[Drlee]

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.

This is a complete distortion of the truth. It sounds very dire to people who are to stupid to understand the science but here is the truth:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/aborted-fetal-tissue-and-vaccines-combining-pseudoscience-and-religion-to-demonize-vaccines-2/

Read it if you like. Suffice it to say that even the Roman Catholic church as recognized and endorsed the science.

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

Not really. If you mean that all professionals in the field have concerned about the validity of research used to form their opinions then they are. If you mean to imply that normal healthy concern expressed doubt about these data you are wrong.

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

Not exactly. Private citizens are extended the opportunity be compensated for problems related to vaccine use. Sadly, as I posted earlier, many have been compensated for utterly absurd claims. Further. This move was done because of the predatory nature of our legal system. A compromise was made. Manufacturers continue to make what would otherwise be low profit drugs, and price them in such a way as to make them available to the public. Examples of this sort are legion. They are similar to the good-Samaritan laws that protect people who render aid in emergence situations. Perhaps you disagree with those laws too.

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

Pure ignorance on your part. Your statement is entirely untrue. But then, you obviously do not understand the purpose of these vaccines in the first place or you would not keep nattering on about some mythical concern for "mass mortality". But because you are impressed by numbers then consider these from UNICEF:

Each year, vaccination averts an estimated 2-3 million deaths from diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whoop
ing cough) and measles

Perhaps you do not consider 2-3 million deaths to rise to the definition of "mass-mortality".

(Note. I do not know what you mean by "serious mortalities" [sic]. I am of the opinion that all mortality is serious.

I am astonished had how tenaciously some people will cling to utterly discredited pseudo-science. Oh the hazards of google in the hands of idiots.
.

[ness31]

I read the link Drlee, the one about aborted foetal material and to be honest I was fairly shocked. I had no idea that they used (and I’m sorry but it isn’t a distortion) aborted foetal cells in rubella and chicken pox vaccines.

Like I really didn’t know.

Therapeutically aborted at that. Geez, if you’re going to be immoral at least use prime real estate

I was actually a bit confused regarding the schedule in my locality and whether or not the Hep B vaccine is compulsory. Here’s what I understand - there is an immunisation registry. If you’re kid isn’t fully vaccinated to the requirements of that schedule then they will not be able to attend early learning and day care centres and you don’t receive tax benefits. The Hep B vaccine is on that schedule.

I genuinely hope I have that chain of events wrong

Home schooling looks more and more appealing I think. It’s like the only option left in order to exercise full parental control. Besides, who in their right mind wants to beg, or ‘deceive’ an Institution into ‘educating’ their children 5 days a week, 6 hours a day when it clearly thinks you’re a neglectful parent?

I’m so grosed out by this thread it’s unbelievable..

[Godstud]

Geez, if you’re going to be immoral at least use prime real estate

It's not immoral simply because are unable to understand the science, and hold antiquated religious views.

Hep B is not compulsory, but it doesn't hurt to give yourself/child some extra protection. Why wouldn't you? Even anti-vaxxers are getting vaccinations!

Seeing as the Conservatives can only understand things in meme form...


Home-schooling is fine, but you aren't going to socialize your kids? Ever? They'll turn out to be stupid internet geeks who can't function in society. Nice work!


The only thing gross about this thread is the uneducated who fight proven medical science in favour of pseudo-science and bullshit.

[ness31]

It's not immoral simply because are unable to understand the science, and hold antiquated religious views.

You don’t get to make this decision Godstud. I know that must kill you, but you don’t get to dictate what someone’s conscience does and doesn’t find objectionable.

Hep B is not compulsory, but it doesn't hurt to give yourself some extra protection.

Maybe it’s different where you are.

But Im certain now that in my locality, if you aren’t on the registry and you aren’t fully vaccinated to the schedule then your child cannot attend day care or pre primary and tax benefits are stopped.
Sure, you can decline to have your child vaccinated at 6 days, 2 months, 4 months etc etc but to gain entry to schools and receive tax benefits you will be coerced into doing a catch up program.

p.s you can take your meme and shove it high up where the sun don’t shine

[Godstud]

I know that must kill you, but you don’t get to dictate what someone’s conscience does and doesn’t find objectionable.

Society deems what is moral and immoral, not you. It's not immoral for science to use tissue that would be disposed of, in a life-saving manner.

