Here are the politicians that want to kill your children

[snuggans]

I don't see governments losing elections over implementing a compulsory mass vaccination program

it's not necessarily about elections, although i also can't see any candidate running on a platform based on more authoritarianism instead of focusing on health education and immunization awareness programs. it's about checks and balances. another branch of the government is going to stop you if you're overstepping, or if somebody brings up a lawsuit based on the free exercise clause of the first amendment.

[G-Megas-Doux]

Well it is ultimately how it is presented no one is ever going to say I will break your human rights... well the Conservatives in the UK said they will repeal them and then issue a British Bill of Rights. Checks an balances only work if all sides share equal competence at their job otherwise someone will become more powerful. For example in the US the President has more power now than they did when the constitution was implemented.

[Simon Cashmere]

They sure don't let you be a conscientious objector when it comes to the taxation laws....

[Jom]

The mortality rates from most infectious disease have actually been in steep decline even prior to the introduction of vaccination. The mortality rates from measles and pertussis for example have declined by almost 99% prior to the introduction of vaccination in developed countries such as the US.
It is the improved living conditions, clean water, better nutrition, better sanitary measures when it comes to sewage disposal etc. that seem to have played the major role and not vaccination.

We also know that natural acquired immunity is not the same as vaccine induced immunity. The much indorsed "heard immunity" form vaccination, being a far cry from "natural heard immunity", the later being much more protective, far long lasting, & is transferable from mother to child (offering protection in this vulnerable stage of development).
We already know that protection against pertussis waned over time. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine; http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1200850, proved this when it concluded that “protection against pertussis waned during the 5 years after the 5th dose of DTaP".
It is clear the pertussis vaccine becomes ineffective over an extremely short amount of time- likely due to pertussis bacterium developing resistance, similarly to bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics.
Furthermore, recent studies found that immunised individuals when exposed to 'wild Bordetella pertussis bacteria' take longer to clear the diseases than those that have natural pertussis and thus also gain natural immunity. These vaccinated persons may then become asymptomatic carriers of the bacteria and vectors from transmission. This only supports the idea of "heard immunity" from vaccination being a far cry from "natural heard immunity"; with the latter being much more protective, long lasting as well as transferable between mother and child and thus better overall for the community in the long run.
These are all sufficient grounds against mandatory vaccinations.

None of that is grounds against mandatory vaccinations. It would be if you presented a problem with vaccination or a risk from them, but all you've claimed is that vaccines aren't as effective as they might be.

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

How vaccines cause mental disorders? I can understand if he said "poisoning" or heck, even "back problems in late life!" but... mental disorders? I thought that was just something South Park did for fun.

this has now been confirmed to be true:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/sleeping-si...epsy-1.1524420

or even better:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?...sy+vaccination

[removeduser_487563287433]

Under no possible spinning has it been confirmed.

[Monglor]

This kind of thing has been sadly inevitable in the USA since large chunks of the political mainstream decided to go full-bore anti-science. On the political right there's groups like creationists, climate change deniers and people who think smoking is an expression of freedom, and on the political left there's homeopathic medicine fans and anti-corporate types with so little trust in the healthcare industry that they'll believe anything contrary to it. It's a big, big, problem for the USA. The USA is one of the only countries in the world where ignorance of matters scientific can be worn as a badge of honour. This sort of tragedy-in-waiting is a consequence of what you get when science and its results are politicised.

The USA needs to rediscover its faith in science. When that happens, and when people realise that, yes, vaccinations are absolutely vital for a healthy nation, the problem sorts itself. Until that happens though expect weird stuff to occur.

[Gaidin]

Even when they do say, must be vaccinated, in Australia at least there is also a 'conscientious objector' clause that gives you the ability not to be vaccinated and still attend school. These people that believe this stuff cannot be reasoned with, Lord knows I've tried. And loads of people believe it.

I'd be open to banning them from big cities - so you can live remotely if you like, but you come into the big city, want to use mass transit, or go to a school - can't do it. The problem is, this anti-vax stuff is so widespread that it could lead to you losing government if you do anything about it. Governments are really gun shy about taking on the anti-vaxxers.

You're not really getting it. California is a state ALREADY with those laws where you can get out of the vaccination and use public "facilities" or whatever the term may be. It's(the bill) changing that. But it can only change it so fast. It can't just up and say "we don't care you have to get vaccinated" when only 80 or so of it's people get infected with a long thought eradicated disease. That's why it's saying "you don't have to get vaccinated unless you want to use public resources". You need a bigger shock than 80 people and measles to force feed vaccinations on people. But 80 people and measles is enough to say if you want to use our facilities you have to take precautions.

