5 ms·

With all the outcoming gov scandals, with government forcing you to vaccine your kids... All other points aside for a moment: the government should force each

With all the outcoming gov scandals, with government forcing you to vaccine your kids... All other points aside for a moment: the government should force each and every parent to vaccinate their children. Herd immunity is a key factor in protecting most of the population from many awful diseases, and herd immunity is only effective if the vast majority are vaccinated. There's no credible evidence that vaccination causes autism or any other malady.

joering2 13y ago
Yes vaccination is NOT a billion dollar business, vaccines do not kill people, and its perfectly logic you need to get shots against other peoples diseases BUT at the same time those who don't become a danger to you, yes. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1996/12/01/218857/ http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/199... http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/03/14/the-danger-of-excessive-vaccination-during-brain-development.aspx http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/03/1... http://vaccinedangers.com/ http://vaccinedangers.com/ http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/neurological_damage.htm http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/neurological_damage.... http://vactruth.com/2013/02/23/17-examples-of-vaccine-failure/ http://vactruth.com/2013/02/23/17-examples-of-vaccine-failur... I could go on and on here like the vaccines business is create problem & offer solution infinite loop, but I hope you can do a research on your own.
- sillysaurus 13y ago
  If you don't feel like putting in a serious effort into presenting your argument, then I see no reason why anyone should take it seriously.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I know you are probably far too far down that rabbit hole to hear me, but herd immunity is vital for those who do not have the option of getting vaccinated.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > I could go on and on here like the vaccines business is create problem & offer solution infinite loop Except that we know the backstory to this particular chicken/egg problem, and we know that in this case vaccines came last, after the problem they were meant to solve (and, substantially speaking, have solved). America's longest-serving President was crippled no less than 100 years ago by a disease which vaccination can now prevent, and you're blaming Big Pharma for that???
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  1st off, the last link you have there is a brilliant example of a failure to use Bayesian reasoning. > its perfectly logic you need to get shots against other peoples diseases BUT at the same time those who don't become a danger to you You don't understand herd immunity. It amplifies a weak individual immune boost (say, a 40% effictive vaccine) into a dramatic effect on the actual number of people who get sick. Here's how it works: consider the average number of new people an infected person will infect (call this number k). If k>1 (1.01 even), the disease very likely explodes across the face of the earth and turns into an epidemic or pandemic. If k<1 (.99 even), it fizzles and only a few get sick (do a stochastic simulation if you must). Point is, we care a lot about making k<1 by any means possible. Vaccines are hard to make and not very effective in the sense that there is only maybe a 40% chance they will stop you from getting sick if others around you are sick. But that 40% success rate dramatically effects k so long as everyone gets vaccinated: if k<1.6 pre-vaccination, our hypothetical vaccine turns a pandemic into a fizzle. If you're one of the assholes who spoil the whole thing by not getting vaccinated, your peers have every right to get angry with you. I wish you could be collectively sued for your effect on an outbreak, but I'll settle for a bit of government incentive. > vaccines do not kill people The FDA and EMA are dramatically overcautious when it comes to this kind of thing (they minimize the number of lives lost to drugs and vaccines even at the expense of not minimizing total lives lost). If you think otherwise, safety and efficacy studies are public. Start with primary sources, avoid hokey nonsense like what you posted. The FDA site is a mess but google can usually find specific studies with filetype:pdf. > the vaccines business is create problem & offer solution Pretty sure it's evolution (of bacteria and viruses) creating the problem, not drug companies. Or do you not believe in evolution either?
  - joering2 13y ago
    Thanks for response, I upvoted you. I wasn't clear in my first post. I am not against major vaccines, the problem is that today by age 8 you have many more shoot than those you had only 20 years ago. I fail to believe life on Earth change soo much that we all need so many more shots to survive. Like with any other business, pharma sees opportunity to oversell and creates tons of unnecessarily shots that your local CSV loves to advertise. I also personally know an example of an older man who got a shot and 2 weeks later got sick exactly on something he was getting shot against. It doesnt make sense.
utunga 13y ago
Even if we are 100% clear that there is no evidence that vaccination causes any malady, government mandates requiring that the government chooses what things should be injected into every single citizen crosses a very important line of freedom of action for me. Just like the argument that you may not agree with someone but will defend their rights to say it. I may not agree with an anti-vaccination person but I would defend to the end every persons right to liberty (that is choice) in regards to government mandates as to invasive procedures, pills, or injections. We have to think of the future implications of precedents like that.
- lordCarbonFiber 13y ago
  The problem is it is not about your freedom and safety. It's about the freedom and safety of others. Herd-Immunity is essential for protecting those who can't be vacinated because of allergies or age. By refusing vaccinating you aren't just giving up your ability to be protected from these life-threatening diseases, you're also endangering others. The government has these laws for the same reason we have laws against drunk driving. You have the right to endanger yourself however you want; however, you have zero right to endanger another human.
  - utunga 13y ago
    Your position would be more clearly stated if you said that the problem is weighing freedom against safety. There I agree with you. It is not my freedom from government mandated medical injections or procedures the needs to be weighed against safety for the herd but rather the importance of freedom of choice generally weighed against safety for all. Also, the government does not have these laws. This is a line leglislaters have not crossed, and good thing too, given the importance of setting good precedents around medical ethics in a fast advancing field.

