23
98

[–] deathcomesilent 23 points 98 points (+121|-23) ago  (edited ago)

Oh wonderful... Any time freedom of choice is infringed upon like this, there is an underlying cause for the problem they are trying to fix. And, as always, we will continue to treat symptoms instead of identifying and curing the root cause.

To be clear, if a vaccine is safe, there is no reason to push back. MY problem lies with the fact that big-pharm has a history of not giving a shit when they pump into us as long as they make their money.

22
55

[–] refugee610 22 points 55 points (+77|-22) ago 

Would it make you feel better if the government handled production & distribution of the vaccines instead? Or do you want to return to the glorious days of rampant polio and measles?

8
74

[–] deathcomesilent 8 points 74 points (+82|-8) ago  (edited ago)

It would make me feel better if the government agency that currently handles this stuff actually did their job. The FDA is a joke.

Edit: "Or do you want to return to the glorious days of rampant polio and measles?" is a fallacious statement worded like a question.

4
32

[–] songofrebellion 4 points 32 points (+36|-4) ago 

Yeah, because government has a great history of doing things correctly./s

0
25

[–] CainesFirstLaw 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago 

Considering they give every CDC employee and automatic conflict of interest waiver, AND allow them to invest in the products they are supposed to regulate, yeah no.

2
19

[–] 33degree 2 points 19 points (+21|-2) ago 

Or do you want to return to the glorious days of rampant polio and measles?

How prevalent are measels and polio right now? How did it get that way without mandating the vaccines?

7
26

[–] LVDR 7 points 26 points (+33|-7) ago 

There are certain situations where freedom of choice SHOULD be infringed upon because of clear benefits to society. Wartime rationing is one. Vaccines are another.

It would be great if everyone just decided to do the right thing on their own, but when MILLIONS of lives are at stake personal freedom can take a hike.

That being said, these types of restrictions should not be done lightly. In this case there is just too much evidence that vaccines work.

When is the last time you saw someone catch polio?

1
15

[–] sadam029 1 points 15 points (+16|-1) ago  (edited ago)

SHOULD

who says

right

define right

When is the last time you saw someone catch polio?

people infected with polio have a 95% chance of being asymptomatic and 99.5% chance of having no lasting effects whatsoever. The vaccine is almost certainly pushing those numbers down as the .5% who are unlucky enough to be drastically affected if infected are able to pass on their genes.

0
4

[–] 9-11 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

i dont see how they can force you to undergo a medical procedure you dont want to. there is no more fundamental right than that of self, your body, etc.

3
4

[–] hernamewaslola 3 points 4 points (+7|-3) ago 

I feel conflicted about your stance on freedom of choice, but I don't even feel like freedom of choice is even being infringed upon in this case. This only affects those who have their children in public schools and daycare. They have the choice to home school or, I assume, attend private schools. While someone may not easily have the capacity to do either one, if they believe that strongly about it, then they will find a way. If I thought that the government was doing something wretched and evil to my child in public school, I would live in a cardboard box and eat shit (yes, literal shit) before I put them in that environment if I had a choice. I would find a way.

1
21

[–] CainesFirstLaw 1 points 21 points (+22|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Can you share the research showing that the recommended schedule of 50 shots by age 6, with the first being administered hours after birth, is safe?

And to be clear I'm not talking about the safety of the shots individually, but their combined effects for the entire schedule.

1
15

[–] CleverVoatNameHere 1 points 15 points (+16|-1) ago 

This is the true issue - each study is a controlled study on an individual vaccine, and I'm willing to bet the funding for those studies has a vested interest. We have no long-term data to support the rapid increase in number of vaccines being administered to such under-developed immune systems. People have a right to be cautious/skeptical when it comes to their health and that of their children.

0
5

[–] deathcomesilent 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I never made a single claim saying the are safe. They are almost certainly going to do harm to our race over generations of our immune systems going into retirement. In the short term the issue lies in not understanding what they do in addition to helping resist a disease you've never been exposed to.

You'll notice I say "To be clear, if a vaccine is safe, there is no reason to push back." If is a very operative word here.

4
14

[–] childofeye 4 points 14 points (+18|-4) ago 

When does somebodies freedom of choice interfere with my freedom to be healthy and disease free.

3
16

[–] deathcomesilent 3 points 16 points (+19|-3) ago  (edited ago)

You don't have freedom to be healthy and disease free, where did that idea come from? It would be nice, but people get sick against their own will every day.

Freedom is an absence of restriction, not the eternal presence of choice.

0
4

[–] Subtenko 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I hate when someone at work is REAAALLLY sick but the boss is so unptight about coming in no matter what. fk off, let them stay at home if they are sick! I aint trying to get sick cause of them!