Take the fucking vaccinations. They're for your health, and the people around you. Don't be a douche.

PS: I am glad you liked the meme.

[ness31]

Society deems what is moral and immoral, not you. It's not immoral for science to use tissue that would be disposed of, in a life-saving manner.

And that’s fine Godstud. Society, our peers decide on social norms. People labelled anti vaxxers do not adhere to those norms. And at this point it appears as though society has said “well, if you wanna hang out with us in the cool group ‘at school’ then you need to be vaccinated. Fair enough that’s the community’s prerogative.

Home schooling it is

edit - Pertactin negative Bordetella pertussis demonstrates higher fitness under vaccine selection pressure in a mixed infection model.

That’s what I’m trying to read right now. I would post it but I can’t find the full journal without needing to pay for it or sign up. So if anyone is interested, go for it.

[Drlee]

I read the link Drlee, the one about aborted foetal material and to be honest I was fairly shocked. I had no idea that they used (and I’m sorry but it isn’t a distortion) aborted foetal cells in rubella and chicken pox vaccines.
posting.php?mode=reply&f=40&t=172392
Like I really didn’t know.

No. You didn't know. You do not understand what you are reading. Ask Mikema

Therapeutically aborted at that. Geez, if you’re going to be immoral at least use prime real estate

You also do not understand what this means. Obviously.

Home schooling looks more and more appealing I think. It’s like the only option left in order to exercise full parental control. Besides, who in their right mind wants to beg, or ‘deceive’ an Institution into ‘educating’ their children 5 days a week, 6 hours a day when it clearly thinks you’re a neglectful parent?

Hopefully you will find someone more qualified than yourself to teach science. Hopefully you will not rely on the pseudo-science taught by some of the religious organizations that "aid" you with course material.

I’m so grosed out by this thread it’s unbelievable..

It is completely believable. Ignorance has grossed out more than one person.

Now put down the bottle and go to bed. You have had quite enough.

[ness31]

Ok Drlee. Nigh night.

[B0ycey]

I can't believe this thread is still going. If people don't understand that immunisation prevents getting and the spread of 'said' disease by now then there is no hope for them. I say let people make their on minds up on this. But they should be prepared to live by the consequences of their actions - whatever that maybe. And we should also allow every single person to be able to make a decision on immunisation without any form of financial penalty attached to it too. So paying for immunisation is just ludicrous and morally wrong.

If we can agree on this, then we should shake hands and move on.

[Victoribus Spolia]

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

Correct. I'm not Romanian.

Their feelings about their imaginary sky friend are irrelevant

Their sincere religious beliefs are constitutionally protected in anglo-sphere nations, and since this thread is about parental rights in relation to vaccines, the rights of religious citizens are indeed quite relevant.

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.

You have mis-characterized these statements of mine, these are not arguments against the vaccine themselves per se, but statements given merely as my reasons as to why the right to exemptions ought to be permitted.

On the litigation one in particular, one should not be required, under threat of force, to consume/receive a product if the right of litigation is forbidden to them in the event of damages. If you cannot sue Ford motors in the event that it may have faulty brakes, you should not be required to buy only Fords.

Hence, citizens should have the right to exemption if they do not have the right of litigation.

This is besides the fact that these private companies have lobbied both for these protections and for the mandating of their product by compulsion. I am glad you are taking the side of chrony-capitalism, I find it amusing.

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.

Non-Sequitur.

Ad hominem. Ignored.

If there is a fallacy here, it would be a hasty generalization, not an ad-hominem; however, that depends on whether I actually generalized, which has yet to be proven. Pro-Vaxxers on this thread are not open to reform of the vaccine schedule or system of any kind and have shot down suggestions and arguments from the entire broad spectrum of the "anti-vaxxer" camp which is really quite diverse.

If my generalization if a hasty one, prove it. Otherwise, no fallacy, and definitely no ad-hominem.

Society deems what is moral and immoral, not you. It's not immoral for science to use tissue that would be disposed of, in a life-saving manner.

This is a dangerous opinion.

So, when the majority of people believed black slavery was moral, it was moral? Because society deemed it was so? What if the majority of people deemed the predation of children was moral? would it be moral simply in virtue that society deemed such? You may need to clarify this.

I say let people make their on minds up on this. But they should be prepared to live by the consequences of their actions - whatever that maybe.

