That's twice on page 6 that you've quoted Spock from Wrath of Khan. First off .... this isn't Star Trek, second off, Spock said that when HE WAS MAKING A FREE CHOICE not because Kirk or anyone else told him he had to sacrifice himself for the good of the rest of them.



The fact that you don't see forcing people to take anything as an imposition on freedom is pitiful and just strengthens my prior statement that anyone willing to give up freedom for the sake of a little safety deserves neither freedom nor safety. I think that you are most likely the type of person that should live in a socialist country a not a free country. There are plenty of them out there for you to choose from. This country was founded on the ideals of freedom.

You quote Franklin as though it is some sort of be all, end all justification for your rational.

Franklin was an overly liberal thinker (not liberal in the sense that Americans use the word today). His words were/are not gospel, but represent an ideological stance.

The real world should not be run off ideology rather than evidence. Bad outcomes tend to occur when it is.

The freedom to stupidity is the worst freedom and it's even more painful when people exercise it.

Oh BTW
On pg6 there was some talk of the bad side effects of certain vaccinations quoting statistics. Measles should be feared to some extent, but not as much as is currently happening. Children will rarely have a bad complication. Here is a statistic that no one mentioned. The death rate is 1-2 in 100,000 cases. That is .001- .002% And those tend to be in those who aren't properly cared for during the infection.
Fear mongering in order to take away freedom will not convince anyone with an IQ over 99 .... unless they posses a sheeple (read herd) mentality.

I just made a post a few posts up about all the other complications other than death, which occur far more frequently (including blindness and brain damage).

But I guess you had to ignore that since it doesn't jive with your stance.

So, if a child is not vaccinated and is not allowed to go to school and the parents cannot homeschool, what is the realistic solution? Don't say forced vaccination, because that is currently not it.

I am not part of any fear mongering interest group and I have not read the "data" saying that vaccines cause autism. I provided personal information from a friend where this actually happened.

you provided a personal story that showed a correlation, but as shown above you can also show that autism is correlated with organic food sales.

The world is a big place and there are a lot of things occurring all the time. Billion of life variables are in a constantly state of flux. You can't say one thing caused another simply because they occurred at a similar time. You need to do studies, with large samples and control groups.

Organizations like the CDC have done such studies and have found no increased prevalence for autism in vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated children (this is the very study that anti-vax people misquote to try to prove their point).

"So, if a child is not vaccinated and is not allowed to go to school and the parents cannot homeschool, what is the realistic solution? Don't say forced vaccination, because that is currently not it."

Forced vaccination heh :P

Jesus Christ trippster. Atleast leave a little of your stupidity to the imagination. You went from 0-retard real quick.

The benefits of the measles vaccine far outweigh the risks. Some people out there are too stupid to form their own educated opinion or are too blinded by prejudice that their decision is predetermined, and in those cases they endanger others. They lose their rights to freedom as soon as they start infringing upon the rights of others. It is that simple.

The very fact that you seem to think that I'm a socialist for this viewpoint is the best evidence yet that you have no clue what you are talking about and just use the blind freedom clause to justify stupidity and recklessness. The fact that you served does not excuse ignorance. There are ways to fight for freedom other than organising supply closets in germany. I prefer to fight for the freedom from a preventable disease rather than the freedom to endanger others.

Solution is simple, get off your "I'm not going to allow government to impose anything on me" high horse and do what's right for your child and protect him from disease, stop being selfish!

exactly what I thought...two people attempted to answer and neither gave an answer. The correct answer is to let the kids get an education. Just like you cannot prevent my child from bringing a peanut butter sandwich to school, you should not attempt to prevent non-vaccinated kids to school, unless you can prove they were exposed to the virus. If you have a child who cannot be vaccinated, make a special request to have your child separated from any others who have not been vaxxed.

