Debate Forum - Week 2 - Sponsored in part by @FullTimeGeek
Last weeks debate is done and it was an amazing debate with lots of participation with great ideas and discussion. I am very impressed with how people governed themselves through the debate. Well done! With 220 views on the post, we could have used a lot more voter participation as there was a tie with only 5 votes. As per the rules, I broke the tie and chose to award @Yulem with the win and the prize money of all the SBD from the post which works out to 6.753SBD. If you want to continue with the discussion or read the responses, you are welcome to visit the post here.
Well done @Yulem and all the others that participated. This weeks topic is about vaccinations. As we all know, there is a lot of controversy surrounding the state forcing vaccinations, making it a term of condition for attending school, employment, etc. and discussions about vaccination injuries, autism and even death. There is also discussions about free will, right to our bodies and even questions about body ownership.
This weeks Debate Forum question: Do we support the state sponsored program to continue vaccinating people or reject the program for alternative methods of disease control.
The rules of this debate:
- Keep comments on topic.
- No personal attacks, name calling or yelling.
- Be respectful, thoughtful and articulate with your thoughts and views.
- Participants can ask questions but lets limit the discussion threads to three deep. That means the individual can respond to the question posed and then the thread must stop.
- The post with the highest vote count will win the debate. Highest value will not be used to determine the winner but will naturally reward commenters who make excellent points. That way everyone's vote counts the same when it comes to the final prize. I will break any ties.
- Debate deadline is 10pm MST December 9, 2017. At which point I will then tabulate the results and send the prize to the winner.
- Curators are encourage to vote as well, giving higher percentage upvotes for well thought out and written responses, lower or no vote for anybody who breaks the rules or fails to articulate their position.
- Winner will receive all the SBD that I receive from this post, complements of the curators who are participating and partially sponsored by @FullTimeGeek.
- I am the moderator and as such I disqualify myself from winning. My decisions are final and I will keep any steem this post generates. I will not tolerate covert or overt violence in this debate. Please keep it respectful and on topic.
The goal of this contest is to engage the readers with thoughtful debate and to explore ideas that are not commonly made available to the average Jane and Joe. I also want to see if this is a good way to get low steem users participating and being rewarded with steem to help them build influence on this platform. Readers are reminded that all comments are the opinions of those who are posting and as such it is your responsibility to do your own research and make up your own mind on these topics. There is no write or wrong answer. Let us debate this issue with respect, honour, dignity, heart and intelligence.
I think that @cheneats and @dbooster have both made some really great points.
So I think the answer to the question, "Do we support the state sponsored program to continue vaccinating people or reject the program for alternative methods of disease control." is yes.
Like others have stated the issues isn't so much should we vaccinate or not. The issue is it should be up to me and I should be able to get all the facts to make an informed decision. But from all the other posts we know that is easier said then done. There is a ton of biased or mis information out there. Not to mention like @dbooster mentioned over time the contents/ingredients of the vaccines of changed to include things that are questionable at best.
So to summarize, should people be able to get vaccinated. Yes. Should people be able to not get vaccinated. Yes. The point is the state should not be the one to decide. The individual and the parents should be the ones that make that decision.
Thank you, @wwf for opening the debate: Do we support the state sponsored program to continue vaccinating people or reject the program for alternative methods of disease control.
I think it may be time to look at alternative methods to vaccinations and disease control. I know, I know. I am a health care professional and this goes against the popular health dogma. There was a time when vaccinations had a place in health care but I think we have out grown that need.
Mandatory vaccinations rub against my inner voice. We need to have the right to say no to what we put in our bodies and the bodies of our children.
Like medicines, not all vaccinations are created equal. Vaccines are made with killed or weakened organisms that are supposed to provide immunity from that particular disease. Standards in all laboratories very from country to country. You are not guaranteed a safe and effective vaccine.
Some weakened organisms will attack the hosts body making them ill. The idea being is the host will heal itself with new antibodies and then will become immune from a full attack of the disease down the road. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be purposely made sick on the chance that I may come in contact with the disease in the future.
And what about when your government decides what vaccination you will require? They don't want you to have control over your own body. They know best. Or do they?