0
1

[–] wolfsktaag 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

youre confusing positive and negative rights. a negative right: people cannot beat me. a positive right: other people must pay for my healthcare

0
0

[–] KleanRider 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

When it interferes with someones childs freedom to be healthy. I don't know if you read the bill or not but it basically says "Hey if your kid gets fucked up because of the vaccine we're sorry and he/she is exempt". This whole "vaccine at all costs, fuck the weak" crusader mentality is basically the other side of the same coin.

11
44

[–] Jon_TWR 11 points 44 points (+55|-11) ago 

Good news! Let's prevent preventable disease outbreaks.

17
38

[–] crackers1097 17 points 38 points (+55|-17) ago 

Thank goodness. I only hope that this can spread to other states as well.

6
11

[–] goatHe 6 points 11 points (+17|-6) ago 

yes, let's hope common sense proves to be as contagious as measles

10
4

[–] datjedi 10 points 4 points (+14|-10) ago 

youre an idiot

[–] [deleted] 6 points 7 points (+13|-6) ago 

[Deleted]

2
0

[–] ChairForceOne 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

There was something in the news a few years ago about outbreaks of long 'cured' diseases in a town just a little ways away. They kept reporting it and it appears to have self corrected. I would think that once one of your kids, or your friends children got sick or died because they didn't get the normal rounds of vaccines that you would vaccinate all of your kids.

I know a big concern is for kids that can't get vaccinated because of immune system problems or allergies. They need the herd immunity. When that gets compromised because some people aren't vaccinating there normal kids it can cause backlash for the kids that can't be vaccinated.

1
0

[–] johnlocke90 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Vaccine exemptions are only feasible so long as most people get vaccinated anyway. If too many people actually take advantage of it, the government has to take stronger methods to get people vaccinated.

11
31

[–] Quavalin 11 points 31 points (+42|-11) ago 

Finally! nothing gets my goat more than hearing about these anti-vaccers whose messed up views end up with sick and soon to be dead kids.

8
15

[–] CleverVoatNameHere 8 points 15 points (+23|-8) ago 

It's not just an issue of being "anti-vaccine", but about our individual rights. It is naive to blindly accept all vaccines as safe for every person and we should maintain our right to decide what we put into our bodies. Do you have any friends or family that have had a severe reaction to a vaccine? There are many people out there who take things to the extreme, that's what most political arguing is, babbling amongst the fringe - but the majority of us, we can think for ourselves and weigh the pros and cons of a given vaccination. For many people, the full schedule maybe perfectly safe, while others may have a hereditary risk factors that make a vaccine dangerous, especially at the aggressive scheduled pushed by the APA. The idea of this spreading nationwide is scary, as I see it as further deterioration of our individual rights.

7
29

[–] Penguinkeith 7 points 29 points (+36|-7) ago  (edited ago)

I don't care about your rights if it means my children can die if you decide not to do something as simple as giving a shot to your kids. This is how a society works, if you don't like it there are several uninhabited places in the world left.

Edit, of course there will be exceptions for other medical reasons but if there is no reasonable excuse for not getting a vaccine then guess what you should get it... herd immunity only works when as many people as possible are immunized.

3
19

[–] CoccyxCracker 3 points 19 points (+22|-3) ago 

Are you just pretending like the medical exemptions don't exist? Because they do.

1
12

[–] RagnarokAngel 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

Do you have any friends or family that have had a severe reaction to a vaccine?

And where did this article say medically determined exemptions were off the table? Let's not

take things to the extreme

1
8

[–] crowfluff 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago  (edited ago)

That's not the point. You do not have the right to endanger another person.

On the other hand, if you insist, don't vaccinate, move to a county that doesn't vaccinate, homeschool your kids, and don't take vacations or go to the store. Have your doctor make house calls. Darwin will thin the herd.

Trophy point: I tweeted Jim Carrey to shut up.

1
-1

[–] Sorahzahd 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Anyone that says that people who are skeptical of big pharma's "vaccine schedule" under which regime kids will get 50 shots by age 6 are "anti-vaxxer"s fell for a narrative hook, line and sinker.

Vaccine manufacturers are currently under investigation for vaccine testing fraud. Can you trust them?

6
20

[–] LurkSubwalker 6 points 20 points (+26|-6) ago 

While I support freedom of choice.... I do not support it when it comes to health standards. Anti-vaxxers are not smart people and are the direct cause of these diseases making a come back.

1
9

[–] CleverVoatNameHere 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

Do you have access to Pubmed or anyone in the research / medical field? I suggest you look further into the safety studies conducted before making such broad generalizations. Vaccines are key component to herd immunity, but it's hard to argue that the long-term safety of many of these new vaccines has been thoroughly established.

1
15

[–] trinklest 1 points 15 points (+16|-1) ago 

Should people die in their childhood from fully preventable diseases or possibly have some sort of issues later in life? I feel like this should be an obvious one. Come on.

0
5

[–] LurkSubwalker 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Thanks for the reply. I don't have access to Pubmed though it seems interesting and worthwhile. I am very skeptical towards new vaccines that are being developed there is always a push to have them approved and given out without the proper research being completed. I am in fully in support of children receiving MMR and DTaP.

