To VAX or not to VAX—the VAX ‘debate’

Before I get into the TL;DR part, I will cut to the chase. Whether or not you have (yourself or) your children vaccinated, should be a matter of totally free choice, free of coercion or disincentives, and fully informed of the risks of vaccination or being unvaccinated.

It’s pretty simple really.

However, we currently have the Australian Federal Government announcing their ‘disincentives for objectors’ as well as the Californian Authorities applying disincentives for objectors/abstainers. On the surface, this could read as ‘benevolent’ governmental concern for its citizens, or the flipside, a stealthy dictatorship.

Let’s nip that in the bud. A benevolent government would not hold a figurative gun to its citizen’s heads and effectively force them to participate in a medical programme. That’s right, the only conclusion is that these authorities are actually dictatorships-by-stealth. Free choice, abstention, are not options under such proposals, particularly for single mothers and the poor. That is Problem #1.

Problem #2, is what they are actually pushing onto their citizens. These governments are pushing these vaccination programmes as if they were a 100% guarantee that your child will be safe. Nuh uh. Most vaccines do not have 100% effectiveness on the population.

  • just read here from the US CDC “In general, DTaP vaccines are 80-90% effective.”
  • or from the site TB Facts: “In various clinical trials the estimates of effectiveness have ranged from 80% protection to no benefit, and the reasons for these differences are still not clearly understood.”
  • or from the CDC again: “How effective is MMR vaccine? The measles vaccine is very effective. One dose of measles vaccine is about 93% effective at preventing measles if exposed to the virus and two doses are about 97% effective.”
  • on Whooping Cough, from the ABC: “However, it does mean that a significant proportion of infections will occur in vaccinated individuals. […] “That’s telling you that the vaccine is working and if you do the numbers, that equates to about an 80 per cent effectiveness of the vaccine.”

Of course, you could search yourself for the effectiveness of various vaccines. I found a lot of those with a Google search of ‘vaccines 80% effective’. So the majority of vaccines fall within the range of 80-95% effective. None are 100%, although some of the measles (with boosters) score highest. It also depends when you got vaccinated for measles/rubella, and whether or not a live vaccine was used. I definitely would have been immunised with the live MMR, and got measles anyway (unsure which variety, way too young to remember), but have not had mumps, so presumably, that one took. TMI on Davina’s health!

Immunity effectiveness is one part of the equation, but what is little talked about is risk, and yes, there are risks going with the vaccination programmes (Problem #3). They are not 100% safe. Children, particularly young babies with very undeveloped immune systems, can have bad reactions to these vaccinations. Some can even die, or be permanently brain damaged (as happened with the “4 in 1” programme in the early 60s, which I believe was primarily US). Hell, in the 1960s they thought giving pregnant women Thalidomide was a great idea for morning sickness, and we know how that turned out. Thankfully they are more cautious about what is prescribed or recommended for pregnant women. But back then, there was a 99.9% chance your family doctor or OB-GYN was male, complete with the “Doctor knows best” attitude going on. Ah yes, I do remember the absolute God-like demeanour of (male) doctors, that went well beyond the 60s.

OK, by this time in the post, your faith in the male dominated medical profession is a wee bit shakey. Understandable.

Don’t get me wrong, it is a very nice ideal to aim for the eradication of diseases, particularly those with devastating effects even death. And some of those immunisation programmes are targeting those very devastating diseases. But none have been eradicated, despite some very good uptake of the immunisation programmes. Which brings us back to, none of the immunisation programmes are 100% effective, for various reasons.

The Pro-VAX lobby worship at the God-like altar of immunisation (and yes, behave like a bunch of cultists). Sorry to burst their bubble on that, but no, you cannot force others to do something just to benefit yourself (which is actually the crux of the Pro-VAX stance). The bottom line, is you do what you want to do, or believe is right, but you cannot force others to ‘protect’ you or your own.

So the next portion of the post is to examine their position, or arguments.

First off the block, the buzz-term “Herd Immunity“.

Either the ‘herd’ is immune, or it is not. Just like being ‘a little bit pregnant’. It is an absolute. If only 80% of your ‘herd’ is immune from vaccination, then your ‘herd’ is not fully immune, is it? Certainly there is disease reduction, but it is no way, shape or form, immune. Four fifths of your ‘herd’ is immune, but not your entire herd.