As a trained health care professional, how much time is taken to train professionals in the value of home grown food vs industrial food? Is there any efforts made to steer people away from the industrialization of our lives in favor of healthy life style, food, water, etc? Do they believe that food is medicine or are they trained to depend on pharmaceuticals instead for solutions?
It has been our experience that a shift in life style has generated tremendous health benefits. My vessel is over 50 years old now and I've not taken any pills in over 16 years. I'm not good for their business. So I question the ethical use of vaccines as there are other alternatives available to us for managing disease. Are these ethics even discussed?
I've also found that there are many warnings on the inserts for these products. How much time do physicians or other health care professionals take to be familiar with the fine print on these products and take them into consideration in their practices? Physicians specifically swore an oath to do no harm. Are they in fact violating their oath through their unwillingness to get familiar with these products?
I remember my training well, even though it was aeons ago. The topic of food was touched on but back then no one was talking about wholesome home grown food vs the industrial food. I don't believe it is talked about still. It is left for other professions. Drugs, vaccinations, medical interventions are the biggest part of the curriculum.
I am not what I would call a traditional spoon fed nurse. God help me! I asked a zillion questions. That was frowned upon.
Medicine has become such a specialised field where everyone has a speciality and they forget to look at the person as a whole being, physical, spiritual and cerebral person. You could be considered a piece of meat. I don't agree with this path.
Ethics and morales were discussed but only applied to our current studies. No one questioned the big pharmaceutical companies. No one ever questioned a treatment that a doctor might prescribe. Alternative medicine was not discussed.
This did not sit well with me. So I set out to learn everything I could about alternatives and did massive amounts of research on vaccines and medicines and their interactions in the human body. Medical practitioners seldom listen to the people they are supposed to be treating. They rely on all the latest tests and machines.
I hate to be a pest...but with using someone else's computer I miss placed the link to find out who once again has blessed me with more SP. Could you send me the link again, please? Thanks.
Just click on your little gopher icon on the top right of the screen. A menu pops up. Click on wallet. That will give you the info you are looking for. Scroll down to see the list of transactions.
Nope. Not on the list. It seems to me that there is a page to go to that has all the transactions listed. I have a mind like a sieve some days...
Is www.steemd.com/@cecicastor the info you are looking for?
Yes it is. Thanks so much for helping me out. I need to learn so much more...
Your wallet history should give you what you are looking for ... unless I am not comprehending your question properly.
I would reject the program for alternative methods of disease control.
I understand the concern about the contagious disease spreading and what the state has done trying to prevent them. However, a more fundamental question to ask: who owns each individual's physical body?
If the answer is the state, the state has the right do whatever it thinks fit. But I don't think the state owns each of our bodies. Instead, the physical body belongs to each individual of its own (not forgetting our body is also the temple of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 6:19). Therefore, each individual makes his own decision regarding his own body. That leads to the next question: who makes decisions for a newborn baby before he/she can make decisions for himself/herself?
If the answer is the state, again each state has the right do whatever it thinks right in its own eyes. But I don't think so even as the state may think it has the right. I think the responsibility of making decisions falls on the newborn's parents.
I propose that the parents, after being presented with evidence of pros and cons of vaccinating and alternative methods of disease control, make decisions whether to vaccinate their children or to reject the program without being penalized.
By the way, if parents do not depend on the state but instead takes responsibility for the education of their own children and livelihood, they don't need to deal with the state on this issue.
I agree with many of your points. I think the state would argue that they have an over riding interest in controlling your body as they are responsible for the public. So any individual who threatens the safety of the public then falls into their jurisdiction and the issue then must be addressed. The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that people are vulnerable and need protecting. As such, the states duty is to protect the children, whether they are 2 or 92 years old. That is the justification that the state uses to legislate or mandate programs.
So are you saying that there is a higher, more spiritual authority and duty that we must all recognize that trumps the state interests, especially when it comes to our off spring? If that is the case, then what responsibility does each individual then have to others when it comes to maintaining the health of our selves and our neighbours? How does that duty then unfold in our day-to-day activities?
