Outlawing ALL unproven medical practices,

[Eilonnwy]

"Do you not use a car?"
No. I walk.

So you never get a ride from someone, never take a train or public transit, never flown in a plane? All of which are substantially more dangerous than vaccines. Don't be a smart ass and pretend you've lived an entire life not using any of these means of travel. We all know you're lying.

Vaccines aren't dangerous because they might give us allergic reactions. Vaccines are dangerous because we have outsourced the debate of whether or not they are necessary, whether the good outweighs the bad to the people making and selling them. A great example was this so called Swine-Flu. It seems more likely not that it's almost over that the drug companies have some kind of control over the WHO. So when the WHO and you local government tell you it is necessary, that may be untrue. Taking vaccines that are almost pointless, untested and unchecked because of fear mongering is what makes vaccine medicine dangerous.

This amounts to "vaccines are dangerous because I don't know anything about them."

The h1n1 vaccine is a perfect example of anti-vac fear mongering. They claim that the h1n1 vaccine came out too fast and was untested and yet ignored the fact that it was made the same exact way that the seasonal flu vaccine is made. The seasonal flu vaccine is untested every single year it's given out and it's perfectly safe. Plus that vaccine is based on a guess of what the flu strand will be like. The h1n1 vaccine was far better in that it was targeted specifically to h1n1. The seasonal flu is never so well targeted. The problem was that our methods of producing a vaccine relies on chicken eggs, which makes it hard to produce the right quantities. The only thing the h1n1 vaccines proved is vaccine fear mongering is alive and well and we need to find a better way to produce vaccines that makes it readily available to public in the right quantities. Because of the shortage the government had to put restrictions on who got the vaccine so it would get to the people who would most likely die from the flu, which were children and people with chronic diseases.

Just because you have problems with the way the vaccine was distributed does not make it unsafe.

Any parent that does vaccinate based on false claims deserves to have a down syndrome child...

Nice to know you'd prefer to have a child develop a terrible disease just to prove a point. Regardless, vaccines don't cause down syndrome. Down syndrome is a chromosomal disorder caused by an error in cell division that happens during pregnancy. So Down Syndrome is diagnosed during pregnancy or after, depending on whether the mother decided to test for it or not. No child is vaccinated while a fetus, and in order for your claim to have any merit than that's what would need to happen for vaccines to cause down syndrome. So the fact that you claim as much simply proves you do not know what you're talking about.

I would say that vaccines in general are causing more of the auto-immune disorder and autism spectrum diosrder endemics than they are protecting us from anything real or imagined.

Large epidemiological studies have been done that do not support the hypothesis that vaccines cause auto-immune diseases, asthma, diabetes, MS, or autism. This is a fact, plain and simple. In fact, as a response to the public misconception that autism is caused by the thimerosal in vaccines, it was removed and studies show that there is absolutely no change in incidents of autism.

And casting an evil eye to others for not vaccinating their own children, because it poses some risk to all you smart people who don't question anything or think for youselves... That is a dangerous line to walk.

Or maybe the smart people understand the benefits of herd immunity, you know given that we're smart and all.

For the past two centuries, vaccines have triumphed over communicable diseases with remarkable efficacy. Yet numerous obstacles have stalled us in our march to eradicate major infections. Objections against vaccination in affluent societies are starting to threaten ‘herd immunity’, which is essential for protection from preventable diseases such as whooping cough and measles.

Vaccination is a unique medical intervention, calling for healthy members of the society to understand the idea of a ‘greater good’ served by putting individuals at a minimal ‘acceptable’ risk. Most people agree that the benefits far outweigh the risks, whereas the consequences of not vaccinating are intolerably severe.

Source: http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v5/n5/p...04-453.pdf

Let's be clear, I do not think vaccines are 100% safe, but the risks versus benefits overwhelmingly show that vaccines have save more lives. And for the people that cannot get vaccinated for other health reasons, they benefit from herd immunity. The best way to ensure someone doesn't die from a disease is to make sure they never get it, and furthermore to kill the disease altogether with comprehensive vaccinations, as was done with polio and as we almost did with measles until scare mongering brought it back. Outbreaks are consistently happening as a direct result of parents refusing to get the MMR vaccine. Children are dying because of misinformation. The science is overwhelmingly clear on this, and anyone who refuses to see it is clearly not a a 'smart' person.

So yes, I will put a critical eye on someone who does not vaccinate base on misinformation. If I had a child who is too young to get the MMR and a child whose parents refused to get the MMR comes down with measles and gives it to my infant and that infant dies? You bet your ass I blame the parent.

There is a body count associated with this. People imagine measles as no worse than the chicken pox because the vaccines own success means they don't remember how horrible and how deadly measles is.

Start taking peoples children away and forcing them to get medicine with no proven positive and many possible negative effects (in specific of the swine flu shot, I suppose the Mumps one may work)

No one is taking children away so once again you're showing your complete ignorance on the subject.

