Is Being "Unvaxxed" a NAP Violation? (In other words, do unvaccinated individuals put others at risk?)
This is Zeda Pingel before and after her Gardasil vaccination. One may say that not being vaccinated puts others at risk. We will examine that in this article. Let us not forget that forcing someone to put something in their body (especially something that puts them at risk) is also wrong. This is a clear NAP violation, is it not? Read Zeda's story here.
I want to write this article not only for those familiar with libertarian philosophical terminology, but also for those concerned parents and individuals who really want the best for humanity, and maybe don't really have an interest in "libertarianism," as such.
Those parents, friends, and family members who are concerned and strongly feel that the unvaccinated individuals of the world are putting the "rest of us" at risk.
That said, I also wish to address those who think in terms of libertarian principle, and may construe non-vaccination with a potential NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) violation. The Non-Aggression Principle asserts that it is always wrong to initiate force against another individual.
LET'S DIG IN.
Do unvaccinated individuals put others at greater risk of contracting diseases?
Of course, this is an entirely valid and sensible question because, if unvaccinated individuals do indeed put other individuals at greater risk than vaccinated individuals, being "unvaxxed" could then be construed almost as an act of aggression. Of course, this already oversimplifies the ethical end of the matter by not taking into account the potential for vaccine injury (some individuals are genetically predisposed to adverse reactions and thus could not be held as culpable for not being vaccinated as others without said predispositions), but that notwithstanding, let's move on for the sake of efficiency.
A couple facts.
- Most adults walking around today, who have not had booster shots in the last ten years, likely no longer have vaccine-induced "immunity."
- The theory of vaccine-induced "herd immunity" says that most people are protected from diseases because almost all people still have vaccine-induced immunity.
Substantiation of these facts:
Here are two images taken directly from the manufacturer-issued vaccine inserts. The first is for the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine, and the second is from the Varicella (Chickenpox) vaccine.
MMR
MEASLES VACCINE DURATION: 10 to 13 years. This is the "considered to be protected for life" the CDC mentions verbatim on their website?
VARIVAX
I would like to draw your attention to something interesting noted in the Varivax vaccine package insert photo. Note where it says:
A boost in antibody levels has been observed in vaccines following exposure to wild-type varicella which could account for the apparent long-term protection after vaccination in these studies.
(emphasis mine)
What this means is that the researchers are not sure whether some of the longer protection they observed was due to the vaccine or exposure to wild-type chickenpox. The CDC says the same thing HERE:
It is not known how long a vaccinated person is protected against varicella...Several studies have shown that people vaccinated against varicella had antibodies for at least 10 to 20 years after vaccination. But, these studies were done before the vaccine was widely used and when infection with wild-type varicella was still very common.
(emphasis mine)
Did you catch that? The duration studies used to measure the effectiveness of the Varivax vaccine were done BEFORE THE VACCINE WAS WIDELY USED, and when natural immunity (due to wild-type exposure) was common.
I fail to see how this constitutes "science." Either way, it is clear that adequate testing of these vaccines regarding duration has not been done, and that the testing that has been done has revealed a maximum duration for these two vaccines of 10-13 years. This leads us directly to the next topic. That of vaccine-induced "herd immunity." Here is what current mainstream "medical opinion" (US Department of Health and Human Services) has to say about it:
For "herd immunity" to work, the majority needs to be vaccine immune. THE MAJORITY OF ADULTS (as demonstrated via the package inserts above) ARE NOT. (source.)
Herd Immunity.
Wait a second. If the government/CDC is also telling us that vaccine-induced immunity has only been shown to last around ten years, then this whole definition (see screenshot above), their definition, is untenable.
"Most members of the community" cannot be protected if the vaccines are only lasting 10 to 13 years.
What's more, the goal posts are continually moving. The percentage of the population these "medical authorities" say need to be vaccinated in order for "herd immunity" to be achieved is continually changing. You can learn more about this, as well as see data showing that most deadly diseases were in steep decline prior to the introduction of routine vaccination programs worldwide due to cleanliness, sanitation, and better nutrition, in this video. If you do not have time right now, though, I urge you to scroll on to the next section, where I will be pulling all of the previously addressed information together to help form my conclusion.
Do unvaccinated individuals pose a greater risk to their peers than "fully-vaxxed" individuals?
I would like to start by first noting a rarely mentioned fact:
RECENTLY VACCINATED INDIVIDUALS ALSO POSE A RISK.
Here is a screenshot from world-renowned Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (hopkinsmedicine.org) which has recently been scrubbed from the website:
Right, you say, but that's for immunocompromised individuals, not for healthy people like "us."
Well, that may be true, but if live virus vaccines can shed and harm immunocompromised individuals and infants, shouldn't this also be viewed as "putting others at risk" or violating the NAP, as well?
