4 ms·

> no other reason than ignorance Well, speaking of ignorance! Vaccines are not perfectly safe. All medicine can harm, and vaccines are no exception. Mandating

> no other reason than ignorance Well, speaking of ignorance! Vaccines are not perfectly safe. All medicine can harm, and vaccines are no exception. Mandating dozens of vaccines to billions of children is forcing parents, under threat of state-sponsored violence, to injure their children. There are 10s of thousands of VAERS cases in the US per year. Now multiply that by 20 and we're in the ballpark for number of children youre so cavalierly arguing to force harm upon. Now, there are diseases where vaccines make sense. However, the blanket statement "inject into your newborn whatever the government tells you" is pretty obviously stupid in my opinion; there are plenty of cases of known-toxins taking years to get removed from market with no corporate repercussions - the incentive structures arent perfect. See DDT, leaded gasoline, asbestos, Teflon, uranium mill tailings, cases too numerous to mention. However much you trust the government to do their best, there are agile corporations getting paid handsomely to outmaneuver them. For my children, we make a disease-by-disease risk/reward determination and do a slower schedule once they're a little older.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
What "state-sponsored violence" are you referring to? You can't go to jail for refusing childhood vaccines in the US, as far as I'm aware. But you also can't expect the rest of us to let you inflict violence on our children, by exposing them to deadly communicable diseases which you could easily vaccinate your own children against.
- kryogen1c 8mo ago
  > What "state-sponsored violence" are you referring to? Not referring to a status quo, but to the implication of the parent, and yours after the fact, that we should consider mandating vaccines. > deadly communicable disease If you think this is the only thing on the US vaccination schedule, you should do a little research.
  - SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
    The Trump regime murdered a guy for protesting them today, so I'm not interested in engaging with sophistry about mandates that might hypothetically lead to violence at some unspecified point in the future. Rules are rules and violence is violence, they're not the same thing and I won't waste my time talking to people who can't see that.
    - kryogen1c 8mo ago
      > The Trump regime murdered a guy for protesting them today I dont know what youre talking about, I dont follow politics. And even if I did, I dont know what relevance that could have on our conversation. > I'm not interested in engaging [...] I won't waste my time talking Then I agree, commenting on a public forum is not the right place for you > Rules are rules and violence is violence Laws (not sure why you switched to taking about rules) are explicity - not implicitly - backed by state violence. Unsure where the confusion is.
      - SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
        The confusion is that your statement is not true. Many laws, including school vaccine mandates, aren't backed by state violence. They don't require nor anticipate the deployment of state violence to enforce. They're just rules about how a certain program ought to be administered. Even for the laws which are "backed by" state violence in some deep theoretical sense, I think it's misleading to the point of nonsense to characterize them that way. When the government says "the speed limit on this stretch of the road is 65 miles per hour", they do not mean and the public does not understand them to mean "we will commit violence against anyone who drives 66 miles per hour". It would be ridiculous for driver who's stopped by police and gets a speeding ticket to claim that they've been subject to violence. To me, it seems clear that this kind of equivocation is an attempt to minimize the actual ongoing campaign of literal state violence by the Trump regime. I'll take you at your word that you're not familiar with that campaign, but please remember that the concept of "state violence" is inherently political. Talking about it implies a position on the actual state and how it actually deploys violence, whether you intend to or not.
YZF 8mo ago
I generally support vaccination and there is an argument that public health can sometimes trump individual rights or even health. That said, the example that has always bugged me though the default of giving babies Hepatitis B vaccine even if there is no possible vector for them to get the disease. The other example is chickenpox where we are trading off a potentially mild disease (everyone I know had it as a child) to the risk of getting it as an adult where it is more severe. These tradeoffs are not straightforward and the health authorities are also not transparent about how they weigh the risks. I've also done something similar with my children. Make a determination for a specific vaccine and schedule. This is a combination of both weighing their health above public health and applying my particular circumstances (e.g. stay at home mom vs. daycare) to adjust the risks. They ended up getting most vaccines, just on a different schedule.
- kryogen1c 8mo ago
  > the default of giving babies Hepatitis B vaccine even if there is no possible vector for them to get the disease Yeah absolutely. Another example, which is tangential since its not a vaccine but is a default medicine for some reason, is antibiotic eye ointment on literal hours-old infants. Im not concerned we have gonorrhea thanks, ill listen to your talks and sign your waiver. Fwiw, the hep b recommendation just changed like a month ago :) sensibility wins out, sometimes eventually.
- atmavatar 8mo ago
  > That said, the example that has always bugged me though the default of giving babies Hepatitis B vaccine even if there is no possible vector for them to get the disease. Hepatitis B is spread via bodily fluids, including blood. In this, Hepatitis B is particularly insidious: there is generally a large viral load in the blood relative to other diseases, so even microscopic amounts of blood are sufficient for infection, and the virus can remain active for up to a week on exposed objects. Perhaps your children are different, but blood is a pretty common sight with most children. Worse: when you contract Hepatitis B, it may become a lifelong infection. Sadly, screening those people who have contact with your child is thwarted by the fact that roughly half of those infected don't realize it. See: https://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis-b/about/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis-b/about/index.html See: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hepatitis-b https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hepatitis-b See: https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=hepatitis-b-virus-hbv-in-children-90-P02222 https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=hepati... See: https://www.chop.edu/sites/default/files/vaccine-education-center-hepatitis-b.pdf https://www.chop.edu/sites/default/files/vaccine-education-c... See: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/why-hepatitis-b-vaccination-begins-at-birth https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/why-hepatitis-b-vaccinatio...
fn-mote 8mo ago
> we make a disease-by-disease risk/reward determination and do a slower schedule once they're a little older This was honestly the weirdest part of that whole post. So after all that “not everything is safe”, it sounds like you … wait a little while and then do it anyway? Is it less risky because your kids are a little older?? This seems so unlikely to me. Anyway, I think a lot of that post demonstrates a failure of an ability to have a dialog (radicalized positions don’t lead to understanding imo).
B1FIDO 8mo ago
What about the trillions of dangerous and live viruses that are cultured in order to make vaccines in the first place? Would those be harmful if they escaped into the wild? Or what about if they were ... deliberately released somehow? Are they OK to stockpile those viruses and culture trillions more, on an industrial scale, in every American state? What about in Venezuela? North Korea?