I'm fine with this, really no disagreement from me, but this is not the position of most of the "pro-vaxxers" on this thread, indeed, they may label you an anti-vaxxer on this thread for not believing in compulsion by gun-point.

Home schooling it is

Agreed. This is a big reason behind why we do it besides my problems with the pragmatic education model. Homeschooled kids do far better academically anyway.

It's not immoral simply because are unable to understand the science, and hold antiquated religious views.

Those "antiquated religious views" are constitutionally protected rights in the United States and in most Anglo-sphere nation, deeply held religious views are a legitimate consideration in matters of law. This thread is about parental rights, and religious rights are part of that conversation in the west. By advocating for that exemption, I am advocating for a right that has legal precedent.

I’m so grosed out by this thread it’s unbelievable..

Yeah, its kinda fucked up.

Read it if you like. Suffice it to say that even the Roman Catholic church as recognized and endorsed the science.

Not a papist, and they don't determine what is a protected right under English common law or the u.s. constitution anyway, so not relevant.

Not really. If you mean that all professionals in the field have concerned about the validity of research used to form their opinions then they are. If you mean to imply that normal healthy concern expressed doubt about these data you are wrong.

Sivad posted ample support to the contrary of this claim. There are plenty of M.D.s that are anti-vaxx and there are even more who atleast believe in reform (like Dr. Sears).

Not exactly. Private citizens are extended the opportunity be compensated for problems related to vaccine use. Sadly, as I posted earlier, many have been compensated for utterly absurd claims. Further. This move was done because of the predatory nature of our legal system. A compromise was made. Manufacturers continue to make what would otherwise be low profit drugs, and price them in such a way as to make them available to the public. Examples of this sort are legion. They are similar to the good-Samaritan laws that protect people who render aid in emergence situations. Perhaps you disagree with those laws too.

This is bullshit.

There is a federal committee, only accessible after going through the VAERS system (which is an interesting conversation in itself as they get 10,000-20,000 claims, mostly of life-threatening reactions, per year), that is not a trial court or litigation court, it is a committee of experts, typically ex-employees of major vaccine companies, who approve claims arbitrarily and pay-off people with TAX money not money allocated from the vaccine manufacturers (which is also bull-shit).

likewise, your analogy to good samaritan laws is not entirely helpful, you are not COMPELLED to get help from good samarians and their service is extraneous, not universal.

a mandate for a vaccines is both universal and compulsory and therefore you cannot compare litigation in this circumstance to that of protections for good Samaritans which are neither. Further, good Samaritans are not a product, vaccines are a product made by private companies that have a financial interest in not only their consumption but in their being mandated.

If we were talking about oil companies lobbying for the compulsory requirement of citizens to purchase and own a particular gas-guzzling automobile, I doubt you would have the same tone and lack of concern over the rights of private citizens; especially, if these companies lobbied for the federal government to forbade litigation against either themselves or the automotive manufacturer directly, but only allowed a recourse to a non-court committee staffed by ex-Ford and ex-BP employees who were assigned to award damages from tax-dollars arbitrarily.

That is the only legitimate analogy, "being forbidden to sue for damages from the consumption of a product that your are OBLIGATED to consume by law."

I am arguing that if this is a general truth, then a person should have a legal right to be exempt from having to consume that product. If you are not allowed to sue Ford Motor for faulty brakes, you should not be obligated to only buy Fords. That is my operative principle on that point.

Pure ignorance on your part. Your statement is entirely untrue.

1. If No vaccine, according to historical projections based on reported mortalities, were ever produced for most of the diseases that are being discussed on this thread, projections show that there would be almost no mortalities, comparable to our current levels, which means the vaccines did not substantially contribute to the elimination of masses of people dying from these ailments.This is a fact.

2. If this is a fact, requiring the forfeiture of parental rights is unjustified, which requires a substantial burden of proof to do. Western law sees rights as inherent and can only be taken way for VERY good reasons. The only legitimate reason to unilaterally require the forfeiture of parental rights is to demonstrate that vaccination ended mass casualties to these diseases. This cannot be done.

[Pants-of-dog]

Correct. I'm not Romanian.

That’s nice, as long as we agree that the evidence shows that people will die of measles if not vaccinated.

Their sincere religious beliefs are constitutionally protected in anglo-sphere nations, and since this thread is about parental rights in relation to vaccines, the rights of religious citizens are indeed quite relevant.

