[ness31]

Medical hygiene? What a load of tosh. Something either is or isn’t hygienic.

[Ter]

Well I want to add an aside:
Child vaccinations have been so successful they are the main reason this world is overpopulated.
Infant and child mortality have decreased dramatically everywhere because of it without a matching reduction in realised fertility.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Yes you and others have spoken at great length about measles, as though it were the only vaccine on the schedule. But you’ve not explained why a baby needs a hepatitis vaccination.

Infants need a hepatitis B vaccination to keep them from dying of a preventable disease. Hep B is contagious and can spread from people, including other children or adults, who are unknowingly carrying the disease. While my understanding is that hep B is more common in "at-risk" groups (generally in the US this includes gay men, immigrants from under-developed regions, poverty-stricken parents with poor access to health care and health monitoring/checkups, people who use and share needles, etc; @Drlee can feel free to comment), a hep B vaccine is safe and provides a safety net for babies so an easily preventable disease that can kill them won't.

[Victoribus Spolia]

God forbid someone (and their children) lose their precious personal liberty to potentially endanger the lives of people around them by refusing to be vaccinated because of no reason in particular.

Vaccinations are a matter of public health, medical hygiene, and disease prevention. We aren't the ones moralizing by insisting it's coercion and wrong to require people to vaccinate because it somehow violates a person's right to be a potential spreader of now-rare (due to global vaccination efforts) and deadly diseases.

As an aside, you've got to stop viewing criticism and comments about your posts/opinions as personal attacks. You're taking every contrary statement, regardless of how coddling and neutral it's worded, as a personal affront.

Except, according to statistical analysis based on reported deaths, had no vaccines ever been introduced, nearly all of the diseases you demand mandatory vaccination for would have resulted in almost no re-portable mortalities by the late 20th early 21st century. The best answer given to this argument so far on this thread, was that the measles vaccine, and that vaccine only, may have contributed to this same result being reached slightly sooner, by maybe 5-13%. However, whether that vaccine was introduced EVER or not, the mortality rate for measles, under all projection, would have been a non-issue in 2017.

Thus, if there were no mortalities for measles in 2017 and no vaccine had ever been produced, you could hardly argue for mandating it because it saves lives from preventing plague-like events. That being the case, which is factually true, you cannot make the argument for mandate now either. That is hysteria and lines the wallets of government agencies that have serious conflicts of interests and are protected from litigation by private citizens.

Private citizens have parental rights and they should not be infringed without serious and legitimate cause. Like I said, I am not against ALL vaccines in theory, but mandating any of the ones we've been discussing, under threat of force, without any allowance for legitimate exemptions that I outlined earlier, is insanity.

1. Most of these vaccines are unnecessary to prevent mass mortality or any serious mortalities. This is a statistical fact based on historical projections.

2. Many of these vaccines include ingredients, like aborted fetal tissue and cells, that violate the conscience of Christian citizens, who's rights are legally recognized on similar matters to these already.

3. There are trained medical professions, even if a minority, that have concerns over the content and character of these vaccines.

4. Some people have adverse reactions to these vaccines.

5. private citizens are barred by Federal law from suing vaccine manufacturers for damages.

#4-5 are sufficient for various exemptions that parents may pursue. #1 is an argument against mandating these said vaccines to the general public.

Now my qualifier:

This does not included unique epidemics that may arise (some odd foreign virus that threatens the masses), under such emergency conditions I am not opposed to vaccines. I am not opposed to inoculations that are done in response to something that is immediately life-threatening, like Rabies. I am not opposed to vaccinations that prevent the spreading of harmful viruses to an isolated native population etc. I am not opposed to a general mandate for public educated kids if it can be shown that the existence of such prevents significant mortalities in the United States, which almost all medical projection charts seem to contradict.