We took the responsibility of educating our children at home so immunization was not required (US Homeschool Immunization Requirements). As stated in the document,
In addition, we acknowledge there is a higher authority than the state over our body as stated in 1 Corinthians 6:19 (our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit). Also the father, not the state, is ultimately responsible for his household before our Creator (1 Timothy 3:4 ).
Instead of depending on the state and corporations, we take the responsibility for our health by maintaining a healthy lifestyle and eating nutritious food from our garden. We then show it to our neighbors that tons of food can be grown even in a small lot.
I am the one that can always be seen working in my garden. And I truly enjoy it. Nowhere is better than talking with our Creator in the garden. :) I hope my day-to-day activities will not only impact our children for their future but also the community as well.
I don't think we are given the full facts by the government about vaccines. My son is almost 13 and as some people know on here, he has Tourettes, Autism and ADHD. Did he have these at birth? Who knows! But they did start showing their heads AFTER he had his vaccines as a toddler. Where is the evidence to show the statistics on higher incidence rates after the vaccines? I know personally that my doctor basically said to me, you can choose not to give your son these vaccines, but these illnesses will kill him if he gets them. So what else would you do! Of course you would vaccinate given those facts! I don't think there is enough transparency to make an informed decision. After you have a child, the last thing you are thinking about is researching facts and figures, so I feel it is down to the healthcare providers to offer the true and correct statistical information BEFORE the time for vaccines arrives. Only then can we make an informed decision as a parent.
Informed Consent - Consent given only after full disclosure of what is being agreed to. A phrase used in tort law with respect to the requirement that a patient be apprised of the nature and risks of a medical procedure before the physician can validly claim exception from liability for battery or from responsibility for medical complications. See Reibl v. Hughes, [19800] 2 S.C.R 880, where a duty of disclosure, under negligence law, is imposed on doctors. Doctors must tell patients all material risks and any special risks that would be of concern to the reasonable person in the patient's position.
What concerns me is that medical procedures are not being done by doctors any more, but by others who may or may not be under the same obligation to ensure informed consent is being obtained.
Absolutely! I mean his early vaccinations were done by the doctor, but in the UK (I don't know about anywhere else) they do other vaccinations at school as standars, asking you to opt out if you don't want it done. Surely it should be the other way around, an opt - in policy?
It is a common practice, even in international law that silence is consent. Only by speaking up to object do we break the silent acquiescent principle in law. This requires that the individual speak up. However, when the state then engages in fear, coercion, force and violence to deter people from saying no, then it has gone well beyond a free will choice that we all have. Even coercion is against 'their' laws, but they engage in it anyway. Why?
Supreme Court of Canada admitted that personal autonomy is not as important as the state’s interest and the overall value of the sanctity of life.
So what is the state's interest? The state's interest trumps personal autonomy? How crazy is that? But that is what the SCC said. So if you are a citizen, now the government has the backing of the courts to force their interests over that of the citizen because their interests trump the individuals. This is dangerous!
As with most things lately, I feel like I simply do not know enough to form an educated opinion on the matter. If it is in fact to save someones life, then I think vaccines and their risks could be okay. However, I think people should have the choice on the matter, since they do govern their own selves and their own body and to force others to get vaccinated is really harsh and violent. I think there could be other alternatives for sure. I think people need to question these standard medical ideas more, and we should research alternatives.
That research has to be non-biased however, as you say, and thats partially why I cannot see the truth on the matter. Everyone seems to have a vested interested. Free will is not up for debate with me however, I know that forcing vaccinations is wrong, and not nessisary whatsoever.
If vaccines cause autism or even death, is the risk worth the price? Are we justified in sacrificing the lives of some people in order to save the lives of others?
No, the risk would not be worth it at that point. I think there needs to be more clear and consise non biased research and findings in order to place myself on either side of the debate, and proof that vaccines do cause autism or death. I would also like proof that they are totally safe too, in order to decide that they are. Right now I can't find any non-biased and truly scientific opinions on the matter, especially online, cuz mostly it is just people bashing each other.
Do you accept the testimony of people who have experience vaccine reactions in themselves or their children or is the only way to settle your mind about the debate is scientific study? I ask the question as people don't realize that we all have different levels of burden of proof. For some, witnessing a child turn autistic may be enough, but for others they want multiple peer reviewed scientific double blind studies to be performed.