=================================

You go ahead and live in your police state, where the government sets up centers forcing people at gunpoint to get injections, whether or not those injections will harm some of the people. We all know the government screws up even the simplest of tasks. Give them the ability to mandate what injections each person gets and soon, the police state described above will happen.

remember what i said about going from 0-retard real quick?

now the government is setting up armed vaccination centers? lol. and people who have a choice get to dictate what those who dont have a choice get to do? lol. you choose to not participate in the community immunity then you get to go to a private school or some fluff that is shared in your stupidity and disregard for common sense safety. not public schools. that isnt unreasonable.

you keep using this peanut allergy. why? a peanut, and a virus, are vastly different. a peanut butter sammich isnt going to infect dozens of people.

Killer sammich on the loose!!!!

nom nom nom!

When you can't argue with logic you resort to name calling?
There is no sense in attempting to express the value of freedom to you.

ITT: my personal experience = the world's experience.

And in case it hasn't been mentioned, Andrew Wakefield, the former doctor that started the "vaccinations lead to autism" hype lost his licence a long time ago. No researcher has been able to conclusively replicate his findings. Let that one sink in.

Funny since that is exactly what the rest of my post did. Who is avoiding what now? Didn't you call me a socialist? Didn't you say something about name calling?

Says you, but it seems others here disagree.
Forced vaccination, if they want to attend school.

Proving they have the virus before they come to school isn't a reasonable request; A person is contagious for days before symptoms show up.

The rest of the post is alarmist drama.

Clearly they would take the children away from the parents (deeming them unfit) before they would set up forced-at-gunpoint vaccination centers heh.

In the current state of vaccines, where people have the right to choose, measles isn't going to infect dozens of people who want to vax and cannot. It would infect dozens who chose not to vax, which should make you happy, as there will then be less people for you to call morons.

You do understand that vaccines arnt 100% effective right? Why do you think we have been talking about heard immunities? I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall of stupidity.

Say there are 1000 vaccinated kids in a school, 50 or so of those would get infected assuming 100% contamination, not counting the unvaccinatted.

Not vaccinating your kids is selfish and there are no legitimate reasons not to other than ignorance and misinformation. Endangering others because of these things is unacceptable. Period. fluff your right to choose. It shouldn't exist. Period. Your right to choose is nothing more than a decision to unnecessarily put others at risk for.nothing other than your personal fears. Think of it as a parent telling you what to do for your own good because they know better if you are scared of the government.

Or keep using your stupid ass peanut allergy analogy as a shield. Even you have to know how weak it is. Pretty sure there is a LOT of legislation regarding allergies and the labeling and handling of them.

I specifically asked mrford about this because I already knew about that stat. As I hinted at, there are two main types of measles, one is lethal and the other one rarely results in death. mrford neglected to respond, wisely I am sure, but I am also sure I made my point to them.

This does not change my opinion though, that I still think since MMR vaccine has already been put into such wide use, I believe everyone should continue to be vaccinated that is capable and not high risk.

I also hate to defend mrford, yes this is a form of fear mongering, and even though two wrongs dont make a right, I dont blame the pro-vax for using it to counteract the much more prevalent use of fear mongering used by the anti-vax side. Just that as you said, anyone with any IQ and is aware will realize what it is and dis-regard it.

LOL, I think humans as a race have proved time and time again that they are not. They continue to wreck havoc upon the world and destroy things for the long term. The list is long and extensive (polluting the world in many different forms: fish farms, ozone and smog, clear cutting, etc). Where as mother nature or w/e you want to call it, works in peace and harmony, trying to constantly stabilize itself. It has done so for many thousands of years, unlike humans. Plus do you really think that humans could create such a world that would prosper for anywhere close to the amount of time.

I know none of that answers your question directly, but it does establish a trend. I also know that modern medicine has gotten it wrong on several occasions as well. The simple fact of the matter is that humans do not completely understand the DNA make up yet, until we do there will always be a large margin for error. We are getting there though. But until we do, sorry but no I cant believe that humans nor modern medicine is smarter. Not only that but our natural immune system has kept our race alive for hell lot longer than modern medicine has. IMHO I believe if our race is wiped out anywhere in the near future it will be because of things we as humans have done, tinkering with things we do not fully know what we are doing. It will have nothing to do with not being vaccinated. Our immune system has already proved quite capable of dealing with such pandemics, a lot of which was caused by poor unclean sanitation. So in theory there should be even less such outbreaks ... unless we create them.