Now the non-immune part of the herd, which is not entirely made up of your non-vaccinated herd, but actually includes part (one-fifth) of your vaccinated ‘herd’, plus the not-immunised. Yikes, the 80% just dropped below 80%. These numbers are looking a bit shaky now. Generally the pro-vax figures are around 90%, so that means that around 30% of your ‘herd’ has no protection, and could potentially (but not absolutely) succumb to the disease. So yes, in actual fact, the 2/3rds of the problem there is coming from your vaccinated ‘herd’, not your unvaccinated ‘herd’. Yet the focus is always upon the unvaccinated. Sounds like Fallacy #1.

Fallacy #2, is the illogical (Pro-VAX) argument of “you are putting my child at risk by not having your child vaccinated!”

This honestly, is the one that sticks in my craw. Yes I have a craw, deal with it.

If, as the Pro-VAXers claim, vaccination is the Holy Grail of protection, and your child has been vaccinated (a false assumption, but assume a 100% protection for the moment), then how on earth can an unvaccinated child infect the vaccinated one? This is a logical fallacy.

However, we know in reality, that vaccinations are not in fact, 100% effective. Who is to say that the infecting child, and the infected child, both don’t have this ‘immunity’ to the actual vaccine? Who is to ‘blame’? Because it sounds like a lot of blaming on immune systems that individuals have zero control over (ie whether the vaccine is effective or not). Again, it is Fallacy #2.

Coming back around to safety, no immunisation is guaranteed safe. In recent years the HPV vaccine was rolled out to teenaged and pre-teen girls (under the name of ‘preventing cervical cancer’). The early HPV vaccines at least, did not protect for all strains of HPV. Apart from that, feminists questioned whether this was in fact a guinea pig experiment on teenaged girls, because teenaged boys were not then, routinely vaccinated (and in the vein of “it takes two to tango”) coupled with STD disease transmission is more likely from male to female than the other way around, it really did seem like teenaged girls were the guinea pigs for this ‘trial’, which was a roll-out, not a trial. As it turned out, teenaged girls did die (or were otherwise damaged) by the vaccine, but I am sure it was deemed “acceptable losses” by the drug companies and government alike. After all, girls are not really valued in this society (hence the female roll-out). Worryingly, the governments/BigPharma are rolling out an even more potentially dangerous version.

The feminist view is of course, there is no such thing as “acceptable losses”, particularly with a health programme that is meant to be preventative.

So who really benefits from ALL these immunisation programmes? There is only one answer, and that is BigPharma, the multi-national pharmaceutical companies that basically ‘rule the world’. Whether they get their funds via government sponsored immunisation programmes, or privately paid-for immunisation, they are the ones pocketing the profits from all this. And most governments around the world are not immune from a little kick-back from ‘corporate sponsorship’, one way or another. Yes I said governmental corruption.

The purpose of this post is not to persuade you one way or another, but to get you to:

  1. Weigh the benefits of immunisation
  2. Be aware of the risks of immunisation
  3. Don’t fall for catchy phrases like ‘herd immunity’
  4. Do your own reseach, for each and every vaccine or programme
  5. Decide what is best for you and your family

No one should tell you what to do, with regard to your family’s health, that is a personal decision—and only you can decide what is right, or what is wrong for your family. However, you do not have the right to lecture anyone else on what they should or should not do, particularly when it pertains to your own situation.

All we know for sure, is that immunisation is a bit of a crap shoot, no guarantee of success, and risks that hardly anyone wants to talk about. We have governments closing down any counter views, and effectively mandating mandatory programmes, and a silent BigPharma profiting from it all. At the very least, it should make you question the mainstream (Pro-VAX) view, and weigh your options/risk. Vaccinations do save lives, but they also cost lives.


As a post-script:

My mother dutifully vaccinated me for all the recommended stuff. At about 4-6 months, the night of a vaccination, I apparently turned blue and went into convulsions. The local GP did manage to intervene, and yes I am writing blog posts today because of that intervention. The MMR vaccination I received, did not stop me getting measels (and yes, I remember how shitty it was, and how I wanted to go back to school!). I have never had mumps, even though a teenager I went to school with, contracted it (it also could have been outside the contagious period).

