you open the door for a small group of *eugenicists* to intentionally poison people. 
> 
> If you don't believe that government is capable of such action then *you should probably do the world a favor and just remove yourself from the gene pool.*


if you don't like eugenics, please do us a favor and eugenicize????

----------


## Petar

> if you don't like eugenics, please do us a favor and eugenicize????


It sounds kinda funny when you put it that way.

----------


## PRB

> It sounds kinda funny when you put it that way.


Did I misunderstand or misinterpret you? I hope I did. because it sounds like you're not against eugenics, you just don't like somebody else doing it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You just made the case that it's OK (necessary, in fact) for the government to *force* one group of people to take action for the (perceived) benefit of another. How collectivist of you. If you make that case, what principle do you stand on to make the case that government shouldn't force you to turn over part of the income you've earned so those same kids can eat?


Exactly my point and why I posted that and revived this thread.

There is no middle ground.

If you grant that the state has the right to shackle you down and inject a drug into against your will, for some perceived greater good, then the state has the right to do pretty much anything it wants to you.

----------


## Petar

> Did I misunderstand or misinterpret you? I hope I did. because it sounds like you're not against eugenics, you just don't like somebody else doing it.


The world would definitely be a much better place if a whole lot of people would just commit suicide, or at least get spayed/neutered.

Nonetheless, no one should be in a position where it would be too easy for them to make that kind of decision for others. 

That would be the "bad kind" of eugenics, as opposed to the "nice kind" that people should also teach their children about.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Exactly my point and why I posted that and revived this thread.
> 
> There is no middle ground.
> 
> If you grant that the state has the right to shackle you down and inject a drug into against your will, for some perceived greater good, then the state has the right to do pretty much anything it wants to you.


Tone down that talk. We need to have a 'big tent' and your rhetoric might make some campus liberals angry, and we can't have that!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> But whether I should be allowed to make health decisions that can potentially negate the decisions of others to vaccinate is another question.


If you answer is "no" then that is the logic that enables this:







Looks like freedom to me.

----------


## PRB

> *The world would definitely be a much better place if a whole lot of people would just commit suicide, or at least get spayed/neutered.
> *
> Nonetheless, no one should be in a position where it would be too easy for them to make that kind of decision for others. 
> 
> That would be the "bad kind" of eugenics, *as opposed to the "nice kind" that people should also teach their children about*.


Admitted eugenicist, good to hear.

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

If you don't want to get sick, then get a vaccine. Boom, you're covered! Why do you need to force vaccines on people who don't want them?

----------


## Petar

> Admitted eugenicist, good to hear.


*Alleged* admitted eugenicist.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> 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.


Lloyd Pye.

----------


## Madison320

> If you don't want to get sick, then get a vaccine. Boom, you're covered! Why do you need to force vaccines on people who don't want them?


I think you nailed it right there. I have to admit when I first read the article in Reason I thought they had a point, although I disagreed. But you're absolutely right, all you need to do is voluntarily take the vaccine, you don't need to force it on someone else. I feel dumb for missing that! Dang. 

What about forced quarantine for something really deadly that has no vaccine? 

Even though I disagree with Reason magazine on this I think it's wrong to brand them as an enemy. They're right most of the time.

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

> What about forced quarantine for something really deadly that has no vaccine?


This is a tricky one. And actually I think we would need to do this if the illness is really deadly. Some of these viruses are really scary, such as the Ebola virus, and can become a global threat very quickly. 

The hard part is getting competent people in high places who can make and execute these decisions based on the real objective scientific data regarding the speed of transmission, the method of transmission, and the deadliness of the illness. We don't want to put people in concentration camps because of "swine flu" or some other idiotic media frenzy.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> This is a tricky one. And actually I think we would need to do this if the illness is really deadly. Some of these viruses are really scary, such as the Ebola virus, and can become a global threat very quickly. 
> 
> The hard part is getting competent people in high places who can make and execute these decisions based on the real objective scientific data regarding the speed of transmission, the method of transmission, and the deadliness of the illness. We don't want to put people in concentration camps because of "swine flu" or some other idiotic media frenzy.