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago

What "state-sponsored violence" are you referring to? You can't go to jail for refusing childhood vaccines in the US, as far as I'm aware. But you also can't expect the rest of us to let you inflict violence on our children, by exposing them to deadly communicable diseases which you could easily vaccinate your own children against.

kryogen1c 8mo ago
> What "state-sponsored violence" are you referring to? Not referring to a status quo, but to the implication of the parent, and yours after the fact, that we should consider mandating vaccines. > deadly communicable disease If you think this is the only thing on the US vaccination schedule, you should do a little research.
- SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
  The Trump regime murdered a guy for protesting them today, so I'm not interested in engaging with sophistry about mandates that might hypothetically lead to violence at some unspecified point in the future. Rules are rules and violence is violence, they're not the same thing and I won't waste my time talking to people who can't see that.
  - kryogen1c 8mo ago
    > The Trump regime murdered a guy for protesting them today I dont know what youre talking about, I dont follow politics. And even if I did, I dont know what relevance that could have on our conversation. > I'm not interested in engaging [...] I won't waste my time talking Then I agree, commenting on a public forum is not the right place for you > Rules are rules and violence is violence Laws (not sure why you switched to taking about rules) are explicity - not implicitly - backed by state violence. Unsure where the confusion is.
    - SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
      The confusion is that your statement is not true. Many laws, including school vaccine mandates, aren't backed by state violence. They don't require nor anticipate the deployment of state violence to enforce. They're just rules about how a certain program ought to be administered. Even for the laws which are "backed by" state violence in some deep theoretical sense, I think it's misleading to the point of nonsense to characterize them that way. When the government says "the speed limit on this stretch of the road is 65 miles per hour", they do not mean and the public does not understand them to mean "we will commit violence against anyone who drives 66 miles per hour". It would be ridiculous for driver who's stopped by police and gets a speeding ticket to claim that they've been subject to violence. To me, it seems clear that this kind of equivocation is an attempt to minimize the actual ongoing campaign of literal state violence by the Trump regime. I'll take you at your word that you're not familiar with that campaign, but please remember that the concept of "state violence" is inherently political. Talking about it implies a position on the actual state and how it actually deploys violence, whether you intend to or not.

