This is Zeda Pingel before and after her Gardasil vaccination. One may say that not being vaccinated puts others at risk. We will examine that in this article. Let us not forget that forcing someone to put something in their body (especially something that puts them at risk) is also wrong. This is a clear NAP violation, is it not? Read Zeda's story here.
I want to write this article not only for those familiar with libertarian philosophical terminology, but also for those concerned parents and individuals who really want the best for humanity, and maybe don't really have an interest in "libertarianism," as such.
Those parents, friends, and family members who are concerned and strongly feel that the unvaccinated individuals of the world are putting the "rest of us" at risk.
That said, I also wish to address those who think in terms of libertarian principle, and may construe non-vaccination with a potential NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) violation. The Non-Aggression Principle asserts that it is always wrong to initiate force against another individual.
LET'S DIG IN.
Do unvaccinated individuals put others at greater risk of contracting diseases?
Of course, this is an entirely valid and sensible question because, if unvaccinated individuals do indeed put other individuals at greater risk than vaccinated individuals, being "unvaxxed" could then be construed almost as an act of aggression. Of course, this already oversimplifies the ethical end of the matter by not taking into account the potential for vaccine injury (some individuals are genetically predisposed to adverse reactions and thus could not be held as culpable for not being vaccinated as others without said predispositions), but that notwithstanding, let's move on for the sake of efficiency.
A couple facts.
- Most adults walking around today, who have not had booster shots in the last ten years, likely no longer have vaccine-induced "immunity."
- The theory of vaccine-induced "herd immunity" says that most people are protected from diseases because almost all people still have vaccine-induced immunity.
Substantiation of these facts:
Here are two images taken directly from the manufacturer-issued vaccine inserts. The first is for the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine, and the second is from the Varicella (Chickenpox) vaccine.
MMR
MEASLES VACCINE DURATION: 10 to 13 years. This is the "considered to be protected for life" the CDC mentions verbatim on their website?
VARIVAX
I would like to draw your attention to something interesting noted in the Varivax vaccine package insert photo. Note where it says:
A boost in antibody levels has been observed in vaccines following exposure to wild-type varicella which could account for the apparent long-term protection after vaccination in these studies.
(emphasis mine)
What this means is that the researchers are not sure whether some of the longer protection they observed was due to the vaccine or exposure to wild-type chickenpox. The CDC says the same thing HERE:
It is not known how long a vaccinated person is protected against varicella...Several studies have shown that people vaccinated against varicella had antibodies for at least 10 to 20 years after vaccination. But, these studies were done before the vaccine was widely used and when infection with wild-type varicella was still very common.
(emphasis mine)
Did you catch that? The duration studies used to measure the effectiveness of the Varivax vaccine were done BEFORE THE VACCINE WAS WIDELY USED, and when natural immunity (due to wild-type exposure) was common.
I fail to see how this constitutes "science." Either way, it is clear that adequate testing of these vaccines regarding duration has not been done, and that the testing that has been done has revealed a maximum duration for these two vaccines of 10-13 years. This leads us directly to the next topic. That of vaccine-induced "herd immunity." Here is what current mainstream "medical opinion" (US Department of Health and Human Services) has to say about it:
For "herd immunity" to work, the majority needs to be vaccine immune. THE MAJORITY OF ADULTS (as demonstrated via the package inserts above) ARE NOT. (source.)
Herd Immunity.
Wait a second. If the government/CDC is also telling us that vaccine-induced immunity has only been shown to last around ten years, then this whole definition (see screenshot above), their definition, is untenable.
"Most members of the community" cannot be protected if the vaccines are only lasting 10 to 13 years.
What's more, the goal posts are continually moving. The percentage of the population these "medical authorities" say need to be vaccinated in order for "herd immunity" to be achieved is continually changing. You can learn more about this, as well as see data showing that most deadly diseases were in steep decline prior to the introduction of routine vaccination programs worldwide due to cleanliness, sanitation, and better nutrition, in this video. If you do not have time right now, though, I urge you to scroll on to the next section, where I will be pulling all of the previously addressed information together to help form my conclusion.