Finally, the numbers.
I'll just take the measles as an example. In the last 17 years in the USA, 11 deaths have included measles written as a cause of death on the death certificate (source). When I ran a search on the CDC's VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Report System) Database searching for reports of deaths after measles vaccination from January, 2000, to May, 2017 (the most recent date for which data exists) I yielded a result listing 81 reported deaths in association with measles vaccines.
Of course, these reports are not conclusive evidence that each adverse event reported was caused by the vaccine. That said, since the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out approximately $3.6 billion dollars in damages since it's inception in 1988, two years after the US government made it illegal to sue vaccine companies,one has to wonder which information is truly to be believed.
Why pay billions in compensation if "the science is settled," and "vaccines are safe"? It seems to me this VAERS data is all the more significant in view of this knowledge. Add to that the recent scandal/cover up at the CDC, former decades-long editors for the New England Journal of Medicine exposing high-level fraud and payoffs between researchers and drug companies, and one would be acting in foolishness to not examine the info more closely.
So yeah. 81 reported deaths, versus 11 verified ones.
Knowing the government and pharmaceutical industry as revealed by the data and their actions thus far, one must also be forced to wonder about ignored/unreported cases.
In summary, most adults are no longer vaccine-immune to the viruses and diseases they were vaccinated for, vaccine-induced "herd immunity" is a demonstrably unscientific and untenable idea/theory, and a strong argument can be made for the measles vaccine killing and harming far more than measles itself does in well-nourished, sanitary, first-world nations. None of this is to mention the systematic destruction of long-term human immunity that is happening because of all this, and the loss of placental/breastmilk transferred immunity to infants (due to vaccinated mothers never developing natural, wild-type immunity to pass on).
Talk about a NAP violation. How's wrecking the human collective immuno-defense system worldwide and denying helpless infants a chance to receive natural immunity to potentially life-threatening diseases from their mothers? (To learn more, please see this article.
As for the rest, I leave that to you, and your research, but please know that when you say "your unvaccinated kid is dangerous," I could say the very same thing about your vaccinated child, and the program you rely on, which is systematically destroying the human immune system defense worldwide. What's more, it is always a NAP violation to force someone to put something into their body, no matter which way you slice it.
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
This is very well researched and written. Thank you!
The NAP violation is by the doctor/parent that gives the shot in the first place. It is the same for circumcision. The child is not consenting to it. Most of the vaccines given today, 30+ shots last I knew here in the USA, are for things that wouldn't kill your child even if they did get it.
Our children did get polio I believe, and some got one or two of the MMR. Then we finally stopped completely.
VAERS is a joke by the way. I fought with them at Walter Reed Hospital for over two years regarding my hearing damage from the Anthrax booster shots. They were there to protect the military, not help me. The objective of the people writing up my case was to make it look like the vaccine had nothing to do with my damage. Therefore, their data should not be taken as accurate.
I would strongly suggest the data is WAY worse, but it has been skewed by the VAERS administrators.
[This post has been resteemed.]
Man, I was just thinking the same thing when I went to the "submit your report" section. It just reeks of that "We are ultimately going to fuck you over and bury you in stonewalling and paperwork" merciless machine, feel. The big disgusting machine. I really hope I can have you on the show sometime man. I'll change the time so I can get you on. I think your story is important.
Thank you for going into detail and actually digging up the info!
I think the pro-vaccination side is commiting violations of NAP left and right. And as far as putting others at risk by not being vaccinated, I still don't buy the argument, based on the circumstancial evidence I have seen so far. The same goes for herd immunity, and that was before you enlightened me with these facts and figures.
Is it a violation of NAP to be unvaccinated (in a world where facts are exactly how pro-vaccine people claim they are)? I think the argument can go either way. My question is: is the only protection from the disease for you, the vaccinated person, my vaccination?
I say no. And because of that, no one has the right to force me to inject myself with poison.
Nice observations. Right. Half of the battle is also We don't even know the facts because they are being skewed, buried, and warped by the state. It takes so much work just to find any clear information on this stuff. It really is disgusting. Thanks for your commentary, as always. It got me thinking in a new way.
Well stated; upvoted and followed.
Nobody owns me (or you) -- thus, nobody can force me to perform any specific behavior. I act at my own behest. (Similarly, http://losthorizons.com can help with tax issues.)
You forgot to mention that not all diseases vaccinated against are easily communicable. Polio for example is spread through fecal matter and contaminated water. You're not going to get it if you touch someone with polio and it isn't airborne. Hepatitis is an STD, what are we doing giving that to children that are unlikely to be exposed to it until they are older? What your toddler is going to be hanging out at the strip club or doing drugs?