Or Baxters Gardasil. Little girls and young women are getting a phenomenal amount of STDs, and those may lead to Cervical Cancer. Do we teach the young women not to be so promiscuous as to threaten you own reproductive health? No we give them a vaccine. Problem solved.

Gardasil is specifically targeted to prevent females from getting certain types of HPV virus, which, yes is a highly contracted sexually, but not always. HPV causes many types of cancer, including cervical cancer. It is most effective if given before a female becomes sexually active. Many woman become sexually active at a young age, and every woman becomes sexually active at some point. (unless they're a nun. BTW that's a joke) This is a plain fact. The idea that getting a vaccine at a young age promotes promiscuity is a political debate and has nothing to do with the safety and efficacy of the vaccine itself.

In fact the debate speaks to the general sexism that still exists today. "Don't give woman a license to have sex whenever they want, they need to be good Christian ladies!"

The question of whether a young woman starts having sex at a young age and contracts STDs has nothing to do with a vaccine that will protect them from cancer down the road. If parents want to protect their children they need to talk with them, explain to them about STDs (Because AIDs, herpes, gonorrhea, syphilis, etc... are still relevant threats) and pregnancy. They need to make sure the child is informed about sex so they have the mental capacity to understand the risks and practice safe sex if they do. Abstinence only education does not work, this has been proven time and again. People have sex, this vaccine protects woman from cancer due to sexually contracted HPV. These facts in no way suggests teenagers can now have sex all they want. The idea is absurd and has nothing to do with vaccine but more to do with misguided ideologies about sex education.

Unfortunately, this is a cancer which essentially amounts to a sexually transmitted disease. Therefore, many parents are choosing not to have their daughters vaccinated, because they feel that this will make their daughters more likely to engage in risky sexual practices. Essentially these parents are using the prospect of death by cancer to leverage against their daughters' sexuality.

Regardless of whether or not this is fair or useful (hint: it isn't), it's completely ridiculous. There are dozens of bad things that can result from unprotected sex, and taking genital warts and CANCER out of the equation is not likely to make a difference. We still have pregnancy, syphilis, gonorrhea, AIDS... the list goes on.

I wonder, would these same parents advise their daughters to drive without wearing a seatbelt? After all, a seatbelt protects you against death and severe injury if you get in an accident. Therefore, if they do not wear a seatbelt, surely this will be an incentive for them to drive more carefully. Perhaps these parents also advise their daughters to keep all of their money in cash, and carry it around with them at all times, rather than keeping it in a bank. After all, if you carry all of your money with you as cash in your jacket pocket, you will be more careful about not losing your jacket, right?

Naturally no parent would advise their daughters to do these things, because accidents happen. I hate to be the one to break it to them, but the same goes for condom usage.

Unfortunately, addressing issues tangentially related to their children's sexuality apparently causes many parents to lose their freaking minds. Allowing their child to get CANCER is apparently preferable to having unregulated sexual experiences. Not that the prospect of CANCER will make a bit of difference in that arena, anyway.

Source: http://femaletalk.com/news/2009/04/20/ga...le-omg-sex

Until a lot of these young women suddenly become sterile. Oops! OH well, at least you can have as much sex as you want not, no HPV or pregnancy!

And your proof that Gardasil causes sterilization, please? Don't have any? Oh, too bad.

And don't feel left out boys, they are working to give these same vaccines to males to hopefully stop Genital Warts before they start. Hoo fucking ray.

And this is relevant because? If someone wants to prevent genital warts, more power to them.

Really, nice hand waving with those last two points, but they are irrelevant.

Go on and on about the value and necessity of these dirty modern medicines, but do it quietly and by yourself. Don't try to force those of us who have a better handle on how the modern worrd works to get you dirty useless medicine because you have been scared into thinking we, the un-vaccinated, are the threat...

I would rather have some shit in my water that Flouronic Acid. And Chlorine.

I disagree wholly. I think that vaccines have likely cause more harm than good since their inception, and certainly in the more modern examples of Pandrexa (swine flu shot) and Gardasil (HPV shot). More modern medical science doing very, very poor problem solving. And topical medication in your water, in the hope that as the fluoride passes your teeth on the way to you stomach, it might brighten your smile. Topical medicine should not be ingested. Or am I wrong about that? More corporate entities lying to us and damaging our quality of life for profit. But keep defending them, they serve you so well...

Sorry,
-Pip

Bold assertions without any evidence to back it up.

Show me the studies that prove vaccines don't work. Show me the studies that prove they do more harm than good. Show me the studies prove un-vaccinated people are not causing new outbreaks of diseases that we have previously had under controlled. Show me the studies that prove fluoride has not been beneficial to overall dental health. Show me the studies that show fluoride as dangerous in our water.

Until you provide this evidence you are simply talking out of your ass.