joering2 13y ago

Yes vaccination is NOT a billion dollar business, vaccines do not kill people, and its perfectly logic you need to get shots against other peoples diseases BUT at the same time those who don't become a danger to you, yes. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1996/12/01/218857/ http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/199... http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/03/14/the-danger-of-excessive-vaccination-during-brain-development.aspx http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/03/1... http://vaccinedangers.com/ http://vaccinedangers.com/ http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/neurological_damage.htm http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/neurological_damage.... http://vactruth.com/2013/02/23/17-examples-of-vaccine-failure/ http://vactruth.com/2013/02/23/17-examples-of-vaccine-failur... I could go on and on here like the vaccines business is create problem & offer solution infinite loop, but I hope you can do a research on your own.

sillysaurus 13y ago
If you don't feel like putting in a serious effort into presenting your argument, then I see no reason why anyone should take it seriously.
jlgreco 13y ago
I know you are probably far too far down that rabbit hole to hear me, but herd immunity is vital for those who do not have the option of getting vaccinated.
mpyne 13y ago
> I could go on and on here like the vaccines business is create problem & offer solution infinite loop Except that we know the backstory to this particular chicken/egg problem, and we know that in this case vaccines came last, after the problem they were meant to solve (and, substantially speaking, have solved). America's longest-serving President was crippled no less than 100 years ago by a disease which vaccination can now prevent, and you're blaming Big Pharma for that???
jjoonathan 13y ago
1st off, the last link you have there is a brilliant example of a failure to use Bayesian reasoning. > its perfectly logic you need to get shots against other peoples diseases BUT at the same time those who don't become a danger to you You don't understand herd immunity. It amplifies a weak individual immune boost (say, a 40% effictive vaccine) into a dramatic effect on the actual number of people who get sick. Here's how it works: consider the average number of new people an infected person will infect (call this number k). If k>1 (1.01 even), the disease very likely explodes across the face of the earth and turns into an epidemic or pandemic. If k<1 (.99 even), it fizzles and only a few get sick (do a stochastic simulation if you must). Point is, we care a lot about making k<1 by any means possible. Vaccines are hard to make and not very effective in the sense that there is only maybe a 40% chance they will stop you from getting sick if others around you are sick. But that 40% success rate dramatically effects k so long as everyone gets vaccinated: if k<1.6 pre-vaccination, our hypothetical vaccine turns a pandemic into a fizzle. If you're one of the assholes who spoil the whole thing by not getting vaccinated, your peers have every right to get angry with you. I wish you could be collectively sued for your effect on an outbreak, but I'll settle for a bit of government incentive. > vaccines do not kill people The FDA and EMA are dramatically overcautious when it comes to this kind of thing (they minimize the number of lives lost to drugs and vaccines even at the expense of not minimizing total lives lost). If you think otherwise, safety and efficacy studies are public. Start with primary sources, avoid hokey nonsense like what you posted. The FDA site is a mess but google can usually find specific studies with filetype:pdf. > the vaccines business is create problem & offer solution Pretty sure it's evolution (of bacteria and viruses) creating the problem, not drug companies. Or do you not believe in evolution either?
- joering2 13y ago
  Thanks for response, I upvoted you. I wasn't clear in my first post. I am not against major vaccines, the problem is that today by age 8 you have many more shoot than those you had only 20 years ago. I fail to believe life on Earth change soo much that we all need so many more shots to survive. Like with any other business, pharma sees opportunity to oversell and creates tons of unnecessarily shots that your local CSV loves to advertise. I also personally know an example of an older man who got a shot and 2 weeks later got sick exactly on something he was getting shot against. It doesnt make sense.

utunga 13y ago

Even if we are 100% clear that there is no evidence that vaccination causes any malady, government mandates requiring that the government chooses what things should be injected into every single citizen crosses a very important line of freedom of action for me. Just like the argument that you may not agree with someone but will defend their rights to say it. I may not agree with an anti-vaccination person but I would defend to the end every persons right to liberty (that is choice) in regards to government mandates as to invasive procedures, pills, or injections. We have to think of the future implications of precedents like that.

lordCarbonFiber 13y ago
The problem is it is not about your freedom and safety. It's about the freedom and safety of others. Herd-Immunity is essential for protecting those who can't be vacinated because of allergies or age. By refusing vaccinating you aren't just giving up your ability to be protected from these life-threatening diseases, you're also endangering others. The government has these laws for the same reason we have laws against drunk driving. You have the right to endanger yourself however you want; however, you have zero right to endanger another human.
- utunga 13y ago
  Your position would be more clearly stated if you said that the problem is weighing freedom against safety. There I agree with you. It is not my freedom from government mandated medical injections or procedures the needs to be weighed against safety for the herd but rather the importance of freedom of choice generally weighed against safety for all. Also, the government does not have these laws. This is a line leglislaters have not crossed, and good thing too, given the importance of setting good precedents around medical ethics in a fast advancing field.