How can we trust vaccines when we can't even trust the people who make them?

----------


## BucksforPaul

Is it just me or does Reason Magazine print a lot of Unreasonable things?

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Is it just me or does Reason Magazine print a lot of Unreasonable things?


You just don't understand their great contribution to the liberty movement. From never having any success promoting the beliefs to attempting to destroy Ron Paul's campaign out of jealousy to defending forced vaccinations and denigrating the non-aggression principle, these guys have really been exemplars for freedom.

----------


## Ender

> This is a tricky one. And actually I think we would need to do this if the illness is really deadly. Some of these viruses are really scary, such as the Ebola virus, and can become a global threat very quickly. 
> 
> The hard part is getting competent people in high places who can make and execute these decisions based on the real objective scientific data regarding the speed of transmission, the method of transmission, and the deadliness of the illness. We don't want to put people in concentration camps because of "swine flu" or some other idiotic media frenzy.


Good grief.

Let's put all the non-vaxers in concentration camps because they are a threat to the health of all the vaccinated?

And this non-logic is supposed to say that vaccinations work?

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

> Good grief.
> 
> Let's put all the non-vaxers in concentration camps because they are a threat to the health of all the vaccinated?
> 
> And this non-logic is supposed to say that vaccinations work?


No, you are misrepresenting what I'm saying. Carefully read the comment I was replying too. If there is an extremely deadly virus with *no vaccine*, such as an airborn strain of ebola (no vaccine, 90%+ fatality rate) that has the potential to wipe out the world, then we need to take steps to quarantine the infected people. 

If the virus is something even more insanely virulent, such as one of these biological warfare concoctions (imagine 100% fatality rate, massive communicability), then it may become necessary to kill the infected people. It's a hard thing to say, especially on a libertarian website, I hope you can take my point as a logical one, rather than an emotional one.

----------


## TruckinMike

> Is it just me or does Reason Magazine print a lot of Unreasonable things?


When I think of *Reason Magazine* I think of all the *deaths, torture, and pain* that country after country have handed down to their own citizenry.  This pain and suffering is usually created by some *power mad freak*. But brought to fruition with the help of some jack-ass with good intentions. One of those jack-asses in today's world is *Reason Magazine*.

----------


## Madison320

> How can we trust vaccines when we can't even trust the people who make them?


He wasn't talking about vaccines. Quaratines with no vaccine.

----------


## Madison320

> Good grief.
> 
> Let's put all the non-vaxers in concentration camps because they are a threat to the health of all the vaccinated?
> 
> And this non-logic is supposed to say that vaccinations work?



Not talking about vaccines.

On a slightly different topic, I asked this earlier. Would you get the rabies shots if you were bitten by a rabid dog?

----------


## Deborah K

> Tone down that talk. We need to have a 'big tent' and your rhetoric might make some campus liberals angry, and we can't have that!


I doubt anyone believes the 'big tent' would include a belief that forced vaccination promotes liberty.  Hopefully 'big tent' means diverse groups with a common foundational belief in the individual freedom to think, feel, believe, act, and do what you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. (And no, I don't mean hurt someone's feelings.  )

----------


## Ender

> Not talking about vaccines.
> 
> On a slightly different topic, I asked this earlier. Would you get the rabies shots if you were bitten by a rabid dog?


Depends on the circumstances; there is now reports of rabies being cured w/o vaccinations.

BUT- the issue here is 'forced' vaccinations. 

If someone wants to be vaccinated, for whatever reason, then they should have the freedom to do so; AND if one chooses not to be vaccinated, they should also have that freedom of choice.

----------


## BucksforPaul

> When I think of *Reason Magazine* I think of all the *deaths, torture, and pain* that country after country have handed down to their own citizenry.  This pain and suffering is usually created by some *power mad freak*. But brought to fruition with the help of some jack-ass with good intentions. One of those jack-asses in today's world is *Reason Magazine*.