Do you reseach, you decide what is best.

16 thoughts on “To VAX or not to VAX—the VAX ‘debate’

  1. Pseudo vaccination programmes have become huge corporate male owned businesses which is why numerous governments are endorsing/promoting these programmes because it benefits those male owned corporate pharmaceutical companies.

    Do not forget many General Practitioner Doctors are not as neutral as they claim because Big Pharma has always sought to obtain GPs’ endorsements/claims those fake vaccinations are 100% safe. Many GPs have direct links to Big Pharma and hence they are not ‘neutral’ or putting patient safety first.

    Governments supposedly work for their female and male citizens’ benefit not for the financial profit of male owned pharmaceutical companies.

    Here in the UK the MMR vaccine continues to be promoted as the only safe vaccine despite evidence to the contrary. One has to ask why does the UK government refuse to allow single vaccinations to take place instead of this multiple MMR vaccine? Why is the UK government continuing to promote that fake and dangerous vaccine HPV instead of stating it has not been proven to be safe because so many girls have died/experienced devastating side-effects. HPV is another ‘fake disease’ created by Big Pharma in order to massively increase their profits. Big Pharma has a long male history of endangering womens’ lives – remember when the Pill was first manufactured by Big Pharma and when women suffered severe side effects this was dismissed by mens’ medical institutions as ‘female imagination!’ Big Pharma also claimed HRT was a miracle cure for women experiencing severe menopause and once again innumerable women suffered severe side effects!

    The Australian government is not alone in promoting corporate interests at the expense of their citizens’ right not to be subjected to propaganda lies. Big Pharma continues to exploit women and girls in India because India doesn’t have such stringent regulations concerning drug trials as those countries in the west.

    Male owned corporate pharmaceutical companies are in the business of profit and hence these companies have to constantly create new vaccines/new fake diseases in order to maintain their profits. Undertaking lengthy time-consuming drug trials is very, very expensive which means Big Pharma sees their huge profits decrease, which is why Big Pharma constantly claims a short-term drug trial supposedly proves said (fake) vaccine is 100% safe!

    So do your research and do not just check out one or two malestream medical sites because these sites are owned and controlled by Big Pharma.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ah yes, I did forget to cover the ‘lack of choice’ for single dose MMR. Thanks for the reminder.

      Part of my position is really that there is a ‘big ask’ on the part of fragile immune systems, and the risk, or a large part of it, is in ‘overloading’ the very young immune sytems (ie the programmes for babies). I do not think that it a huge leap of analysis, given what we know.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Likewise I too am not medically trained but I have a feminist scepticism of mens’ medical institution. It is a fact that babies and very young children’s immune systems are not as developed as adult humans.

    I know a Feminist who is medically trained and I’ll ask her opinion concerning increasing male controlled government claims that ‘not immunising your child puts other children at risk!’ This is propaganda language and obviously designed to maintain male dominant political control over their ‘drones!’

    Liked by 3 people

  3. “Ah yes, I do remember the absolute God-like demeanour of (male) doctors, that went well beyond the 60s.” There is a lot of articles on online glorifying that kind of thing. Paternal attitudes and prejudges are an impediment to women’s health. All hail the good (bad) old days!

    I am pro-vax and I do support mandatory vaccination laws because I think it’s ableist to compromise herd immunity and also the issue of Indigenous people having less immunity to the common infectious diseases in colonized countries. I do not think mandatory vax is comparable to forced medical TREATMENT because it is a preventative measure that is extremely low risk. If anything when these kind of laws get put in its easier to advocate for the state to cover vaccination cost. Which is good because we know socialized healthcare benefits women and minorities.

    The marketing of Gardasil and how is was explicitly for girls has a lot of problems from a feminist perspective which you mentioned. It comes from living in a male supremacist culture that victim blames women when its men who spread more STDs by the very nature of the act of PIV. The old harm reduction tactic of patriarchy and refusal to name the agent. In hunter gatherer times and in Greek city-states, the population was so localized there were less pandemics. But don’t you dare criticize capitalist imperialism! Globalization helps spread diseases.


