Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Immunization by vaccine saves thousands of lives. The benefits are much greater if everyone is vaccinated than if not, therefore it is essential that as many people as possible are vaccinated. There should be as few obstacles as possible to such a program in order to save as many lives as possible. Some might argue that, nn the other hand, why should the government be able to force someone to have a needle stuck into them? They might also say that if they wish to take the risk of not having the vaccine, that is their choice. However, it not only effects them but the people around them. So, this essentially boils down to personal liberty vs. the good of the entire society.

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

It eliminates diseases and prevents them from returning

In countries where there is compulsory vaccination of children, the argument presented by governments is that the mass vaccination of children from birth will help to eradicate and prevent various diseases from existing in the country. There is certainly strong evidence from the United States to suggest that compulsory immunization is justified, and is perhaps better demonstrated by looking at several examples of how diseases have been significantly reduced as a result of compulsory immunization. Firstly, prior to a vaccine for polio, between 13,000 and 20,000 cases were reported in the USA annually. In 1988, the World Health Organisation decided to try and eradicate polio worldwide, and as of today the disease has been removed from the USA, Western Pacific and Europe. Only four countries (Afghanistan, Nigeria, India and Pakistan) are endemic, and there are just 2000 cases reported worldwide annually as of 2009.

But by stopping vaccination before the disease is widely eradicated leaves countries susceptible to future unexpected outbreaks. Another common disease – measles, affected nearly everyone in the United States prior to the vaccination being introduced. Between 1953 and 1963, there were 450 deaths each year from the disease. Currently in the US, three of every 1000 people who contract measles will die, whilst in the developing world, one in 100 will die. It is estimated that 90% of people who are exposed to the virus will get infected if not vaccinated against it. In 1999 according to the WHO, there were 900,000 measles related deaths worldwide. Measles can spread rapidly amongst unvaccinated populations, and if vaccinations were stopped, the WHO estimate there could be 2.7 million measles related deaths worldwide annually.

Type B meningitis was prior to the vaccine the most common form of bacterial meningitis in US infants, with 20,000 annual cases, with one in 600 proving either fatal or leaving the child with some form of disability. Since the vaccine became available in1987, the number of cases has reduced by 98%, with fewer than ten fatalities a year. These are just a few examples of how vaccines can prevent and eradicate diseases that have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths throughout the past century. Although some may argue that with diseases such as Polio wiped out in most of the world a vaccine is not necessary. However any reduction in the number of people vaccinated against the disease would leave a window of opportunity for the disease to rear its head up once again.

In many ways vaccinations have become victims of their own success. People under estimate the dangers of disease as they have not experienced the effects.

Above all else this is a question of basic human rights. I have the right to decide whether to medicate myself or my children, and the government does not have the right to force medicate a population, especially when known dangers are present. This is not about disease eradication, it is about "Big Pharma" and the billions given to them to come up with an endless and ever increasing supply of inoculations.

That being said, the yes points are highly inaccurate. Immunization does not eliminate disease. The truth is that vaccines are a deadly cocktail of foreign proteins, and there has been a dramatic increase in auto-immune diseases since mass inoculations were introduced. Some 40-50 years ago children were not vaccinated until they were ready for the first grade at age six. Neurological disorders were very uncommon then. Today, children are vaccinated at birth for HiB and begin their long vaccination-journey at 2 months of age, before the blood brain barrier is fully developed. Before the 1940s, autism was extremely rare or unheard of. Then in the mid-1940s we began a massive vaccination programs and autism was "born". At first, it only occurred in the children of wealthy parents, since vaccinations were not free or government sponsored like today. Later autism became a disease of all classes (with government-sponsored vaccine programs). Currently, the rate of autism is staggering, with some estimates as high as one in fifty-six children. Compare this with Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, a well respected American pediatrician, who has 40,000 non-vaccinated patients since the 1970's, with almost no incidents of autism.

Diseases such as Polio had been on a steady decline prior to the introduction of the vaccine. According to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, childhood diseases decreased 90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved sanitation and hygienic practices, well before mandatory vaccination programs. Infectious disease deaths in the U.S. and England declined steadily by an average of about 80% during this century (measles mortality declined over 97%) prior to vaccinations. In Great Britain, the polio epidemics peaked in 1950, and had declined 82% by the time the vaccine was introduced there in 1956 and the rate of decline remained virtually the same after vaccines were introduced. Furthermore, European countries that refused immunization for small pox and polio saw the epidemics end along with those countries that mandated it.

The final point is correct. People have not experienced the dangers of disease, but we have experienced the dangers of the poisons in the vaccines. The CDC knew about the mercury in the vaccines and the dangers but decided to cover it up.

