You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: FORCED VACCINATIONS? The MOST Important Lesson For Humanity Now is to RESPECT & Understand FREE WILL.
@ura-soul How much medical knowledge you have to make a statement like this ????? Are you an epidemiologist ???? I think that your post is totally irresponsible nd is not based on medical knowledge.
If vaccines did not exist, we would still living in ancient times.
This is a clear appeal from authority.
The ignorance packed into your short statement is staggering.
Please go back to the beginning, and study the Trivium, the Quadrivium, and Natural law. After that, please form your own understanding of the chemistry, biology, and biophysics of the matter.
The facts are what matter, not an establishment indoctrinated opinion.
If vaccines did not exist we would have one less threat to our lives sold to us under false pretenses.
The decline of rampant disease began long before the mass popularization of vaccines, due to advances in sanitation, hygiene, and nutrition. This is easily verified, if one has an operational understanding of how to know what is real and what is propaganda.
I'm a doctor. I don't want to appeal to authority. Is a disclosure of interests.
You clearly stated that the core of you position is about respecting free will. As far as free will goes not being respected you are right. There's evidence to support that is an authoritarian act.
Now here's a problem. That is of inherited contracts. Either one abides by none, absolute anarchy without recognizing the state or one accepts at least the existence of them. Those are the laws, that can be changed at any moment by people but that if accepted entail, for instance, that children are less free than adults.
If so, and one accepts previous contracts, then one is almost forced to accept the forceful penetration of the skin by the agents of the state in this case doctors. There's a scientific rationale from doctors, but this is a freedom problem and not an argument of science.
If one thinks children are equally as free as adults then, that leads to an interesting problem. Because parents have no rights over them. They have no authority over them. So children ought to decide what to do at any moment. If you can't understand them and they can't express their will even changing a diaper is you being an authoritarian.
I also clearly stated that 'The decline of rampant disease began long before the mass popularization of vaccines, due to advances in sanitation, hygiene, and nutrition. This is easily verified, if one has an operational understanding of how to know what is real and what is propaganda'.
There is plenty of information that can lead to an understanding that the scientific basis for the use of vaccines is flimsy at best or just outright fraud.
I abide by no inherited contracts, because there can not possibly be any that deserve respect. I will not be held responsible for the actions of my parents, and, as I am an adult, he cannot take responsibility for my actions. Children are the product of their parents labor. As a result, they are the property of their parents until they reach the age of consent. Children still have individual natural rights, so their parents cannot violate these rights and remain in the moral realm. Children are for a fact less free than adults, because they have no ability to express informed consent.
I do not respect any laws that can be changed at arbitrary whim of the herd. Natural law is the only law that deserves respect, because it remains whether we respect it or not. I accept no previous contracts that I could not read and sign with informed consent. Those who do accept contracts which they never signed with informed consent are called slaves.
Forced penetration of any kind is either tantamount to rape, or attempted murder, take your pick. Any forced medical procedure is even against international convention, if you have any respect for that, I don't, I didn't sign it. It is the very first line of the Nuremberg code. Forced medical procedures are a war crime under the Nuremberg code. So, mandatory vaccination is an act of war against the natural rights of the individual.
This is, indeed, as well as an issue of individual liberty, an argument of the scientific data, because the data does not say what the doctors have been indoctrinated to believe that it says. Many doctors are aware of this, and do not labor under this disinformation. The logical conclusion appears to be that those who promote vaccines are doing so, knowingly or unknowingly, under false pretenses, at the expense of the People's health. The reasoning can be found in the first paragraph of this comment. this is also evidenced by the fact that other diseases, for which there are no vaccines, also declined. There is plenty more than that if what I've stated so far is not enough for a start.
It has been said, "if the theory disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't matter how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment it's wrong, that's all there is to it". This appears to me to be accurate in it's letter and intent.
The whole last paragraph is rendered irrelevant, and is shown to be an appeal to ridicule, and a straw man argument, by what I've already stated. It was a good try though.
Where did you get the idea that being inherently possessed of individual natural rights implies that children are absolutely free to run riot at a whim? This is clearly not the meaning of individual natural rights.
I have only to disclose my interest in finding the facts and not laboring under the indoctrination forced on me by an incompetent state, or the manipulation of scientifically collected data to an erroneous conclusion. My only appeal is to the facts and the dynamics of the function of the natural world.
