Why Vaccinations Shouldn't be Optional

[DogmaHunter]

If someone is not vaccinated, and you believe they have affected your health, then take the case to a court of law and prove it.

IMO this is the only way to preserve both individual freedom & choice, and also simultaneously provide for the ability for recompense for proven harms.

Otherwise, we descend into the madness of faith-based compulsion, e.g. forcing people to attend & pay for Catholic masses because "it keeps them from eternal hell-fire".

The difference is that vaccination demonstrably works, while catholic's version of hell-fire.... not so much.

 

[DogmaHunter]

One always bumps up against opposition when one attempts to remove 'optional' from any public policy.

In America, we have entire populations (ie homeless and poor) who simply can not afford the vaccines. What does one do with those people when 'optional' is taken away?

I don't remember ever having to pay for any vaccinations.
Then again, we have proper and rational health care services in Belgium.

There will always be some people who are simply contrary because that is their nature. How do we monitor them to ensure they have their vaccines current?

Registration.

How would we even find out who has been vaccinated or not?

A doctor carries out the vaccination. This doctor then registers it in a central system that it has been done.

The amount of bureaucracy needed to ensure that 'optional' really goes away is mind boggling.

Not really. At least, not if you have a proper and rational health care system in place.
I agree that in the US, it would be harder then in the rest of the civilised world...

 

[DogmaHunter]

And yet you're using this argument to justify why you want to force your medical preference for vaccination onto everyone. Perhaps it was a vaccinated person who got your grandmother sick? Perhaps your grandmother was the source and infected unvaccinated people, and perhaps they will sue you for having her vaccinated and making her more contagious for the incubation period?

If vaccination, why not make other medical procedures mandatory, like circumcision, appendectomy or tonsillectomy? These could surely be demonstrated to improve the overall health of the population, allowing for hospitals to concentrate on less preventable diseases?

If circumcision, appendectomy and tonsillectomy, why not forced sterilization for those with unwanted traits who may introduce a burden to society by having children?

If forced sterilization, why not forced euthanasia for those deemed beyond help, or where the insurance cost outweighs the benefit, or even where it becomes inconvenient to help?

I fear an unconstitutional medical requirement for vaccination would finalize paving the pathway to a totalitarian dystopia.

This is a really bad argument.

None of the stuff you mentioned is comparable to vaccination.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's for you to prove, if you believe you were harmed by another. Why should I be forced to accept something that I believe will harm me, just to assuage your belief that my non-acceptance might harm someone else?

You might have that belief. That vaccination works, however, is not a belief. It is demonstrable.

You might also believe that driving drunk actually improves your driving, or that not wearing a seatbelt improves safety. Your belief doesn't matter in that case, why should it be any different in terms of vaccination?

From a Buddhist perspective, non-Buddhists harm others by not being a follower. Shall we force everyone to become Buddhists then?

This is again just a belief.

Nobody is suggesting to "force beliefs" on anyone.
You are entitled to your own beliefs. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

When your beliefs and the actual facts are in contradiction, then the facts win. Every time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's nice. I don't have that same direct experience.

But you do have easy access to that information, since you can connect to the internet.

You have, in other words, no excuse for your ignorance.

 

[ananda]

You might have that belief. That vaccination works, however, is not a belief. It is demonstrable.

I haven't seen it for myself, therefore it remains a belief. How have you seen it "work" for yourself?

 

[ananda]

But you do have easy access to that information, since you can connect to the internet.

You have, in other words, no excuse for your ignorance.

"Information" does not equal knowledge.

E.g. I can open a Bible and gain information about Jesus, but that is not direct knowledge about Jesus. That information still remains a (blind) belief.

In the exact same way, I can browse the internet and read articles and reports about vaccines, but that is not direct knowledge about vaccines either. That information still remains a (blind) belief.

 

[Skreeper]

"Information" does not equal knowledge.

E.g. I can open a Bible and gain information about Jesus, but that is not direct knowledge about Jesus. That information still remains a (blind) belief.

In the exact same way, I can browse the internet and read articles and reports about vaccines, but that is not direct knowledge about vaccines either. That information still remains a (blind) belief.

It's not a blind belief when the source is reliable. But since you are one of those extreme skeptics why don't you get yourself a nice science degree and do the testing yourself?