I would be more open to MMR if it was split into different vaccines for each diseases and if the vaccine schedule were reformed to allow its dosages to be taken later in life, even those who claim that the MMR vax causes autism, claim its the current formula that does so only, and would be open if the vaxx was individuated, that is not an unreasonable request, the problem is that pro-vaxxers are unreasonable and turn a blind-eye to the cronyism going on between these drug companies and the Federal government, which they would not likely do on other issues.

Arguing for a Hep B vaccines is a load of horseshit. If parents pass the pre-screening for Hep B, their kids should not be required to get it. Heb B is a sexually transmitted, primarily, disease. If they want to fuck around later in life and conduct themselves in a manner that makes them susceptible to the disease, that is their responsibility.

Parents should not be REQUIRED to give their babies a vaccine to prevent a sexually transmitted disease. That fucking ridiculous.

The thing is, on this thread, those labeled anti-vaxxer are not homogeneous. Anti-Vaxxers included everyone from those who are fine with vaccines and merely want the schedule reformed to those who are ispo-facto against all vaccines. Its a broad camp and spectrum.

The pro-vaxxers have one common attribute: no tolerance for open debate, and no compromise on any aspect of the current vaccine schedule. They want all vaccines, as they are currently formulated, under current laws, implemented at their current suggested times. Fuck everyone else.

Asserting this claim on repeat is dogma, not debate.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Hepatitis B infection is not limited to sexual contact. Anyone with the disease can easily spread it, including to infants, whose immune systems cannot survive in the same way some adults can.

At the very least, use Wikipedia or a Google or something before you post and embarrass yourself.

[Drlee]

Inoculations from the late 1700s differ greatly to what we’ve concocted today.

Right. We are far better at it now.

I’m not sure anyone really understands the impact of vaccines on antigen drifting and variation or what role vaccines play in selection pressure.

But you all seem pretty comfy with it.

And I am sure that a great many people do. Why don't you ask Mikema about it? He is a microbiologist. But then you have ignored his posts as well as those from an epidemiologist as well.

*edit* Just reading up on Hepatits B vaccine and now I know why babies get that injected into them hours after they’re born. Because apparently the majority of mothers out there are trailer trash asymptomatic carriers and will pass it on to their child. Charming. Some more moralising from the higher than mighty mandatory vaccinators toward the great unwashed..

What a load of shit. Are you just trolling? I would hate to think that you could be so ignorant as to characterize protecting an infant from an incurable disease that would likely shorten his/her life or threaten it altogether as some kind of class distinction. Frankly this statement of yours confirms my suspicion that you are either trolling or completely ignorant of your topic and likely both.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Still waiting on someone to prove that the vaccines under discussion MUST be mandated to prevent mass mortality, given that evidence demonstrates the contrary.....

@ness31, is correct, this thread is full of dystopian, hysterical, tyrants who cling to dogma over dialectical reasoning. One can get further talking to Hindsite about religion than with the Pro-Vaxxers on this thread. Its sad really.

EDIT: below added

Hepatitis B infection is not limited to sexual contact. Anyone with the disease can easily spread it, including to infants, whose immune systems cannot survive in the same way some adults can.

At the very least, use Wikipedia or a Google or something before you post and embarrass yourself.

Man is this retarded, I said in my post that it was sexually transmitted "primarily." Lets not get all twatish about this, Hep B is categorized as an STD in any public school sex ed textbook. Of course, it can be passed by more than unprotected sex, it can be passed by mother to infant for instance.

Now, unless your wife's a whore or your raising kids in crackhouse, the chances of your toddler getting Hep B if you are your old lady are clean, are fucking slim to none. This should be common sense.

if you are really worried about your kids getting Hep B, you should probably quick sucking dick on the corner and going home to kiss your kids goodnight.

[Drlee]

Hey Baluba. I would not respond to this shit. It is just more trolling.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

The best answer given to this argument so far on this thread, was that the measles vaccine, and that vaccine only, may have contributed to this same result being reached slightly sooner, by maybe 5-13%. However, whether that vaccine was introduced EVER or not, the mortality rate for measles, under all projection, would have been a non-issue in 2017.