Dr. Mendelsohn states the following, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease. While it is true that some once common childhood diseases have diminished or disappeared since inoculations were introduced, no one really knows why, although improved living conditions may be the reason. If immunizations were responsible for the diminishing or disappearance of these diseases in the United States, one must ask why they disappeared simultaneously in Europe, where mass immunizations did not take place."

Historically, homeopathy has been more effective than "mainstream" allopathic medicine in treating and preventing disease. In a U.S. cholera outbreak in 1849, allopathic medicine saw a 48-60% death rate, while homeopathic hospitals had a documented death rate of only 3%.

According to the NVIC, there are over 250 new vaccines being developed for everything from earaches to birth control to diarrhea, with about 100 of these already in clinical trials. Researchers are working on vaccine delivery through nasal sprays, mosquitoes (yes, mosquitoes), and the fruits of "transgenic" plants in which vaccine viruses are grown.

If you start mandating forced immunization you are traveling down a slippery slope. Even if you are a supporter of immunizations I would hope that you would also be a supporter of the Constitution and respect the rights of the citizens to decide for themselves what goes in their bodies. Governments have always used fear to suspend the rights of the people. Your government does not have the right to force medicate, especially when they have taken away your right to sue if your child has been vaccine injured. They don't want to tell you that you have the right to opt out of immunizing your child via a waiver. Educate before you vaccinate! There is a reason that many medical personnel refuse to vaccinate themselves and their families. Ignorance is not bliss, it is dangerous!

Not necessarily in some diseases like smallpox or flu the shots dont work all the time. People as americans have a right to choose if the want the vaccination or not. You take away that choice you take away what makes America america. Your wasting money on stuff that not everybody wants. The worlds econimic stabilty is going down. Soon were all gonna be third world countries. If you waste money on something that not everybody agrees on. The people that want it get it but dont force anyone to take it. What if it doesnt work? What happens if the side effects are worse then what you were trying to get away from? If you got the Chicken Pox immuization when you were little, what happen if you dont get it through childhood but adulthood? Childhood you would be a little sick and itchy but most likely not be able to remember it. Now if you were an adult you get very ill, and if your pregant it could kill your child. Just remember with all this techonolgy advancement sometimes things are better basic.

Vaccines are dangerous because they can cause negative side effects. According to the ProCon article, about 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, meaning associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death. According to the CDC, infants (children less than one year old) are at greatest risk for adverse medical events from vaccination including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome.

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

2) Compulsory Immunization will create a herd immunity to protect those who cannot be vaccinated.

Owing to vaccination campaigns, smallpox is no longer a disease that threatens man and polio, diphtheria and measles are rare in developed countries. However these diseases with the exception of smallpox still exist in other parts of the world. The aim of most developed countries including the USA is to create a “herd immunity” where those who are not vaccinated against these diseases are still protected, due to protection by “the herd.”

This is the idea that if you immunize as many people as possible, then they will protect the not vaccinated. When the vaccination levels drop, so does the protection. In the UK, the debate over the MMR jab resulted in just 65% of London school children receiving the jab. The required level for a herd immunity to be successful in preventing a major measles outbreak was 95%. The consequence was that London experienced a massive rise in measles cases. It is therefore important that the numbers of those left unvaccinated remain low, as to lower the threat of a disease spreading through contact. This also shows that by vaccinating the required percentage of those who can have the jab allow means those who cannot for various reasons receive the jab will more or less be protected from such diseases. For instance, most jabs cannot be given to a child until they are between two and twelve months old. Prior to this age, these children are entirely reliant upon the herd for protection.

What if a majority is not allowed to be vaccinated due to some particular reason?
If we get rid of the lower soicety than we are saving the higher gened people thus making me save more lives than you

Also, the herd theory only works in an ideal situation, where none of the unimmunized people get sick. This is not an ideal world and the reality is that they will get sick. You cannot ignore that fact by trying to cover them in vaccinated people. Instead, tell the world what's going on, give them the pros and cons, don't lie and falsly publicize, and be honest. I believe that we are smart people, smart enough to realize what the right thing to do is. That is the best way that everyone can get immunized with the least amount of casualties. We are not all the same, and you must acknowledge the fact that some are different. Think in terms of clothes. You cannot force a size 5 on everyone, for it will fit some, but not all. This is the same. Do not try to make it fit, or someone will get hurt trying.

If you have compulsory vaccination, there is NO NEED for herd immunity at all. herd immunity is a voluntary structure, and compulsory immunizations are not voluntary, hence: COMPULSORY. Therefore, herd immunity does not work for the affirmative.