Do unvaccinated individuals pose a greater risk to their peers than "fully-vaxxed" individuals?
I would like to start by first noting a rarely mentioned fact:
RECENTLY VACCINATED INDIVIDUALS ALSO POSE A RISK.
Here is a screenshot from world-renowned Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (hopkinsmedicine.org) which has recently been scrubbed from the website:
Right, you say, but that's for immunocompromised individuals, not for healthy people like "us."
Well, that may be true, but if live virus vaccines can shed and harm immunocompromised individuals and infants, shouldn't this also be viewed as "putting others at risk" or violating the NAP, as well?
Finally, the numbers.
I'll just take the measles as an example. In the last 17 years in the USA, 11 deaths have included measles written as a cause of death on the death certificate (source). When I ran a search on the CDC's VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Report System) Database searching for reports of deaths after measles vaccination from January, 2000, to May, 2017 (the most recent date for which data exists) I yielded a result listing 81 reported deaths in association with measles vaccines.
Of course, these reports are not conclusive evidence that each adverse event reported was caused by the vaccine. That said, since the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out approximately $3.6 billion dollars in damages since it's inception in 1988, two years after the US government made it illegal to sue vaccine companies,one has to wonder which information is truly to be believed.
Why pay billions in compensation if "the science is settled," and "vaccines are safe"? It seems to me this VAERS data is all the more significant in view of this knowledge. Add to that the recent scandal/cover up at the CDC, former decades-long editors for the New England Journal of Medicine exposing high-level fraud and payoffs between researchers and drug companies, and one would be acting in foolishness to not examine the info more closely.
So yeah. 81 reported deaths, versus 11 verified ones.
Knowing the government and pharmaceutical industry as revealed by the data and their actions thus far, one must also be forced to wonder about ignored/unreported cases.
In summary, most adults are no longer vaccine-immune to the viruses and diseases they were vaccinated for, vaccine-induced "herd immunity" is a demonstrably unscientific and untenable idea/theory, and a strong argument can be made for the measles vaccine killing and harming far more than measles itself does in well-nourished, sanitary, first-world nations. None of this is to mention the systematic destruction of long-term human immunity that is happening because of all this, and the loss of placental/breastmilk transferred immunity to infants (due to vaccinated mothers never developing natural, wild-type immunity to pass on).
Talk about a NAP violation. How's wrecking the human collective immuno-defense system worldwide and denying helpless infants a chance to receive natural immunity to potentially life-threatening diseases from their mothers? (To learn more, please see this article.
As for the rest, I leave that to you, and your research, but please know that when you say "your unvaccinated kid is dangerous," I could say the very same thing about your vaccinated child, and the program you rely on, which is systematically destroying the human immune system defense worldwide. What's more, it is always a NAP violation to force someone to put something into their body, no matter which way you slice it.
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
This is very well researched and written. Thank you!
The NAP violation is by the doctor/parent that gives the shot in the first place. It is the same for circumcision. The child is not consenting to it. Most of the vaccines given today, 30+ shots last I knew here in the USA, are for things that wouldn't kill your child even if they did get it.
Our children did get polio I believe, and some got one or two of the MMR. Then we finally stopped completely.
VAERS is a joke by the way. I fought with them at Walter Reed Hospital for over two years regarding my hearing damage from the Anthrax booster shots. They were there to protect the military, not help me. The objective of the people writing up my case was to make it look like the vaccine had nothing to do with my damage. Therefore, their data should not be taken as accurate.
I would strongly suggest the data is WAY worse, but it has been skewed by the VAERS administrators.
[This post has been resteemed.]
Man, I was just thinking the same thing when I went to the "submit your report" section. It just reeks of that "We are ultimately going to fuck you over and bury you in stonewalling and paperwork" merciless machine, feel. The big disgusting machine. I really hope I can have you on the show sometime man. I'll change the time so I can get you on. I think your story is important.