The mortality rates from most infectious disease have actually been in steep decline even prior to the introduction of vaccination. The mortality rates from measles and pertussis for example have declined by almost 99% prior to the introduction of vaccination in developed countries such as the US.

Death hasn't been the worry about measles for a long time. Other complications like bronchitis, neural hearing loss, panencephalitis...quit while you think death is the only thing that can happen to a person.

[Jom]

A really big epidemic of something nasty - might shock them out of it. Anti-vaxxer nonsense is surprisingly mainstream. You talk to a group of young parents, and a lot of them go on about Big Pharma and that vaccines are a scam, and that before society we had 'natural immunity' and so on - even, that vaccines are behind depopulation efforts. They are also convinced that vaccines cause autism.

What you do about that - perhaps education - however - most people are not going to pay attention. The anti-vaxxers have sway on the internet.

I'm actually genuinely surprised and kind of pleased that we actually have exactly the same views on something.

[Stario]

None of that is grounds against mandatory vaccinations. It would be if you presented a problem with vaccination or a risk from them, but all you've claimed is that vaccines aren't as effective as they might be.

It's actually not all I've claimed, there is more you just chose to ignore it...
More importantly, my claim is that natural immunity is far superior to immunity gained from vaccination; the former being much more protective, long lasting as well as transferable between mother and infant.
With "vaccination immunity", in this case I might be protected against pertussis for 5 years or so (could not even be that much), after this period I am vulnerable again and pose the same risk to the community as any non-immunised individual, and whats more vaccination immunity is not transferable from mother to infant.
This is sufficient grounds against mandatory vaccination, my right to choose to be naturally protected for a lifetime (depending study), instead of at best 4-6 years (depending on study), which immunity from vaccination offers.
Lastly, this doesn't stop at the individual, in the long run "natural heard immunity" is far more beneficial to the community than "heard immunity" from vaccination.

[Dr Zoidberg]

More importantly, my claim is that natural immunity is far superior to immunity gained from vaccination.

You'll be linking us to the study you conducted to substantiate your claim, right?

[Himster]

Natural immunity is a great defense against polio, sure.
If self determinism in the pursuit of self destruction is so important: perhaps a compromise might be reached by quarantining such people away from general populace and thus reducing the risk of spreading infection.
But that still doesn't alleviate the issue of putting children at unnecessary risk, an action that is inherently done without their consent, that is a far more serious and pertinent issue than the self-determinism of an adult.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It's actually not all I've claimed, there is more you just chose to ignore it...
More importantly, my claim is that natural immunity is far superior to immunity gained from vaccination.

Cool. Go drink smallpox.

[Jom]

It's actually not all I've claimed, there is more you just chose to ignore it...
More importantly, my claim is that natural immunity is far superior to immunity gained from vaccination; the former being much more protective, long lasting as well as transferable between mother and infant.
With "vaccination immunity", in this case I might be protected against pertussis for 5 years or so (could not even be that much), after this period I am vulnerable again and pose the same risk to the community as any non-immunised individual, and whats more vaccination immunity is not transferable from mother to infant.
This is sufficient grounds against mandatory vaccination, my right to choose to be naturally protected for a lifetime (depending study), instead of at best 4-6 years (depending on study), which immunity from vaccination offers.
Lastly, this doesn't stop at the individual, in the long run "natural heard immunity" is far more beneficial to the community than "heard immunity" from vaccination.

That might be true, although you've presented no evidence for it, and incidentally any searches for "natural herd immunity" just brings up anti-vaccination propaganda websites. The problem with natural herd immunity, from what I understand of it, is that people have to be exposed to the disease and those who recover from it have that immunity, and in general in a population the immunity is built up from those survivors of whatever that condition may have been. I would rather not build up immunity this way via the deaths of those who can't overcome the disease when the whole process could be avoided simply with vaccination, even if the immunity "isn't as beneficial". I don't see the problem with getting a vaccination every 5 years and the fact you might be protected for a lifetime through some dubious process that you haven't even elaborated upon is not sufficient grounds against mandatory vaccination.

[G-Megas-Doux]

There is a point that the reason we vaccinate is because we don't have natural immunity. Those who have had the disease get a strong resistance to it because they have had a strong form of the disease, however having measles to make you resistant in the future to catching measles is dangerous as it has a higher mortality rate then just vaccinating everybody.

