Page 1 of 3

People's "right" not to vaccinate?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:21 am
by Carrie
I really don't understand these vaccination "skeptics". Do any of these morons remember smallpox or at least the history of smallpox? According to them it's ok to discriminate based on color, religion, country, sexual orientation, gender,and to expose others to germs, but it's not ok to make somebody give their kid a shot if they don't have allergies to it? How can they claim to be the more "moral", "righteous" group, when almost everything they do seems extremely selfish?
They seem to have the attitude that if someone gets all these diseases and lives that it's survival of the "fittest", yet they don't even believe in evolution! They must think it's "god's" will that someone be the fittest when it comes to germs. Yeah, those pesky shots never helped anybody. :stars:
I also find it interesting that these people claim to be pro-life for a fetus, but could careless about the infants they might expose to germs, who are too young to get vaccinations. That's perfectly ok. :devil:

Then there is the other side. The people more to the left, natural living fanatics, who think that if they just follow a paleo diet or vegetarian diet and avoid all chemicals that no germs will ever kill them. Do they not ever look back at history? Less chemicals, paleo diets and people STILL died from viruses and bacterial infections. ... 8b57b56f87

Re: People's "right" not to vaccinate?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:08 am
by AB517
I don't know how I feel. :?
On one hand "yes, It's not my right to put others in danger".
On the other hand ... evolution maybe a "fact" but it still aint pretty. :pray:

Re: People's "right" not to vaccinate?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:17 am
by Carrie
My point was it's selfish and paranoid behavior and as usual they are also making it political.
They seem more worried about their "rights" more than anybody else's. They say they are trying to protect their children, but if their children get these diseases and then die that's not really protection is it?

It's just obsessing over the small danger compared to the bigger danger that is more likely. They are afraid of adverse reactions and deaths from the shots more than the diseases, when in reality the deaths from adverse reactions happen much less frequently than deaths from the actual disease itself.

Also people being vaccinated protects others, especially babies, who can't get certain vaccinations until they are older. Then these mostly conservative groups turn around and say they care about children who have not been born. I guess unborn babies are more innocent than those evil 4 month olds :? ;)

Then we have the health fanatics that think if everything is always "natural" they won't ever get sick. Not necessarily true.

Re: People's "right" not to vaccinate?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:07 am
by Bill
People are, in the main, free to make decisions that are square with their core beliefs. But decisions have consequences.

If a parent elects not have their children vaccinated on the grounds of a belief in one of the odder urban legends, so be it.

But if their infected child infects someone else' child - one below the minimum age for getting the vaccination - then the parent's have put themselves in peril. Modern medical technology can pinpoint the spread of a disease with pinpoint precision. Here in California we have had law professors on TV to warn the parents of un-vaccinated kids that they face the possibility of very expensive lawsuits if those kids turn up in a line of the spread of a disease.

If you are so sure that vaccinations might be harmful, do understand that medicine and civil litigation are both stacked against you.

Re: People's "right" not to vaccinate?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:59 am
by Inquisitor
We have home schooled our kids since birth. Early on, during the nineties, it was the trend to blame Autism on vaccinations. Much of this was inspired by the church, but even without that, many believed it. Today this trend is less so but still present. There is no evidence to suggest the thing that is feared, yet, people still err on the side of religious/conscientious objections. As you say, focusing on their own corner of the world rather than considering the impact on the larger community at large. I suspect in the not too distant future, the "right" to object to vaccines will be done away with, at least on religious / moral grounds. To me, its not unlike objecting to an ebola vaccine for these reasons. Crazy.