Thank you for going into detail and actually digging up the info!
I think the pro-vaccination side is commiting violations of NAP left and right. And as far as putting others at risk by not being vaccinated, I still don't buy the argument, based on the circumstancial evidence I have seen so far. The same goes for herd immunity, and that was before you enlightened me with these facts and figures.
Is it a violation of NAP to be unvaccinated (in a world where facts are exactly how pro-vaccine people claim they are)? I think the argument can go either way. My question is: is the only protection from the disease for you, the vaccinated person, my vaccination?
I say no. And because of that, no one has the right to force me to inject myself with poison.
Nice observations. Right. Half of the battle is also We don't even know the facts because they are being skewed, buried, and warped by the state. It takes so much work just to find any clear information on this stuff. It really is disgusting. Thanks for your commentary, as always. It got me thinking in a new way.
Well stated; upvoted and followed.
Nobody owns me (or you) -- thus, nobody can force me to perform any specific behavior. I act at my own behest. (Similarly, http://losthorizons.com can help with tax issues.)
You forgot to mention that not all diseases vaccinated against are easily communicable. Polio for example is spread through fecal matter and contaminated water. You're not going to get it if you touch someone with polio and it isn't airborne. Hepatitis is an STD, what are we doing giving that to children that are unlikely to be exposed to it until they are older? What your toddler is going to be hanging out at the strip club or doing drugs?
Frankly I find the whole question of community welfare is utterly moot. One is not obligated to determine their health decisions based on their impact on the community. It comes down to health freedom. Whether you believe in vaccines or not one should be free to get them or not. Making any medical procedure mandatory is a gross violation of medical ethics.
Exactly.
Upvoted and followed. You're right, it's an individual's decision as to whether they want to be healthy or not (or "keep their doctor"); I like your term, "health freedom".
Force me to take action, and I might take action you'll regret...
Thanks, friend, for this well researched article. Re-Steemed, and I plan to add it to my Steemit Library at the next revision.
😄😇😄
Upvoted, followed, and resteemed -- this is important!
I know someone with polio, who came from India; one leg is shorter than the other.
Additionally I have a very good friend who has a now-teenager who is autistic, which was most likely caused by vaccines. Tragic; his child will never be autonomous, will always be a burden to his parents -- until they're gone, and hopefully have set up a caregiver beforehand.
Thank you, @libertyteeth. I'd be really interested to hear more about these stories sometime. Was your friend's polio caused by the oral vaccine, by chance?
The guy with polio I worked with years ago, we're not in touch any longer -- but I do recall him mentioning that it was due to the oral vaccine, now that you mention it.
What an excellent, logical explaination! Well done and thank you for taking the time to write this. Upvoted and resteemed :)
I believe that the benefits of (voluntary) vaccination outweigh the risks, but as to the NAP, it all comes down to property rights.
In my own home, if I want to set the condition that only vaccinated people are welcome to visit, I am and should be free to do so.
In a public space, however, there is an implied risk that I might encounter infectious diseases from vaccinated and unvaccinated people (and animals). I assume that risk by venturing out my door.
So being unvaccinated only becomes a NAP violation if an unvaccinated person enters into someone's private property, despite the owner's stated intention to decline visits from unvaccinated persons.
Awesome analysis, thank you! Upvoted and followed. :)
Well detailed research you have here. As for me, maybe unvaccinated individuals may put others in greater risk of contracting disease but forcing someone to take a shot against their will is what we called assualt in healtcare settings and punishable by law. It is inhumane to provide healthcare intervention without consent of concerned individual.
Awesome post @kafkanarchy84.
I've always been an avid skeptic. Big pharma + big gov't has made me pause to consider such questions as, do I really want to stick this needle into my kids veins.
I can be persuaded however. With facts, evidence and of course data.
I will forever be skeptical until such a day that the health services branches of gov'ts begin to publish verifiable data showing:
Instances of occurrence of:
Illness
Age
Were they previously vaccinated for the illness. If so, when?