No, your "5-13%" figure was meaningless. It's not "under all projection"; it's under the projection of an anonymous graph drawer, you, and me, 3 unqualified web posters, extending a line we see on a graph - and I've already pointed out it's just an assumption, because the reductions in deaths came from external effects, not something inherent in measles. But you arrived at "5-13%" by beginning the time you measure the effects of the vaccine 100 years ago. Which is obviously wrong. So obvious that I gave up talking to you, because it seems pointless. But you've now got the idea that you understand what you were doing, and you don't. So I'm just pointing out you're hopelessly wrong, before you start getting feelings of adequacy. Vaccines started about 1965, deaths reached 0 about 1995, and even if projecting the trend on the graph is valid, they wouldn't have reached 0 until about 2015. So that's about 40% sooner.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I've already pointed out it's just an assumption, because the reductions in deaths came from external effects, not something inherent in measles.

No one contended otherwise, the point is that vaccination is neither responsible for the trend in mortality decline, nor did alter, significantly, the projections as they stood.

you arrived at "5-13%" by beginning the time you measure the effects of the vaccine 100 years ago. Which is obviously wrong.

I never argued that the vaccine was introduced 100 years ago, nor was my 5-13% based on a projection of the vaccine itself starting in the 1960s, but based on the effect the introduction of the vaccine in 1968 had on the general projections that were charted to begin in 1900. Perhaps reading comprehesion is not your thing, but you cannot properly critique an argument unless you actually read it.

Measles deaths were in sharp decline, as projected by U.S. Reporting, on the chart provided, starting in 1900, the decrease OF THE RATE of measles mortalities starting in 1968 going into 1995, increased the rate of decline to the nominal point projected for 2010 by 5-13%.

That is where that number came from, it correlates to the chart's timeline and rate of decline starting in 1900 and references its terminus in 2010. The measles vaccines, if it had an improvement, had only so by 5-13% on a disease that would have reached the nominal point by 2010 anyway and would've been a non-issue by 2017 REGARDLESS of whether the vaccine was ever introduced.

This means, that mandating the vaccine in 2017 on the presumption that it stops mass public mortality to measles, is bullshit.

This, is also the same for nearly ALL of the other vaccinated diseases, implying, that all of these diseases vaccines were created to correct, were being corrected sufficiently irrespective of the vaccine and all would likely have been non-issues as a far as public mortality is concerned in 2017.

Hence, my claim is simple:

1. If NO vaccines were ever produced for the diseases mentioned in my earlier posts, our death rate to those diseases in 2017 would not be any different than they are RIGHT NOW.

2. If this is true, then mandating vaccines via government coercion and the forefeiture of protected parental rights, is not only a conclusion that cannot be warranted from reality, but is immoral.

WHY?

Because when it comes to taking parental rights away, that western democracies presume to be retained by its citizens by natural law, the burden of proof is on the one claiming they must be forefeited (legally speaking) to prove that such is absolutely necessary. However, if without the vaccines ever being introduced these diseases would have been no threat to masses in 2017 it hardly makes sense to then require parental rights to be forefeited to require their administation in that same year.

The evidence cannot support the weight of claim being made by those who wish to take away the de facto right of others.

[Finfinder]

The notion of parents being sole decision makers about well-being of their children is quite odd imho.

Children are not slaves.

Surely, parents are primary defenders of their children's well being. That does not necessarily mean they should be the sole defenders. The rest of the society has a stake in every child's well being as well.

Therefore, when the scientific fact is manifest as in the case of vaccination issue, parents should not have any choice. The children must be vaccinated regardless of their parents beliefs, whims or paranoia.

I even will go one more step.

The same is true for the vegan parents forcing vegan diet to their children.

It is a scientific fact that we have evolved to be omnivorous species; i.e. we need to eat animal products as well as plants for the well being of our metabolism. Children born into vegan families should not suffer the consequences of their parents' bad choices.

How about unborn aborted children.

[Drlee]

1. If NO vaccines were ever produced for the diseases mentioned in my earlier posts, our death rate to those diseases in 2017 would not be any different than they are RIGHT NOW.