Frankly I find the whole question of community welfare is utterly moot. One is not obligated to determine their health decisions based on their impact on the community. It comes down to health freedom. Whether you believe in vaccines or not one should be free to get them or not. Making any medical procedure mandatory is a gross violation of medical ethics.
Exactly.
Upvoted and followed. You're right, it's an individual's decision as to whether they want to be healthy or not (or "keep their doctor"); I like your term, "health freedom".
Force me to take action, and I might take action you'll regret...
Thanks, friend, for this well researched article. Re-Steemed, and I plan to add it to my Steemit Library at the next revision.
😄😇😄
![@creatr](https://steemitimages.com/DQmWvzuqZ51DoiSjXXf8bukb7JeeVV1eAJJhGBkDiYc8ajj/creatr_ap.gif)
Upvoted, followed, and resteemed -- this is important!
I know someone with polio, who came from India; one leg is shorter than the other.
Additionally I have a very good friend who has a now-teenager who is autistic, which was most likely caused by vaccines. Tragic; his child will never be autonomous, will always be a burden to his parents -- until they're gone, and hopefully have set up a caregiver beforehand.
Thank you, @libertyteeth. I'd be really interested to hear more about these stories sometime. Was your friend's polio caused by the oral vaccine, by chance?
The guy with polio I worked with years ago, we're not in touch any longer -- but I do recall him mentioning that it was due to the oral vaccine, now that you mention it.
What an excellent, logical explaination! Well done and thank you for taking the time to write this. Upvoted and resteemed :)
I believe that the benefits of (voluntary) vaccination outweigh the risks, but as to the NAP, it all comes down to property rights.
In my own home, if I want to set the condition that only vaccinated people are welcome to visit, I am and should be free to do so.
In a public space, however, there is an implied risk that I might encounter infectious diseases from vaccinated and unvaccinated people (and animals). I assume that risk by venturing out my door.
So being unvaccinated only becomes a NAP violation if an unvaccinated person enters into someone's private property, despite the owner's stated intention to decline visits from unvaccinated persons.
Awesome analysis, thank you! Upvoted and followed. :)
Well detailed research you have here. As for me, maybe unvaccinated individuals may put others in greater risk of contracting disease but forcing someone to take a shot against their will is what we called assualt in healtcare settings and punishable by law. It is inhumane to provide healthcare intervention without consent of concerned individual.
Awesome post @kafkanarchy84.
I've always been an avid skeptic. Big pharma + big gov't has made me pause to consider such questions as, do I really want to stick this needle into my kids veins.
I can be persuaded however. With facts, evidence and of course data.
I will forever be skeptical until such a day that the health services branches of gov'ts begin to publish verifiable data showing:
Instances of occurrence of:
Illness
Age
Were they previously vaccinated for the illness. If so, when?
Let the data prove or disprove vaccine effectiveness. I suspect that during so called outbreaks such as measles that there is no appreciable increase in cases on a proportionate basis in those unvaxxed vs. vaxxed for said illness.
I've never seen any data. It's not made available even though it's most certainly collected. They refuse to publish this (at least where I live) so I treat whatever authorities say about this subject with extreme skepticism.
As they say, Cui bono? Who stands to benefit. Just follow the money trail....
Enough said
Dude, great post. Very logical. We need to have this discussion, I'd really hate to see the "general public" decide I have to be forced to take something, or be jailed or fined of some sort. And they are going this direction.
Unfortunately it is full of logical holes, see:
https://steemit.com/health/@lennstar/replay-to-kafkanarchy84-article-on-unvaxxed-it-is-full-of-holes
Interesting rebuttal, but it is also full of logical holes. He is discussing weather or not the unvaccinated pose a risk to others. His point about the 10 year effectiveness is in regard to how Vaccines are administered. Most people take vaccines as children and then never again. By the time you are 20, you're immunity, if derived from the vaccine, is gone per their pamphlets. Therefore most are actually not immune. He isn't writing a scientific paper, only stating the obvious. There are problems with vaccines and we have to make it public, it needs to be common knowledge the risk associated with administering these to ourselves and children.
Vaccines are not as safe as advertised.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/323371
http://www.naturalnews.com/042046_Gardasil_vaccine_damage_HPV_vaccinations.html
https://www.vaccineinjuryhelpcenter.com/symptoms-of-vaccine-injury/
And as as argument for "no" he says that vaccinated people are not immune after 20 years (which is, depending on vaccine, wrong btw).
So yes, if you are unvaccinated you are a risk.
But whatever his statement, if your points all have holes, then your argument can be (and in several of his points is) invalid.
We are talking here about one vaccine. There are a lot that have a "guaranteed" time frame of about 10 years, but others work far longer.
And others again, like the flu one, are basically yearly, even if you have stronger resistances in the next year. The reason is that the strands are changing so fast.