Let the data prove or disprove vaccine effectiveness. I suspect that during so called outbreaks such as measles that there is no appreciable increase in cases on a proportionate basis in those unvaxxed vs. vaxxed for said illness.
I've never seen any data. It's not made available even though it's most certainly collected. They refuse to publish this (at least where I live) so I treat whatever authorities say about this subject with extreme skepticism.
As they say, Cui bono? Who stands to benefit. Just follow the money trail....
Enough said
Dude, great post. Very logical. We need to have this discussion, I'd really hate to see the "general public" decide I have to be forced to take something, or be jailed or fined of some sort. And they are going this direction.
Unfortunately it is full of logical holes, see:
https://steemit.com/health/@lennstar/replay-to-kafkanarchy84-article-on-unvaxxed-it-is-full-of-holes
Interesting rebuttal, but it is also full of logical holes. He is discussing weather or not the unvaccinated pose a risk to others. His point about the 10 year effectiveness is in regard to how Vaccines are administered. Most people take vaccines as children and then never again. By the time you are 20, you're immunity, if derived from the vaccine, is gone per their pamphlets. Therefore most are actually not immune. He isn't writing a scientific paper, only stating the obvious. There are problems with vaccines and we have to make it public, it needs to be common knowledge the risk associated with administering these to ourselves and children.
Vaccines are not as safe as advertised.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/323371
http://www.naturalnews.com/042046_Gardasil_vaccine_damage_HPV_vaccinations.html
https://www.vaccineinjuryhelpcenter.com/symptoms-of-vaccine-injury/
And as as argument for "no" he says that vaccinated people are not immune after 20 years (which is, depending on vaccine, wrong btw).
So yes, if you are unvaccinated you are a risk.
But whatever his statement, if your points all have holes, then your argument can be (and in several of his points is) invalid.
We are talking here about one vaccine. There are a lot that have a "guaranteed" time frame of about 10 years, but others work far longer.
And others again, like the flu one, are basically yearly, even if you have stronger resistances in the next year. The reason is that the strands are changing so fast.
For me, it's very simple. Stabbing people without their consent is a NAP violation. If my daughter wants a vaccination, she'll be perfectly free to go and get one... but she won't get assaulted on my watch.
I gotta say this was my first post I've seen that has changed my mind about vaccines, or at least having a more open mind about researching them. I may be a bit late to the game after a quick search on steemit mirrors many of your same concerns.
My question in all of this is, I'm vaxxed and if this shit is bad how do I unvax myself? Is that possible?
Thanks again for this mind expanding post! It's given me a lot to think about.
If you have troubling symptoms attributable to vaccination, you may be able to undergo detox procedures to help eliminate the vaccine toxins causing them. Check out articles by @canadian-coconut and others here on Steemit for possible references. Also, @tecnosgirl may be able to give you some possible references.
No, you can't un-vaccinate. Enjoy your immunity!
You can avoid getting further vaccines in the future; that's your prerogative. However, if you continue your research on both sides of the issue, you should come to understand that vaccines do not provably injure statistically significant numbers of people.
Came here from Anarchyball! Thanks for the write up.
I think that these conversations are important, and when my daughter was born it felt like one NAP violation after another.
We chose vaccination (wouldn't choose circumcision if we had a boy) and I think it is the best choice. If vaccines wear off after ten years that seems about the time our kids stop interacting with each other in unsanitary squadrons of toddlers and kids and are clean and less prone to sticking their fingers in each other's mouths en masse.
Anyway, as an AnCap I understand that my values and decisions are my own and belong to me and my family. I wouldn't demand another person vaccinate because I think they should. That's up to them and their own.
Followed and excited to read more of your stuff. And I'll still see you o we at Anarchyball!
It is aggravating when people try to argue that not vaxing your kids puts their kids at risk.
Agreed. If the vaccinated child is protected from disease, then that child should be safe around both children without vaccines and children with said disease.
Thanks for sharing such a valuable post... :)This article that can help many users along the way.
This comment has received a 0.15 % upvote from @booster thanks to: @hamzaoui.