 

[Jjmcubbin]

I haven't seen it for myself, therefore it remains a belief. How have you seen it "work" for yourself?

Have you seen an atom?
The top of mount everest?
The Earth's core?
My house?

No. But you know they exist. Call it a belief or whatever, the source of this is trustworthy.
Belief is not blind belief.

 

[Saricharity]

I regret to say that I just don't have the time to devote to this thread. I am passionate about the topic and have learned so much through the years. Someone asked if my university has a vaccine policy...yes, it does. Most do, depending on your program. Vaccines are not mandatory in my province so I just declined them. Believe it or not, more and more students are declining them. It's refreshing to see how many students are doing their own research and not blindly accepting what the mainstream says is the right thing.
Anyway, I do understand that internet forums are not a place to change minds. Most posters are just concerned with proving themselves correct.

Anyone interested in doing some genuine research for themselves, a good website to spend some time reading is: VaccinePapers.org - An objective look at vaccine dangers.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Believe it or not, more and more students are declining them. It's refreshing to see how many students are doing their own research and not blindly accepting what the mainstream says is the right thing.
Anyway, I do understand that internet forums are not a place to change minds.

Yes, let people learn what they can, let them research and find out for themselves what is helpful , what works, what is truth. Some might even be surprised.

Not only students did research - the top corporations in the fortune 500 bunch, and the AMA, and the FDA, published that none (or few if any) of them recommend mandatory flu shots for their employees - for many good reasons they found out BY RESEARCH.

Mainly money - making anything like that mandatory ended up in the past costing more mony, and often a lot more money - the leading motive of corporations, and of the AMA and the FDA.

Anyway, look online on the fda and ama sites that make this clear.

Keep looking, as God says - keep looking, even after you find or think you found the 'answer'. Keep looking because even if and when you think you "know",

remember it is written in GOD'S WORD "If anyone thinks they know anything, they don't know anything yet" ......

remember it is written in God's Word: do not trust men/ the flesh / mankind nor have any confidence in them. (i.e. the truth might ONLY come from God if HE pleases to reveal it. And what men lift up and exalt, He calls dung, so none of what mankind calls "good", is good. (remember mankind is opposed to God, Jesus, Truth and Jesus' followers).... awkward , yes, many times, but always true as HiS WoRD SaYS ...

 

[Skreeper]

Believe it or not, more and more students are declining them.

Should that be true then that's just sad. I was hoping Anti-Vaxxers don't have that much influence and would just die out eventually.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I haven't seen it for myself

The data isn't exactly a secret. All you need to do is look it up. You have no excuse for your ignorance.

How have you seen it "work" for yourself?

Well, I sure never suffered from certain nasty deseases for which I was vaccinated.
And I am actually aware of the data that shows how the frequency of infection of those deseases dropped to all time lows after vaccination for them became mainstream and common.

So, essentially: yes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"Information" does not equal knowledge.

E.g. I can open a Bible and gain information about Jesus, but that is not direct knowledge about Jesus. That information still remains a (blind) belief.

The difference, off course, is that the data concerning vaccination is properly documented and scientific. And if for some reason you assume a world-wide conspiracy, there really isn't anything really stopping you from setting up experiments yourself. It might be dificult to do in terms of logistics and budget - sure. But, given you have a solution for those two obstacles, you could easily check it out for yourself.

As for the bible... very different story. That's anecdotal hearsay. And not even all the money and resources in the world, would be enough to verify any of it. Because it can't be done.

This is the difference between science / evidence and religion.

In the exact same way, I can browse the internet and read articles and reports about vaccines, but that is not direct knowledge about vaccines either. That information still remains a (blind) belief.

I just explained how that isn't correct.

 

[Zoii]

I do have my history right.
I also don't tend to trust any online source, but thanks for the link.
I have done my research using actual history books and not trusting online sources unless they are actual medical studies that I admit make my brain hurt. My university has an incredible library with a plethora of real periodicals, journals and books.
The history of smallpox is none too pretty. The history of Edward Jenner and vaccination is none too pretty either. Heck, the history of disease isn't pretty at all. But history itself is so important to study. Those who don't know their own history are doomed to repeat it.
It's always interesting to me how people speak about smallpox as such simple proof of the value of vaccination, spouting such erroneous conjecture. The truth is, it's just not that simple. It is much more complex than that. Correlation does not imply causation. If anything, if you dig deeper into the history and take time to really study it, smallpox (and polio for that matter) is a disease that proves that vaccination needs a great deal more study. While good in principle at best, it doesn't even come close to doing what it portrays itself to do, and may very well be more dangerous for the human race than we even understand or ever will.

