[Pants-of-dog]

You are being duplicitous in a manner bordering on outrageous.

I specifically said philosophical exemptions, not religious, and only 18 states give the philosophical exemption.

Which means I was correct and you were misrepresenting my position.

Isn't that correct pants?

Sure.

As long as it is clear that most states fo allow either a religious or philosophical exemption or both.

https://jacksdailydose.com/2008/11/12/w ... -vaccines/

Since nothing is stopping people who are philosophically opposed to vaccines from claiming the religious exemption, this distinction may be moot in practice.

Just to be clear, both religious and philosophical exemptions should no longer exist.

I am not arguing against either of these points, so you are having a conversation with yourself again.

You were describing how the POTUS would need some sort of special executive order or congress overhaul or other overreach.

I pointed out how the federal government could circumvent all of this and enforce a policy without all this overreach.

I also pointed out that the current status in most states is not one where only medical exemptions exist.

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom ... tch/020415

This quote is going beyond something like merely removing the philosophical exemption for public schools only as you have suggested.

This is not a description of policy or a proposal at all.

It is merely a description of the moral dilemma anti-vaxxers have: confining their own children, or risking the health of strangers who have immunity problems that the aforementioned kids come into contact with.

If that is supposed to be a claim of what Sanders intedns to do, then please expalin what he intends to do, because I cannot see how that quote explains anything.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Sure.

As long as it is clear that most states fo allow either a religious or philosophical exemption or both.

Sure, as long as we agree that only 18 states have a philosophical exemption and that you misrepresented my position by adding the religious exemption into the discussion and that I was entirely correct in my original comments.

Since nothing is stopping people who are philosophically opposed to vaccines from claiming the religious exemption, this distinction may be moot in practice.

Actually, I qualified under Pennsylvania law for a philosophical exemption, but I could not get a religious exemption.

Just to be clear, both religious and philosophical exemptions should no longer exist.

Your feelings on the matter are not relevant.

You were describing how the POTUS would need some sort of special executive order or congress overhaul or other overreach.

I pointed out how the federal government could circumvent all of this and enforce a policy without all this overreach.

I also pointed out that the current status in most states is not one where only medical exemptions exist.

Thanks for repeating yourself, but as I said, I never claimed the contrary to either of these claims.

I only claimed that a presidential candidate would not run on merely overreaching against state legislature as a platform and to assume such is to read into their words something that is not likely there, which is what you have done regarding Sen. Sanders and Harris.

This is not a description of policy or a proposal at all.

It is merely a description of the moral dilemma anti-vaxxers have: confining their own children, or risking the health of strangers who have immunity problems that the aforementioned kids come into contact with.

If that is supposed to be a claim of what Sanders intedns to do, then please expalin what he intends to do, because I cannot see how that quote explains anything.

The quote clearly shows his opposition to the people exercising their freedom to not vaccinate and is entirely sufficient for voters to presume that he is supportive of a mandate.

If a voter were required to presume nothing regarding a policitian's position unless they gave a detailed description of each proposal, then no one would have a basis for vote for any candidate as nearly no one gives detailed specifics; however, several sites that track the positions of candidates have taken his words to mean that he supports a national mandate on vaccines.

Your feelings as to why these sites are being imprecise in doing so is quite irrelevant and the taking of Sanders's words to imply he is pro-mandate is quite rational.

[Pants-of-dog]

Sure, as long as we agree that only 18 states have a philosophical exemption and that you misrepresented my position by adding the religious exemption into the discussion and that I was entirely correct in my original comments.

If your original comments were something factual like “20 or so allow philosophical exemptions”, then sure, they were fine.

Just like it is correct to say that almost all states allow religious exemptions.

Actually, I qualified under Pennsylvania law for a philosophical exemption, but I could not get a religious exemption.

54% of people who asked for, and received, a religious or medical exemption in New Mexico did so because they had philosophical beliefs about vaccines.

https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/v ... cholarship

So, yes, significant numbers of people are using religious exemptions when they have no religious beliefs about vaccines.

