Thousands of UK Girls Injured by HPV Vaccine

Post Reply New Topic

I am going to come back to this because apparently this Jono guy doesn't know how to read...

Read this part again from Terence...

Now let's look at this quote once more...

...then let's look at Terence once more...

The IRONY of this Jono dude claiming to "trust science" whilst SIMULTANEOUSLY and IRONICALLY being "unscientific" in his READING skills & assessment of somehow "interpreting" Terence's lettre to be Anti-Vaccination.

The only issue is that viruses actually kill people. You can make the argument that "guns don't kill people. people kill people" but that doesn't hold true for viruses. Viruses kill people.

Only real way to be safe is celibacy. Just because you know someone, doesn't mean you know what they're doing when you're not around.

Also, you can't always prevent things from happening to you. If you're assaulted and forced into it, you could still end up getting infected, despite making a decision to remain celibate.[/quote]

If you have doubts about someone, if you don't quite trust them for whatever reason, then the sensible thing to do would be to not take their word for it when they say they have not cheated on you. If a person has a girlfriend/boyfriend, wife/husband or whatever, and they don't have sufficient grounds to trust them when it comes to such an important issue, then their relationship is almost certainly doomed anyway.

And speaking of celibacy, it's not as hard to maintain as many seem to think. Well, for me it hasn't been anyway It's underrated, more people should try it. They may even like it, who knows?

I don't understand why the topic of vaccines creates such strong emotions in people.
They do cause some serious side effects and sometimes death. Does anybody actually deny this?

There is risk involved. You might believe it's a low risk and that's your choice. Others believe the risk is higher than they are prepared to accept, to blindly take a vaccine without first testing for an adverse reaction.

I'd hate to be that one in a million, but somebody IS that person. And I bet they don't agree with you Fjord.

I believe it is because many of them enjoy controlling others' lives since they have so little control of their own lives. Free societies have always had their controlling classes, but, until recently, they haven't succeeded. The debate continues unabated along the lines of "you need to change your life choices to benefit me" without a moment's consideration of how they would feel if the tables were turned in ways that would offend them. Can you imagine the howls of resentment if the medical industry had continued to grow up within a religious context (as it had for centuries) instead of a governmental context? Suddenly, these cherished vaccinations would be offered first and foremost among religious communities. What if the entire assistance scheme (food, clothing, cash as well as medicine) was religious, too (as it had been for centuries)? Again, religious communities would get first picks; certainly not the "irreligious" whomever they might be. It would all be wrong, of course, but why? Because personal choice would be ignored. The powers that be would force their decisions on all.

Now, we have a tyranny of the governmental kind, not the religious kind. And, once again, personal choice is excluded by fiat; just "because." This exclusion isn't based on the effectiveness of personal-choice exemptions while maintaining "herd immunity." For many years, no outbreaks have reached epidemic proportions in the United States (which would provide for government authority to require vaccinations). Vaccination rates are still above "herd immunity" thresholds. In some instances, medical treatments (colonoscopy testing, for example) and certain vaccinations (measles, for example) are actually injuring or killing more citizens than the diseases they intend to combat (if not, we are so close to doing so that it is a statistical possibility). Clearly, then, preventive medicine has turned a corner and become statistical more dangerous than doing nothing.

So, I ask yet again, what is the epidemiologically identifiable problem that is causing our nation to ignore constitutionally protected personal choice and legislate forcible vaccinations?

Well, I can speak for the unvaccinated here because I know some of them and the ones I know I only know because they have suffered in life due to not being immunized and it's not because their parents are anti vaccine, it's because they simply neglected to get them. If you have the misfortune of acquiring an exceptionally high fever you could very well be in for a life altering experience that will deny you many future opportunities. This can happen to ANY of the unvaccinated. So it's a pretty major risk. I personally would not risk my child because for one thing, it would effect them more than it would me. I would still be fine, they would be permanently damaged and it's not simple to overcome.

The idea here is learning what battles to fight. This one's not worth it. Why risk all this when you can just get the shot? The odds of having a vaccine related complication are incredibly low. If there's outbreaks of illnesses and you do not have a vaccine, the odds are greater you will catch the illness than suffer from the vaccine and if happen to get very sick BAM. How much you want to bet anti vaxxers are paranoid about administering Children's Motrin, Advil or Tylenol as well? That fever is going to go higher and higher before you know it the child is in a coma! It will fry the child's brain. It's like playing with fire.

Sure, there could be certain people who should avoid getting the shots but this group has very small numbers. They do not require an anti vaccine movement that keeps attracting more and more folks. These would be individuals with very individualized rationales for not receiving whatever vaccine is in question and should be allowed to be exempt, not just a large murmur of folks chanting in unison, vaccines are evil vaccines are evil vaccines are evil.

I think a lot of the strong emotions are related to the fact that the anti-vaccine movement believes that vaccines trigger autism and they see autism as this horrible thing that's worse than the diseases that the vaccines protect us against.

Even if vaccines weren't safe (they are), the idea that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they protect us against is ridiculous. Even if the claims of the anti-vaccine movement were true (they're not), the benefits of the vaccine would outweigh the alleged negatives.