As long as we agree that your feelings about your sky friend do not affect the actual science. It is still a risk of illness and death for your kid and the kids of others.

You have mis-characterized these statements of mine, these are not arguments against the vaccine themselves per se, but statements given merely as my reasons as to why the right to exemptions ought to be permitted.

On the litigation one in particular, one should not be required, under threat of force, to consume/receive a product if the right of litigation is forbidden to them in the event of damages. If you cannot sue Ford motors in the event that it may have faulty brakes, you should not be required to buy only Fords.

Hence, citizens should have the right to exemption if they do not have the right of litigation.

This is besides the fact that these private companies have lobbied both for these protections and for the mandating of their product by compulsion. I am glad you are taking the side of chrony-capitalism, I find it amusing.

This is all irrelevant. The topic is not about US litigation law.

Non-Sequitur.

None of my kids got Hep-B vaccines when they were born. How is this possible if it were mandatory, as you claim?

If there is a fallacy here, it would be a hasty generalization, not an ad-hominem; however, that depends on whether I actually generalized, which has yet to be proven. Pro-Vaxxers on this thread are not open to reform of the vaccine schedule or system of any kind and have shot down suggestions and arguments from the entire broad spectrum of the "anti-vaxxer" camp which is really quite diverse.

If my generalization if a hasty one, prove it. Otherwise, no fallacy, and definitely no ad-hominem.

Yes, this thing where you insult all people supporting vaccination is an ad hominem. But if you want, you can call yourself out for generalising as well.

[ness31]

I hope this isn’t too personal a question PoD, but did the mid-wives or doctors
ask you if you wanted the Hep B vaccine administered?

Regarding home schooling Victoribus Spolia - how do your kids socialise? If this vaccination push takes off I see a whole lot more people attending church and Sunday School in the years to come. Something the mandatory vaccination camp can take credit for. Intended or unintended consequence?

[Pants-of-dog]

I don’t recall that being in the list.

Mind you, by that point in the birth, you are so exhausted that any memories you have of the moment are suspect.

The suggested, but not mandatory, schedule where I live has the Hep-B vaccine at grade five.

http://www.health.alberta.ca/health-inf ... edule.html

[Drlee]

1. If No vaccine, according to historical projections based on reported mortalities, were ever produced for most of the diseases that are being discussed on this thread, projections show that there would be almost no mortalities, comparable to our current levels, which means the vaccines did not substantially contribute to the elimination of masses of people dying from these ailments.This is a fact.

Absolutely untrue. Absolutely untrue. You can bold it all that you want and it is still untrue.

Besides. If there was no 'mortality' from these diseases the vaccines would still be justified.

You simply do not understand the research. I am through arguing with pure ignorance. You are wrong. I will leave it there. Now
go ahead and make another post confirming your ignorance.

[ness31]

Schedule and catch up schedule for my locality:

http://ww2.health.wa.gov.au/~/media/Fil ... hedule.pdf

http://ww2.health.wa.gov.au/Articles/N_ ... quirements

[Godstud]

By advocating for that exemption, I am advocating for a right that has legal precedent.

I don't fucking care if it has a legal precedent if you are putting the rest of the community at risk. It has a legal precedent when it applies only to you, but you don't have a right to inflict the ignorance of your religion upon others. That is where religious freedom ends.

Morality within any society changes with time and progress. That's common sense. I don't have to explain why slavery is now seen as immoral, whilst it used to be seen as just fine. Why do I have to explain this to you, @Victoribus Spolia ? We don't live in the Dark Ages with Dark Age morality.

[Victoribus Spolia]

That’s nice, as long as we agree that the evidence shows that people will die of measles if not vaccinated.

Whats nice about not being Romanian? do you have a problem with Romanians now?

Though perhaps in Romania there is evidence of the unvaccinated dying of Measles, who knows why, but there situation isn't really relevant to projections and reporting in the Anglo-Sphere. There could be a host of factors and I do not possess their projection charts and vaccine introduction history over the last 100 years, I do for the Anglo-Sphere.

As long as we agree that your feelings about your sky friend do not affect the actual science.

As long as we agree that I never said otherwise and your last insinuation to the contrary was baseless.

This is all irrelevant. The topic is not about US litigation law.

The OP is on parental rights in relation to vaccines, such is relevant to the mandating of that product in the United States.

None of my kids got Hep-B vaccines when they were born. How is this possible if it were mandatory, as you claim?