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

A child has a human right to be protected from preventable diseases from birth

As article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states, “State parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to health services.” Each year millions of children worldwide die of preventable diseases before the age of five. The argument presented here is that the state needs to protect the child and immunize him or her from preventable diseases as obviously the child does not have the capabilities at this stage to make informed decisions of their own. The United Nations Right to Liberty and Security of the Person treaty, article 6.2 supports this view - State Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child. It is up to the State to decide if a child is to be immunized, as overall it will be the State who would benefit from having the vast majority of its citizens vaccinated, and it will be the State who will have to pay for any treatment needed to treat a preventable disease. Whilst a child’s parents have to a certain degree the right to decide what is best for their child’s future, poor decision making in this area could result in serious medical issues for the nation. In this extremely important area, the State must have authority over the rights of the parent. (Vaccines don't cause autism)

Yes, but that is only if they want to, what if children don't want to be vaccinated, if compulsory immunizations are carried out, there could be major strikes by kids and teens, also, what if the child becomes autistic due to this? As of now, people are allowed to decide whether or not they get vaccinated. If your value is Justice, this is a major question. If this law is carried out, who knows what terrible things could happen? Also, the resolution is not asking about whether or not vaccination is a bad thing, but if the government should have to FORCE the child to be immunized. Parents should be the primary decision-makers of their child's life, as they know whether or not the child will actually be exposed to the virus. Vaccines usually are not free, they cost money, and may actually risk the baby's life by exposing the virus. Thus, parents must make the child's critical decisions. If they are inadequate at doing this, we do have a thing called child custody requirements.

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

Vaccines are good not bad.

Vaccines don't cause autism, where the heck did you get that.

They also help protect us, vaccines help our immune recognize diseases.
the side effect you are talking about. that just happen to 1 in over 150000000 people. it is very dumb to say that if there is 1 person who will get kill by the side effect then lets stop using the vaccine and let 150000000 people die from illness.

They side effects are caused by adjuvants. If you were to look up the rate of harm of these you would realize that it is actually very low. So because the rate of harm is low and the benefit of the vaccines is much higher then truly the side effects would have less reason to stop vaccination.

Yes however they are side effects and every human 's body is different so it responds to certain vaccines in different manners. Therefore if some one's body was to have a certain reaction to that side effect can easily cause something much worse including autism

They wouldn't be called vaccines if they didn't protect us.

So, if you realize that many people got major side effects due to vaccines, would you change your mind?

FIRST - Are you saying vaccines cause autism, or they don't cause autism.

SECOND - THEY WOULDN'T BE CALLED VACCINES IF THEY DON'T PROTECT US.

Also there aren't nearly 150 billion people on the planet. there is just over 6.7 billion people on the planet right now. it is estimated that only 69 to 110 billion have actually lived on earth.

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

Compulsory Immunizations are necessary to protect the right's of others.

The good thing about immunization, is that if a majority of the people get the vaccination, the disease can almost completely be eliminated from society. If the population is immunized under that amount, it is still possible for diseases to have significant outbreaks. This concept is often referred to as herd immunization. Herd immunization is important because it minimizes the chances of those not vaccinated or those not able to vaccinated chances of getting serious diseases. If one person’s choice is not to get immunized they are directly harming another’s freedom from the disease. They are putting another at risk because of their own selfishness. People in society ought be required to get immunizations because is protects the rights of others. When we put the choice of being immunized into someone’s hands. I believe we are given freedom in our country, but freedom with consequence. We protest against ideas we believe are wrong, demonstrating our right of freedom of speech, and get arrested, we practice our right of freedom in not getting vaccinations, and we see the consequences by directly putting others in danger.

So when we exercise our right of freedom in not being forced to get an immunization, we are really taking away someone elses freedom. Therefore you really can't argue that compulsory immunizations take away your freedom, if in not getting them your taking away other's freedoms. it's just hypocritic.

(Just adding my input on what the Neg has said. Everything you have come back to say is idiotic and makes no real connection to what the Aff is saying. The Neg obviously does not understand what the Aff is saying. Ignorance... They should make a vaccine for that. -___-)

If the majority of the people get the vaccination then the disease could almost completely be eliminated from the society. Then why in the world do we need compulsory immunization? Since most of the people are smart enough to get immunization, why does every one need to get it? There is no reason to that therefore this "Yes" argunment is just plain dumb.

Also, by herding everyone into one group, you are regarding the human race as one giant population of animals, stupid and brainless. On the contrary, we are quite intelligent and most of us do posses a brain. Therefore, we must also remember to protect the rights of each individual to freedom of thought and to choices. We already have a brain, so why shouldn't we be allowed to use it and make the smart decisions for ourselves? The only answer I can think of is that you want the human race to turn into giant vegetables that cannot think for themselves. That does not sound pleasant at all to me. So, protect the individual right to choose our own courses in life, because I do not want to become a vegetable.

