OK Republican calling for forced vaccininations - as predicted

[sh00ter]

Vaccines keep very bad things from happening. Children who are not vaccinated present a higher risk to others in the public arena. Facts share that the risk of not being vaccinated is greater than the risk of some side effect to the vaccination.

So … if I have this right … what some are saying is that they do not disagree with the upside and benefits to vaccines, they object to the government telling them and mandating that they get their children vaccinated.

Again, given the benefits to vaccinations and the said benefits outweigh any potential risks, shouldn’t a responsible parent get their mouth breathing fruit of their loins vaccinated anyway and not give a flip about what the government says?

Next question. Those that are against government mandating that children be vaccinated, do you vaccinate your pets?

I'd challenge your facts on saying the risk of not being vaccinated is greater...I concede that generally speaking, the plastic immunity provided by vaccines can lower disease rates. But many children who are unvaccinated are deliberately that way by parents who also feed them better diets, and are generally just healthier...I know there are "the poor" who just don't do it and are probably more of a risk than these middle class kids whose parents see that they get better nutrition, etc. But if you look at them case-by-case like I've asked, you will see that the data is different...some diseases are worse than others...some of these vaccines are more of a luxury fix (if they work) than a true, necessary protection for the "herd". Many of the diseases with a more sinister reputation (such as measles) have not killed anyone in years and most people who've contracted it are not affected long term after they are quarantined and get well.

There I go again falling for the bait to debate the merits of vaccines which is very much gray area and not black & white but the real important point for this discussion is the freedom of choice thing...you could take ANY issue that carries risks and is a personal decision and have this same debate...is it right for a group of people who are scared of something to then get to dictate how other people will live by force???...it is morally wrong in my opinion...if you believe in an issue so much, become an activist and an advocate but don't advocate totalitarianism by fear mongering and calling for people to be forced into doing what you say...advocate and educate people on your view and hope to change hearts and minds, and you will win more friends than if you try to force them. I'd fight like an alpha male lion if someone came to physically hold my child down and inject formaldehyde into their body...so instead, these type of cowardly control freaks want to use the government bureaucracy to do it passively from afar...how messed up is that???

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/st...-children-healthier-than-vaccinated-children/

 

[sh00ter]

I'll believe a "lie" from a .gov before I believe anything on WND or infowars.

there are other sources for this...the CDC did it too on SV40...I was on their site the day they posted it and then a few hrs later some bureaucrat made them remove it LOL...it is a convenient excuse to attack the source when something can be verified in multiple ways.

 

[MadDogs]

I'd challenge your facts on saying the risk of not being vaccinated is …I concede that generally speaking, the plastic immunity provided by vaccines can lower disease rates.

First you want to “challenge” the facts and then you are saying you concede?

Assuming the former, let’s look at this a couple of ways. First by easily available research (that I am sure you have done) and then by applying a little common sense.

Plenty of studies that quantify that the risk(s) associated with a vaccine are 100x that of getting hit by lighting. Plenty of studies that say that there are higher risks than what is advertised and that the studies shared are biased due to a variety of reasons.

When we apply some basic observation and common sense and just look at the results, we don’t see a lot of casualties from vaccines. We don’t see a lot of diseases spreading where vaccines were given. There is no empirical evidence that the risks of having a vaccine outweigh the benefits.

So that leaves me to think that the issue that people have at the root is that they do want government to mandate what they need to do with their children.

That is well and fine if that is what one wishes to do. But with that said, it is easy to understand and appreciate why people do not want some mouth breathers out in public circulation that are not vaccinated. It is easy to see why they believe that those not vaccinated pose a definitive risk to others and that to rationalize not vaccinating because they feel threatened by the government’s reach is rather silly.

 

[henschman]

There is something I fear a lot more than sick people... a bunch of assholes who claim power over others to the extent of initiating force against them to make them inject things into their bodies against their will. There is no vaccine for that kind of sickness... and it will kill us just as surely as any plague.

 

[sh00ter]

First you want to “challenge” the facts and then you are saying you concede?

Assuming the former, let’s look at this a couple of ways. First by easily available research (that I am sure you have done) and then by applying a little common sense.