Thats a nice story and all, but in my state in the U.S., Hep B is on the schedule that is used to permit children to enter public school and is assigned on the schedule to be administered within a few hours of being born. Your child at age 4 would be considered a public safety hazard where I am from and would have been forbidden from entering a daycare without a doctor signing off.

You shameless Canadian anti-vaxxers really need to follow proper scheduling as determined by the United States.

Yes, this thing where you insult all people supporting vaccination is an ad hominem. But if you want, you can call yourself out for generalising as well.

No evidence offered. Claims dismissed.

Absolutely untrue. Absolutely untrue.

If you said it a third time a genie would have granted you a wish.

The Charts Speak for themselves, but at your age memory might be an issue, so here are some of the charts my wife provided: one more time:

U.S. Mortality Rates of Decline in Relation to Vaccine Introduction.


Whooping Cough Mortality Rate



Whooping Cough Mortality Rate in Relation to Vaccine Introduction.




Measles U.S.A 1912-2010 (vaccine not introduced until 1963).


Dyptheria England and Wales 1901-1999


Typhoid Rate of Decline: No Widespread Vaccination.


Scarlet Fever Rate of Decline: No Vaccine EVER.[/b]


Scurvey 1901-1967. No Vaccine EVER.


Like I said, had not vaccine been introduced, these diseases would be non-issues regarding public mortality today, and many became null with no vaccine ever coming into existence. A mandate today is not justifiable under such realities based on FACT.

I don't fucking care if it has a legal precedent if you are putting the rest of the community at risk. It has a legal precedent when it applies only to you, but you don't have a right to inflict the ignorance of your religion upon others. That is where religious freedom ends.

Just. Relax.

No one is advocating for spreading a plague around just so they can be free to handle snakes at a revival meeting. We are talking about mandating a product that includes aborted fetal tissues and cells by a company that lobbies for them to be mandated and protected from litigation for damages, with no possibility of reform, for diseases that if you are not vaccinated for them, the chances of you causing public mortalities are slim-to-none.

This being the case when the governments of the west already give medical exemptions on such a religious basis as the ones under discussion and for other procedures and even public health-related issues that can also be said to have widespread implications, like providing insurance coverage for medical procedures.

Take deep breathes. I hear it helps.

Morality within any society changes with time and progress. That's common sense. I don't have to explain why slavery is now seen as immoral, whilst it used to be seen as just fine.

No, if society determines what is moral, its not just that slavery was "incorrectly viewed as fine" at that time, but according to your own standard, slavery would have been perfectly moral at the time that society deemed it such, even if it is not the case now (hence, in 1725, you would have supported slavery). Likewise, whatever society determines by consensus would be ipso facto moral according to your position, but if this is true, then if society determined that the predation of children was moral in the future, you would have to agree with such by your standard as it would be, by definition, moral. This does need to be clarified.

[Pants-of-dog]

Whats nice about not being Romanian? do you have a problem with Romanians now?

Though perhaps in Romania there is evidence of the unvaccinated dying of Measles, who knows why, but there situation isn't really relevant to projections and reporting in the Anglo-Sphere. There could be a host of factors and I do not possess their projection charts and vaccine introduction history over the last 100 years, I do for the Anglo-Sphere.

Your ignorance is not an argument or a rebuttal. I have provided evidence of a measles outbreak that occurred because of a lack of vaccination, resulting in the deaths of unvaccinated children.

As long as we agree that I never said otherwise and your last insinuation to the contrary was baseless.

My real question is why your feelings about something should allow you to risk the health of other people’s kids.

Thats a nice story and all, but in my state in the U.S., Hep B is on the schedule that is used to permit children to enter public school and is assigned on the schedule to be administered within a few hours of being born. Your child at age 4 would be considered a public safety hazard where I am from and would have been forbidden from entering a daycare without a doctor signing off.

You shameless Canadian anti-vaxxers really need to follow proper scheduling as determined by the United States.

Since you have not supplied any evidence that it is mandatory, your claim is dismissed.

Please note that these vaccinations are not mandatory in Alberta, but I would have no trouble giving my kids the vaccine if we moved to the US, where apparently there is a much higher risk of Hep-B. This is no different from when I get vaccinations when I ma visiting other developing countries.

No evidence offered. Claims dismissed.

