Mandatory Vaccines: Should They Truly Be Compulsory?

Post Reply New Topic

But if the public is vaccinated, then my non-vaccination is not a threat to their health or much of one to their safety. So, I don't really see the case being made.

Vaccines may be beneficial for some people, but not for everyone. Vaccines have also been used for eugenics purposes. In third world countries, a Tetanus vaccine was given only to women and only women within the reproductive age range, it turns out that vaccine was laced with HcG antibodies (HcG is necessary for maintaining a pregnancy), and those antibodies would cause these women to miscarry every time they became pregnant. Then, they launched a campaign to vaccinate everyone, men, women, and children against Polio, that was also a front for sterlizing the nation. Furthermore, mandatory vaccinations (regardless of cause) violate the medical ethic of informed consent, as the doctor is supposed to hand you a form stating that you acknowledge the risks, benefits, and existence of other treatments and/or preventitive tools, At the bottom of this form, they warn that it may cause brain damage, them they turn around and tell you it is safe, thereby it is not truly informed consent, as they do not tell you of all risks because they know that if you knew about what may happen, then you would refuse and Big Pharma wouldn't make any money off you

The only way to be sure is to vaccinate as many as possible and quarantine the rest. Those that develop symptoms will be isolated from others.

ruveyn

It's likely that is uranium ammunitions that are responsable for the Gulf War Syndrome. The ammunitions vaporise themselfs when they hit, uranium dust then float in air and the soldiers brath that. It's far worst that uranium in armors.


It's does rise up in the thirty degres sometimes, rarely as high as 37 though.

Be sure of what?

Someone suffering from a communicable fatal disease free in society is equivalent to a suicide bomber. Anybody who believes in the free rights of a suicide bomber is a bit nuts.

It's not hubris on the part of believing only Americans could do this. There are perhaps a thousand or two thousand people globally who would be able to work in bioweapons, and nowhere near all of them are American. The Soviets actually were the most advanced in how far they took their bioweapons program, not America. After the collapse of the USSR, we tried to buy off as many Soviet scientists as possible (just like we did with Nazi scientists after WWII) but we certainly haven't got them all. But the fact remains that doing any serious bioengineering is a very difficult undertaking that requires a lot of specialized training. Random terrorist groups certainly do not have the ability to engineer bioweapons. They could, however, steal some agents from old Soviet stockpiles (some of which are missing) and that is obviously a threat we have to consider.

A big part of the reason that parents are choosing not to get their kids vaccinated these days is that there are so many of them. It's not like it used to be when you just got a shot for polio and MMR. Now you get shots for chickenpox, rotovirus, one that's supposed to prevent ear infections, about 10 different hepatitis shots, the flu, now swine flu, etc. I've got a 1 year old who's already had about 16 shots, and I've completely lost track for my older child. When I was a kid, it was normal to get the flu and chickenpox. Where should the line be about what's really necessary? Five years from now will we be vaccinating for sore throats and head colds? The effectiveness of many of these shots are also in question. Many people who get flu shots still get the flu.

There's also a lot of junk (preservatives) that goes into these vaccines. They're considered safe, but how do we really know what amount of mercury little bodies can handle. I'm not one of these crazy McJenny moms who believe that shots cause autism, but there is a valid concern over what's being pumped into babies. The pharmacutical industry needs to do a better job of addressing concerns over the ingredients and safety of their products. If they can do that, then I think making certain vaccines (the ones that prevent very serious and infectious diseases) mandatory would be fair.

How do we define "fatal"? After all, there usually aren't diseases that *must* kill their victims. The issue is percentage. Additionally, what is the context? If 99.99% of people are vaccinated, then is essentially no need for concern.

The yearly flu is fatal for some people, but we don't mandate vaccinations for it or quarantine people who have it. The people who have it often stay in bed anyway, because it inhibits their functioning to too high of a degree to continue daily living.

The issue here is that if there is a disease that is so fatal that death is very likely if it spreads, and where vaccines are so prevalent that we could potentially mandate people have them, then why would we need to mandate them in the first place? People who want to live will get vaccinated. Anything about "suicide bombers" and so on, is just rhetoric. As we only really need a quarantine if there is no cure for a disease or good preventative measures.

No, they apply to the non-immunized as well. Sometimes a vaccine doesn't take, or someone's immune system has been compromised for some other reason, or someone can't be vaccinated because they legitimately have a condition that would make vaccinations more dangerous to them. People who choose not to get vaccinated out of paranoia about NWO sterility plots harm everyone, not just themselves. It is worth betting that 95% of other people will vaccinate if it happens to be mandatory. And it's not a sharp perfect cut-off, some vaccinations is better than none and more people vaccinated is better than fewer.