Plenty of studies that quantify that the risk(s) associated with a vaccine are 100x that of getting hit by lighting. Plenty of studies that say that there are higher risks than what is advertised and that the studies shared are biased due to a variety of reasons.

When we apply some basic observation and common sense and just look at the results, we don’t see a lot of casualties from vaccines. We don’t see a lot of diseases spreading where vaccines were given. There is no empirical evidence that the risks of having a vaccine outweigh the benefits.

So that leaves me to think that the issue that people have at the root is that they do want government to mandate what they need to do with their children.

That is well and fine if that is what one wishes to do. But with that said, it is easy to understand and appreciate why people do not want some mouth breathers out in public circulation that are not vaccinated. It is easy to see why they believe that those not vaccinated pose a definitive risk to others and that to rationalize not vaccinating because they feel threatened by the government’s reach is rather silly.

what I was trying to say was that I do not necessarily think that it is a fact across the board that the number of Oklahoma children who die or are injured from diseases based on non-vaccination is more than those that could face negative reactions or side effects from vaccines...BUT, I wanted to make it clear that just because I think non-vaccinated children are generally healthier, it doesn't mean I think that vaccines can't lower disease rates in a herd...I wanted to make it clear that I wasn't saying that the idea of inoculation is myth...It has been used in many forms for a long time with humans...but the current technology for it is not as safe and effective as the general public likes to think.

As for being in public with your children, you do realize that vaccines are not 100% effective right? Plenty of cases of vaccinated people catching and spreading disease; I covered this in sufficient detail in the other thread. Also, what do you do during flu season? Do you think 99% of people take the flu shot and give it to their kids? And those who feel the unvaccinated are a threat to them; the world doesn't revolve around them and their family...I have the same rights and they should not get to force me to expose my children to the risk of vaccines...this is a real easy argument for "your side" because all they have to do is marginalize anyone who has any opinion other than theirs and ignore the reasons that parents opt out...not all of them are right I'm sure, but they are trying to do what's best for their children just as you are when you vaccinate...so if you believe in them so much, then why force others to get vaccines? It would seem in Oklahoma especially, that the 99% vaccination rate in school keeps us from having mass death so why are you worried if your child is protected?

 

[sh00ter]

There is something I fear a lot more than sick people... a bunch of assholes who claim power over others to the extent of initiating force against them to make them inject things into their bodies against their will. There is no vaccine for that kind of sickness... and it will kill us just as surely as any plague.

and unfortunately, it will come at the hands of one of your 2nd amendment-loving, 0bama-hating conservatives...just like nuclear war with Putin...they want it...they crave it...do u want your kids vaporized over Ukraine? This is why I became an Independent of a more Libertarian philosophy...it would seem that encouraging (without mandating) vaccines does a good job to keep the rates up since 99% do it in Oklahoma...but apparently, even though we do not have a zombie virus outbreak in our schools, the knee-jerk reactioners are at it again.

 

[Glocktogo]

Vaccines keep very bad things from happening. Children who are not vaccinated present a higher risk to others in the public arena. Facts share that the risk of not being vaccinated is greater than the risk of some side effect to the vaccination.

So … if I have this right … what some are saying is that they do not disagree with the upside and benefits to vaccines, they object to the government telling them and mandating that they get their children vaccinated.

Again, given the benefits to vaccinations and the said benefits outweigh any potential risks, shouldn’t a responsible parent get their mouth breathing fruit of their loins vaccinated anyway and not give a flip about what the government says?

Next question. Those that are against government mandating that children be vaccinated, do you vaccinate your pets?

Absolutely and absolutely. However, when you say that the risk of not being vaccinated is greater than the risk of some side effect to the vaccination, you mean for the kids who don't suffer the effects listed in the http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensat...cinetable.html tables, correct?

Not a statist. As I said earlier, I don't support the law but I'm not wound up about it either.

My bad. After reading your take on the TPP, I thought you might be. Maybe just a little bit?

First you want to “challenge” the facts and then you are saying you concede?

Assuming the former, let’s look at this a couple of ways. First by easily available research (that I am sure you have done) and then by applying a little common sense.

Plenty of studies that quantify that the risk(s) associated with a vaccine are 100x that of getting hit by lighting. Plenty of studies that say that there are higher risks than what is advertised and that the studies shared are biased due to a variety of reasons.