YZF 8mo ago

I generally support vaccination and there is an argument that public health can sometimes trump individual rights or even health. That said, the example that has always bugged me though the default of giving babies Hepatitis B vaccine even if there is no possible vector for them to get the disease. The other example is chickenpox where we are trading off a potentially mild disease (everyone I know had it as a child) to the risk of getting it as an adult where it is more severe. These tradeoffs are not straightforward and the health authorities are also not transparent about how they weigh the risks. I've also done something similar with my children. Make a determination for a specific vaccine and schedule. This is a combination of both weighing their health above public health and applying my particular circumstances (e.g. stay at home mom vs. daycare) to adjust the risks. They ended up getting most vaccines, just on a different schedule.

kryogen1c 8mo ago
> the default of giving babies Hepatitis B vaccine even if there is no possible vector for them to get the disease Yeah absolutely. Another example, which is tangential since its not a vaccine but is a default medicine for some reason, is antibiotic eye ointment on literal hours-old infants. Im not concerned we have gonorrhea thanks, ill listen to your talks and sign your waiver. Fwiw, the hep b recommendation just changed like a month ago :) sensibility wins out, sometimes eventually.
atmavatar 8mo ago
> That said, the example that has always bugged me though the default of giving babies Hepatitis B vaccine even if there is no possible vector for them to get the disease. Hepatitis B is spread via bodily fluids, including blood. In this, Hepatitis B is particularly insidious: there is generally a large viral load in the blood relative to other diseases, so even microscopic amounts of blood are sufficient for infection, and the virus can remain active for up to a week on exposed objects. Perhaps your children are different, but blood is a pretty common sight with most children. Worse: when you contract Hepatitis B, it may become a lifelong infection. Sadly, screening those people who have contact with your child is thwarted by the fact that roughly half of those infected don't realize it. See: https://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis-b/about/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis-b/about/index.html See: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hepatitis-b https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hepatitis-b See: https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=hepatitis-b-virus-hbv-in-children-90-P02222 https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=hepati... See: https://www.chop.edu/sites/default/files/vaccine-education-center-hepatitis-b.pdf https://www.chop.edu/sites/default/files/vaccine-education-c... See: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/why-hepatitis-b-vaccination-begins-at-birth https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/why-hepatitis-b-vaccinatio...

fn-mote 8mo ago

> we make a disease-by-disease risk/reward determination and do a slower schedule once they're a little older This was honestly the weirdest part of that whole post. So after all that “not everything is safe”, it sounds like you … wait a little while and then do it anyway? Is it less risky because your kids are a little older?? This seems so unlikely to me. Anyway, I think a lot of that post demonstrates a failure of an ability to have a dialog (radicalized positions don’t lead to understanding imo).

B1FIDO 8mo ago

What about the trillions of dangerous and live viruses that are cultured in order to make vaccines in the first place? Would those be harmful if they escaped into the wild? Or what about if they were ... deliberately released somehow? Are they OK to stockpile those viruses and culture trillions more, on an industrial scale, in every American state? What about in Venezuela? North Korea?