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

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.



Still waiting to see that evidence. From what I read, the insignificant reactions (like a sore arm or slight fever) are likely underreported, while 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.

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?
 


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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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!!!!
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.)
 
Last edited:
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. :rolleyes:
 
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.
 
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!!!!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.



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

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.





Nearly two decades later, the precise human toll of these marketing decisions is difficult, if not impossible, to document. Many patient records are now unavailable, and because an AIDS test was not developed until later in the epidemic, it is difficult to pinpoint when foreign hemophiliacs were infected with H.I.V. -- before Cutter began selling its safer medicine or afterward.

But in Hong Kong and Taiwan alone, more than 100 hemophiliacs got H.I.V. after using Cutter's old medicine, according to records and interviews. Many have since died. Cutter also continued to sell the older product after February 1984 in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Japan and Argentina, records show. The Cutter documents, which were produced in connection with lawsuits filed by American hemophiliacs, went largely unnoticed until The Times began asking about them.

''These are the most incriminating internal pharmaceutical industry documents I have ever seen,'' said Dr. Sidney M. Wolfe, who as director of the Public Citizen Health Research Group has been investigating the industry's practices for three decades.

Bayer officials, responding on behalf of Cutter and its president at the time, Jack Ryan, declined to be interviewed but did answer written questions. In a statement, Bayer said that Cutter had ''behaved responsibly, ethically and humanely'' in selling the old product overseas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/b...e-steered-overseas.html?pagewanted=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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top