When we apply some basic observation and common sense and just look at the results, we don’t see a lot of casualties from vaccines. We don’t see a lot of diseases spreading where vaccines were given. There is no empirical evidence that the risks of having a vaccine outweigh the benefits.

So that leaves me to think that the issue that people have at the root is that they do want government to mandate what they need to do with their children.

That is well and fine if that is what one wishes to do. But with that said, it is easy to understand and appreciate why people do not want some mouth breathers out in public circulation that are not vaccinated. It is easy to see why they believe that those not vaccinated pose a definitive risk to others and that to rationalize not vaccinating because they feel threatened by the government’s reach is rather silly.

Funny, last I checked, the .gov doesn't make you stand outside with a metal rod in your hand during a thunderstorm if you want to attend a public school.

 

[MadDogs]

Absolutely and absolutely. However, when you say that the risk of not being vaccinated is greater than the risk of some side effect to the vaccination, you mean for the kids who don't suffer the effects listed in the http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensat...cinetable.html tables, correct?

Link said “Page Not Found”. Regardless, out of how many vaccines are given, what is the percentage of those going tapioca? Doe that rate increase or decrease if one has a tinfoil hat on?

Funny, last I checked, the .gov doesn't make you stand outside with a metal rod in your hand during a thunderstorm if you want to attend a public school.

The only way they might stop you is if you put the rod in your butt. Even then it wouldn’t be for having a metal rod in a thunderstorm but for being south of deviant. As far as analogies go, I am going to assume you get the math.

 

[sh00ter]

Link said “Page Not Found”. Regardless, out of how many vaccines are given, what is the percentage of those going tapioca? Doe that rate increase or decrease if one has a tinfoil hat on?



The only way they might stop you is if you put the rod in your butt. Even then it wouldn’t be for having a metal rod in a thunderstorm but for being south of deviant. As far as analogies go, I am going to assume you get the math.

the real point is, do you want them forced? Mandating them is a passive way to force them and hurt a lot of people financially or even physically if they cave in and have side effects...and again, you continue to ignore the gray area...the vaccine schedule in the mid-late 70's was more reasonable than today's. They seem to approve any old shot today that gets invented and they are not all equal...you should evaluate them case-by-case at the very least...look at what other countries have done, etc. Instead, you trust the bureaucrats and elitists blindly I guess...Now I KNOW you do not do that when it comes to other topics...I bet you could school a liberal on the facts about gun crime, etc. But on this issue, the conservatives seem to have yielded out of fear like they did to islamists...they gave up their constitutional rights and cheered it on...thinking that letting their 5yo get molested by a pot-bellied TSA agent was patriotic...but in this case, they want others to let you decide what should be injected into their babies (such as aborted fetal DNA that is in some shots). I just don't know why the republicans can't see that...forcing people to take vaccines is the same as forcing them to have abortions in a way...or forcing them to pay for the abortion pill under 0bamacare...or forcing a pastor to marry a gay couple...it is an attack on religious freedom except in this case it comes at the hands of supposed liberty-loving Christians...that is about as bass-ackward as it gets...regardless if you personally think vaccines are a good idea or not. This will not stand...too many people will fight it...only LEFTIST states like California do well with this kind of totalitarian, marxist garbage...you fellas better get on the right side of history..."Grandpa...what did you do when they came for the Jews?"

Perhaps they can pass a law to grow organs of aborted babies in animals and not just use them for growing vaccine viruses...Ahhhhh Progress!!!

http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/scientists-grow-kidneys-of-aborted-babies-in-animals/

Or maybe even create babies from the DNA of 3 parents? Maybe we can have a mandatory vaccine for this?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/03/health/uk-ivf-3-person-babies/

I know I'm seeming ridiculous, but you can't make this stuff up and I am just trying to activate the "reason" gene in these Oklahoman that think a law vaccines mandatory by passive force is a good thing

 

[YukonGlocker]

no I was answering your question as to what could cause acute death...also, I was thinking. It will only be a matter of time before "undocumented children" are exempted from this law as well as the muslim kids...won't this be great!

What do undocumented and muslim children, specifically, have to do with any of this?