Your feelings on the matter are not relevant.

It is morally justifiable.

More importantly, it seems like the most extreme measure that any US ir state government would do in today’s society.

Thanks for repeating yourself, but as I said, I never claimed the contrary to either of these claims.

I only claimed that a presidential candidate would not run on merely overreaching against state legislature as a platform and to assume such is to read into their words something that is not likely there, which is what you have done regarding Sen. Sanders and Harris.

I am not reading anything into Sanders’ words. My claim is that he has been too vague (this is a deliberate campaign ploy, as far as I can tell) for us to make any real guesses as to what he means.

The quote clearly shows his opposition to the people exercising their freedom to not vaccinate and is entirely sufficient for voters to presume that he is supportive of a mandate.

Actually, he says he sympathises with anti-vaxxers.

And he points out that you guys risk the lives of others.

But he says nothing about policy.

If a voter were required to presume nothing regarding a policitian's position unless they gave a detailed description of each proposal, then no one would have a basis for vote for any candidate as nearly no one gives detailed specifics; however, several sites that track the positions of candidates have taken his words to mean that he supports a national mandate on vaccines.

Yes, he definitely supports something.

His vagueness lies in what exactly that is. Based on what voters are prepared to accept, the most extreme measure he could enact would be a ban on non-medical exemptions.

I highly doubt gunfights will be involved.

[annatar1914]

Sure, as long as we agree that only 18 states have a philosophical exemption and that you misrepresented my position by adding the religious exemption into the discussion and that I was entirely correct in my original comments.



Actually, I qualified under Pennsylvania law for a philosophical exemption, but I could not get a religious exemption.



Your feelings on the matter are not relevant.




Thanks for repeating yourself, but as I said, I never claimed the contrary to either of these claims.

I only claimed that a presidential candidate would not run on merely overreaching against state legislature as a platform and to assume such is to read into their words something that is not likely there, which is what you have done regarding Sen. Sanders and Harris.



The quote clearly shows his opposition to the people exercising their freedom to not vaccinate and is entirely sufficient for voters to presume that he is supportive of a mandate.

If a voter were required to presume nothing regarding a policitian's position unless they gave a detailed description of each proposal, then no one would have a basis for vote for any candidate as nearly no one gives detailed specifics; however, several sites that track the positions of candidates have taken his words to mean that he supports a national mandate on vaccines.

Your feelings as to why these sites are being imprecise in doing so is quite irrelevant and the taking of Sanders's words to imply he is pro-mandate is quite rational.

There's an irony here that i'm sure you'd appreciate; there are people who distrust corporations and their role in poisoning the environment, rightfully so, but these same people somehow want us to trust pharmaceutical corporations to not poison our own bodies in the guise of ''public health''?

There is an immense gulf between our thinking and theirs, because in both cases they posit an anti-human and anti-freedom ''solution'', and THAT is what is important... The scientific management of human beings, to eventually transform what it means to even be human.

[Sivad]

There's an irony here that i'm sure you'd appreciate; there are people who distrust corporations and their role in poisoning the environment, rightfully so, but these same people somehow want us to trust pharmaceutical corporations to not poison our own bodies in the guise of ''public health''?

Dr. John Ioannidis Keynote: Evidence-Based Medicine Has Been Hijacked

John P. A. Ioannidis (born August 21, 1965 in New York City) is a physician-scientist and writer with contributions in evidence-based medicine, epidemiology and public health, data science and clinical research. He has pioneered the field of meta-research (research on research). He says that much of the published research doesn't meet good scientific standards of evidence.

Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science, at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences. He is director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center, and co-director, along with Steven N. Goodman, of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS).[4][5] He is also the editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.[6] He was chairman at the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine as well as adjunct professor at Tufts University School of Medicine




Vaccine anti-science and hearsay evidence have taken a firm hold

John P.A.Ioannidis introduced the notion of "evidence-based hearsay" determining the use of medical treatments. (1)

The "safety of vaccines" can be considered as hearsay as it does not have a proper evidence base. In contrast to scrutiny of medication (pharmacovigilance), proper vaccinevigilance does not exist. Proper and consistent research into long term side-effects from vaccines does not exist. (2)

As a result, do we now have endemics of (chronic) non-communicable disease (NCD) with mortality and morbidity greater than that from vaccine prevented (acute) infectious diseases in the well nourished and hygienic societies? (3)

To further illustrate the lack of vaccinevigilance, take hormone replacement therapy (HRT), aspirin and statins: proper debates have been able to inform patients' (and doctors') opinions.

Instead, ideology leads (non-informed) debates on vaccines and not evidence based medicine (EBM).
In Italy, compulsory vaccination is supported with slogans like: "vaccination is not an opinion".

Reading Tom Moberly's description of the BMA meeting, the motion at the meeting "to make childhood vaccination mandatory" seemed to be based on an emotional repulsion of "anti-vaxxers" by un-informed doctors.

Regulatory bodies (e.g. for doctors) however suggest that health professionals should help patients to come to an informed decision, through a process called shared decision making (SDM). As such, when the issue "mandatory" comes on the scene and relating "mandatory" to each and every person in the land, it is surprising to see that word used by doctors.

Still, emotions can even be more easily influenced in members of parliament and people in worldwide health organizations, as these people, due to their background and lack of EBM training, have even less defence against the lobbying prowess of the pharmaceutical industries. (4, 5)

Vaccines are big business as each and every person on the planet is a customer, in contrast to e.g. HRT, aspirin and statins.(6) Several hundred vaccines are in development. (4)
Furthermore, vaccine immunity wanes and boosters are needed which provides for returning customers.

Tom Morberly's report on the BMA meeting exemplifies that ideology maintains the vaccine panacea dogma, as a spokeswoman told him that the BMA would "consider producing a summary of previous work on vaccination policies". In other words, the BMA is condoning ideology based on "previous work" and lack of research into vaccine side-effects?

However, the NIHR (7) reports on a Cochrane review that showed that: "parents want more balanced information on risks and benefits in advance of vaccinations" (8)
But in fact, the NIHR immediately hijacks this Cochrane review by concluding with ideology rather than the reviewers conclusions: "The review findings support immunisation guidance from NICE, PHE and the Royal College of Nursing. Further research is needed to understand the decisions of groups highlighted in NICE guidance, such as homeless families, non-English speaking parents and teenage parents." This blatant hijack needs a formal apology to David Sackett (9), Cochrane and the public from the responsible individuals or is this acceptable vaccine EBM behaviour?

If acceptable, the new WHO president Dr Adhanom Ghebreyesus needs to remain vigilant or might see the increase in burden of disease due to morbidity and mortality with the introduction of vaccines in countries with no or low vaccination rates due to (unscrutinized) NCD endemics that now affect the developed, highly vaccinated world.

John Ioannidis calls for keeping the EBM course and throwing the pirates overboard. (10)
The question is, does his call include vaccinevigilance, and will epidemiologists hear and act on his call?
https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3414/rr-6

[blackjack21]

There is an immense gulf between our thinking and theirs, because in both cases they posit an anti-human and anti-freedom ''solution'', and THAT is what is important... The scientific management of human beings, to eventually transform what it means to even be human.

Yes, but if it were a communist state mandating this, would your opinion be different?

Once you collectivize risk, there is a profound incentive to offset risk. What if insurance companies could deny coverage for illnesses for which there are vaccinations and the insured declined a vaccination? Would you support that? What if insurance companies could charge more money for the unvaccinated? Would you support that?

The problem with mandatory insurance schemes--whether they are private and capitalist or public and communist/socialist--is that they are inherently in opposition to freedom.

[annatar1914]

Yes, but if it were a communist state mandating this, would your opinion be different?

Once you collectivize risk, there is a profound incentive to offset risk. What if insurance companies could deny coverage for illnesses for which there are vaccinations and the insured declined a vaccination? Would you support that? What if insurance companies could charge more money for the unvaccinated? Would you support that?