    • I do not think mandatory vax is comparable to forced medical TREATMENT because it is a preventative measure that is extremely low risk.

      The issue I have, is that risks of death, disablement, and actually contracting the disease being immunised against, are swept under the rug. As if they do not exist.

      In some cases sure, the disease is so bad, so fatal or disabling, that perhaps yes, it is worth the risk. But FULL DISCLOSURE of those risks should be known to those participating—this is NOT happening at all. It is all happy smiley this will prevent stuff going on. What worries me is the dishonesty of the medical profession (and BigPharma) in all this. Neither have a great track record as far as past risky behaviour goes. And certainly, because there is risk involved, it should never be mandatory, and always INFORMED CONSENT is key.

      Like, what do you say to the parents of the albeit very few young children damaged or dead from a vaccination programme: “yeah, sorry for your loss, shit happens and herd immunity is king”? Because that attitude comes across as completely self-centred at the expense of others. And what if it was your own child affected, and the risks were not outlined to you beforehand? Morally, it is unjustifiable.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. If you get the disease you were vaxed against it will likely be less severe. I know you acknowledged vax is preventative but you are alluding to forced medical treatment and unethical experimentation. I don’t mean to defend the medical system as it is. I don’t think men should be in a position of power over vulnerable women. #banmaledoctors


  5. I don’t usually have a problem with the drugs themselves but there are exceptions when the drug was made with an obvious ideological purpose. One of those is HRT, another is recent one with the same purpose of propping up male entitlement to sexual access of women is called Osphena which they acknowledge in the ads increases a women’s risk of reproductive organ cancer. The purpose of it is to prevent painful sex after menopause. As Hecuba mentioned, clinical trails for drugs are expensive as frig yet this drug was seen important enough to push through even when people with horrific rare diseases are ignored. This goes right under the mechanics of patriarchy 101 because it pathologizes resistance to PIV and normal female ageing. It is also very misogynist how birth control was created for women first and now all the companies researching male birth control put way more emphasis on safety and noninvasive tactics. See Vasalgel for an example of how important safety is when its men’s bodies. Men would never take a pill that upped their risks of cancer just to prevent women from suffering what ‘nature’ (patriarchy) says they should suffer. Looking at it from a logical point of view it would have made way more sense to focus birth control development on men in the very first place since their privates are on the outside so dealing with them will always be less invasive and the fact that men can impregnate many women easily if they so choose. Refusal to hold men accountable and PIV worship is enemy ideology.


  6. It’s fine to be suspicious of the actions of government, can personally view a lot of policy with scepticism but when it comes to public health, there are real issues to do with reducing communicable diseases within communities and a long history of people taking various actions (quarantine being one of them) to prevent them spreading. How about Dr. John Snow and the story of the Broad St pump for instance? He worked out that cholera was present, and those nearest that pump the most likely to fall ill. He removed the pump handle, and the cases almost immediately stopped occurring. Early epidemiology and intervention undoubtedly saved lives there.

    Medical institutions may have their faults and be guilty of a lot of wrongs, but if I get appendicitis there is no one else to call to save my life other than a surgeon. Similarly you can look at other institutions like pharmaceutical companies, they have faults too, but are the most highly regulated of all industries and my friend who has type 1 diabetes would die within a few days without insulin made by the those companies. Life expectancies used to be low, due to high death rates in children mainly due to infectious diseases. That has changed as has the proportion of women in medicine. In NZ they had the cervical cancer inquiry in 1988 which uncovered a lot of poor treatment, but the answer is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater or go full on conspiracy theory, but to work to improve things, to break and rebalance the institutional power that doctors and others hold over patients that need that health care like the doctor that tried to whistle blow internally and the feminist journalists that made sure it went public and was exposed.

    The fact is, there is a choice there, and a person could forgo some money if they choose otherwise. They are still allowing for medical exemption as well as religious belief, even though religious texts are not medical ones. I think they do have a point that it isn’t really supportable by the evidence and if making a decision that goes against that it shouldn’t be supported by the tax payer. It’s rather like the anti-vaccination organisation losing charity status, that does not remove their voice or stop them in any way doing their thing, all it does is mean they don’t get tax breaks for doing so.