You really should stop posting this erroneous statement, especially when even you have already admitted that there indeed are legitimate reasons.

But no I guess you are right, you should go and have ALL of your kids vaccinated immediately because you sir are in violation of your own statement. *rolls his eyes*

Not counting the fact that measles has been shown to prevent other worse diseases. You know that list of diseases that HPV vaccine prevents you mentioned earlier? Research on measles has shown it can prevent some of those same diseases, including cancer, even more effectively than your HPV vaccine.

Oh, and I could also point out that humans do not even know the cause of most of these types of diseases we are talking about, let alone a cure. Without knowing the cause, it is harder to figure out the cure unless we luckily happen upon one. Our natural immune system however has proved time over, readily capable of adapting. Just one recent example is HIV, their kids have commonly shown to be more immune. Has modern medicine been able to do this? I believe we are getting close, but sorry our own immune system has already proven it.

I could also point out that a lot of modern medicine actually comes from nature, and yea I know you can also point out that modern medicine is normally stronger and more effective. (think Aloe Vera vs anti-biotics / anti - septics). But until we as humans can figure out our own cures without looking too nature for them, it is hard to say that we or modern medicine is smarter.

Our immune system assess' and prioritizes each risk, than works mostly trying to fight and combat the higher risks first. Can modern medicine do that?

Errr... there are plenty of ailments that our immune systems have proved to be completely incapable of handling, which modern medicine has dealt with. Literally more than I can count.

Your theory fails to account for this. I mean before modern medicine the average life expectancy was half of what it is today, and that wasn't all due to war. Mostly it was due to people dying young from disease and infections etc.

Our immune system is a marvel, there is no denying that. But modern medicine has enhanced it (through things like vaccination) and complemented it to improve human health....


As for mother nature, it reaches a balance given all the various factors at play in the world, sure. But any closed system will eventually reach a steady state, that isn't really a great accomplishment. Humans mess with that steady state, sure, as do other organisms (though none to the same extent as humans). But to claim it is "harmony" is silly. there are plenty of disharmonious aspects to global climate and geological events. You think earthquakes are a sign of harmony? They are literally caused by the tectonic plates competing with each other for surface space. there is nothing harmonious about it. The rest of the system adapts and survives despite the disharmony, at least some do. Plenty of organisms have gone extinct naturally, and plenty more will in the future. Nature is not known for being gentle and giving, it is known for being harsh, cruel and uncompromising.

http://imgur.com/gallery/ktPg3qA

Cancer, diabetes, obesity, and many other things have been on the rise during the past 100 years. While I am not saying vaccines have caused any of these, I also am not saying vaccines are absolutely innocent either.

My point here is that we don't know ALL the causes of the many problems we have. We also don't know EVERY possible side effect of vaccines.

Sure, vaccines are normally good in the short term. Until a vaccine has been used for a few hundred years and we have been able to truly figure out all the side effects, it needs to remain a choice, not a requirement.

H4xOr WaNgEr, I can not really dispute anything you say. All I can think of to say, is that prior life expectancy was also shorter due to unclean and unsafe practices they lived in. It still happens to this very day sadly, where you will find people living without clean fresh water supplies and very poor to non-existant sewage systems who will also reflect a much lower life expectancy. However, I will admit that is only part of it and can not totally dispute your claims either.

Also thinking about it, the earth goes from one extreme to far opposite extreme, just as much as human society does. Patterns of ice ages, temp, gases and on. So yea my analysis of perfect harmony was flawed. It does maintain a balance though.

I was a bit hasty, still do not think we know everything yet nor give our immune system enough credit, but yea I was not really correct either.

how can you possibly say something like this and then expect to be taken seriously.

there is no evidence that cancer has been on the rise in the last 100 years. All we can prove is that we have become much more proficient at diagnosing it in the last 100 years.

But overall I hope that entire reply was a troll...

Derp? Da derp who derp?

So you coorilated the ability to spot a disease more easily as technology advances with vaccine use, derpderpdderpderp

FTFY.