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

Moral Obligation

John Mill's harm principle states, "The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against few members will, is to prevent harm to the majority of the community." All freedoms are limited, we must have the basic supplies of what we need and a safe environment to live in, without these things freedom could not be exercised freely. When members of society go without immunization, it is dangerous for society as a whole. They are potential hosts for disease and allow the disease to be spread. When more lives are saved, there is more happiness to the society, which is minimizing suffering and in turn achieves societal welfare.

I respectfully state that we have a moral obligation to our own lives first. We have an obligation to choose exactly what we do with our lives, for it is quite a simple concept actually. It is our own life, and if we allow anyone else to decide what we do with it, then it is no longer ours. To have a compulsory immunization would take away our moral right to choose what gets put into our bodies, and what doesn't. Sure, we probably would choose to get a vaccine that could save our lives, but you cannot take away the choice merely because you assume that we will pick one over the other. Your assumption could be wrong for no one truly knows me better than I do, so why should I leave that choice up to a stranger that knows nothing about me and what that vaccine could do to me. The important point in all this is that before we help others, we must help ourselves first. That is our moral obligaiton. To allow someone to requires us to do something is like living under a dictatorship. Granted it's supposed to help you, but is loosing the freedom of choice worth something you could get on your own, a decision made in your own free will, regarding your own life? I don't think so.

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

With out immunization, it hurt the Red White and Blue

Benjamin Franklin has stated that “An ounce prevention is worth a pound of cure.” That is a true statement even now. For example, the recent swine flu break out have cost different government around the world much more than it takes to produce and spread the vaccine. Our country has spent over $114,500 on swine flu, with most of the money going toward personnel costs, according to a report by the country’s health official. It cost way less to just give and enforce a vaccine, because it is the most “cost-effective” way to save lives, said by the World Health Organization. If people were not have immunization, it also puts a burden on the health care system to treat all of those infected which must in some way be paid, most likely through taxes. With compulsory immunizations, all of this can be avoided thus minimizing suffering, because taxpayers will not have to pay extra tax for the treatment from health care system, in turn achieves societal welfare.
If people will not choose to make the right, justifiable, and sensible choice to be vaccinated, then the choice will be made for them. Vaccinations have undoubtedly saved millions of lives since their inception, the risks are minimal; the benefits are massive. However, without compulsion, the greatest possible protection of the population would just be a waste of resource. Without compulsion, those benefits will not be seen. As a result, I urge you to affirm the resolution.

In fact it is the exact opposite. America is based on the principles of freedom and compulsory immunizations would take this away. We are also guaranteed life, liberty and the persuit of happiness in the constitution, and compulsory immunizations could infringe upon these rights.

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

yes

they produce antibodies to fight of the virus and the bugs we are protected for life

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

Refusal to vaccinate infringes upon the rights of the rest of the population

It's preferable that the general population retain their right to avoid diseases that would result from certain groups' refusal to vaccinate.

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

Tyranny of the Majority

There are already required immunizations that are taken to lessen the effects on communities and schools. This is not tyranny of the majority for it is looking at making sure the greatest good is given to the greatest number of people.John Stuart Mill is one of the founders of utilitarianism, so the facts should not be disregarded that the affirmation of the resolution would in fact be a utillitarian act. Thus just by not only the resolution but in the philosopy of J.S.Mill.

Whoever wrote the above is right, tyranny of the majority would not (according to me) be considered a negative point as immunizations help the people more than harm them, if you think I am wrong, say why. Also, there could be more than one purpose and stats show that the diseases prevented by vaccines are far worse than the diseases caused by them.

Compulsory vaccination is an example of the tyranny of the majority even if it is made by a democratic government.

John Stuart Mill

“the majority… the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this, as against any other abuse of power… In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.[[ Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869; Bartleby.com, 1999. http://www.bartleby.com/130/. 2nd October, 2009, Chapter 1, paragraph 9 ]]

The state (or the majority) can only dictate to the individual is if that individual’s actions adversely effects the collective.