God is the one who do everything. we can only think & guess.
@kafkanarchy84 - I am horrified to find out that the duration of vaccination efficacy can be variable and in some instances, even unknown. I, like many others, was deriving false comfort that vaccination of everyone was protecting us forever. Your post has posed many questions in my mind now on that hypothesis. The 'vaccination gone wrong' pictures at the beginning of your post are mind-numbing. I am really shaken. Will study more to find out, for specific cases that children are being vaccinated in my location to see the statistics of bad effects vs. protection. Doubt if any reliable data is available. Thanks for this well researched article.
I have, frankly, put in time but am nowhere near your level of research for my articles. I only continued my observations of nuggets of wisdom from wildlife and wrote a blog 'How to Chill - 🐵
Monkey Style' with my wildlife photos and musings with a twist. I request you to take a look at it when you have time. I know you are perhaps annoyed with my such requests but your comments, as always, would be an encouragement and incentive for me to make better blogs. Thanks
I don't believe in vaccinations and it makes more sense that a vaccinated person with live disease in them would harm an unvaccinated person. Look around fools and see what the vaccines are doing to these kids - its no wonder everything you see any more talks about zombies - the government is getting you ready for what is reality. Especially little boys are being affected by the vaccines today - do your research - protect your children and yourself from becoming idiots down the road.
I am sorry to say but there is not one single point on your article that is without logical and/or statistical hole.
I have written an reply/explanation here because it was too long for a comment:
https://steemit.com/health/@lennstar/replay-to-kafkanarchy84-article-on-unvaxxed-it-is-full-of-holes
You misquoted me a quarter of the way in. I'm not wasting my time with this.
"Well, that may be true, but if live virus vaccines can shed and harm immunocompromised individuals and infants, shouldn't this also be viewed as "putting others at risk" or violating the NAP, as well?"
Not at all. Immuno-compromised people sometimes need a full clean-room, as in even the air is filtered. They can't even walk outside. You can't extrapolate this level of vulnerability to the general population and call it risk if it's below our normal immunological threshold. You did not establish that these shed vaccines can harm anyone except immuno-compromised individuals, you assumed it without providing data.
"Why pay billions in compensation if "the science is settled," and "vaccines are safe"?"
Well, for the same reason we would if we swapped "cars" with "vaccines". Cars have risks that we generally agree do not exceed the rewards. Doesn't mean that shit doesn't happen. The question is not one of "how much risk" but "is this less risky than other options".
"What's more, it is always a NAP violation to force someone to put something into their body, no matter which way you slice it."
I don't agree. What about a patient with dementia, mental issues, hysteria, temporary insanity refusing to eat, drink, etc? We assign power of attorney over these individuals to next of kin and things are put into their body "against their (influenced) will". I have been in this situation. I do not see this as a violation.
Of course, who decides when someone meets that criteria is a bit stickier.
These comments should not be construed as disagreement with your overall premise.
I can certainly extrapolate it to infants (immune system not developed) and the sick elderly (immunocompromised).
Car companies do not have legal immunity. I can sue them. Vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued.
Special pleading. I do not have these issues, and if someone attempts to force something into my body against my will, I will defend myself, up to and including using lethal force, if necessary.
I appreciate that clarification. ;)
Infants and elderly definitely sound like they could fall into either the immunocompromised, or "arguably-immunocompromised" category.
I don't agree with the immunity (I mean, no reason they should have it). Good point.
As for point 3, I only want to point out one possible example since you had said all. Kind of a nitpick there.
Thanks for the reply!
Yep. That's my point.
I don't think it violates the NAP any more than not washing your hands does, or going out in public when you know you're sick. If simply existing in a natural state puts someone else at risk, I chalk that up to nature simply being nature. Perhaps more could have been done to reduce the risk to others, but an individual is under no obligation to do so in order to avoid breaching the NAP.