The problem with mandatory insurance schemes--whether they are private and capitalist or public and communist/socialist--is that they are inherently in opposition to freedom.

@blackjack21

Interesting points, i'll admit.

I don't regard myself as much of a Socialist anymore, at least not in the full Marxian sense probably. I still would like to consider free health care as a human right, a freedom to fight for, along with other rights and freedoms such as the right to bear arms, contingent upon one being a productive member of society of course. ''risk'' is offset in my mind by the collective labor of all. In such a scheme, such companies as you mention would not be privately owned or operated, to be sure.

However, man in his freedom and his sin, is possibly not capable in the long run of being able to maintain a true Socialist society. That is, I may regard something as quite right, very true, while admitting it may not be possible or practical with people as they are.

[Sivad]

Dr Peter Gøtzsche(founding member of the Cochrane Collaboration) exposes big pharma as organized crime

corrupt to the core.

[Pants-of-dog]

Cuba has free vaccination systems, and the iimportance of vaccines is taught in schools.

So, unless there is an international conspiracy tying together large multinational corporations, big Pharma, and the Cuban government, it is safe to say that vaccination is consistent with Marxist (well, Latin American Marxism, at any rate) practice.

[Rugoz]

The problem with mandatory insurance schemes--whether they are private and capitalist or public and communist/socialist--is that they are inherently in opposition to freedom.

Bullshit, children have no freedom to begin with.

[blackjack21]

Bullshit, children have no freedom to begin with.

Children are wards of their parents, who do have freedom. The point is that to offset the risks--but really moreso the costs--of illness, corporations are trying to use the government to mandate vaccines.

Bullshit is declaring a measles emergency, when there is no emergency to the vaccinated, while we have a typhus epidemic in LA due to homelessness, squatter camps, etc. that are routinely ignored, because the root cause of the problem is neo-liberal policies.

Mandates are not a problem for totalitarian societies, and fans of socialism. It is a problem for liberal societies and people who want to be free from government coercion.

[Truth To Power]

I still would like to consider free health care as a human right,

We can only have (natural) rights to things that we would have if others did not deprive us of them: mainly life, liberty, and property in the fruits of our labor. Things that have to be provided by others, such as health care and education, therefore cannot be rights. We may decide as a democratically governed society to provide these things to people for various reasons, but it is because it is beneficial to the rest of us, not because they have a right to them.

a freedom to fight for, along with other rights and freedoms such as the right to bear arms, contingent upon one being a productive member of society of course.

Who is going to decide who is productive, and how?

''risk'' is offset in my mind by the collective labor of all.

That sounds like moral hazard, where authority does not match responsibility.

In such a scheme, such companies as you mention would not be privately owned or operated, to be sure.

That's also a case of moral hazard.

However, man in his freedom and his sin, is possibly not capable in the long run of being able to maintain a true Socialist society.

Because human beings are not ants or mole rats.

That is, I may regard something as quite right, very true, while admitting it may not be possible or practical with people as they are.

If it's not practical, it's not right. There is something wrong with a philosophy that exhorts people to do the impossible or give up their humanity.

[Drlee]

blackjack21 wrote:
The problem with mandatory insurance schemes--whether they are private and capitalist or public and communist/socialist--is that they are inherently in opposition to freedom.

I disagree. I could make a good case for asserting that a person with complete health care is far more free than someone without it. If you are ill and can't get appropriate treatment you are in no way free. If you are under insured and can't get the best treatment you are less free than those who can. After all. What deprives someone of their freedom more than ill health or even death.

You are mistaking the word freedom for choice. The problem with choice is that we, as a nation, are not prepared to let someone die because they made a poor choice. So those who exercise extremely bad judgment, like those who are not vaccinated against some serious diseases, will still be cared for on the public dole. They will simply not pay for it.

So with a government system that covers everyone they "pay up front" so to speak. They may choose not to avail themselves of the care that is offered them but they have paid for it anyway.

WRT this thread, no civilized country is prepared to let a seven year old die in agony because his parents are complete idiots who denied the innocent child the vaccine that would have prevented the disease.

