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

[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.

New Study: More Vaccines = Higher Infant Mortality Rate

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

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

http://www.nvic.org/nvic-vaccine-news/may-2011/in-memoriam--infant-deaths---vaccination.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/



Thanks google!

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 bullshit, and I'm not going to promise to be nice about it.