[Stario]

I would rather not build up immunity this way via the deaths of those who can't overcome the disease when the whole process could be avoided simply with vaccination

I think in US, Pertussis death rate at its peak in the 1920's was about 0.018%, or 18 in 100,000. The present death rate is something ridiculous, about 3 in 100,000 or 0.003%. You actually have more chances of getting struck by lightning (the odds of getting struck by lightning in US in one's lifetime is about 1 in 3,000).
To me this seems sufficient grounds against mandatory vaccination

even if the immunity "isn't as beneficial". I don't see the problem with getting a vaccination every 5 years and the fact you might be protected for a lifetime through some dubious process that you haven't even elaborated upon is not sufficient grounds against mandatory vaccination.

Really? If 5 shots are not working how many shots until it does? Lucky you're not in charge LOL!!!
Interestingly, what usually fails to get mentioned is that the majority of children diagnoses with pertussis have been fully vaccinated.

"Researchers reviewed data on every patient who tested positive for pertussis between March and October 2010 at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California.

Out of these 132 patients:

• 81 percent were fully up to date on the whooping cough vaccine
• 8 percent had never been vaccinated
• 11 percent had received at least one shot, but not the entire recommended series "
  

Researchers noted:

“Despite widespread childhood vaccination against Bordetella pertussis, disease remains prevalent. It has been suggested that acellular vaccine may be less effective than previously believed. Our data suggests that the current schedule of acellular pertussis vaccine doses is insufficient to prevent outbreaks of pertussis.”

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...h-effects.aspx

Again, sufficient grounds against mandatory vaccinations...

[Jom]

I think in US, Pertussis death rate at its peak in the 1920's was about 0.018%, or 18 in 100,000. The present death rate is something ridiculous, about 3 in 100,000 or 0.003%. You actually have more chances of getting struck by lightning (the odds of getting struck by lightning in US in one's lifetime is about 1 in 3,000).
To me this seems sufficient grounds against mandatory vaccination

What? Surely that shows that widespread vaccination has been helping prevent deaths.

A vaccine being less effective than believed isn't grounds against mandatory vaccinations. I really don't understand your arguments. As soon as the slightest negative is seen against vaccinations you decide that we need to scrap them. If the vaccinations have any positive effect compared with no vaccinations at all, but no negatives, then they should be mandatory for infectious diseases.

[Stario]

What? Surely that shows that widespread vaccination has been helping prevent deaths.

Seriously? So the pertussis difference between the disease being at its peak and now (with a vaccination available), is about 15 deaths per 100,000. Can you prove this insignificant difference is not due to better nutrition, better hygiene and/or better sanitation? Correlation however insignificant still does not imply causation!

A vaccine being less effective than believed isn't grounds against mandatory vaccinations. I really don't understand your arguments. As soon as the slightest negative is seen against vaccinations you decide that we need to scrap them. If the vaccinations have any positive effect compared with no vaccinations at all, but no negatives, then they should be mandatory for infectious diseases.

Firstly, vaccinations don't come without negatives- there are risks to consider; one just needs to make an informed decision whether the benefits outweigh the risks.
Secondly, I am not actually advocating to "scrap" them, I am advocating mandatory vaccination; believe it or not there is a difference.

Lets me give you an example of another scary disease- Hepatitis. In the US in general the chance of contracting Hep A is something around 9 in 100,000 (about 0.009%; * note this is just for contracting the disease NOT deaths).
Eating out will always be problematic, but I'll take my chances when eating food prepared by others.
My point is I should be able to choose to opt out from getting Hep A. vaccination in this case- just not worth it, again I've got more chances of getting struck by lightning.
Flip-side, if I am in a high risk group i.e. Homosexual, IV drug user, my work environment (such as a Hospital) puts me at a much higher chance of Hep A contact, then I might opt to get the Hep A vaccination- but you see in both above scenarios I get a choice- with mandatory vaccination I don't.
With that said, the research regarding vaccination being flawed only compounds the issue.

[Jom]

I think you and I are arguing for slightly different things. Are you arguing against mandatory vaccination for the sake of cost to the person getting vaccinated or an individual rights angle?

[caratacus]

I think the problem is there are too many decisions about health that don't involve the general public. Health issues and how to address them, should be made subject to greater debate and a greater emphasis placed on maintaining a healthy lifestyle accompanied by regular compulsory health checks. People by law, need to take their old cars to a garage once a year, why not themselves to a health practice. Individuals should have their own health card from birth to adulthood, which includes data about weight,smoking,drinking etc and includes vaccinations and medical treatment.

How can you introduce a system which gives people the choice for vaccinating their kids against disease, when then they themselves don't see health as an issue until they become sick and then turn to others for treatment for ailments which in many cases could have been avoided, prevented or treated earlier.