For those like VS who wish to have a choice I offer this option. Rather than have mandatory vaccination laws we do this. First we allow insurance companies to deny coverage for illnesses and their effects when they refuse an available vaccine. If you or your child becomes ill form, for example, measles and requires treatment then you pay for it yourself and at retail rates. (Not the negotiated rates from insurers.) You are given 30 days to pay the bill either through your own means or a loan you arrange for yourself or your property is seized and sold to pay the bill. If you have no property a lien is placed on your future income until you pay it. Just like student loans where the government is on the hook for the bill, these will not allowed to be discharged through bankruptcy.

Now you have your perfect libertarian solution. Nobody is forcing you to have a vaccination and you are presumed responsible for your own actions. What could be more conservative/libertarian than that?

Just to be clear though everyone nodding at this idea understand that the retail cost of 10 days in the ICU, including tests and the physicians separate billing would be about $60,000 to $100,000 dollars. And this is at the low end. God forbid the disease is rubella in your pregnant un vaccinated wife. Then the lifelong costs of care for blindness, intellectual disability or cardiac problems could run well into the millions of dollars. Perhaps many millions of dollars. But never fear. Cases like these are rare. You can roll the dice with your own money but not with mine.

But if you prefer national health care the same rule will apply.

[Sivad]

Bullshit is declaring a measles emergency, when there is no emergency to the vaccinated

There's no emergency at all:

In the modern era, it is rare to suffer permanent disability or death from measles in the United States. Between 1900 and 1963, the mortality rate of measles dropped from 13.3 per 100,000 to 0.2 per 100,000 in the population, due to advancements in living conditions, nutrition, and health care—a 98% decline (Fig. 1).2,5 Malnutrition, especially vitamin A deficiency, is a primary cause of about 90,000 measles deaths annually in underdeveloped nations.6 In the U.S. and other developed countries, 75–92% of hospitalized measles cases are low in vitamin A.7,8

Research studies and national tracking of measles have documented the following:

1 in 10,000 or 0.01% of measles cases are fatal.3
3 to 3.5 in 10,000 or 0.03–0.035% of measles cases result in seizure.9
1 in 20,000 or 0.005% of measles cases result in measles encephalitis.4
1 in 80,000 or 0.00125% of cases result in permanent disability from measles encephalitis.4
7 in 1,000 or 0.7% of cases are hospitalized.10
6 to 22 in 1,000,000 or 0.0006–0.0022% of cases result in subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE).11



https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles/dis/

[Drlee]

More biased nonsense from Sivad.

Note the source.

[Sivad]

More biased nonsense from Sivad.

Note the source.

So you, as an expert epidemiologist, dispute those numbers? How does an expert epidemiologist not know those numbers? It's not possible, an expert epidemiologist would definitely know the mortality and morbidity rate for measles. So either you know those numbers are accurate and you're trying to deceive people or you just don't know shit about basic public health trivia. Which is it, Drlee?

And I'll post those exact same numbers directly from a corrupt public health establishment agency's website if you need me to but my question is why would anyone regard the demonstrably corrupt public health establishment that has been caught in massive heinous lies and deceptions time and time again as more reliable than Doctors for Informed Consent?

[Drlee]

You are using statistics from 1900 to 1963.

Care to discuss the effectiveness of reporting cases and complications in this time frame? Do you really think rural doctors were reporting measles deaths accurately in those days? You have already said you do not think doctors are accurately reporting vaccine incidents today and today we are infinitely better at doing it.

So you want us to believe that your stupid graph is correct? I could tear it apart in seconds. The things reported in 1901 were not even the same as those reported in 1950. Indeed there was not even mandatory reporting of measles until 1912 so throw that decade of nonsense out. Then see what the numbers are if associated pneumonia is specifically added. You can't. The data are not there.

In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year, among reported cases, an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 1,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.