You are simply incapable of understanding that this is not true. Your theory is fallacious. In fact, it could well be that we would experience even more deaths than at any particular time on your simple timeline.

Your theory only looks at one effect of the disease. This is also fallacious.

You are making a fool of yourself. The way to avoid this is to look at the evidence carefully evaluated by people who are qualified to do what you are obviously incapable of doing.

Finally. You chose to rest your entire argument on measles. This is fallacious. Note that the vaccine we use and mandate prevents three diseases, not one. One of those diseases, when transmitted to a pregnant woman causes a serious birth defect rate of over 20%. One of the diseases in men or boys used to be the number one cause of meningitis, blindness and infertility.

In other words sport you are trying to argue from the specific to the general and getting in trouble for it.

I am not sure what your point is anyway. Arguing that parental choice trumps what could be a matter of death or serious injury will not fly with me. I do not, for example, believe that a parent's religious beliefs should prevent a child from having an appendectomy and subsequently dying. You are advocating for the equivalent of that though not on an individual basis.

Again. Please stop cutting and pasting data that you do not understand. Some things are online for consumption by the general public. Others for professional use. It is unwise to cross that line.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Finally. You chose to rest your entire argument on measles. This is fallacious. Note that the vaccine we use and mandate prevents three diseases, not one. One of those diseases, when transmitted to a pregnant woman causes a serious birth defect rate of over 20%. One of the diseases in men or boys used to be the number one cause of meningitis, blindness and infertility.

It was Prosthetic Conscience that focused in on Measles, not me, I cited charts for pretty much all of the main vaccinated diseases, but since you struggle with reading, i can understand how the mistake was made.

You are making a fool of yourself. The way to avoid this is to look at the evidence carefully evaluated by people who are qualified to do what you are obviously incapable of doing.

Appeal to authority: fallacy.

You are simply incapable of understanding that this is not true.

Ad hominem: fallacy.

n other words sport you are trying to argue from the specific to the general and getting in trouble for it.

Not true, I will discuss the whole list again if you'd like. But last time I tried to do that you refused because you said your not a trained monkey or some dumb shit like that. It wasn't I that brought up Measles, I merely addressed it. Care to discuss Scarlet Fever?

I am not sure what your point is anyway. Arguing that parental choice trumps what could be a matter of death or serious injury will not fly with me. I do not, for example, believe that a parent's religious beliefs should prevent a child from having an appendectomy and subsequently dying. You are advocating for the equivalent of that though not on an individual basis.

Since you blatantly refuse to read what I have written and the plethora of exemptions i advocate for and all the reasons I advocate for them, I will dismiss this straw-man horseshit for the crap that it is.

Again. Please stop cutting and pasting data that you do not understand. Some things are online for consumption by the general public. Others for professional use. It is unwise to cross that line.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[Drlee]

Waiting for evidence. Time for you to google. Or call your "Proctologist" wife.

I think I am tired of this thread. I need make no further effort. Virtually every expert in the world, certainly all of the governments, and every person with any intelligence does not need any more convincing.

Tell you what though. You find real evidence, from a credible source, to support your side and I will look at it. So far you have been a huge failure and crashing bore.

[Decky]

Ideally the problem of families who refuse to be vaccinated will just sort itself out next time there is a big plague.

[ness31]

Well, I am not able to participate in this thread right now as I am currently vaccinating my liver with a strain of rubeola vitis.

[Drlee]

Judging from your arguments we all assumed you had been doing that all along.

[ness31]

I know right? How else could someone think so laterally and be so nice to a bunch of ingrates like yourselves without help

[Rancid]

1. If NO vaccines were ever produced for the diseases mentioned in my earlier posts, our death rate to those diseases in 2017 would not be any different than they are RIGHT NOW.

LOL Whut?

