Inevitable Mandatory Vaccinations

With the recent Measels outbreaks, the mainstream news outlets are blasting their pro-vaccine message at full volume on all channels.

Most major social media platforms, including facebook, pinterest, youtube and amazon, are taking down content relating to vaccine choice and health effects  calling it 'spreading misinformation'.

There are many articles with titles such as 'Anti-vaxxers open door for measles, mumps, other old-time diseases ...' ' Anti-vaxers are winning the war on social media. What's the CDC ...'

What troubles me is that we have a clear cut issue that separates, on one side, those who realize that big pharma/big brother is more interested in making a profit than it is about public health, while on the other are those who buy what their told hook line and sinker.

Suddenly, questioning mainstream medical messages becomes socially taboo ( and soon, illegal)


The actual truth regarding the safety of vaccines is not even part of the question here-  (if your one to actually question this- Decide for yourself- Look at the CDC website, and search for vaccine ingredients, you'll find a 3 page pdf file that lists the ingredients for each vaccine- then independently search each listed, and see what type of studies come up.)  


If a law is passed making vaccination mandatory, the government has a startling new precedent that they not only know what's best for the health of the public  but whatever they decide, they can force these decisions on its citizens. At the same time, they can, ' for the interest of public health' , censor the internet and news outlets of any information that opposes their agenda, branding it ' misinformation' or ' fake news'.

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel a noose tightening?

For me, I'm very thankful for vaccinations.  I'd be worried that with our population density and the high level of travel in the modern world we'd experience mass suffering without good vaccination programs.  

Greg Martin wrote:For me, I'm very thankful for vaccinations.  I'd be worried that with our population density and the high level of travel in the modern world we'd experience mass suffering without good vaccination programs.  

I understand that concern.  What I don't get is why it has to be 100% vaccinations.  If the vacs work, anyone can protect themselves by getting it.  I don't understand what the risk is for those who are vacced.  If you're willing to take the risk of not getting the shot and you get whatever it protects against, how is there an epidemic if 98% of the people are vacced?

I've had the flu shot many times but each time I end up getting the flu.  I know it's not from the vac, as there's no live viruses, but it always happens.  I think that the vac taxes my immune system and I end up getting one of the strains that aren't included in the vac.  The last few years I haven't had it and I've caught the flu about half the time, so I'd rather take my chances there.

edited for clarity

EDIT: My post is describing why it's not so simple as those who chose and who do not. I'm not offering my opinion either way.

Because babies, people with auto-immune conditions, and other sub-populations cannot get vaccinated - sometimes temporarily and sometimes permanently due to medical conditions.

Those people are put into greater risk and harm, not because they chose to not get vaccinated, but because they could not. An otherwise healthy individual who does not get vaccinated can get the disease and pass it on to one of these vulnerable individuals, who are now infected because of the choices of said otherwise healthy individual.

It;s a messy topic because it isn't just about those who chose and those who do not. There are those who can not choose, and who are put at greater risk by others' choices.

Timothy Markus wrote:

Greg Martin wrote:For me, I'm very thankful for vaccinations.  I'd be worried that with our population density and the high level of travel in the modern world we'd experience mass suffering without good vaccination programs.  

I understand that concern.  What I don't get is why it has to be 100% vaccinations.  If the vacs work, anyone can protect themselves by getting it.  I don't understand what the risk is for those who are vacced.  If you're willing to take the risk of not getting the shot and you get whatever it protects against, how is there an epidemic if 98% of the people are vacced?

I've had the flu shot many times but each time I end up getting the flu.  I know it's not from the vac, as there's no live viruses, but it always happens.  I think that the vac taxes my immune system and I end up getting one of the strains that aren't included in the vac.  The last few years I haven't had it and I've caught the flu about half the time, so I'd rather take my chances there.

edited for clarity

The science is fairly clear on this, and the vast (overwhelmingly vast) majority of the scientific community and evidence supports the notion that vaccines are safe and effective. The beginning of the anti-vax movement was due to a (now debunked) medical article by a doctors whose licence to practice medicine has been revoked, who was being paid by attorneys hoping to sue a vaccine company, had a severely restricted subject pool, and straight lied about the condition of the subjects prior to receiving the vaccines (two of the three subjects who were later diagnosed as autistic had several annotations of "devlopmental delays" and abnormal facial features generally associated with mental handicaps). Here's a scholarly article that goes through this in more detail: https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347

If you went to 99 doctors, all of whom currently practice medicine, and they told you that surgery was the best option to remove a cancerous tumor, but then you went to this one former doctor who lost his license due to malpractice and he told you, "the other doctors just want to operate on you so they can charge you money. You just need to rub some dandelion flowers on tumor to make it go away" ... who would you believe?

The chances of your independent, non-peer-reviewed research proving the exact same ingredients (as opposed to different isotopes of certain ingredients which may be metabolized differently) of certain vaccines (which have been proven to be safe in clinical trials) to be harmful is likely quite low; since I shared a scholarly article with you to support my answer to your question, I would ask that you do the same here.

Beyond this, vaccines work most effectively when a certain percentage of the population receives the vaccine. This is called "herd immunity". If the healthy (non-immunocompromised) individuals in a given group are all vaccinated, those who suffer from immunocompromising conditions are exponentially less likely to be exposed to the contagion. If even a small percerntage of the healthy individuals in a given society are unvaccinated, they can pick up the disease and spread it to those who were unable to receive the vaccine, but would have chosen to had they been able to. This is, at the very least, putting other people's lives in danger in a completely avoidable way for selfish, though not malicious, reasons.


All of this to say, no, I don't feel as if the noose is tightening. While the government does many things I dislike and do think it important to keep the power of the government in check, I think suggesting that mandatory vaccines and criminalizing "questioning mainstream medical messages" is a touch paranoid.

It's a messy topic because it isn't just about those who chose and those who do not. There are those who can not choose, and who are put at greater risk by others' choices.

That quote describes perfectly so many situations in today's world...pollution at the top of the list.


Our kids had their vaccinations when young....I might choose differently if I had it to do over.  

We have grandchildren who have had no vaccinations.

I've never had a flu shot and don't intend to.

I don't think 'mandatory' vaccinations will go over very well with many folks.

I think that is the type of thing, as with certain procedures, that shouldwould be more appropriate as a personal decision, not a mandate one way or another.

Just a reminder that political discussions are confined to the cider press.

Those of you with enough apples to post in the cider press are welcome to continue the topic there.