John Stuart Mill

“the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.”[[ibid, C1, P9]]

Therefore the question is ‘what is the purpose of the vaccination?’ if it is to provide individuals with their own protection then autonomy of decision-making and individual liberty should predominate as guiding principles. Under these circumstances there can be little justification of any coercion on the part of public health officials, in particular the use of mandatory vaccination legislation. If it is more based upon public harm i.e. the more chance of the virus infecting from one human to another then the less this defence can be used.[[University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, Medical ethics experts identify, address key issues in H1N1 pandemic, FirstScience News 23rd September 2009 http://www.firstscience.com/home/news/breaking-news-all-topics/medical-ethics-experts-identify-address-key-issues-in-h1n1-pandemic-page-3-1_71059.html

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

Adverse side effects

Many parents are worried that there are side effects to vaccines, particularly fears over some vaccines being a contributory factor to autism.Most side effects from vaccines are relatively minor and do not last long. For example DTaP/IPV vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough) and inactivated polio can in about one in ten people result in swelling and redness where the injection took place. Less regularly there can be a slightly raised temperature, sickness, tiredness and headache. And sometimes swollen glands (lymphadenopathy) and a severe, but temporary, swelling of the upper arm. Worst case but very rare can be a severe allergic reaction.[[http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/Vaccines/DTaP_IPV/Vaccine/What_side_effects_may_be_seen]] This has long been recognised.

There has however been a change in recognition of more severe side effects. In the 1990s the view of the medical community was that there were no serious side effects to vaccinations. Such reported side effects were complications like seizures, encephalitis, autoimmune reactions, bleeding disorders, and neurological injuries. This has however changed to recognising that while such side effects are extreemly rare they do exist. [[Dr. Bob Sears, Vaccines And Autism: What Can Parents Do During This Controversy?, The Huffington Post, 9th September 2009, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-bob-sears/vaccines-and-autism-what_b_279745.html ]]

Dr Andrew Wakefield provided evidence in the lancet journal that there is a link between vaccination and autism. “We saw several children who, after a period of apparent normality, lost acquired skills, including communication. They all had gastrointestinal symptoms, including abdominal pain, diarrhoea, and bloating and, in some cases, food intolerance.”
As an example

Wakefield lancet article

He [child four] received a dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at age 4•5 years, the day after which his mother described a striking deterioration in his behaviour that she [child four’s mother] did link with the immunisation.

Previous studies had found problems with the intestine within children with autism, these support the hypothesis that the consequences of an inflamed or dysfunctional intestine may play a part in behavioural changes in some children.[[D'Eufemia P, Celli M, Finocchiaro R, et al. Abnormal intestinal permeability in children with autism. Acta Paediatrica, vol.85, 1996, pp.1076-1079.]] Those children that Wakefield looked at in the study had such problems with their intestine (each remarkably similar) where previously they did not. In the conclusion the authors state

Wakefield lancet article

We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation.[[Dr Andrew J Wakefield et al, Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children, The Lancet, Vol.351, no.9103, 28th Feb 1998, pp.637-641. ]]

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

Deus vult

Freedom of religion does not permit a group to serve as a vector for disease any more than it permits a group to perform ritual sacrifice. Resurgence of diseases such as polio, a result of the failure to vaccinate, are a clear reminder of the importance of these vaccinations.

Within the United States allowances are made for different religions views towards vaccinations. This has meant that many parents who claim to have deeply held religious convictions are not having their children vaccinated. The number of exemptions is extremely small representing just a few thousand of the 3.7 million children entering kindergarten in the US each year

There are twenty eight states, such as Florida and New York, that allow parents to opt out on the basis of religious grounds while a further twenty, such as California and Texas, allow philosophical and personal reasons as well as religious reasons and Mississippi and West Virginia allow exemptions for medical reasons only[[http://nyvic.org/nyvic/law/filenbam.htm]]

If there is an religious (or philosophical etc) exception for one group then that also has to be extended to other groups as well in order for there not to be discrimination.

Since 1983 there have been a series of decision by Federal District and Appellate Courts which have clearly established that children can be exempted from vaccination based upon the personal religious beliefs of their parents.

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from discriminating between people based on their religious beliefs. If there is any state law which allows for exemption based on religious beliefs, it is available to all those people who hold religious beliefs against immunization even if their beliefs are personal and unique to them alone... We have been able to convince the court that a whole body of law which prohibits religious discrimination applies to those who have personal religious beliefs against immunization.

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

personal choice

By being a part of this country you must adhere to the social contract. If you cannot follow the social contract and conform to the rules that are required to live in this society, then you can't quote the constitution. That only makes you a hypocrite. Also your unwillingness to get vaccinated may cause several others to come down with diseases that should have been prevented. Thus causing them to die. Their deaths weren't in part of their pursuit of happiness, which means your pursuit of happiness interfered with theirs. Further more just because we are guaranteed the pursuit of happiness doesn't mean a particular pursuit is justified. If I find killing people to be entertaining and if it makes me happy then I will go out and murder. However, it is illegal to murder for just reasons, and thus I cannot go and murder people. Another thing you make a broad generalization about children from the 50's and a random disease that, "went around back then." You provide no evidence of this and you do not look at those who were infected with swine flu and describe what group was infected. You also spell immunity wrong, that's not a big issue but if your trying to argue intelligently, spell your words right. When you mention bacteria and viruses morphing into new strands because of vaccines you give no evidence so that would be speculation and opinion.