[Pants-of-dog]

Except, according to statistical analysis based on reported deaths, had no vaccines ever been introduced, nearly all of the diseases you demand mandatory vaccination for would have resulted in almost no re-portable mortalities by the late 20th early 21st century. The best answer given to this argument so far on this thread, was that the measles vaccine, and that vaccine only, may have contributed to this same result being reached slightly sooner, by maybe 5-13%. However, whether that vaccine was introduced EVER or not, the mortality rate for measles, under all projection, would have been a non-issue in 2017.

Thus, if there were no mortalities for measles in 2017 and no vaccine had ever been produced, you could hardly argue for mandating it because it saves lives from preventing plague-like events. That being the case, which is factually true, you cannot make the argument for mandate now either. That is hysteria and lines the wallets of government agencies that have serious conflicts of interests and are protected from litigation by private citizens.

Private citizens have parental rights and they should not be infringed without serious and legitimate cause. Like I said, I am not against ALL vaccines in theory, but mandating any of the ones we've been discussing, under threat of force, without any allowance for legitimate exemptions that I outlined earlier, is insanity.

1. Most of these vaccines are unnecessary to prevent mass mortality or any serious mortalities. This is a statistical fact based on historical projections.

I see that you are ignoring the evidence I posted about the children who died in Romania from measles and were not vaccinated.

2. Many of these vaccines include ingredients, like aborted fetal tissue and cells, that violate the conscience of Christian citizens, who's rights are legally recognized on similar matters to these already.

Their feelings about their imaginary sky friend are irrelevant when it comes to saving the lives of kids.

3. There are trained medical professions, even if a minority, that have concerns over the content and character of these vaccines.

And they are wrong. But nice try to make an argument from authority.

4. Some people have adverse reactions to these vaccines.

Sure. But these reactions are almost always less serious than the disease, and are often very rare.

5. private citizens are barred by Federal law from suing vaccine manufacturers for damages.

This is a criticism of US litigation law, not vaccines.

#4-5 are sufficient for various exemptions that parents may pursue. #1 is an argument against mandating these said vaccines to the general public.

Now my qualifier:

This does not included unique epidemics that may arise (some odd foreign virus that threatens the masses), under such emergency conditions I am not opposed to vaccines. I am not opposed to inoculations that are done in response to something that is immediately life-threatening, like Rabies. I am not opposed to vaccinations that prevent the spreading of harmful viruses to an isolated native population etc. I am not opposed to a general mandate for public educated kids if it can be shown that the existence of such prevents significant mortalities in the United States, which almost all medical projection charts seem to contradict.

I would be more open to MMR if it was split into different vaccines for each diseases and if the vaccine schedule were reformed to allow its dosages to be taken later in life, even those who claim that the MMR vax causes autism, claim its the current formula that does so only, and would be open if the vaxx was individuated, that is not an unreasonable request, the problem is that pro-vaxxers are unreasonable and turn a blind-eye to the cronyism going on between these drug companies and the Federal government, which they would not likely do on other issues.

Arguing for a Hep B vaccines is a load of horseshit. If parents pass the pre-screening for Hep B, their kids should not be required to get it. Heb B is a sexually transmitted, primarily, disease. If they want to fuck around later in life and conduct themselves in a manner that makes them susceptible to the disease, that is their responsibility.

Parents should not be REQUIRED to give their babies a vaccine to prevent a sexually transmitted disease. That fucking ridiculous.

Considering the fact that you whined about typhoid vaccines being mandatory when they are not, it is possible that this vaccine is also not mandatory.

The thing is, on this thread, those labeled anti-vaxxer are not homogeneous. Anti-Vaxxers included everyone from those who are fine with vaccines and merely want the schedule reformed to those who are ispo-facto against all vaccines. Its a broad camp and spectrum.

The pro-vaxxers have one common attribute: no tolerance for open debate, and no compromise on any aspect of the current vaccine schedule. They want all vaccines, as they are currently formulated, under current laws, implemented at their current suggested times. Fuck everyone else.

Asserting this claim on repeat is dogma, not debate.

Ad hominem. Ignored.