    Anyway if making the argument not 100% safe nor 100% effective, even if stressing it’s a individual decision it’s misleading if you only look at the vaccinations and not the diseases they prevent. This is very few in the big scheme of things, but those particular diseases have a great impact in terms of morbidity and death and the whole picture must be weighed up.

    There are a few ways to be immune to a disease, but really you’ve either got to contract it and become sick and develop immunity or be vaccinated (against those this is available for) avoiding contracting the disease. Catching the disease is also a lottery, as while they can do things like cause pneumonia, ear infections, conjunctivitis, encephalitis, meningitis in the worst case scenario. Not all will become immune on contracting a communicable disease, and with some diseases immunity wanes over time but with vaccines what you will have is most gaining immunity, without getting the disease itself with dramatically less side effects and typically where immunity wanes, it’s the same with the infectious disease concerned e.g. whooping cough. Claiming vaccination is not 100% safe or effective is the Nirvana or false dilemma fallacy, unless the solution to a problem is perfect, it’s framed as a failure. It’s not with vaccines, they can and do work well enough and mean the old epidemics where virtually all children fell ill are largely a thing of the past. The thing is that we do talk about things being ‘safe’ like “safe playgrounds” but it’s ‘safe’ in terms of that it’s designed so it’s much less likely that a child will be injured, not that no injury will occur. And it’s certainly better than the days of the old jungle gym over hard concrete that must have caused a few injuries when children fell.

    Anyway, herd immunity. Numbers – so if you have a school of 250 students, and a group of unvaccinated students of 25 (10%) and the rest are vaccinated for measles, assuming 93% at one dose that would be about 16 students. That means 209 students will be immune from the start, a large number,. Unvaccinated child goes into school and measles, being very infectious catches hold. 100% (25/25) of the unimmune children will become sick, but only 7% or 16/225 will become sick and it is possible they might get less sick than usual. It gets worse though, that unimmunised child doesn’t just go to school and stay, they have a family, and all their siblings get sick too. If they go out to the movies, and there are not only older children there but younger children ineligible for vaccination becuase of age, they are exposed too and are at higher risk of SSPE as a late sequelae of measles should they become ill. That’s the story of an epidemic starting right there, and yes, the focus does go on the unimmune who will not only be at high risk of contracting infectious disease, but will spread it to others who don’t have a choice but to be exposed. How much smallpox is around these days? The thing is breaking transmission works, and gives the hope of eradicating some illnesses with serious effects.

    Vaccines can protect individuals as well as others and sometimes protection is purely for them e.g. tetanus and other times it’s the protection of others that counts e.g. rubella, in preventing congenital rubella.

    “The Pro-VAX lobby worship at the God-like altar of immunisation (and yes, behave like a bunch of cultists).”

    Ah, yes, this is the crux, should be a free choice, but if you make the ‘wrong’ one you are a cultist, unable to make a considered decision. Randoms on the internet that make websites full of BS claims are not any better. They also don’t have anyone’s interests at heart, less even than your GP that does at least need to worry about meeting some sort of standard of care. Scepticism is important, but it should equally go for both sides that might be working to sway opinion one way or another and should seek to find the facts rather than suiting preferences.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I am highly suspicious of random strangers who ‘just happen’ to find my little blog, when this post does not show up within the first ten pages of a google search of ‘pro vax anti vax’. The only way it could have been found is by having a google alert, which shows that ‘random stranger’ has a pony in the race one way or another.

      How about Dr. John Snow and the story of the Broad St pump for instance? He worked out that cholera was present, and those nearest that pump the most likely to fall ill. He removed the pump handle, and the cases almost immediately stopped occurring. Early epidemiology and intervention undoubtedly saved lives there.

      Not the same thing, that is a straw argument. Removing the handle from the water pump is in no way comparable to injecting people with substances for disease prevention. Stuff like:

      Using that logic (of your straw argument) then we should all just drink beer and everything would be ok?

      Anyway, herd immunity. Numbers – so if you have a school of 250 students, and a group of unvaccinated students of 25 (10%) and the rest are vaccinated for measles, assuming 93% at one dose that would be about 16 students. That means 209 students will be immune from the start, a large number,. Unvaccinated child goes into school and measles, being very infectious catches hold. 100% (25/25) of the unimmune children will become sick, but only 7% or 16/225 will become sick and it is possible they might get less sick than usual.