If i do not agree with the fact that the supposed vaccine may or may not cure me, then why should i be forced to get it, this goes against the constituion in our right to pursue our own form of happiness. If we are all to get the same vaccine the bacteria or virus will just morph into a new stand if i who have been sick and created a natural emmunity to it come in contact with the new stand its chances of infecting me are very slim. People that were between the ages of 1-12 in the 50's have been less likely to get the swine flu because of something that went around back then and they are generally emmune to it now.

now wait, no one said that that person could not get the immunization, im just saying that i dont want it, if the other person gets the vaccine then that said person no longer will get infected correct? or wait they still can because the vaccine can give it to them, so if i dont want to get the vaccine because it may give me the disease its trying to prevent then the person who forced me to get the vaccine in order of their pursuit of happiness has now in fact killed me, so your point is flawed majorly

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

government liability

The goverment has the right, throught the SOCIAL CONTRACT to force us to get vaccinated.

The social contract states that the government must protect the people of the United States from forgein and domesticated threats, viruses are a for of foreign and domesticated threats therefore the government has the right to force us to get vaccinated. The other side of the social contract says that if a power in the government gets to powerful that we the people have the right to abolish it...but what is the Health adminstration going to do? Their only job is to make sure that Americans are healthy. With your second arguement, people will niot die from vaccines..you are thinking of viruses... even with side effects people do not die from vaccines...they can get side effects that could have them stay home or away from heavy machines but there is no vaccine in cirrculation today that causes death as a side effect. Therefore I affirm the resolution

The government should not force someone to be vaccinated if the person does not want to be vaccinated. I say this because, if a person doesn't want to be vaccinated and the government forces them to be vaccinated and that person dies from a side effect of the vaccination then the immediate family of the victim could sue the government for killing their loved one. This could cost the government millions of dollars which could be used for other purposes and it could make the people distrust the government on the basis that if you don't want to do something the government will force you to do it anyway and you could die. Therefore I disagree with the resolution.

You must also look at the argument that the social contract is not one thing. Different philosophers have different views. John Locke's social contract states that the government should do all possible to protect us, but Rousseau's states that the government should allow the individual to keep any and all rights. Because the argument given was on the U.S., a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, then Rousseau's social contract theory takes precedence. This reason for this is that Rousseau gave the most commonly used idea of democracy.

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

Waste of Money

Is money more important than the general well being of people? No. Also think about the point of "should we put a price on a life" is the government or organization to put a price on a loved one saying this is too much to save a life? Would you like someone to say you are worth $300 for this vaccine but we don't want to pay for it but if you get it you will probably die. Think about it.

Compulsory vaccinations are a myth in America and are not mandatory. But the laws and exemptions of every state are written to confuse and make the general public believe that immunizations are mandatory. This is simple legal trickery to get your uninformed consent to be vaccinated.

The uninformed are victimized by the current laws by the untrue perception that vaccinations are mandatory. And the informed who are against vaccinations are victimized by the laws by requiring them to spend their time, energy, and money to be exempt from vaccinations. This is true madness in America where "free choice" is only allowed through an extensive governmental application process of time, energy, and money.

This perception of mandatory vaccinations is in fact truly dishonest and places the burden of responsibility for highly questionable immunizations on the general public and not the manufacturers of the vaccines. By doing this most people who are uninformed or have little time and means to question supposed "mandatory vaccinations" are victimized by an institutionalized system of medical exploitation.

It is time to end this legalized medical victimization of the general public and place all immunizations and vaccines firmly in the area of free choice. To do this federal and state laws must be rewritten to ban all mandatory vaccinations from the United States and make this the law of the land and widely and publicly known to all.

Local and federal officials require ordinary citizens to spend large amounts of time, money, and energy to exempt themselves and their family members from vaccinations that are known to be highly toxic and dangerous. They do this because most of these officials honestly believe immunizations are useful. They are grossly uninformed and should not be ridiculed for their uninformed beliefs. It becomes your duty to protect your family from their uninformed beliefs and the current laws of the land and do the required paperwork to exempt your family.

A national ban on all compulsory vaccinations as the law of the land will end this unfair nonsense and burden on the general public and allow those uninformed citizens to continue receiving immunizations as they believe. A national ban on all compulsory vaccinations and immunization would also keep uninformed citizens from being grossly misinformed by local officials who state that vaccinations are mandatory.