I cannot believe we have so many buildings (even run by the government!) where you have no choice but to breathe air conditioned air. Why can't we have public schools we can send our kids to that don't use air conditioning, if that is the choice we want to make?

P.s. - From Wikipedia's Year in Science Series, the design for air conditioning was patented in 1914 by W.H. Carrier.

Yes, I picked a random 100-yr old technology in wide use to show how your use of correlation is totally irrelevant. I could have used many other things too, like cars, chlorinated water...

In fact, chlorinated water may be the BEST example. It is forced into the tap water by the government, alternate choices exist but it would be hard to entirely avoid it. The World Health Organization has stated that the "risks to health from these by-products are extremely small in comparison with the risks associated with inadequate disinfection", much like the situation with vaccines.

More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_chlorination

That was too easy. Only one person actually picked up on it.

I've grown tired of debating this, since clearly, no one on either side of this debate is willing to see the other persons side.

Of course, I should know by now. I don't believe I've ever seen a debate about anything where people were actually persuaded to agree with the other side. I think it comes down to...debates are pointless. Let's just wait for the powers to be to actually have a vote on it and then see if we can persuade them to vote how we wish. Then we'll just have to live life according to that outcome, until it gets changed.

This means that I currently win, since current law agrees with me. ;)

I don't think anyone was trying to get anti-vaxxers to change their opinion; just admit that their decisions make them douchebags and to stop rationalizing their poor decisions based on flawed information.

I've been swayed to change my belief based on a debate before. Very rarely by debates on these boards though (but it has happened even through these boards, once or twice).

If you debate with an open mind, you get to see the other sides viewpoints. I have changed my mind several times due to debates. Sometimes only partially and sometimes fully.

That isnt why I started posting in this thread though, I only started to post in this thread cause I will always call BS, and stating there are no negatives for being vaccinated was BS.

Of course figuring out the cause and coming up with cure is ideal, but when unable too. My mind about vaccinations will not be made up until we thoroughly understand the full impact of them and everything there is to know about the makeup of DNA. Until than the risk for most people is low enough, that they are definitely worth using when it can save millions of lives. (key is saving lives, not to take away pain and suffering).

The quickest way to persuaded a parent is to watch there child die from something that could have been prevented.

or spend a couple months in a pediatric hospital like i did last year.



you claim to have worked in a hospital and yet you can still say something like that. i dont even know how to respond to that.

It's really mind boggling..

don't you mean, mind bottling?

Hahahaah. And that's why many things are fluffed up these days :)

A couple of months is nothing, try years working at one. Most hospitals sent the worse case most problematic babies and toddlers to the hospital I worked at, as it was one of top pediatric hospitals in LA.

Obviously you have not seen tons of people coming into a hospital or an ER because they got scratch on their finger. Or someone complaining because they got a cold last night and need to see a specialist asap. Or seen someone that tripped and it felt like they broke their leg, only to get tired of waiting after half hour and leave. On and on. Are you kidding me, I would be surprised if someone from a hospital wouldnt say that. Most I have known are not very sympathetic to people complaining about pain. Now real emergencies, yes, but not aches and pains. One normally goes to Dr's office for pain and suffering issues, so maybe they might think otherwise and have an issue with it just like you (although I still find that hard to believe).

Just like this allergy vaccine the news was calling for, all because someone might get stuffed up nasal passages, itchy eyes and sneezing. Yea that sounds like a great thing to tinker around with our genetics over. *rolls his eyes* Sorry but no it is not worth the risk over ANY pain and suffering when we dont know the full impact of what it may or may not do. It IS worth the risk if it saves millions of lives.

I guess next you are going to tell me that they should bring back DDT pesticide because it is worth the risk in order to get rid of those pesty annoying pests which may also destroy millions of dollars of products. Or even more appropriate, to bring back Phenylpropanolamine because it is worth the risk in order to help alleviate all the pain and suffering for those people. Hell why wait years testing medicine at all if they know for certain it works, it should be put out on market immediately. Apparently you do not understand the principle of weighing risks vs the issue.

