Anti vaxxers a simple question.

I still don't get it, as I said before let the morons stop vaccinating and impose a prison sentence if they or a child they are responsible for is found to be the vector for a virus that infects a vulnerable person who cannot be vaccinated on medical grounds, who then goes on to either die or suffer from irreversible damage.
They should also have to pay damages to the victim or their family from their estate.

They will be guilty of manslaughter/negligent homicide or bodily harm so I don't see any legal issues. Of course they are free to exercise their right to choice without any risk of direct penalty. But if their negligence causes another to suffer then they will rightfully have to face the consequences.

And to top it off, stick all of the offenders in one special prison together. If luck has it then the taxpayer won't have to pay for their full term and there can be Darwin awards all round.

Simples..

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: boymonkey74

You want Autism in your Kids ? Drink the KoolAid Now you Freakin More Uns...............




healthimpactnews.com... t-italian-courts-rule-vaccines-cause-autism/

Well a court ruled that vaccines cause autism. Guess that trumps scientific data and research huh? You do know that a judge isn't a scientist correct?

a reply to: ZeussusZ

At what dosage?

a reply to: Involutionist

If I want an informed information about pig husbandry, I'll consult whale.to's owner. Until then...

originally posted by: Involutionist

Not all vaccines are bad. Just the ones containing mercury. If you can explain to me the logical reason WHY mercury is even in some of these vaccines I would be immensely impressed.

Okay. Thiomersal is an antiseptic and antifungal agent. It is used in very few vaccines to keep them safe, so the recipients aren't exposed to bacteria or fungi. Big Pharma wants you to panic about thiomersal, so they can sell you the more expensive single-dose vaccines and make more profit. I think some antivaxers know this, and bought stock in Merck, et al., before starting the thiomersal panic. (How's that for a conspiracy theory?)

Where's the cancer vaccine?

Here are three for you.

Those royals, Bushes, Kissengers and the like sure do live long lives....

Some do. Some don't.

Just thought I would share a personal family story with you all.
I'm not against nor un-against vaccines however I believe some of us humans either survive the shot or we don't, meaning some people get reactions & some don't, none, mild or severe.
As I mentioned to do with a family member, my cousin was a bright and happy little 7 year old who had no health issues or complications, that is until he was given a vaccine and over a period of several weeks developed severe medical and mental complications until where he became mentally challenged or should I say almost brain dead to where he now lives in a wheel chair and being taken care of by professional nurses. This was all proven that he had a bad reaction to a vaccine which is unfortunate.
What I'm getting at really, is in the end it's a 50/50 decision because it could happen to you as in severe complication or it might not. Unfortunately it's a gamble, it shouldn't have to be but realistically it is.

a reply to: AUSTEOReClassified

What I'm getting at really, is in the end it's a 50/50 decision because it could happen to you as in severe complication or it might not.

50/50 would mean that half of the people who receive the vaccination suffer severe reactions. This is far from the case. Very far.

a reply to: Phage

I don't technically mean 50/50, what I mean is some people have horrible side effects and others don't.
I have always used the term 50/50 with everything as in it mifht happen it might not because I or you could be the unfortunate ones weather it be a vaccine or a plane crash or a car crash, yes the chances are slim but overtime everyone's % probability runs lower.
So as I say it's just a gamble in the end, would I get a vaccination, sure I would if I needed it but am I of the % that will get side effects or not, I don't know so I say 50/50.

a reply to: AUSTEOReClassified

MMR:

Serious allergic reaction (very rare - less than once in 100,000 doses).

www.cdc.gov...

No where near 50/50.

a reply to: GetHyped

Sorry I don't mean to come across like the actual figures are actually 50/50, I do understand that the survival rate of non allergic reactions are very promising but just as it has hit close to home for me with my cousin it does unfortunately happen to some. What I meant by the whole 50/50 thing was not that the rates are 50/50, it's just yes the cdc reports state it's a less then 1 in 100,000 but tomorrow I could go in get a vaccination and while I'm sitting there I'd be thinking we'll I'm getting the shot now, it's probably going to do its job but gee what if something goes wrong. It wouldn't be till afterwards I say to myself wow I'm one of the lucky ones who didn't get the severe reaction.

Sorry if my first post seemed abit crazy just was trying to say that yes unfortunately some people do get the bad reactions to vaccines, hope that kinda helped explain what I meant.

Freedom of choice. Bunch of fascists here trying to force everyone to do what they want. I love how people don't trust the government, they ignore the official statistics, they think they're all corrupt liars.....except when it's something that fits their agenda. One step away from tying people up and jabbing them against their will. There's a fine line between freedom and blatant fascism.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

So you think that the government making sure deadly diseases are under control and cannot become pandemics is fascist behavior?

You do know that in order for vaccinations to work the most effectively, near everyone has to be vaccinated so that the virus can't mutate further right?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Freedom of choice. Done with you fascists.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Antivaxxers aren't real. At least not as described by the media. They aren't a growing agitated movement.
That is just a media perpetuated creation to be used as a political tool against libertarian candidates this election cycle.

No one argues that vaccines have saved countless lives. However no one has proven that these new vaccines are completely harmless (the kitchen sink vaccines that are much more complicated than the early vaccines), and they definitely in some cases have complications.

As I have said before, I had the mmr, if I have kids one day they will have it, but no one should take away someone elses right to choose. If someone is concerned about a possible danger, even if it's less than one percent chance, they shouldn't be forced to have a vaccine.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Freedom of choice. Done with you fascists.

So that would be a yes then? Nice to see that you don't think public safety is under the purview of the government, though the Constitution disagrees with you.

originally posted by: smkymcnugget420
YOU SIR ARE AN IDIOT. ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE SMALLPOX VACCINE IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC... they stopped giving it to people...

That's because it was eradicated through a world wide vaccination campaign. Palm, meet face.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What's constitutional about making everyone take vaccines and shaming those who don't want them? It's absolutely fascist and the excuses are pathetic. You have no problem with people's rights being violated. You're a hypocrite. Keep waving your flag.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

History of Anti-vaccination Movements

Some of the first anti vaccers go back pretty far.

Such as Anti-Vaccination League and the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League or The Anti Vaccination Society of America some skeptics alleged that smallpox resulted from decaying matter in the atmosphere.

In 1902, following a smallpox outbreak, the board of health of the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, mandated all city residents to be vaccinated against smallpox. City resident Henning Jacobson refused vaccination on the grounds that the law violated his right to care for his own body how he knew best. In turn, the city filed criminal charges against him. After losing his court battle locally, Jacobson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1905 the Court found in the state’s favor, ruling that the state could enact compulsory laws to protect the public in the event of a communicable disease. This was the first U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the power of states in public health law

originally posted by: Grimpachisome skeptics alleged that smallpox resulted from decaying matter in the atmosphere.

Lol! So the scientific illiteracy of anti-vaxxers isn't a new thing then.