If you are against vaccinations, you are an immediate threat to public health

Nice title for your thread. Do you understand what the word "immediate" means?

As it's worded, your title is false and/or misleading.

I'd discuss it further, but if I were to waver from your own beliefs in the slightest, you'd dismiss offhand everything that I printed, so there's no point.

Well in his favor. If you refused to be vaccinated are in jeopardy of becoming a carrier of disease you're pretty much immediately a threat by your potential.

None?

A quick search revealed that its not quite as straightforward as you have made out.


Journal of Immunotoxicology, 2011; 8(1): 6879 (small .pdf file)

The study is not saying that "vaccines will cause autism", which is unrealistic. But it notes that there is a link, and therefore a risk.

That is a 1998 study. The link in my post above is from 2011.

Now show that the risk comes even close to the personal and public health risk of not being vaccinated. You're taking a risk every time you go to the doctor. So what? You're being irresponsible if you're suggesting we should have the right to avoid vaccination to avoid risk, as avoiding vaccination increases risk immensely. Risk to society as a whole in addition to risk to the individual.

If there is a peer reviewed rebuttal to the link I posted above, lets see it. If so, fair enough.

You made a blanket statement. I was just pointing out that the issue may not be quite as cut n' dried as those you have linked to claim. My own opinions are moot, as I am not qualified in immunology/toxicology/etc

I equate anti-vaxers and the whole natural remedy and homeopathic kooks to faith healers. It's even less intelligent than praying the gay out of someone.

Yet the one thing any of the Republican candidates ever did right gets blasted by the Kooky Conservatives...

The world has gone insane.

He mandated HPV vaccine. HPV is only spread through genital contact (including genital-oral contact). He mandated it for 12 year old girls. You're comparing this to mandating MMR vaccine or the like? Really?

You innoculate 3 month-old babies for MMR. It's not like they're going to get Rubella at 3. It's to protect them for LATER, when they are exposed.

The age of 12 is chosen so that the entire 2 or 3-shot vaccine course is completed before (hopefully) there is the possibility that the girls might become sexually active, which is far less likely before they have gone through puberty.

You didn't really think this through, did you? Typical.

There are sexually active 12 year olds.

Are you saying this doesn't happen?

The world for kids now days is far different than it was for myself and I'd be willing to bet for you also! Both my girls are pretty well grown now ( they'll be 19 and 21 this year ) and as it turns out made smart choices for themselves in this area but some of the things they saw their peers doing in school is pretty shocking. As a teacher you must know this.

As a teacher, he apparently doesn't seem to know very much that goes against his narrow world view. Call it selective ignorance or selective vision, it's dangerous.

That's nice.


That's authoritarian. Can you name any circumstance where if too many people in society make an alternative or perhaps wrong choice, that society doesn't suffer overall from it? If you can't then you've no right to demand everyone yield to your claim. The numbers of people refusing vaccines must become significant before societal risk goes up.


This is a terrifying endorsement of a complete and total police state. Given your beliefs though, I can't say they aren't surprising. What else should society do to those who raise the risk factors? Put them in camps? Gas them? You've got the break a few eggs to make your scientifically socialist omelet you know.


So I can deny you whatever I want if I can prove it will jeapardize the health of yourself and others? What do you propose to do with those who don't submit to your brown shirts? Will you jail them? Perhaps put them on a train to Siberia? Murder them to save them from getting sick?

Perhaps he should seek some help. Those who believe that their one true answer means they can remove basic and fundamental rights from their fellow humans are obviously suffering from psychosis and are sociopaths.


My body, my choice, unless it isn't BR's choice then it will be the end of a gun for you I suppose.


If by many you mean not many at all then I suppose you could be right. 4,000 women will die from cervical cancer out of 150 million plus women in the United States and that is also out of almost 2.5 million deaths per year.

That is called a radical inability to understand numbers and gain perspective from them. You advocate a police state to save 4,000 people.

68,504 will die of diabetes. I demand to control every bit of food that goes into your mouth for the good of society. You don't get to opt out or have any say in the matter.
78,889 will die of Alzheimer's disease. Perhaps we should shoot them before they take too many resources or harm someone else.
30,444 will die of liver disease almost exclusively cirrhosis relate to alcohol intake. Don't dare touch a drug or drink or you should arrested, charged with societal harm and we have to protect you from yourself.

You're not entitled to your own facts or apparently your own rights. Shut up and yield them now for the good of society. Don't demand we listen to your narrow worldview, your selective ignorance or well, even your voice because we know what is best for you and will protect you from yourself.

With some disease that can be no time at all. And also how many individuals have to get sick before it gets bad ( remember we're talking about the " individual " ).

People can have their own rights of the individual as long as they don't threaten or affect the rights and health of others. This is why vacinnations should be inforced. By making your personal choice you are affecting others and their choice to stay healthy. This a perfect example of why you can't expect people to always do the right thing.

Thank God you're not in charge.

As I noted the number related to HPV is astoundingly small.


Sorry but the rights are inalienable. The government must have a truly compelling reason.


Almost every personal choice affects others. People who do not continue their education affect their earnings and thus society. No man is an island and by your reasoning that means no man is entitled to any rights.

Yes because I'd let the 4,000 take their chances and you'd kill millions to get utopia.

