Mother jailed for refusing to comply with court order to vaccinate.

[Teppodama]

I don't know what Nazi style euthenics have to do with it or abortions?
Just pointing out that the state already dictates what parents can put into their children bodies.
And for a very good reason.
I mean would you defend parents right to give alcohol to their children?

Vaccinations is just one of those things were the greater good of society has to stand over your right to think what is best for your child.
The same we do with other things.
Its also that not vaccinated people are not just a dangerous to themselves but also other people.
While if we take example of giving drugs/alcohol to your child would only hurt your own child.
But no one would serious defend the right for parents to give their children alcohol or drugs.

It's about the freedom of choice Snake.

I don't believe in or trust in the inherent common sense of government. Power thrives on power and each instance where we give over our rights to choose is one more justification for them to go after more, especially if it's for the "greater good". At what point do you have the right as a citizen to simply say No, no more.

We can apparently fight for the right for anything under the sun except for the right of parents to make decisions for their children that strays from the accepted peer opinion of what is or isn't appropriate. If vac's are in the in the greater good of society then maybe donating blood once a month should be mandatory since it also benefits the greater good considering the chronic shortages. Or maybe everyone should be required to donate organs for harvesting should they perish.

Where is the limit of what you or the government can demand that I do in the name of the greater good?

 

[snakedafunky]

It's about the freedom of choice Snake.

I don't believe in or trust in the inherent common sense of government. Power thrives on power and each instance where we give over our rights to choose is one more justification for them to go after more, especially if it's for the "greater good". At what point do you have the right as a citizen to simply say No, no more.

We can apparently fight for the right for anything under the sun except for the right of parents to make decisions for their children that strays from the accepted peer opinion of what is or isn't appropriate. If vac's are in the in the greater good of society then maybe donating blood once a month should be mandatory since it also benefits the greater good considering the chronic shortages. Or maybe everyone should be required to donate organs for harvesting should they perish.

Where is the limit of what you or the government can demand that I do in the name of the greater good?

Yes I do get the point about freedom of choice. And I am not trying to be ignorant of what you mean.

The thing is that there is no freedom of choice here because the child can't choose for itself. In which case the government has to step in and make the decision for the child.
Like it does with other things.

Because the child also has the right not to be harmed. And we do know that a Polio vaccine protects against Polio. That is outside of any sort of "mainstream science" or peer opinion.
We know that because since we have the vaccine its almost eradicated. The same applies to the greater good. We know not vaccinating against Polio will bring it back.
Its vital for the government to make sure something like this doesn't come back.

By not vaccinating children against some very serious illnesses you simply deny the child the right not to be harmed.
This just seem like something everyone in a reasonable state of mind would see anyway.

 

[skold]

Good. Anti-vaxxers should be charged with criminal neglect

 

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

Having issue with the timing of the shots is not the same as being an anti vaxxer.

An anti-vaxxer would not take a single shot.

She believes in the shots and just wants them spread out over a longer period of time, to minimize chance of side effects. Her kid would still get all the shots.

Which is a perfectly normal stance to take and does not mean that she does not believe in vaccines.

 

[Teppodama]

Yes I do get the point about freedom of choice. And I am not trying to be ignorant of what you mean.

The thing is that there is no freedom of choice here because the child can't choose for itself. In which case the government has to step in and make the decision for the child.
Like it does with other things.

Because the child also has the right not to be harmed. And we do know that a Polio vaccine protects against Polio. That is outside of any sort of "mainstream science" or peer opinion.
We know that because since we have the vaccine its almost eradicated. The same applies to the greater good. We know not vaccinating against Polio will bring it back.
Its vital for the government to make sure something like this doesn't come back.

By not vaccinating children against some very serious illnesses you simply deny the child the right not to be harmed.
This just seem like something everyone in a reasonable state of mind would see anyway.

I understand your point, I just get my back up every time it seems choice is taken away from the citizenry. I see too much of a nanny state growing and it bleeds over into what should, I agree, be common sense dictates and I get my reactionary back up.

As I said earlier though, ultimately my single opinion means little as I have no real skin in that game. You can put this down to being more of a stubborn old man more than some misguided desire to harm children. I get flu shots every year and I've also had mumps, measles and chickenpox growing up. Miserable but survivable. Polio is a much different creature though I agree. I don't advocate throwing vac's to the wayside. It's more about the choice regarding the item than the item itself.