It worries me how supportive the public in general is of forced vaccinations. Not because I believe vaccines are dangerous, they aren't, but because of the implications it has towards bodily autonomy and the growth in power it gives to the state. The American government has in the past used forced medical procedures for truly abhorrent things such as sterilization, so I don't think its wise to give open that door.
All of that said, vaccinate your kids. Its safe, and its very beneficial not only to you and your children, but to the people around you. Friends and family benefit from it, neighbors benefit, we all benefit. If you have concerns, don't trawl for blogs from unqualified individuals warning you of autism, speak to your doctor about it. Vaccines have been one of the most significant medical advances in human history, probably second only to antibiotics. Even if there was a potential risk, that risk is far less significant than what people risked prior to the use of vaccines.
Yes, I have taken my advice/research from medical doctors and peer-reviewed studies. I agree with your first paragraphs about the NAP wholeheartedly. Excellent points.
No kidding, they sprayed all kinds of crap on people in low-income housing. http://www.alternet.org/investigations/sick-government-sprayed-radioactive-chemicals-poor-people-science-experiment-study
Nobody else benefits from sticking a needle in your arm, except potentially yourself.
On the first point - isn't that the reason for the MMR booster you have after several years, to make it last longer?
Yes. Most adults I know, however, have not had their "boosters" and once one passes the age of 23~24, even the booster shots from childhood will have likely (according to the available data) worn off, no?
Great job my friend.
Upvoted!
Interesting post but I think it should be pointed out that the excerpts you highlighted say antibodies are still detectable after 10-13 years. It doesn't say they are not detectable beyond that time frame.
Zeda was diagnosed with encephalitis and it is truly sad what happened to her. However, please keep in mind that correlation does not imply causation. Just because she received the vaccine several weeks before she was diagnosed with encephalitis doesn't mean the vaccine caused it. The exact cause of encephalitis is unknown in 50 percent of cases. The MMR vaccine has been linked to encephalitis but it is rare. 1 in every 3 million children vaccinated. Think that is too many? Before the MMR vaccine the rate of encephalitis was 1 in 1000. Far worse in my humble opinion.
Yes, it is true that correlation does not equal causation. Have you seen how many girls this Gardasil epidemic has affected? There are some right here in my small city in Japan.
As for duration of immunity, in the MMR, ELISA antibodies were detected as late as 10 - 13 years and NOT ANY LATER. They either did not test further, or found 13 years to be the max length of duration. These are the only two possible possibilities which can be rationally drawn from the language, no?
If they did not test further, the CDC should not say people are "considered protected for life."
We can see this limited duration born out in recent measles outbreaks in nearly fully vaccinated populations, with "fully vaccinated" adults getting the measles.
Correct regarding length of immunity language. I simply pointed that out because your post seemed to imply that immunity only lasted 10-13 years. Based on the insert we really don't know how long immunity lasts and yes there probably should be longer studies.
I'm on the fence regarding Gardasil. I have adolescent daughters and we chose not to vaccinate with Gardasil at this time.
Good to have this topic here on steemit. Very important. Especially for parents of recently born babies.
You know, you're missing a giant point in the 11 vs. 81 argument.
["In 1912, measles became a nationally notifiable disease in the United States, requiring U.S. healthcare providers and laboratories to report all diagnosed cases. In the first decade of reporting, an average of 6,000 measles-related deaths were reported each year.
In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 4,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles."](https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html)
The whole REASON there were only 11 measles deaths is BECAUSE of vaccines. I know there are a lot of factors going on, and I'm not addressing NAP. But to call for a return to the good ole days is pretty short-sighted.
Measles mortality rates were in steep decline far prior to the introduction of the vaccine due to improved nutrition/sanitation.
This is always the point that "the science is settled" people miss. I'm always seeing comparisons between vaccine-preventable deaths in third world countries vs. first world countries, and none of them EVER take into account the massive differences in nutrition and sanitation between the two. Even though it is well known that disease transmission rates are dramatically reduced by things like modern plumbing and air filtration, and that immune systems are highly compromised by a lack of protein and other essential nutrients, all of which these third world locations are known to lack wide access to.