But when it's a public health issue, their foolish and self-destructive choices begin to harm others.

Well, you're obviously not talking about the average person given that you seem to admit that these situations are relatively rare given the high threshold for population effectiveness. So, for me to have to qualify a statement for a very small minority of situations when I am speaking generally seems somewhat absurd.

People who do not vaccinate hurt themselves primarily, and generally they hurt others who do not vaccinate. We can say that there is some non-zero chance of a vaccination failing, but when calling something an externality, I think we need to go with the norm.


If the majority of the public are vaccinated, then they are likely safe and not harmed. I mean, public health starts off to a significant extent with private health because our bodies are our bodies.

there was a jab at the duality of an argument where I think that public safety and health is a valid concern in the marijuana argument and the proponents think that what they want is more important. But in this case, you think public health and safety trump personal preference (as long as the personal preference is not yours). It is slightly ironic, but most just amusing.

It still is. I have been vaccinated for chickenpox, but *only* because I never caught it on my own and contracting chickenpox in adulthood is a much more unpleasant experience, as my father can attest. (He caught it at the age of 30) Most people still do not vaccinate for flu unless they are in certain high-risk populations.


Sore throats and head colds? You're just being ridiculous. Yes, many people who get flu shots still get the flu. Wanna know why? There are two new strains of flu each year (one in the Northern Hemisphere, and a different one in the Southern Hemisphere). Until flu season hits, no one is entirely certain what that year's flu strain will look at. But, we need a vaccine before the flu hits, otherwise it's pointless. The researchers do a relatively good job of predicting what is needed, but they can never quite get a perfect hit. On top of that, no vaccine is ever going to be fool-proof. Vaccines rely on the patient's immune system to work. If someone's immune system isn't functioning properly, they might not benefit from a vaccine.


*sighs*

Mercury was removed from all childhood vaccinations years ago. Like a decade or so. And even when they had mercury, it was only in trace amounts. Currently, the only vaccines that contain mercury as a preservative are certain bulk-packaged flu vaccines, all of which are well under the level at which they could be harmful. If you are concerned, you may of course request a mercury-free flu shot from your physician, but this really is not necessary.

No, people who do not vaccinate also harm those who vaccinate. When fewer people are vaccinated, there is a greater chance of an epidemic occurring, and epidemics are harmful to everyone, and even potentially dangerous to people who have been vaccinated. If everyone or close to everyone is vaccinated, it becomes virtually impossible for the disease to spread to any significant extent, and the weaknesses of vaccine-induced immunity grow less and less relevant.*

*Brief aside on how vaccines work: To oversimplify it, most vaccines expose the body to a virus in a context where infection can not occur, allowing the immune system to learn to recognize the virus for future reference without the risks and unpleasantness of actual disease. On exposure to the infectious agent in the wild, the immune system *should* react relatively quickly and effectively against it. However, this is not always the case, just as it is not always the case that exposure to a disease once precludes ever contracting it again. Sometimes the immune system does not appropriately recognize the antigens it should be targeting, or sometimes the virus mutates slightly in the course of an epidemic and the previous immunization is now only partially effective, if at all. Vaccine-induced immunity is probably less effective at producing full resistance than surviving the disease because vaccines typically contain killed viruses or parts of viruses, and do not elicit so violent an immune response as an actual infection would. Vaccines are still very effective, and certainly safer than contracting any number of illnesses, but they are not a magic bullet. They work best if everyone is vaccinated.

Please don't patronize me. I am fully aware of why the flu shot is often completely inneffective, which is all the more reason to question its necessity. I am also aware that mercury, by name, has been removed, but thimerosal (a mercury-containing preservative) has not. You cannot simply ask for a thimerosal-free shot because many physicians simply don't carry them. And what about aluminum, formaldehyde, bovine serum, glutaraldehyde, ammonium sulfate, chlortetracycline, streptomycin, tocopheryl hydrogen succinate, urea, dye, and about 30 or so other ingredients. Can you really claim, without an ounce of doubt, that it is completely safe to pump this crap over and over again into a 12 pound body. Even trace amounts can add up pretty fast and reality is that we don't know what long term effects, if any, may become present.

I do believe that it is safer to be vaccinated, but we cannot dismiss valid concerns over what we should and should not be putting into our childrens bodies.

the only time my husband gets the flu is after he takes the mandatory Air Force flu vaccine.