Now if you really want to get into the real bad stuff, it is when you have to watch a newborn suffering through drug addictions withdrawal, while the mother is nowhere to be found. Or watching a baby have under developed lungs because there mom was a coke addict. Or hell just watching a baby struggle for their life with under developed lungs for any reason, maybe because they were a premie or w/e. Or fighting for their life for any and all reasons. All bad stuff, but none of that compares to watching a kid struggle when there is absolutely nothing any medicine can do. It is particularly painful when they are newborns, knowing that maybe, just maybe IF they were bit older they might have survived, or there might be treatments they could have had. And we arent even talking about one of the biggest killers in the US, which is tolerated and even legal. When you have to watch people get rushed into a hospital, knowing just by looking at them when they are rushed in they will probably not survive, and then finding out later that yes they did die all because of alcohol. So sorry but I am bit cynical after seeing so much and yet NOTHING is done to help save all those lives. I will never forget the fluffman quads, never.

Well that sucks, it censored that family last name .. ah well, I prolly shouldnt have posted that anyway.

none of what you just said had anything to do with you claiming that only the prevention of death, not also of pain and suffering, was the goal of vaccines. your statement is wrong and assholeish no matter how you slice it. it has nothing to do with the emergency room, or any other bullfluff you just spewed.

and DDT? what? you are grasping at straws, and using a lot of words to do so. drug addicted newborns have nothing to do with this. i spend months in a pediatric hospital because my daughter was a patient. thank god i didnt become a souless jaded jackass like you in that time. prevention of pain and suffering through vaccines is a good goal, one that even assholes like you wont stop.

your stupid ass logic would be like me claiming international disaster relief aid to help ease suffering is pointless because of what i saw when i went to haiti to help after the quake down there. I mean, people still died! why even try! prevention of pain and suffering is pointless!

you want to talk about ugly fluff in a first world emergency room, try seeing a tent city of hundreds of thousands and an entire country destroyed. what does any of that have to do with prevention of pain and suffering through vaccines? nothing. just like your random long winded post.

Yes it does, all but the last paragraph. Which was just me reflecting back and ranting.

It has to do with the principle of weighing the risks vs the issue.

When you are talking about lethal issues and concerns. Saving lives, it is known that the risk of someone dieing from lethal disease vaccines is below 5%. So minimal risk vs high chance that is saving lots of lives.

When you are talking about any other non-lethal issue (like pain and suffering issues). The risk of whether a vaccine will cause lethal side effects is also very low, but that is still higher than if they did not have a vaccine. Second concern is that it is unknown what the long term effects are. So the risk it may or may not cause lethal or even minor problems is unknown vs it does nothing but get rid of pain. So how in world is worth the possible unknown risk just to ease suffering. We already have pain med's for that, why use something else that may cause more issues than it helps?

They do not put medicine on the market until it goes through a lengthy and thorough time period and testing. The ones that save lives, although still put through lengthy trials and time period, will be pushed out sooner than one that does not. Why do you think that is? OHHHH I know, because of the risk factor assessment.

They have pain meds for blindness? That is a possible side effect for measles. Brain damage too. Those must be some kick ass pain meds!

Maybe we have different definitions of pain and suffering. I'm not talking about getting shot in the leg. I'm talking about a child going blind from a preventable disease.

There are plenty of diseases out there with an extremely low mortality rate that should still be tackled with vaccines because of pain and suffering. Attempting to say otherwise is silly.

More importantly was the whole logic that most people CLAIM pain and suffering is much worse than what it actually is. Talk about logic, how can you not follow that. So LOGIC dictates that it is irresponsible to apply more sophisticated treatments when they are already much simpler and much longer tested treatments / medications already around.

How is it logical to not only make up a new medication, but than go and prescribe it when they are already tons of medicines already for that very thing? Especially when as I already pointed out, most hospitals know that most people complaining about pain are far too often not in as much pain as they claim or rush to get emergency treatment that could have waited for a Dr visit the next day. You really think any Dr is going to go through all that hassle over pain and suffering lol.

Blindness is a disease. A disease may cause an outcome like Pain and suffering.