Re: People's "right" not to vaccinate?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:00 pm
by Carrie
I wish that Dr.Wakefield would have never published his fabrications. In my opinion he has caused a harmful chain reaction and spread unfounded fears when it comes to Autism.
In my experience Autism seems to be inherited. I have a son who was diagnosed with PDD-NOS.
Now since they changed the DSM, it's no longer PDD-NOS, but mild Autism. Either way he does show some of the classic traits of Autism.
He has sensory issues. He flaps his arms when he gets excited. His perceptions are very literal. These are just a few things, but I don't want to bore people. (I tend to overshare. :) )
He was expressing these traits before his MMR shot.
As I have watched him over the years it has dawned on me that I share many of these traits (sensory) ,and have had them all my life, and some of his other misunderstood traits he also seems to have inherited from his father(taking things literally).
So in our case I would definitely say that Autistic traits were inherited and not caused by any shots. It's almost as if our youngest child got all our "quirks" only magnified. Incidentally because of some of his quirks, his shots were much later than his brothers, who do not have Autism.

I don't know any people who have refused the vaccinations based on religious objections, including those in my Southern Baptist family. The few people I know that object to vaccines are convinced it's a conspiracy with "big pharma" to make money, and that everything that isn't organic is a conspiracy. These people feed their children special macrobiotic diets, and stress over every fiber and chemical that they can't control. While the diets seem ok. Their stress is high. Their behavior seems very fear based to me. :?
It's their lives, but I still think they should get vaccinations.

Re: People's "right" not to vaccinate?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 2:20 pm
by Carrie
The measles just keep spreading around while people debate about it. :roll: It's like arguing over why a ship is sinking instead of doing something about it. ... 10364.html

Re: People's "right" not to vaccinate?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:00 pm
by gilnv
The government has a long history of covering bad effects of things like vaccines, so I'm not surprised that many people don't trust vaccines. I'm not saying to avoid vaccines, but I surely realize why many people don't trust them.
As someone that remembers having Agent Orange sprayed on me, and then 10 years later the government tell me directly to my face that Agent Orange wasn't used in my area and they actually pointed to maps at the time, I don't trust our government at all. And I certainly don't trust the pharmaceutical companies.
These types of feelings are common place, and even more common amongst minorities with good reason. I remember reading about autism studies that were covered up by the government. Not to mention Gulf War syndrome examples and others.

Re: People's "right" not to vaccinate?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:35 pm
by Bill
From an editorial in Neuroscience:

Autism is no more common among vaccinated than unvaccinated children, and its incidence has not covaried with the presence of thimerosal in vaccines across different times and locations.


The autism-mercury lobbyists have been successful in getting their message across to the public. In 2005, one group took out a full-page advertisement in The New York Times, thanking scientists for their "groundbreaking research on the connection between mercury and autism," with a list of publications included. Many of the studies did not address this hypothesis, and some researchers wrote to the editor clarifying that they "do not believe there is a proven connection between mercury and autism." Their letter was not published, so readers were left with the impression that peer-reviewed work supports the hypothesis and that many scientists are convinced of its validity. The effectiveness of such campaigns can be gauged by the 10% decline in children in the UK receiving the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, which has been similarly linked to autism in the public mind.

I do not know where the money lies in this issue, but note that Paul Rand has stated

I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. I'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they are a good thing, but I think the parent should have some input. The state doesn't own your children. Parents own the children. And it is an issue of freedom and public health.

As far as I can glean, there has not been a single case of a child winding up with mental disorders after being vaccinated. But it is indeed an issue of public health. Several deadly diseases have been totally eradicated by vaccination and vaccination alone. The Ebola scare was so scarifying because there is no vaccination to deal with that virus.

Vaccinations are not without risk. It is estimated that there will be 4.5 deaths per million vaccinations when the vaccine contains trace mercury. That compares with about 300,000 deaths per million people infected with Small Pox.

People do have a right to make choices over the medical treatment of their children. But most jurisdictions will now routinely step in and overrule Jehovah Witness parents who prefer to see their children die rather than receive a blood transfusion. The "You can have any belief you want provided that it does not harm another human being" is not exclusive to the agnostic way of thinking.

Re: People's "right" not to vaccinate?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:30 pm
by whateverist
Yeah, heck, I'm kind of in favor of a right to die. So I guess to be consistent I shouldn't be down on vaccine deniers. But this does impact on the general population a heck of a lot more than someone wanting out of their pain wracked body.