Perhaps the issue should have a huge burden of proof when it comes to public policy, but for an individual, it is up to them to make that decision on whether the burden of proof has been met or not.
Thoughts?
Yeah it makes sense that the testimony of people effected by this is good proof that there is harm. I take the testimony of myself when dealing with most spiritual related matters, not science. However this does deal with life or death in many cases. What about the testimony of people who died from various illnesses? Maybe some science or good statistical research could provide some sway to either side, because at this point there are testimonies from people on both sides. The moral path is not clear, other then the fact that people should be able to choose their own path based on their own evidence. The part about free will is pretty clear, it is totally unjust to force a person to take vaccines just in case they get sick. It is unjust to deny a person vaccines if they want them too, in that case. But, you could die from both options or have some terrible side effects. You could also be totally fine too, for both options. In this, there is no clear answer and it is up to the individual.
I want to add my comments into this debate more from the science angle. As full disclosure continues to unfold, we are finding that more and more scientific study is bias as a result of the influence of corporations and their promise of money, rewards, etc. Even the FDA and other agencies in governments have been infiltrated by these influences too.
So can we even trust any of the studies that they claim supports their position that vaccines are effective for safe. We have first hand experience with the dangers of vaccines and I know many families who have experienced similar results. I trust my own observations over that which comes from a bias institution.
The scientific community is loosing credibility the longer they continue to work for the funding rather than truth, facts and scientific curiosity. Politics plays a role in all of this as well. How does this impact the arguments that people are posing in this debate?
I knew this already before I posted my argument. These possible side effects are the cons that should have been presented to the parents before they make the decision whether to vaccinate their children or not.
I just still feel sad that scientific community can be used by politics and corporations. (One reason I studied science in college was that I naively thought science is working for truth and fact and can't be corrupted. )
Again, I am not sure about other countries, but in the UK when my son was younger, there was an issue around the MMR vaccine (Measels Mumps and Rubella) saying the combination vaccine caused all kinds of issues, but the person who instigated these findings, low and behold, owned the med company that produced the 'individual' vaccines for all 3 illnesses and just wanted to improve his sales whilst wiping out the competition!! Major conspiracy, even if you do agree with vaccinations! Money Money Money...
Very good format! Followed.
I love to see people be able to debate something that they care deeply about without personal attacks.
I think overall, vaccines like for polio have done more good than bad, but I cannot speak further than going with the body of science.
Thank you for the feedback. Perhaps next round then. :) Peace to you.
Many thanks to @wwf for this great debate forum. I'll disqualify myself from this debate (but I might try to contribute anyway ;-)
Winning the last debate does not disqualify you from participating in this one! ;) Glad to see you return though. Let's hear what you have to say!
Coming from another continent with another way of life, I'd say that vaccination is something you are supposed to get done to you. The idea that you may say no never occurred to most parents as the vaccinations are mostly done in school when the kids are there. The parents are sometimes told. Other times they ain't. But some due to their religious beliefs and inclination believe those vaccinating teams have ulterior motives thus hide their wards and refuse to have them vaccinated. The government always accused such people to be the reason communicable disease like polio is yet to be kicked out of the country. Seeing that polio had maimed many in that particular part of the country, I think the vaccination may not be such a bad idea.
Thanks @wwf for doing this
Using guilt to manipulate parents into compliance has never gone over well with me. The statistics show that polio was on its way down long before the vaccine was introduced. Many people would suggest that what helped reduce polio was better sanitation, cleaner water, etc. So if these kinds of activities have such a significant impact on disease, then would it be more effective and beneficial to focus on improvements in these areas instead of using injections?
Given that the pharmaceutical industry depends on sick people to maintain or improve profits, would it be reasonable to conclude that they have a vested interest in making people sick so that they can sell more products and increase profits rather than investing in infrastructure that improves health and decreases demand for their products? Do you think the lobby would fight against this resulting in situations like the water crises in Flint or First Nation Reserve across the continent?
You have a serious point on that as the sanitation in parts with higher incidence is questionable or not ok at best.