Anyway, that's it really.

 

[lilelvis]

That she signed and agreed to previously, therefore placing her in contempt of court for refusing to follow a court order she had previously agreed to.

Right

 

[lilelvis]

Interesting that you left out this important piece of information listed above the article: "This article has been corrected. See Hum Exp Toxicol. 2011 September; 30(9): 1429."

Hm.. let's see what was corrected. Apparently the authors forgot to declare their affiliations to a couple of certain organizations which would be a pretty obvious conflict of interest regarding the nature of those organizations and the topic of their article...

All I said was that it was interesting. You fucks act like I wrote it and am trying to mislead.

 

[CauseImbetta]

Could she have been ground zero for a virus?

 

[Falsedawn]

If mandating vaccination was good enough for George Washington, it's good enough for me.

 

[Stoic1]

If the government should have no say on whether you terminate a pregnancy they should have no say over whether you have to vaccinate your child or not. To be honest, if the state can mandate you have to inject a foreign substance into your body or the body of someone else, regardless of what it is, then in my opinion you are not a free citizen. You can talk about freedoms and inalienable rights all you want but the only one that should surely be preserved with the greatest vigor is the right to your own body, what is done with it or goes into it. When discussing children, that right should defer onto the parents till the child can make an informed choice of their own or reaches their majority.

Anything less and you're nothing more than incubators for the State.

quoted for excellence.

While I agree with vaccinations, I disagree with that the government can mandate injections of anything.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I'm not so confident re forced vaccines.

There was a special expose on the change of medicine from reactive to preventative and how it created a multi billion dollar industry. They showed how LIsterine was actually the first big commercial success over the counter item that convinced people that they needed to take something to prevent the chance of something (bad breath) when prior before you really only took something to combat a diagnosed problem.

They showed how that lead to things like lobbying over what constitutes High Blood pressure and how in the 70's (?) the 'acceptable' levels were higher and how big pharma built graphs that if they could convince the gov't to lower the 'acceptable' range they could sell billions more in drugs to control it, based on nothing more than new guidelines doctors would be FORCED to follow.

They went into the graphs of how Big Pharma had mapped out that for every X million more citizens who would be directed on to blood pressure medicine how many more would have side effects that would require extra medicines and they had those profits earmarked too.

And just so you know their is apparently a lobbying effort going on to again lower the acceptable levels and if it passes a whole bunch of people who are fine today will be told by their doctors tomorrow that they need to start taking this medicine.

So when it comes t vaccines which are now a multi billion dollar industry in and of themselves, I suspect, I am very suspicious of the science behind it.

I fear that too many people are so afraid of being called science deniers that they have lost their skepticism of the profit motive behind big pharma and that while the science cannot lie the people doing the science may be working to a pre determined outcome or agenda.

I personally do not know how anyone could read articles like the below and not be concerned about what we are being told to take including vaccines??

New blood-pressure guidelines pay off — for drug companies

The pressure of Big Pharma

Is Your Hypertension Real or a Money Maker for Pharma?

The blood-pressure controversy big pharma doesn’t want you to know about

 

[lilelvis]

Yes I do get the point about freedom of choice. And I am not trying to be ignorant of what you mean.

The thing is that there is no freedom of choice here because the child can't choose for itself. In which case the government has to step in and make the decision for the child.
Like it does with other things.

Because the child also has the right not to be harmed. And we do know that a Polio vaccine protects against Polio. That is outside of any sort of "mainstream science" or peer opinion.
We know that because since we have the vaccine its almost eradicated. The same applies to the greater good. We know not vaccinating against Polio will bring it back.
Its vital for the government to make sure something like this doesn't come back.

By not vaccinating children against some very serious illnesses you simply deny the child the right not to be harmed.
This just seem like something everyone in a reasonable state of mind would see anyway.

In many cases it's not about "not vaccinating". It's about spreading out the infant vaccine schedule. Which is a smart thing to do, even statistically.
Anyone who thinks the government isn't capable of nefarious and heinous activity should really dig into the FOIA documents that have been released so far..
There is such a delay they always say "well that was then, we're sorry"......
You are a number, nothing more.