Doctors are not scientists. They are an appeal from authority, an appeal to popularity, an appeal to common practice, and stem from the genetic fallacy. Authority is always suspect, because it can never have any but false legitimacy. There is no legitimate authority except the self, within the parameters of natural law. This extends to those who are competent to advocate for themselves as adults possessed of informed consent. The incompetent, whether by stage of development, or by mental impairment, cannot advocate for themselves, as there can be no informed consent.
If you are a naturalist in your laws particularly about children, that's your choice. Is just another type of authoritarianism.
If you believe that, then you may want to look into natural law, natural philosophy, physics, grammar, logic, classical rhetoric, common law, the origins of individual liberty, the actual meaning of 'authoritarianism' and lots more.
I do my best to operate in the realm of facts, not opinions. If someone walks off a cliff, they are subject to gravity, it is not a choice after the last step is taken.
Now you appeal to polymath wisdom. This just got funny.
I did no such thing. I merely suggested learning the tools of thought that every competent adult should have to understand the universe and how it functions. I do not think operational comprehension of the list of subjects recommended is broad enough to be declared the domain of only polymaths. About half of the list used to be taught in grade school. It is not rocket science combined with brain surgery. These are basic tools for understanding.
This is a clear appeal to ridicule.
I, personally, have studied all of these subjects and more. I think most people, if dedicated to learning can understand them all.
I am quoting medical professionals who question the status quo. They will happily correct your last comment and describe how it is you whose words are both inaccurate and irresponsible. There's no point in having a slanging match - just provide evidence and comment as the scientific method was intended to function before money and agendas got involved. You can refer to some of the videos I provided in response to another comment here if you like.
@ura-soul @lifeworship
Here I present things for and against;
In 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that, among children born from 1994 through 2013, vaccination would prevent 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations, and 732,000 deaths
Vaccines that are recommended for children in the United States are fully tested in large numbers of subjects before they are licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). After they are licensed, they are monitored by the CDC and the FDA through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and the Vaccine Safety Datalink. When concerns are identified, the FDA issues news releases and may temporarily or permanently suspend the use of a specific vaccine
As vaccine-preventable diseases become less common and parents have little familiarity with the devastating effects of vaccine-preventable diseases, some parents may believe that vaccines are not necessary
However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of vaccines: They are neither 100 percent effective nor are they completely risk free. Although provision of this information helps to establish credibility, it must be placed in proper context, particularly for parents who tend to overestimate the risks of vaccines and underestimate the risks from vaccine-preventable diseases
Safety concerns include specific side effects (eg, Guillain-Barré syndrome, intussusception, pain) and more general concerns (eg, that too many vaccines overload the immune system, possibly causing autism, autoimmune disease, or increased susceptibility to infection). Concerns about safety are intensified by negative word of mouth and media messages
The conclusion is clear; there are many benefits from vaccination, but there are also risks related to its execution, however there is no scientific or epidemiological evidence to support the non-use of vaccines. Now if you are advocating for your right as a person not to be exposed to a vaccination system, there you are, your risk. Do not confuse a discussion of civil rights with scientific evidence.
Bibliography
https://www-uptodate-com/contents/standard-childhood-vaccines-parental-hesitancy-or refusal?source=machineLearning&search=vaccines&selectedTitle=3~150§ionRank=1&anchor=H8#H8
Whitney CG, Zhou F, Singleton J, Schuchat A; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Benefits from immunization during the vaccines for children program era - United States, 1994-2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014 Apr 25;63(16):352-5.
He is not confusing a discussion of civil rights with scientific evidence. The issue is two pronged, first, forcing vaccines onto people, second, the suitability or lack thereof of vaccines as medical treatment. The concerns raised about the second argument makes the first argument all the more necessary, and alarming.
For an individual to vaccinate or not, there is no big economic gain or loss either way. Either vaccines are safe and effective, in which case I would accept to take them, OR not, in which case I wouldn't. The decision will neither break my bank account nor make me rich. For the pharmaceutical industry, an untold amount of money is riding on whether millions of us choose to vaccinate or not, especially given how many decades, 100 years or more, they have built up their industry. Given all the influence they have, is it inconceivable they have corrupted the system, and made the scientific evidence supposedly gathered by third parties fit their agenda?
Is 'medical knowledge' based on hard science or what the Pharmaceutical Industry wishes to push on its customers?