+rep for a great and succinct analysis.

----------


## rambone

One alleged measles death in 12 years.  Hysteria ensues.

Reason Magazine wastes no time using the opportunity to advance its forced drug agenda.

*Immune Compromised Woman Dies of Measles: Are the Unvaccinated Legally Responsible? | Reason.com*

This follows up exactly with Ronald Bailey's article from 2013, where he argued for using government to punish and harass unvaccinated people. 

I read a number of articles on this subject, and although there is plenty of hysterical ravings to go around, Reason is the only one I found actually advancing this point of going after unvaccinated people.  Even some of the most rabidly statist outlets don't go this far. 

FYI: Ironically, the deceased woman was already vaccinated for measles, but died anyway.  Apparently she was on a whole bunch of different pharmaceutical drugs, and her immune system was compromised.  The vaccine didn't give her immunity, and she died in a hospital.  But nevermind that; the real problem is other patients having too much freedom.

----------


## rambone

Reason's latest piece seemed to rile a lot of its own libertarian followers on Facebook.



Alan Wood I think it’s ironic that a news outlet called “Reason” is implying that unvaccinated people at a hospital are to blame for a very sick v a c c i n a t e d  woman dying of a disease... Are we seriously supposed to believe that a government enforced program of forced pharmaceuticals being injected into everyone, (which  in many cases are known to be largely ineffective as well as causing serious bodily harm to many people), is the reasonable solution?  This page might have to change its name to Unreasonable Magazine. 

Susan Haymon Wow it is amazing to read the BS coming from people who read (and publish) libertarian journals.

Ginger Jorgensen Radonich This is a ridiculous straw man argument. The woman WAS vaccinated. The woman was in a health care facility which presumably has other sick people in it. I expect reason from Reason.

Steve Curtin So many authoritarian sickos in an alleged libertarian page.

Kimberly Wright Unbelievable.  Reason doesn't even make a peep about SB277 that would have forced even homeschooled kids to be forcibly vaccinated without amendment and still severely limits homeschoolers ability to congregate despite vaccination rates already being well above targets and an 18% drop in personal belief exemptions from previous years. Seems like a concern for the cause of liberty.  But THIS you'll mention.  I love that a person who dies, or is crippled or brain damaged immediately after vaccination has to jump through a million hoops to get anyone to admit it was the vaccine but a woman with a host of other ailments happens to also have measles discovered in autopsy and it is immediately declared the cause of death.  I hope everyone who is calling for the maybe/possible/might be person who infected her to take responsibility also quarantined themselves or their children for 2 months following any of their live virus vaccines since that also spreads the viruses.

Aidan James Browne I can't believe a so called libertarian publication is championing the prosecution of individuals who choose not to get vaccinated, could you be more full of $#@!, seriously?

Baldous Huxley WTF...is REASON, the magazine of "Free Minds and Free Markets" now advocating for MANDATORY vaccinations at the behest of govt.?  Isn't this the same REASON who is against govt. provided health care and govt. mandated health insurance but now you are FOR govt. mandates involving injecting something into ones body the govt. says you MUST have?  Seriously, WTF?

Andrew Poliakoff Are you joking? It's sad to see this sort of article coming out of Reason.

Martin Hoer So now Reason is shilling for big government/big pharma. The woman was vaccinated, if anybody should be sued it would be the maker of the inferior product that obviously did not work.   Every time Reason puts these articles on vaccinations up they lose credibility. If these products work as big government/big pharma claim then those vaccinated should not worry about the unvaccinated as they are the ones unprotected.

Adam Miller  I'm VERY disappointed in Reason Magazine.  You're reading a lot like Slate right now.  Holy $#@!ing $#@!.

Aaron von Prinz Go home Reason, you're drunk.  You lose credibility as a libertarian news source every time you post garbage like this.  How is Ronald Bailey still writing for you?  He's terrible, and he's been terrible for a while now.

Evan Lightner Wow this is so libertarian!! Thanks Reason Magazine for being on board with the State and Big Pharma's mandatory vaccination agenda against people's will. Its super liberty, we appreciate it!

