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

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

.

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

Medicine should be the last resort, not a forced action that can still kill you.
 
No it does not always get dodged by the pro-science crowd. It's just that the anti-science crowd apparently stick their fingers in their ears and yell LALALALALA every time it's explained why it isn't actually that simple.

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

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

The most annoying things about the blatant dishonesty in the cult that YOU worship is the unwillingness to actually find out the truth.
 
Dude- this I know:

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

.

Vaccines kill- do you have a right to inflict me with possible death so that you don't have to stay home for a few days with the flu?
 
I see. So , I have an individual right to inflict an injury upon your person so long as the same is not deadly and you fully recover?

Have you ever farted in public?

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

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

Furthermore, I demand that the state monitor you and your family for compliance, and jail or fine you if found in non compliance.
 
No, but I guess I am saying that by going to Walmart you are willingly exposing yourself to pathogens. Shit, you do that everytime you breathe. Solution? Ban breath. smh. It is possible YOU are the carried of a disease. Only one way to find out. Comply and you'll be okay, maybe, now get ready for the needle.

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


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

So, if you know the dangers of not being vaccinated, but you still choose to not get the shots, and as a result you do indeed end up causing harm, why should you be entirely exempt from the consequences of that choice?
 
Last edited:
The most annoying things about the blatant dishonesty in the cult that YOU worship is the unwillingness to actually find out the truth.

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

So how dare you say I am unwilling to find out the truth, when it always comes down to some dark shadow conspiracy that requires natural cynics like me to set aside facts and simply "believe."
 
Last edited:
If you could prove that somebody purposely placed a pathogen in some sort of container or something and delivered it to your for the express purpose of getting sick then no.

So if it is the medical and scientific community opinion, that there is a reasonable probability that you will be infected with a disease which will be easily transmitted to others , do you believe that you have a right to refuse vaccination and quarantine?
 
(NaturalNews) The CDC is engaged in a very clever, statistically devious spin campaign, and nearly every journalist in the mainstream media has fallen for its ploy. No one has yet reported what I'm about to reveal here.

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

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

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

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

• 11,160 Americans died from the swine flu.

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

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

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

Many who died had already been vaccinated

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

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

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

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

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

61 million injections add up to bad public health policy

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

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

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

The one question the CDC does not want you to ask

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

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

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

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

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

They may not be effective at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where are all the real journalists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources for this story include:

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/027956_H1N1_vaccine_CDC.html#ixzz2nDOAk2kc
 
Last edited:
What's so complicated about private property rights, people?

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

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

But I want nothing to do with this "pre-crime" crap. Anyone who supports forcing people to get vaccinated at gunpoint is evil. Anyone who acts on that desire should be punished by lethal self-defense.
 
There is no vaccine for the common cold.

Are you going to start shooting people for sneezing?

See?

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

Fed.

Entertained.

Exercise petty power over their fellow men.

I'm not sure the liberty movement is really all that big, honestly. I'm OK with including minarchists and constitutionalists in the movement. Heck, I could even include theonomists like Gary North and the late Rushdoony. But these petty tyrants? Forget it. I don't want anything to do with them.
 
VvkBchH.gif
 
I've been here for what - six years? I've read practically every blog post and trash article the anti-vaxxers have thrown out there, and I've spent hours pointing out why they're wrong and what they're lying about.

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

Reading MSM does not make you an expert in health. You are the one that criticizes those that believe in natural health and live the lives to prove it. Vaccinate away but don't ever try to force me or my family into it. And I mean, in my best Will Smith imitation: "evah".
 
Last edited:
(NaturalNews) The CDC is engaged in a very clever, statistically devious spin campaign, and nearly every journalist in the mainstream media has fallen for its ploy. No one has yet reported what I'm about to reveal here.


I wish you had started a different thread, because I don't think it's right to derail this thread with this particular article.
 
Last edited:
So if it is the medical and scientific community opinion, that there is a reasonable probability that you will be infected with a disease which will be easily transmitted to others , do you believe that you have a right to refuse vaccination and quarantine?

If you lived in a death camp in Germany in 1940 and you were Jewish and the Nazis told you that there is a reasonable probability that you will be infected with a disease which will be easily transmitted to others, do you believe you have the right to refuse the vaccine and quarantine?
 
Reason Magazine says that there is "no principled libertarian case for vaccine refusal," in Ronald Bailey's "pragmatic argument for coercive vaccination."
That's just one person's opinion, the magazine is not monolithic.
 
Reading MSM does not make you an expert in health. You are the one that criticizes those that believe in natural health and live the lives to prove it. Vaccinate away but don't ever try to force me or my family into it. And I mean, in my best Will Smith imitation: "evah".

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

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

But I also won't let the drunken idiots try to tell today's young people that there's really no bigger odds of having an accident if they make that choice.
 
Last edited:
YOU are responsible for taking care of yourself.

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


THAT is your individual right.

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

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

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

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

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

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