A national ban on all compulsory immunizations will give true "free choice" to vaccinate or not and restored true fairness under the law in the community. The legal system will no longer be the tool of the drug and vaccine manufacturers who benefit from the current legal confusion and perception by the public. And many thousands of children and adults may be saved from gross lifelong physical harm by the reduction in immunizations nationwide. Let free choice be the law of the land not legalese and mandatory vaccinations for profits. -- J.E. Ante

http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/Immunization.pdf

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

All negative points

A vaccine controversy is a dispute over the morality, ethics, effectiveness, and safety of vaccination. The medical and scientific evidence is that the benefits of preventing suffering and death from infectious diseases outweigh rare adverse effects of immunization.[1][2] Since vaccination began in the late 18th century, opponents have claimed that vaccines do not work, that they are or may be dangerous, that individuals should rely on personal hygiene instead, or that mandatory vaccinations violate individual rights or religious principles.[3]

Concerns about immunization safety often follow a pattern: some investigators suggest that a medical condition is an adverse effect of vaccination; a premature announcement is made of the alleged adverse effect; the initial study is not reproduced by other groups; and finally, it takes several years to regain public confidence in the vaccine.[1]

Mass vaccination helped eradicate smallpox, which once killed as many as every seventh child in Europe.[4] Vaccination has almost eradicated polio.[5] As a more modest example, incidence of invasive disease with Haemophilus influenzae, a major cause of bacterial meningitis and other serious disease in children, has decreased by over 99% in the U.S. since the introduction of a vaccine in 1988.[6] Fully vaccinating all U.S. children born in a given year from birth to adolescence saves an estimated 33,000 lives and prevents an estimated 14 million infections.[7]

Some vaccine critics claim that there have never been any benefits to public health from vaccination.[8][9] They argue that all the reduction of communicable diseases which were rampant in conditions where overcrowding, poor sanitation, almost non-existent hygiene and a yearly period of very restricted diet existed, are reduced because of changes in conditions excepting vaccination.[9] Other critics argue that immunity given by vaccines is only temporary and requires boosters, whereas those who survive the disease become permanently immune.[3] As discussed below, the philosophies of some alternative medicine practitioners are incompatible with the idea that vaccines are effective.[10]

Children who survive diseases such as diphtheria develop a natural immunity that lasts longer than immunity developed via vaccination. Even though the overall mortality rate is much lower with vaccination, the percentage of adults protected against the disease may also be lower.[11] Vaccination critics argue that for diseases like diphtheria the extra risk to older or weaker adults may outweigh the benefit of lowering the mortality rate among the general population.[12]

[edit] Population health
Lack of complete vaccine coverage increases the risk of disease for the entire population, including those who have been vaccinated. One study found that doubling the number of unvaccinated individuals would increase the risk of measles in vaccinated children anywhere from 5–30%.[13] A second study provided evidence that the risk of measles and pertussis increased in vaccinated children proportionally to the number of unvaccinated individuals among them, again highlighting the evident efficacy of widespread vaccine coverage for public health.[14]

[edit] Cost-effectiveness
Commonly-used vaccines are a cost-effective and preventive way of promoting health, compared to the treatment of acute or chronic disease. In the U.S. during the year 2001, routine childhood immunizations against seven diseases were estimated to save over $40 billion per birth-year cohort in overall social costs including $10 billion in direct health costs, and the societal benefit-cost ratio for these vaccinations was estimated to be 16.5.[15]

[edit] Events following reductions in vaccination
In several countries, reductions in the use of some vaccines were followed by increases in the diseases' morbidity and mortality.[16][17] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, continued high levels of vaccine coverage are necessary to prevent resurgence of diseases which have been nearly eliminated.[18]

Stockholm, smallpox (1873–74)
An anti-vaccination campaign motivated by religious objections, by concerns about effectiveness, and by concerns about individual rights, led to the vaccination rate in Stockholm dropping to just over 40%, compared to about 90% elsewhere in Sweden. A major smallpox epidemic then started in 1873. It led to a rise in vaccine uptake and an end of the epidemic.[19]

In a postwar poster the Ministry of Health urged British residents to immunize children against diphtheria.UK, DPT (1970s–80s)
A 1974 report ascribed 36 reactions to whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine, a prominent public-health academic claimed that the vaccine was only marginally effective and questioned whether its benefits outweigh its risks, and extended television and press coverage caused a scare. Vaccine uptake in the UK decreased from 81% to 31% and pertussis epidemics followed, leading to deaths of some children. Mainstream medical opinion continued to support the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine; public confidence was restored after the publication of a national reassessment of vaccine efficacy. Vaccine uptake then increased to levels above 90% and disease incidence declined dramatically.[16]