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

Those same people pushing all the vaccines will no doubt give their kids a chemical slew of vaccines, and some of them will then be writing articles supporting autism research while at the same time saying anyone who links chemicals in vaccines to autism is a jew-hating conspiracy nut who thinks George Bush used tomahawk missiles to take down the twin towers.

----------


## dannno

Most libertarians realize that the government often gets things wrong - why would any libertarian trust the government to tell them what vaccines to get? Trust your doctor, if you have a doctor you trust - or trust your own research - but the government? Why should I do that, Reason? Can you answer that question? Do you honestly believe there is no room for corruption in the medical establishment? Really??

----------


## LibForestPaul

> 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?
> 
> .


Mistakes:
1) Public place. 
2) Shooting me. 
3) Infecting me.
4) Disease.

Would you like to go through these one at a time?

----------


## rambone

Today at "FreedomFest," Reason Magazine Editor-In-Chief Matt Welch will moderate a debate called "Should Vaccines Be Mandatory."  Reason's veteran science correspondent Ronald Bailey will deliver the case for forced vaccinations.  

Because nothing says freedom better than using the state to mass-medicate the "herd."  

*DEBATE "Should Vaccines be Mandatory?" Ronald Bailey vs Dr. Bob Sears; Matt Welch, mod.*

----------


## Anti Federalist

Blimp

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Blimp


TReason Magazine.


Maybe they just might be trying to destroy liberty?
Not to mention their support for open borders and ChiCom predatory trade.

----------


## Anti Globalist

$#@! forced vaccinations.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> There is no vaccine for the common cold.
> ...


There is now. 




> ...
> Let the powers that be launch a bio-weapon "terror" attack.
> 
> This country will go Full Nazi Retard in 48 hours.
> ...


Two weeks to flatten the curve...




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


Especially Fauci, the CDC, and Gov Whitmer.




> I don't know whether to get angry or cry after reading this thread.  I hope all the forced vaccination buzz in the press isn't leading up to something.  
> ...


Did you get your vaccine passport yet?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

I'm not responsible for your health.  You are.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> 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.


I wonder what Angela has to say about this now...

----------


## 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.


What I said.

----------


## PAF

> I wonder what Angela has to say about this now...



How about give her a buzz and see what shes up to? I would, but Id have to dig for her number, if I even have it anymore.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I wonder what Angela has to say about this now...


I believe she said on Twitter she isn’t taking the COVID vaccine. It was rushed and not properly tested. I’d agree.

I can't contact her on Twitter, as they suspended me a long time ago for purely political reasons.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> TReason Magazine.
> 
> 
> Maybe they just might be trying to destroy liberty?
> Not to mention their support for open borders and ChiCom predatory trade.


It all goes together.
TReason, CATO, and what seems like most libertardians these days are Neo-Feudalists who seek to destroy liberty.
America First/MAGA is our only hope, it is not perfect but we can improve it.

----------


## devil21

> It all goes together.
> TReason, CATO, and what seems like most libertardians these days are Neo-Feudalists who seek to destroy liberty.
> America First/MAGA is our only hope, it is not perfect but we can improve it.


Everything based in the swamp is either created by the swamp as a control means, as controlled opposition or is quickly co-opted by the swamp.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Everything based in the swamp is either created by the swamp as a control means, as controlled opposition or is quickly co-opted by the swamp.


Follow the money.

----------


## devil21

> Follow the money.


DC is a FOREIGN SOVEREIGN TERRITORY operating under its own set of rules, which everyone in the separate 50 states is fooled into thinking applies to them merely by being born.  Why anyone thinks that anything wafting out of there is anything less than a tentacle of that mind-control creation I'll never understand.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I believe she said on Twitter she isn’t taking the COVID vaccine. It was rushed and not properly tested. I’d agree.
> 
> I can't contact her on Twitter, as they suspended me a long time ago for purely political reasons.


https://twitter.com/AngelaTC/status/1393293448187371531

----------