What others with greater strengths in research and science are highlighting, is that knowing history isn’t a requisite for this topic. That you look in history books, and you don’t use online resources is failure in your research capacities – particularly when it comes to statistical combinations of research which can only be done online. If you like I can explain in better detail how that works in another post.

Lacking this information is possibly why you are drawn to areas that have no evidence base. That you are citing a historical period and not the seminal research done in that period is where your arguments are well below credible standards and are flawed. You could have at least referred to seminal research done in that period in Europe and Africa. I can provide those for you if you like. Those original articles describe well the control versus vaccine methodology.

Its all very well for you to offer opinions, but in a topic as serious as this you should be presenting evidence based literature which to date you haven’t done. Several here have attempted to point that out to you.

While you write well about your view of yourself and how well researched you are, its not followed up with anything concrete that is of a scientific base and acceptable research methodology, and that’s very telling when it comes to credibility.

 

[Zoii]

To people listening in on this topic. This is an important issue. Whether you choose to vaccinate should be based on evidence and only that.

When it comes to communicable diseases the only evidence to take with credibility are pieces of research that have the following qualities:

1. It has a large population sample

2. It has a control and is double blinded. This means you apply a treatment and look for a specific outcome in one group. And you don’t apply the treatment to another group and again still look for the outcome. Neither the person administering treatments or the subjects know if they are getting a treatment or a placebo. You can then make outcome comparisons between a treated group and a non-treated group.

Now while this is a good standard a better one still is to look at systematic reviews. This is a highly stringent process that is zealous at removing bias, and brings multiple studies together and combines to a single study. So imagine of you had a study on Vaccine outcomes in Measles, and one study looked at a million people. That would certainly be a powerful study. But imagine if you could combine 100 of those types of studies and see the results collectively – now you have a very massive study and so the conclusions are extremely powerful.

This is the only form of credible evidence. Single case examples, non-peer reviewed and non-researched articles are worthless and lack credibility in a topic such as this. Links to resources that are simply opinion pieces are worthless.

In the next post I shall attach links of Systematic Reviews addressing this thread

 

[ananda]

It's not a blind belief when the source is reliable. But since you are one of those extreme skeptics why don't you get yourself a nice science degree and do the testing yourself?

Who gets to decide when a "source is reliable"? Christians would claim that their source (Bible) is reliable.

Do we not each individually decide such things for ourselves?

 

[ananda]

Have you seen an atom?
The top of mount everest?
The Earth's core?
My house?

No. But you know they exist. Call it a belief or whatever, the source of this is trustworthy.
Belief is not blind belief.

"No" is my answer to all four questions, for I have no direct knowledge that they exist. I may believe that they likely exist, but I do not possess direct knowledge of any of those things.

 

[ananda]

The data isn't exactly a secret. All you need to do is look it up. You have no excuse for your ignorance.

I never said that it was a secret. The Bible's claims aren't secret, and can be "looked up" by anyone, but reading it doesn't turn any of its claims into direct personal knowledge.

Well, I sure never suffered from certain nasty deseases for which I was vaccinated.
And I am actually aware of the data that shows how the frequency of infection of those deseases dropped to all time lows after vaccination for them became mainstream and common.

So, essentially: yes.

OK, I accept that you have your direct experiences which gave you your knowledge and understanding. I do not share those same experiences, so I do not share that same knowledge, but instead possess a different knowledge which stems from a base consisting of different experiences.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

"No" is my answer to all four questions, for I have no direct knowledge that they exist. I may believe that they likely exist, but I do not possess direct knowledge of any of those things.

Good, so that scepticism is not restricted to vaccines. You have sufficient reason for them to exist, you use things that make use of these. Have you not seen the decline of polio, and eradication of smallpox in India?
Also, do you "believe" that I do not exist, do you "believe" that the internet and all abstract nouns like friendship, love, etc exist?