      For starters, that is using the best-case scenario numbers of vaccine effectiveness, and only one variety of measles, the average effectiveness across vaccines varies between 80-90%. Also the unvaccinated are far less than 10%, 5% or less. So to rework, using a more average number of 90% immunity, and 5% not-immunised, it breaks down as:

      250 total students
      238 vaccinated total
      214 vaccinated and immune
      24 vaccinated but not immune
      12 unvaccinated
      36 potential cases

      So potentially, two thirds of that problem are actually the vaccinated but not-immune, and one third the unvaccinated. Who is to say who brought that disease into ‘the herd’? Could easily have been one of the vaccinated-but-not-immune ‘herd’ members. Why is the blame automatically put onto the unvaccinated? Because numbers-wise, there is a greater chance that the ‘Typhoid Mary’ was one of the vaccinated-but-not-immune. Why must the blame automatically be upon the unvaccinated? Surely by that logic, the vaccinated-but-not-immune are ‘just as bad’ (hence, blaming individuals’ immune systems for not adequately becoming immune is bizarre to say the least). But also, the attitude shows a large degree of self-centredness more than anything else.

      If say, your child was one of the 214 vaccinated and immune—what the hell business is it of yours whether other kids get it or not? Because the vaccinated-and-immune children will not get it. It makes no logical sense to get so uppity and righteous about something that affects someone else’s children, because they chose not to take the risk of vaccination, but chose the risk of the disease, and your children are protected. And if you have other children too young before the vaccination schedule, it is perfectly within your rights to ‘ban’ the unvaccinated children (and adults) from your home. The key here is that with many vaccinations, immunity is not for life, or for unknown time. It could even be that the parents of unvaccinated young children are the very ones who infected the child, due to immunity wearing off. That is rarely discussed.

      The overall issue I have with the ‘debate’ is that one side is telling the other side that they have to do something. It is a mirror of the abortion ‘debate’, where by the anti-choicers (supposedly “pro-life”) insist on rules that interfere with someone else’s free choice (to have or not have an abortion). Whereas the pro-choice people are NOT forcing ‘pro-lifers’ to have an abortion, but the anti-choicers are sure interfering as to what other women can and cannot do with their own bodies.

      I have let this ‘random stranger’ comment through, but I will not let another ‘random stranger pro-vax’ commenter through. I will let one ‘random stranger anti-vax’, or even neutral (if there is such a thing) comment through. Actually, no restrictions on the truly neutral ‘random strangers’, go for it, I would love to have a proper debate over many of the areas of key concern. There are no restrictions on regular commenters here, your comments always go through automatically.

      Liked by 1 person

      • That would be because I follow your blog via WordPress so check there, much of it being good material about feminist issues. This isn’t a feminist issue although there are issues that impact on that in the delivery of health care and it’s right to question that, otherwise it’s a bog standard public health care issue. Health care is something that many people consider a right, and we all need it from time to time during our lives.

        I’ll start here – you say the issue “is that one side is telling the other side that they have to do something.”

        Yes that happens, as we live in societies not in individual bubbles. We require that children go to school also, you could opt out and not teach them how to read as well but that would be detrimental to children so it tends to be education is mandatory, no matter how it is delivered. This is not a mirror for the abortion debate, where women’s rights to full health care decisions are abrogated due to a potential state their body might be in. The Broad Street pump is an analogy for infectious illness and why intervention is necessary, even if it did impact those people as they had to go further to get water for various purposes. It was one of the very first uses of epidemiology to map cases and then solve the problem of many people becoming sick and dying.

        This is about public health and reducing disease burden, you’ve already thought of Typhoid Mary (or I can add someone with Hep C) do you think a carrier of that should be in food preparation? There’s a good reason why they’d be putting some restrictions in there. There are also good reasons to isolate a person with active TB, bacterial meningitis and so on. And there are also good reasons to promote preventing diseases as an unimmune person is 100% susceptible to the disease should they encounter it and can transmit it to others, that is not the case for those that have taken preventative measures who will be much less at risk. That’s why they get focused on and that’s why in cases like where someone gets bacterial meningitis they’ll trace contacts and give them prophylactic antibiotic treatment to prevent more cases (and funnily enough you don’t have hundreds of web sites complaining about this). Prevention matters. And in populations with high vaccination rates, there will be little chance for a epidemic to start, whereas if there are a lot of unimmune people, you’ll have that happen.

