Mandatory Vaccines: Should They Truly Be Compulsory?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, I recognize that a vaccine is just infecting a person with a weakened form of a disease. However, the notion that "vaccines must be mandatory" does not seem to follow.

I mean, generally speaking a person with a vaccine will not get sick with that illness. You can say "everyone is vaccinated makes things better", but I am not sure that is a humongous case for mandatory vaccinations. Perhaps I am missing something, but you know that the utilitarian case for collective action is made upon models showing that devastating effects of the lack of collective action rather than the possibility of sub-optimal choices.

Additionally, there are public choice issues as zeronetgain has mentioned earlier.
1) Our government officials may not have our best interests in mind.
2) Corporate interests can influence the selection of diseases to vaccinate against.
3) If people actually are afraid of an NWO vaccinating them, then forcing them to be vaccinated will not promote a better view of the government, or increase their respect for rule of law.

Not only that, but particular environments can require that those who enter them be vaccinated. For instance an office building can require vaccinations or some other thing, a comment another poster has made. Given that these close associations will have reduced chances, must of the risk can be privately mediated.

As well, the beliefs of the people, whether wrong or right, about vaccination, or any other topic, are still important when regarding their freedom as persons. So even if we say that they are just ignorant, this does not seem to undercut the reasons to respect their freedom. It has also been pointed out that vaccination can violate certain religions, and thus protection on this ground is often desired to exist out of respect for the consciences and liberties of other human beings.

Be sure of what?

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.

Completely ineffective? The flu shots save lives. For many people a flu vaccine is unnecessary, but for people in high-risk groups (anyone working in a medical establishment, the elderly, people with compromised immune systems, etc) the flu vaccine can be the difference between life and death.


Yes, it has. Quit spreading misinformation. Bulk-packaged flu shots are the only ones which still contain thimerosal.


And of course physicians have absolutely no way of ordering medical supplies out of a catalog. The individual flu shots (which do not contain even trace amounts of thimerosal) need to be ordered individually. Not having a preservative means that they can't exactly be stored all the time in case someone decides they want it.

Well, I recognize that a vaccine is just infecting a person with a weakened form of a disease. However, the notion that "vaccines must be mandatory" does not seem to follow.

Well the CDC must be spreading misinformation as well then. Even if thimerosal has been taken out of most shots except the flu shot (which is recommended for babies and young children as they are considered a high-risk group), that still doesn't address the concerns about safety for all of the other preservatives and additives.

Even the CDC cannot guarantee 100% safety and there have been cases of adverse affects. Both of my kids have had mild adverse reactions including fevers and rashes.

It's all about weighing risk vs. benefit. The benefit of the majority of vaccines easily outweigh the risks but, perhaps, some of these newer vaccines that prevent less serious illness may not be necessary. There are other ways to prevent the spread of the flu. I'm willing to bet that if everyone who felt sick simply stayed home, the benefits would be greater than those of a vaccine that is really nothing more than an educated guess about which strain will be predominant.

Also, as you noted earlier, chickenpox is a much more serious illness for an adult than for a child. So why not put the chickenpox vaccine off until a child is older.

The concern over putting toxins into babies is completely valid.

It goes against our instincts to put aluminum and gelatin into their veins.

I see no reason why we can't even explore the possibility of making vaccines in a different way, or at least try to remove all potential toxins.

I love when anti-vax folks link me to pages that support my claims and contradict theirs.


Many of those ingredients are actually just used in the processing of the vaccine and are not actual vaccine ingredients. Some trace amounts may end up being present in the final product, but not enough to matter. I got more formaldehyde exposure during routine science classes in middle school than I did through vaccines.


Of course, that's well-acknowledged. What are you expecting? Vaccination is a medical procedure. All medical procedures carry certain risks along with their benefits. In the case of vaccines, the overwhelming majority of people have a slight temporary pain from a needle stab as the only risk. A handful of people have a greater risk, and in an extremely small minority of cases the risks of an allergic reaction outweigh the benefits.


It's more than an educated guess, you really aren't giving the researchers their due credit. But anyways, your solution would work to some extent, but it requires a massive societal shift and probably even then would not be perfect. It is debatable whether voluntary quarantine would be able to achieve the same benefits as mass vaccination.


I was under the impression that they did? They certainly did for me. Perhaps it has changed since then. In any case, if you are concerned just decline the chickenpox vaccine until later, if it's ever necessary. I doubt your physician would be too upset.