Since pointing out logical fallacies is not making a claim, this reply of yours seems illogical.

Anyway,

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00017268.htm

From 1989 through 1991, in the United States, the incidence of reported measles increased sixfold to ninefold over the median annual incidence (1.3 per 100,000 population) reported from 1981 through 1988. In 1990, the peak of the resurgence, the incidence of measles among children aged less than 5 years was 15-fold higher than the median 1981-1988 incidence (4.8 per 100,000) (1). During 1991, approximately 9500 cases were reported (Figure 1), including 4662 cases among children aged less than 5 years (CDC, unpublished data). The measles epidemic is a consequence primarily of the failure to vaccinate preschool-aged children at appropriate ages (2); among children aged 16-59 months who developed measles during this resurgence, only 15% had received measles vaccine as recommended (CDC, unpublished data). This report compares the number of public clinic vaccinations* (i.e., all measles-containing vaccines (MCV) **, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine (DTP), and oral polio vaccine (OPV)) for 1988 with that for 1989-1991 in response to the measles resurgence.

During 1989-1991, state health departments reported a provisional total of 55,467 measles cases that resulted in a minimum of 11,251 known hospitalizations, 44,127 hospital days, and 166 suspected measles-related deaths. The resurgence of measles prompted collaborative efforts among federal, state, and local government agencies and private physicians and other private-sector groups to improve overall vaccination coverage among preschool-aged children. Records of vaccine doses (MCV, DTP, and OPV) administered to preschool-aged children in public clinics are reported to CDC by age group by the 63 immunization projects in the United States and its territories for all publicly purchased vaccines. For this report, assessment of the response to the resurgence of measles was limited to vaccinations administered through the public sector (i.e., federally, state-, and locally funded clinics).

Finally, you keep ignoring how you are putting the health of other people’s children in jeopardy.

[Drlee]

Well VS. You just insist on posting charts you do not understand. Your first mistake is posting charts from a now nonexistent commercial site. Charts that are picked up by anti-vax sites. This is highly suspicious especially since the site no longer exists. Its owners have chosen privacy so we do not know if these data are correct or pure fabrications. The charts even misidentify the UK source by name. Not very careful. A huge red flag.

So since I am a professional, I would want to see these data whole; not some compilation by a commercial entity that no longer exists posted on antivaxer sites.

Your second mistake is not understanding that, even if these data were correct (and they have more holes than Swiss cheese) they would not prove the point that you wish to prove.

Another mistake might be that you do not understand the nature of viruses and how they change over time. Sometimes very little time. For example, you may be unaware that we have observed significant changes in influenza viruses, in very short periods of time, in a single individual. Changes that even within a single human during a single illness increased the viruses resistance to anti viral drugs AND the bodies own immune system. Changes that are transmittable between humans. And these results have been published in reputable outlets.

You are so at a loss to provide real data to support your outrageous claims and so unwilling to accept the (literally tons if printed) data rejecting your ideas that you have to resort to personally insulting me. I will let the insults pass however because those who know me on this site realize that you are punching way above your weight.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Well VS. You just insist on posting charts you do not understand. Your first mistake is posting charts from a now nonexistent commercial site. Charts that are picked up by anti-vax sites. This is highly suspicious especially since the site no longer exists. Its owners have chosen privacy so we do not know if these data are correct or pure fabrications. The charts even misidentify the UK source by name. Not very careful. A huge red flag.

Wait....don't tell me: Its!.........

Your ignorance is not an argument or a rebuttal. I have provided evidence of a measles outbreak that occurred because of a lack of vaccination, resulting in the deaths of unvaccinated children.

And I have stated why it is not relevant.

My real question is why your feelings about something should allow you to risk the health of other people’s kids.

What feelings?

Please note that these vaccinations are not mandatory in Alberta, but I would have no trouble giving my kids the vaccine if we moved to the US, where apparently there is a much higher risk of Hep-B. This is no different from when I get vaccinations when I ma visiting other developing countries.

So what? That wasn't my point. My point was that vaccine law for its citizens is different than vaccine law in Canada, which highlights points of disagreement of scheduling and mandates. Big surprise since they are almost all bunch of non-sense.

Finally, you keep ignoring how you are putting the health of other people’s children in jeopardy.

Yes, and you willfully ignored arguments and charts I presented, and even admitted such. So I will return the favor.

So since I am a professional

Nice appeal to authority there champ.