All irrelevant to the topic, Alex. The issue is personal choice versus legislatively forcible vaccinations. Vaccines might be a combination of manna and Viagra, but are you supporting the restriction of personal choice in the matter?

For example, Bill Gates is facing a major lawsuit in India where personal choice was forged (meaning that there was actually no informed consent of the individuals vaccinated, or their parents and guardians).


The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will probably lose big time on this matter. This is an egregious example of why free-choice vaccinations must be protected. Otherwise, what is next? This sets the worldwide precedent for mandatory medical (and maybe psychological) treatments and therapies (see aversive ABA) that are now purely (and ethically) choice-based.

Is this a rebuttal of the topic or stereotyping of whole groups of people?

AspieUtah,
I was mainly responding to GregCav's question about why there are so many strong emotions. I wasn't really responding to the personal choice issue and I'm not actually going to give you my own opinion on the matter of personal choice. Instead I will give you a scenario. Keep in mind that this scenario, while fictional, is entirely possible.

In response to the issue of personal choice, consider this:
How would you feel if a deadly virus were killing everyone in the United States, and there were enough people opposed to vaccines to prevent a vaccine from creating herd immunity & eliminating the virus from our population. Because of the nature of herd immunity, even if you get vaccinated, if enough people are not vaccinated, there's still a chance you could get infected with the virus, even though you're vaccinated. But let's say for argument's sake that the vaccine were 100% effective and only the people who didn't have the vaccine would die. In that case, it truly would be a personal choice issue, right?

But here's where the issue becomes less clear-cut. Your wife has recently given birth to your first child and vaccines aren't given to newborn babies so, because this virus is so contagious and because there's no herd immunity, your infant is almost certainly going to get infected with this virus and die because of other peoples' personal choice not to vaccinate. Almost everyone's newborn children will die from the virus.

In this fictional scenario, is the personal freedom to make a foolish medical decision more important than the lives of every newborn baby in the country?

All I am saying is, shouldn't someone's decision be based on science and not hysteria?

No to both options. It should be based on each individual's informed consent. After your last post about this topic, I amn't sure we should discuss hysteria.

I am talking individuals, actual persons who have caught the illnesses the vaccines protect against, not just numbers on forms. No hysteria involved. A lot of the fear concerning vaccines is based on hysteria and nothing more. Who will look out for the rights of children to not catch these illnesses? They developed the vaccines for a reason.

I would get the HVP vaccine myself except I am too old. I would have any vaccine they offered because I don't want to be ill. I had chicken pox before the vaccine and the itching was so intense it left me scarred. I couldn't stop scratching. I would have welcomed the opportunity to escape the scarring however I absolutely hated the needles needed for vaccines but not the actual vaccine itself. The vaccine is an ally here on earth. It is to help us not deal with the illnesses and to avoid all the side effects and problems. It's time to look vaccines realistically instead of believing falsehoods. It's easy to get swept up in it. Yes, you have choices but where's the science in your decisions? There is nothing I have ever experienced that has led me to conclude a vaccine has harmed me, in fact, it's to the contrary, yet I sorta got caught up in the anti vaxxer hysteria, though not completely and then I found reason and am thankful I was allowed the luxury of vaccination. My great grandmother contracted polio and it was only because of something unexplained she was able to walk again. It was a struggle. She would have chosen the vaccine over that.

Alex, I have the luxury of living in a state which protects under law its free-choice vaxxers to choose as they will while also enjoying a rate of vaccination which is well-above the herd-immunity thresholds (HITs) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Mechanism and http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... he-country ). There is NO attempt by anyone in the state to change those facts legislatively or otherwise. It works for us. So, to me, it isn't a hypothetical consideration. It is real to me and all Utahns who are free-choice vaxxers. Maybe other states should look to Utah and 13 other states in the same position (not to mention another 20 states which are at or slightly above the HITs). In other words, two-thirds of the states have no problem with their vaccination rates.

So, again, I ask where is the epidemiological evidence that suggests that the United States, at least, needs to legislate forcible vaccinations? So far, it is just California doing so (and not easily). Even there, I predict state and federal court interventions if the state does make forcible vaccinations law.

I didn't read it because I assumed that you were following suit with a number of other posters who were arguing against vaccination. I'm sorry if you actually arguing in favour of getting vaccinated but part of the reason why I didn't read that letter is because I don't believe in that paranormal stuff. I used to believe in it when I was a teenager but stopped believing in it because I came to a realisation that it has never been demonstrated that any such phenomena truly existed and as far as religion is concerned, I've never seen a convincing argument that demonstrates that any particular belief system is any truer than any other.

I am for people making decisions based on science and not get swept up in a movement that puts their kid's health at risk just because of misinformation and fear. We have data on pan epidemiology, don't we? Diseases are real and some are worse than others. If too many kids are coming down with severe illnesses, yes, I think a law would be needed, just like other laws are necessary to protect children. Children are protected because they cannot make informed decisions of their own and they should not be denied of what can save their lives just because of what their parents believe.