Referring to vaccine ingredients as "toxins" is disingenuous at best. The listing on the site you linked to gives all the additives put into any vaccine- not all of them are in every vaccine. Certainly not all of the substances listed are not toxins (egg protein a toxin? I had poison for breakfast today then). The ones that could be toxins are present in ridiculously low quantities such that they will not harm a human.


If you have a physician who's injecting vaccines into people's veins, report him and get his license revoked. Vaccines are injected into muscle tissue, not veins. Triggering an immune response directly in the blood could lead to dangerous clots.


Let's go down the list of substances listed on that web page and see if they're necessary or dangerous.

Aluminum: Read the PDF file the CDC has prepared on the subject. The link is on that page, and the paper gives a decent explanation. Using aluminum in certain vaccines (not all of them) reduces the exposure to other substances by allowing for smaller doses. And there is plenty of environmental exposure to aluminum which does you no harm. Hell, it's in the tap water you use to bathe your children.

Antibiotics: To prevent bacterial growth in the vaccine. Well, we all know how horribly dangerous antibiotics are. Antibiotics are unquestionably the greatest single medical advance of the twentieth century. And you certainly don't want a bacterial colony growing in the vaccine, thus giving you an instant infection when you get vaccinated. This is only mentioned on the CDC site because some people have allergic reactions to antibiotics and need to know in advance which vaccines they individually should avoid. Again, these are in some, not all, vaccines.

Egg protein: In flu and yellow fever shots, nothing else. These vaccines are produced by being grown in chicken eggs- it's damn hard to cultivate viruses in the lab, as they won't survive on a culture medium. You have to grow them in something else, in this case chicken eggs. Some trace amounts of egg protein probably come along when the virus particles are harvested. Unless you have an egg allergy, there's no concern here. But some people do, so it has to be mentioned.

Formaldehyde: Used to inactivate toxins for toxoid vaccines, which incidentally contain no bacterial or virus particles. The main ones that spring to mind are the DTP shots, which give someone immunity to the toxins produced by the bacteria. If we didn't deactivate the bacterial toxins in those vaccines, people would be getting tetanus. Again, the formaldehyde is used in the processing of the vaccine, and its presence is only the result of trace amounts of it being transferred over.

MSG: Not at all dangerous except to a few individuals with a rare allergy. Used to maintain the potency of vaccines. You don't want an expired vaccine, do you?

Thimerosal: Only in bulk-packaged flu shots. There's no pressing reason for most kids to get a flu shot (I've never had one) and if I'm not mistaken most children still don't get flu shots. Even then, it's in trace quantities.

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.

Completely ineffective? The flu shots save lives. For many people a flu vaccine is unnecessary, but for people in high-risk groups (anyone working in a medical establishment, the elderly, people with compromised immune systems, etc) the flu vaccine can be the difference between life and death.


Yes, it has. Quit spreading misinformation. Bulk-packaged flu shots are the only ones which still contain thimerosal.


And of course physicians have absolutely no way of ordering medical supplies out of a catalog. The individual flu shots (which do not contain even trace amounts of thimerosal) need to be ordered individually. Not having a preservative means that they can't exactly be stored all the time in case someone decides they want it.

They can say that they removed mercury/thimerosal from vaccines, but that doesn't mean they're telling the truth, they can lie all they want and not get into ANY trouble for it.

They are COMPLETELY immune from lawsuits of all types.

By the way, we already give children (and the general population) WAY too many vaccines. Hell, "they" are doing research on a vaccine against Cocaine addiction.

http://vactruth.com/2009/09/11/ingredients-found-in-spermicides-cleaners-and-cosmetics-along-with-thimerosal-and-squalene-present-in-experimental-h1n1-vaccine/


Here is the summary of his findings...

1. The vaccine contains squalene (MF59) which has not been tested for causing cancer.
2. The vaccine contains thimerosal, a known culprit in causing autism and neurological deficits.
3. The vaccine curiously contains nonoxynol-9 used in spermicides.
4. The vaccine will likely cause (and spread) the flu.
5. No neurological testing will be done to ensure the vaccine is safe from harmful neurological side effects.
6. Monitoring for safety will last 13 months, well beyond the flu season.

Warning: Paranoid conspiracy nut detected.


Evidence please?


Blatantly false.


And what immunological training do you have to make such a judgment? How many vaccines is the right number? What diseases are serious enough that there is benefit to vaccinating them? On what criteria do you judge that?