WTF are you talking about? Approximately 50% of sexually active adults are infected with HPV at some point in their lives. With proper administration of the vaccine, that can become close to zero. Almost all cases of cervical cancer are caused by HPV infection, and there are a quarter of a million women who DIE from cervical cancer each year, as recently as 2008. Even if half those cases are avoided, we're saving more than a hundred thousand women each year if there is a properly administered worldwide vaccine program. The number is not "astoundingly small". That is a blatant lie.

This is a problem that can easily be solved if not for the ignorant or selfish or "individual rights are more important than the overall benefit to society" idiots.

They do. 250,000 women died in 2008 because of cervical cancer. That's probably about the same number as those killed by drunk drivers. You only had four drinks and you know you're okay to get home from the bar. My body, my choice right?

I've thought it through...and it's not appropriate to mandate this type of vaccine just because a kid MIGHT become sexually active. It's different from a potentially airborne/communicable disease.

Obviously. I'm aware of that.


No, not at all.


Of course I do. That doesn't mean I support mandatory HPV vaccine. And in the case of Perry, he did it by executive order. I'm surprised you support this.

All my numbers are from the CDC. Where are your numbers from? You should probably do be polite and ask people about their info before just calling them liars. I guess the desperate need to feel morally superior and grab rights doesn't permit such courtesy though.



Your numbers are not even close. Guessing while calling other people liars is okay when your intentions are good I suppose.

other issues

for those NOT WANTING chicken pox vaccines

chicken pox parties are irresponsible

the vaccine prevents chicken pox and the associated residual virus
for SHINGLES
if you or a family member has ever dealt with the massively painful and potentially blinding
shingles you need to look it up and realize this

Well then I guess I'm not as two dimensional as you think I am.

Nice, except the CDC source you quoted is for the US. I was talking about deaths worldwide, and why the hell shouldn't I have been? This is a worldwide problem, and we don't live in perfect isolation, though some right wingers seem to think we do.


What is the title of your article? Drunk Driving in the United States. Please read what I wrote more carefully, thank you.

Everybody becomes sexually active. Everyone. Unless they are socially inept or physically disfigured.

Clearly all the figures I was quoting were for the U.S. Where do you get off calling me a liar with regard to my figures? As for deaths worldwide, 80% of the problem is taken care of with regular pap smears. Where do you get off literally dictating to the world what they must do? The vaccine still doesn't stop the cancer, it just stops 70% of the most common strains that currently cause 90% of the cancer. Just like most things though who wants to bet that with those strains temporarily reduced, the others end up coming on even faster.

What else causes cervical cancer? Smoking. Should we completely outlaw it? Multiple sex partners? Should we ban sex outside of some sanctioned relationship? HIV should we ban any activities or lifestyles that lead to an increase in this as well? Approximately 80% of cervical cancers occur in developing countries because medical care be it for cervical cancer or even mundane things is not available and the mortality rate is much higher for everything as a result. There is no reason for women in the United States to lose their freedoms because of lack of treatment in other parts of the world.

Next time you are advocating for a one world authoritarian government that does whatever they want with women's bodies, make sure you are clear on that point. I apologize for assuming you only wanted to subjugate 300 million people instead of 6.5 billion.

I live in a global society. So do you. When the Polio vaccine was introduced, it was introduced globally, and it saved lives. Of course the HPV vaccine should be introduced globally. Americans do not live in isolation, and our solutions cannot be administered in isolation, as they would have no effect.

I do not wish to subjugate. I wish to help people. The HPV vaccine helps people.

I think if someone has a contagious disease they should be quarantined. Individual rights do not apply in that case because they are threatening other people's right to life.

But as for forcing everyone to get immunised before they have the disease, I'm not so sure about that. It would be one thing if their refusal endangered you, but it doesn't, because you yourself can just say yes to the immunisation, and then their decision either way is not a threat to you.

And even though I think this business about a link between autism and vaccines is probably just a conspiracy theory, I do acknowledge that everybody's body is different, and there might be a few % of people, negatively effected by some vaccines, so for that reason, at the end of the day, it has to be their (or their parents) choice.

My Mother almost died from a flu vaccine . The Doctor told her never to get another one. Nothing is completely safe. You should not be able to force someone else to do something that is unsafe.

How are you going to quarantine everyone with the flu, HIV, HPV, pertussis, pneumonia .... ?

Polio is airborne. HPV is not airborne. You should seriously stop attempting to conflate the two that way. You kid isn't going to walk home from school with her friends and just "catch" HPV.


You do wish to subjugate. Help that you "give" people against their will and after removing their rights is subjugating them. I've decided that there aren't enough people working the fields here. I'm going to "help" them and you by refusing to give you the right to choose another profession or go to another location. Don't worry, it is for the good of yourself and society. Don't you feel better now? You've also still not stated how you would "help" people against their will. How wonderful that you want to keep it in the intent realm. What would you do to all the bad people who don't want your help tonton?


There you go making sense again.


Mass graves of course.

So that means 12 year old girls should be required by law to get HPV vaccine?

Yes. What you don't get is that the HPV vaccine is useless once you're infected with HPV. The HPV vaccine must be administered before you are sexually active. It's better to administer it early than to say "Well MY girl is not sexually active yet, so let's wait!"

I'll tell you one thing. My daughter is 13. She's not interested in sex, and she has been taught well that she should wait, not because sex is some nasty thing, but because sexual relationships have consequences that young people have difficulty dealing with.

My 13 year-old daughter received her first Gardasil shot for Christmas. We are doing what's responsible, not running around in denial.

What a nice christmas gift