I also talk about this point in my answer post:
https://steemit.com/health/@lennstar/replay-to-kafkanarchy84-article-on-unvaxxed-it-is-full-of-holes
Your answer post misrepresents the whole point of my whole article, as pointed out above by another user. It also misquotes me.
Nobody is calling for something as stupid as that.
You aren't, but I think a lot of people who are very decidedly anti-vaxx are. But do you see the point I was making? No doubt vaccines aren't perfect, and there's no good way of reconciling it to NAP, so we're stuck with a healthier population from ethically questionable methods.
Graham, I've read some of your anti-vax stuff (while skipping others), and I still remain thoroughly unconvinced.
Here's a bit of criticism that I'm sure you and others on that side of things have heard before, so I'd like to know your take on it: the goalposts for valid scientific data seem to constantly be moving depending on what the data reflects. For example, if anti-vaxxers find something on the CDC web site which can be interpreted as saying "vaccines are dangerous," then that's hard evidence. If it can be interpreted otherwise, then it's fake science because the CDC is clearly in the pocket of Big Pharma and the government wants to control our children.
As for being unvaccinated being a NAP violation, can we at least agree that vaccines are effective at least temporarily at protecting children against diseases and that the rate of occurrence of major side effects are a rounding error for most vaccines? Given that, if I do not vaccinate but then I allow my child to possibly be exposed to these diseases, I think it could be argued that not vaccinating my child would be a violation of omission against my own child, never mind others. Yes, there's a chance they would never encounter the disease in question, but who knows? It's sort of like if I put the child in the car without buckling them in to their kiddie seat. If I never get in an accident, then there won't be a problem, but there's always the risk and it costs me nothing to buckle them in, so I think it's arguably a violation against my child if I do not do so.
I don't operate that way.
As for the second point, I am not vaccinating based on scientific evidence, so no, it would not be an "act of violence" against my own child.
At worst it would be an honest mistake made from trying to wade through a clusterfucked sea of propaganda.
I just hope people do their research and go with what you know - Do you think that the government is going to tell you that the immunizations are dumming down the kids...don't think so - just look around :) Autism and ADD are a huge problem, not to mention obesity, diabetes and asthma - we did not have those issues when I was a kid. It is a combination of the food, water, air quality and vaccines. I do love though that everyone replying has an opinion, most people dont even have an opinion :) I chose not play Russian Roulett with my kids and my kids have now chosen not to play Russian Roulett with my grandbabies. I have the happiest, focused, fit, kind, healthy grandbabies!!! Have a Blessed Sunday!!! Love you my Steemit Friends!
Surely you are aware of the argument that the increasing prevalence of autism and ADD is due to the increasing awareness of the existence of them by those in the position to diagnose (and, in my opinion, over-diagnose) them. In other words, there aren't necessarily more kids with autism than there have been in any other point in history; just more kids diagnosed as such, instead of just being thought of as a bit off in the head or having a form of mental retardation. It's just like how the discovery of cancer lead to an increase in the diagnosis of cancer, but that doesn't mean people didn't have cancer before it was discovered; they just got sick and died and nobody knew why. Thus, the coincident increases in vaccination rates and autism/ADD diagnoses are a perfect example of the correlation/causation fallacy.
What would be your rebuttal to that argument?
You're right about obesity and diabetes, but the link between diet and these are far stronger than the link between vaccines and mental disorders.
Totally agree with you - as far as the ADD goes you are very correct in the fact that the doctors are too quick to diagnose - Then there is also the medications that they put them on which causes depression and squizophrenia. Its frightening!!!! Back in the day, if you had a child with a learning disability, they were quick to lable them with severe mental retardation which of course I hate that they labeled it that. I am by no means a doctor but I like to read what I can on all of this - it is affecting so many. Thanks for chatting back and forth with me - its fun and enlightening!! Have a GREAT night my Steemit Friend
Thanks for upvoting my reply - I really do appreciate that :) Have a GREAT night my Steemit Friend