0
0

[–] RaxSnax 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The problem with that is we run into the ultimatum of these vaccines not being around long enough to see the long-term effects, yet we can't afford to wait with how fast the world of pathogens moves.

1
0

[–] crowfluff 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Oh, I'd say antivaxxers are probably smart, but it's their arrogance that dumbs it all down. They are so worried about big money selling poison, yet simple economics tells us that a company that sells a bad product goes out of business quickly. But what about the laws that require the poison? Well see, that's that whole arrogance-dumbing-them-down thing again. Something like that - an actual real danger harming tons of innocents (not the rare allergic reaction) - would cause political outcry and the laws would be changed. They don't want justice, they want a pat on the head and a cookie. "Who's the good antivaxxer? You are! You're the good antivaxxer!"

3
-1

[–] Sorahzahd 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

Man, sad how easily people roll over and hand their rights to corporations.

1
1

[–] Einmensch 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

It's sad how people think the right to spread disease and kill their kids and others is a right. When it comes to personal health you have no freedom, in the same way you don't have the freedom to kill someone.

1
-1

[–] zn_zb 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

You have the typical response. Go right to calling people stupid. Explain this please http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/5881914

1
0

[–] crowfluff 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Newwp. Not gonna fall for it like you did. Here's the root of it: you're the Emperor. You're feeling pretty good about yourself. You found something juicy on The Googles that proves Your Point™. Now, here's Your Problem ™ : over 50 years of established science proves otherwise. So, you see, Emperor, you have no clothes. You're naked, you poor soul. And all these nice people are telling you to put on some clothes. You should do that. It would solve a number of problems. You do know that there are groups of people with obscure "science" papers that prove the earth is flat. There's another one who can prove we never went to the moon, and yet another one that has noodled its way into a few schools teaching kids that the earth is around 6,000 years old. Fine reject these nice clothes. Here's a tinfoil hat.

2
13

[–] Zenogias 2 points 13 points (+15|-2) ago 

Another nail in freedom's coffin.

0
5

[–] pwngeek 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

How so? The anti-vax'rs are completely free to not get vaccinated, home school their children and not expose reasonable people's children to deadly diseases.

0
2

[–] zn_zb 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Give them a large size tax break for home schooling, and I will agree with you it's a free and comparable choice.

5
13

[–] refugee610 5 points 13 points (+18|-5) ago 

It's nice to see California passing some sensible laws for once.

3
12

[–] RoGiVet 3 points 12 points (+15|-3) ago  (edited ago)

While vaccination is unquestionably of enormous value to society, and many vaccines have been scientifically proven to be safe, this loss of personal control over one's body terrifies me. For 2 main reasons:

  1. Money corrupts, and there is BIG money in vaccines. No tinfoil here, just a careful look at history, and a healthy skepticism that our leaders could possibly be unduly influenced by large amounts of money into taking actions that may later be seen as not being in the best interests of the populace. I leave you to provide your own example of this phenomenon; there are many, and I am confident that we have all seen at least one instance.
  2. The idea that ALL vaccines are safe, because most of them are, is a dangerous assumption. Even if we could know that everyone involved in the development and production of a new vaccine is a good and honest person motivated only by a sincere desire to help, mistakes happen. And no vaccine is 100% safe for all people. Small (usually predictable) numbers of people die or suffer lasting harm from "safe" vaccines.

Is it really a good idea, do you think, to allow the state to make medical decisions for you? Today it is the loony anti-vaxxers, but tomorrow it could be you. We have already given over control of our bodies when traveling by air, we forfeit our money to law enforcement without being charged with a crime, and now we can be forced to undergo a medical procedure that carries a known fatal risk. I don't like where this is headed.

Source: Master of Public Health, 24 years in military and civilian disease prevention

1
1

[–] LVDR 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

This is super slippery slope. Every case needs to be evaluated individually, and the standard of societal good should be stringent. Safe, well tested vaccines are a nobrainer. Other stuff? We'll see.

0
1

[–] Sorahzahd 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Safe, well tested vaccines are a nobrainer.

Too bad the people doing the "testing" (and they use that term in the loosest sense of the word) are the same people that profit off of them, and also are totally immune from any criminal liability if they cause harm.

0
1

[–] onewatt 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

You aren't loosing anything. California could pass a law requiring vaccination of everyone with no exception except by review of a medical tribunal, and it would still be constitutional: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

0
0

[–] johnlocke90 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Money corrupts, and there is BIG money in vaccines.

Vaccines are actually really cheap.

0
0

[–] RoGiVet 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

To purchase a vaccine as an end user, yes they are. I'm talking about the profits realized by the big vaccine makers. You don't need a very big profit margin on a product with 7 billion potential customers to start seeing some large positive numbers on your P&L statement.

load more comments ▼ (58 remaining)