So what is a mere 500 dead kids. Right Sivad? A pittance. What should we worry about 1000 in danger of lifetime disability from brain injury. How much money is that worth. You have no kids Sivad. Why should you worry? 48000 hospitalized is nothing. An expensive nothing but what do you care? I see you have not considered that 6% of people infected get pneumonia. Are these deaths and injuries from superimposed pneumonia reported as measles? You don't know. No clue. Few studies would stake their reputation on all cases of measles induced pneumonia even being recognized as that. You brag about .2% fatal as if it were nothing?

And since you do not understand a thing about how pandemics work why should we expect you to know about factoring for population density, access to health care and the growth of immune compromised populations? Never mind the concentration of people into cities and the doubling of the population. The increase in minorities and immigrants who are disproportionately affected. No clue.

In other words your statistics are shit. They are deliberately misleading. And if you had a clue about how to view such data you would not have posted them.

[annatar1914]

@Truth To Power

We can only have (natural) rights to things that we would have if others did not deprive us of them: mainly life, liberty, and property in the fruits of our labor.

Those rights are not absolute even in a Capitalist society, and can be interpreted as being applied in a collective sense and not a individual one.

Things that have to be provided by others, such as health care and education, therefore cannot be rights. We may decide as a democratically governed society to provide these things to people for various reasons, but it is because it is beneficial to the rest of us, not because they have a right to them.

People do have a right to be well and healthy as much as we can assist each other to be so, and we do have a right to be enlightened by each other as well. Personal monopolies on health and wellness and learning as the privilege of an Elite are simply wrong.

Who is going to decide who is productive, and how?

Common sense should tell people when one of their number is not pulling their weight and not working to the best of their ability.

That sounds like moral hazard, where authority does not match responsibility.

Not sure that any human enterprise can be made devoid of risk.

That's also a case of moral hazard.

As above, not sure we can create a perfect system, and even not sure we can create a better system, but I do believe it is at least reasonable to consider it.

Because human beings are not ants or mole rats.

Right, but they aren't tools, either, with their backs made for the saddle to be ridden upon by their 'betters'. And I find it hard to understand why people get this idea of Socialism/Communism as somehow anti-hierarchical, when actually it's meritocratic at least in theory. It is believed by them that once the strictures of private wealth and birth are removed from society, that freedom will allow people to reach their full potential.

Again, not perfect in comparison, but maybe better. I don't know anymore.

If it's not practical, it's not right. There is something wrong with a philosophy that exhorts people to do the impossible or give up their humanity.

I'm not fully disagreeing, but so people spoke before slavery was abolished, one way or another. It could be that that abolition is temporary and not even entirely fact in parts of this world today, but some would at least say that it is a genuine advance. So too with Socialism, perhaps.

And part of the reason i'm not sure anymore is it's compulsory nature, as with Vaccination

[Victoribus Spolia]

For those like VS who wish to have a choice I offer this option. Rather than have mandatory vaccination laws we do this. First we allow insurance companies to deny coverage for illnesses and their effects when they refuse an available vaccine. If you or your child becomes ill form, for example, measles and requires treatment then you pay for it yourself and at retail rates.

I actually think this is entirely reasonable and would agree to these conditions without complaint.

Look at that @Drlee you came up with a conservative and free-market solution after all.

You should post ideas consistent with your "claimed" ideology more often.

It is morally justifiable.

Don't you believe morality is subjective?

If that is the case, then it being justified to yourself is not relevant to anyone else.

Now, if you would like to argue that there is an objective moral argument that is universally binding on all persons, lets have that conversation; perhaps you can accept a challenge to debate my moral argument for the EIGHTH FUCKING TIME.

I won't hold my breath though, you and I both know that your moral views are vacuous tripe.

[Pants-of-dog]

I already presented the moral argument.

You have ignored it.

Here it is again:

By refusing vaccines, ypu are weakening herd immunity, which is the main defense against infectious diseases for people with compromised immune systems.

Not only do you weaken herd immunity, but also your own children become vectors.

So, the logical conclusion is that you should confine your own children and not let them out in public.

And this solution is, of course, morally questionable.

How do you resolve this?