 

[lilelvis]

I'm not so confident re forced vaccines.

There was a special expose on the change of medicine from reactive to preventative and how it created a multi billion dollar industry. They showed how LIsterine was actually the first big commercial success over the counter item that convinced people that they needed to take something to prevent the chance of something (bad breath) when prior before you really only took something to combat a diagnosed problem.

They showed how that lead to things like lobbying over what constitutes High Blood pressure and how in the 70's (?) the 'acceptable' levels were higher and how big pharma built graphs that if they could convince the gov't to lower the 'acceptable' range they could sell billions more in drugs to control it, based on nothing more than new guidelines doctors would be FORCED to follow.

They went into the graphs of how Big Pharma had mapped out that for every X million more citizens who would be directed on to blood pressure medicine how many more would have side effects that would require extra medicines and they had those profits earmarked too.

And just so you know their is apparently a lobbying effort going on to again lower the acceptable levels and if it passes a whole bunch of people who are fine today will be told by their doctors tomorrow that they need to start taking this medicine.

So when it comes t vaccines which are now a multi billion dollar industry in and of themselves, I suspect, I am very suspicious of the science behind it.

I fear that too many people are so afraid of being called science deniers that they have lost their skepticism of the profit motive behind big pharma and that while the science cannot lie the people doing the science may be working to a pre determined outcome or agenda.

I personally do not know how anyone could read articles like the below and not be concerned about what we are being told to take including vaccines??

New blood-pressure guidelines pay off — for drug companies

The pressure of Big Pharma

Is Your Hypertension Real or a Money Maker for Pharma?

The blood-pressure controversy big pharma doesn’t want you to know about

Not to mention the legal immunity granted vaccine producers. If vaccines are safe, why?

 

[ShadowRun]

You're giving the State an absurd amount of power with that kind of talk

Well if you don't allow your kid to be a trans if they want to, you should also lose custody !

 

[Prutfis]

If vaccines work and your children are vaccinated then you should rest assured all is fine

Once you allow the government to mandate a substance injected into an individuals body, a substance who's producers are legally immune from damages, you're not on a slippery slope, you're falling.

Spare me the hysteria surrounding unvaccinated people.

I haven't had my shots in 25 years

Amother retard who doesn't understand what herd immunity is. Herp derp you dumb fuck.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Not to mention the legal immunity granted vaccine producers. If vaccines are safe, why?

I did not know they are giving immunity to vaccine producers. That is seriously troubling.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Amother retard who doesn't understand what herd immunity is. Herp derp you dumb fuck.

Herd immunity does not require 100% of the herd to be immunized otherwise whenever an outsider entered not immunized the entire herd immunity would be subject to failure.

Instead herd immunity comes in gradients where there would be a tolerance or range where there would be no impact and with each X percentage of the population not participating it becomes Y percent less effective. Big pharm should release the data about what that tolerance is so we can see if the 'hold outs' even pose a risk. We know for sure they would have run that data as they run everything to determine profits, including as I said above how many people will get sick from forced blood pressure medicine and require other drugs meaning even more profits. But they won't release that data because the biggest profits come from 100% forced compliance and they do not want any hold outs.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

And, oh yeah, go fuck yourselves....

 

[Prutfis]

Herd immunity does not require 100% of the herd to be immunized otherwise whenever an outsider entered not immunized the entire herd immunity would be subject to failure.

Instead herd immunity comes in gradients where there would be a tolerance or range where there would be no impact and with each X percentage of the population not participating it becomes Y percent less effective. Big pharm should release the data about what that tolerance is so we can see if the 'hold outs' even pose a risk. We know for sure they would have run that data as they run everything to determine profits, including as I said above how many people will get sick from forced blood pressure medicine and require other drugs meaning even more profits. But they won't release that data because the biggest profits come from 100% forced compliance and they do not want any hold outs.

Lol. Like hahaha you idiot.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I don't think they are at risk. No one in my family is vaccinated and not only are we finee we aren't a risk to other people.

Furthermore, since our diet supports a healthy immune system we aren't mortgaging our health out to a cocktail

The usual response I get here is a disbelief in diet mattering coupled with an uneducated faith in modern medicine.

Have at it

I'm a layman in medicine so I'd honestly like to know how a healthy diet alone produces the antibodies you need to resist infectious diseases?