        Being socially responsible means you do consider impacts on others, and that a 4 week old baby does not have a choice if another person exposes them to measles or whooping cough and it is not as easy as banning a person from your home, you have to do things like go out shopping or drop the kids off at school. It’s not that simple, and I don’t really think you mean to say everyone has to live in isolation, out of contact with everyone else. Others do not have the choice to avoid the inevitable health care and other costs if an epidemic breaks out in an group, especially if they get hospitalised. The fact here is that you can opt out, you’ll just forgo a few carrots the government dishes out and even within that, you can get medical and religious exemptions and keep the carrot.

        And the fact here is there is equal push from those anti, but this ignores real public health issues and that these diseases are real and simply works to obscure some real issues you need to consider. This doesn’t help.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You are missing the point, and making false equivalencies again. Non-invasive measures to stop disease preventions (ie wearing gloves, quarantine, removing the water pump handle) are NOT the same as forcing 100% of the population to risk themselves, or their children, for someone else’s agenda/safety. So please stop making false equivalencies. If you wish to engage further, please accurately address the points I made in the other post.

        Yes, I (have now) verified your ‘follower’ status, and you have been following this blog for eight months. I do feel better that you are not an AstroTurfer.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Although my personal belief is that *some* vaccination programmes are good, and beneficial, I remain unconvinced that any programme (particularly when not without risk) should be made mandatory. Sounds a bit like russian roulette.

    Key questions remain, specifically with the pro-vax side, questions they refuse to address:

    1) Vaccinations are not 100% safe
    So if you mandate a mandatory vaccination programme, what do you say to the parents of a child that died because of the vaccination? “Awww, too bad, but herd immunity is king”? That attitude sounds quite heartless to me. So what if it was your kid that died, would you remain so fiercly pro-vax?

    2) Why are the risks ALWAYS glossed over?
    Because the more honest position actually is (in most cases): “yes there are some risks, but the risk of dying/damaged from vaccination is less than dying/damaged from the disease itself”. This is a key argument that needs to be addressed, and why free choice should be available.

    3) Vaccinations are not 100% effective
    Although it does vary between the different vaccinations, immunity generally falls within the range of 80-95%, so it is dishonest to represent it any other way.

    4) Outbreaks are always blamed upon the not-vaccinated, and never the vaccinated-but-failed-immunity
    This is of course, another dishonest position

    5) There is generally never any follow-up testing to see, out of the vaccinated group, which ones failed to gain immunity
    Seems a very hit and miss attitude on the ‘herd immunity’ pov. If you were serious about it, you would also demand mandatory post-injection screening.

    6) Immunity is generally not life-long for many of the immunisations
    So really, pro-vaxxers should be campaigning for every single person, adults and children, to be regularly vaccinated for the so-called ‘herd’ protection (is anyone feeling like mindless cattle at this point, to be referred to as ‘herd’?). Therefore any mandatory programmes of immunisation must also include adults. Try getting that through. Also see point 4, and who is to say some child got something because their own parents’ immunity had worn off

    7) A number of vaccinations require quite the regular ‘boosters’ to keep them effective
    This is not brought up much (sometimes, but not all the time). Booster programmes (even for children) are generally hit and miss by the authorities, but booster programmes for adults are completely absent.

    8) Why not allow, within a mandatory vaccination programme, a choice of individually dosed vaccinations, rather than combined vaccinations?
    Because in actual fact, this is where many parents have issues, and “become anti-vax”, because of these (undisclosed) risks of multi-vaccines. So pro-vaxxers who want to ensure a near-100% uptake of vaccinations, should also campaign for (free) single-dose vaccinations to be readily available for those who want them. It is actually this point that raises my suspicions on programmes, from the point of view of overloading under-developed immune systems of very young children/babies. Most of the fatalities from vaccines are from the very young (or very old).


  8. Pingback: To VAX or not to VAX—part 2 | Radfem Groundhog Day

Comments are closed.