Sweden, pertussis (1979–96)
In the vaccination moratorium period that occurred when Sweden suspended vaccination against whooping cough (pertussis) from 1979 to 1996, 60% of the country's children contracted the potentially fatal disease before the age of ten years; close medical monitoring kept the death rate from whooping cough at about one per year.[17] Pertussis continues to be a major health problem in developing countries, where mass vaccination is not practiced; the World Health Organization estimates it caused 294,000 deaths in 2002.[20]

Netherlands, measles (1999–2000)
An outbreak at a religious community and school in The Netherlands illustrates the effect of measles in an unvaccinated population.[21] The population in the several provinces affected had a high level of immunization with the exception of one of the religious denominations who traditionally do not accept vaccination. The three measles-related deaths and 68 hospitalizations that occurred among 2961 cases in the Netherlands demonstrate that measles can be severe and may result in death even in industrialized countries.

UK and Ireland, measles (2000)
As a result of the MMR vaccine controversy vaccination compliance dropped sharply in the United Kingdom after 1996.[22] From late 1999 until the summer of 2000, there was a measles outbreak in North Dublin, Ireland. At the time, the national immunization level had fallen below 80%, and in part of North Dublin the level was around 60%. There were more than 100 hospital admissions from over 300 cases. Three children died and several more were gravely ill, some requiring mechanical ventilation to recover.[23]

Nigeria, polio, measles, diphtheria (2001 onward)
In the early 2000s, conservative religious leaders in northern Nigeria, suspicious of Western medicine, advised their followers to not have their children vaccinated with oral polio vaccine. The boycott was endorsed by the governor of Kano State, and immunization was suspended for several months. Subsequently, polio reappeared in a dozen formerly polio-free neighbors of Nigeria, and genetic tests showed the virus was the same one that originated in northern Nigeria: Nigeria had become a net exporter of polio virus to its African neighbors. People in the northern states were also reported to be wary of other vaccinations, and Nigeria reported over 20,000 measles cases and nearly 600 deaths from measles from January through March 2005.[24] In 2006 Nigeria accounted for over half of all new polio cases worldwide.[25] Outbreaks continued thereafter; for example, at least 200 children died in a late-2007 measles outbreak in Borno State.[26]

Indiana, USA, measles (2005)
A 2005 measles outbreak in the US state of Indiana was attributed to parents who had refused to have their children vaccinated.[27] Most cases of pediatric tetanus in the U.S. occur in children whose parents objected to their vaccination.[28]

[edit] Safety
Few deny the vast improvements vaccination has made to public health; a more common concern is their safety.[29] All vaccines may cause side effects, and immunization safety is a real concern. Unlike most other medical interventions, vaccines are given to healthy people, and people are far less willing to tolerate vaccines' adverse effects than adverse effects of other treatments. As the success of immunization programs increases and the incidence of disease decreases, public attention shifts away from the risks of disease to the risk of vaccination,[1] and it becomes challenging for health authorities to preserve public support for vaccination programs.[30]

Concerns about immunization safety often follow a pattern. First, some investigators suggest that a medical condition of increasing prevalence or unknown cause is an adverse effect of vaccination. The initial study, and subsequent studies by the same group, have inadequate methodology, typically a poorly controlled or uncontrolled case series. A premature announcement is made of the alleged adverse effect, resonating with individuals suffering the condition, and underestimating the potential harm to those whom the vaccine could protect. The initial study is not reproduced by other groups. Finally, it takes several years to regain public confidence in the vaccine.[1]

Controversies in this area revolve around the question of whether the risks of perceived adverse events following immunization outweigh the benefits of preventing adverse effects of common diseases. There is scientific evidence that in rare cases immunizations can cause adverse events, such as oral polio vaccine causing paralysis. Current scientific evidence does not support the hypothesis of causation for more-common disorders such as autism.[1] Although the hypotheses that vaccines cause autism are biologically implausible, it would be hard to study scientifically whether autism is less common in children who do not follow recommended vaccination schedules, due to the ethics of basing experiments on withholding vaccines from children, and due to the likely differences in health care seeking behaviors of undervaccinated children.[31]

[edit] Vaccine overload
Vaccine overload is the assertion that giving many vaccines at once may overwhelm or weaken a child's immune system, and lead to adverse effects. It has been presented as a cause for autism. Although no scientific evidence supports this idea, it has caused many parents to delay or avoid immunizing their children.[32]

The idea has several flaws.[31] For example, common childhood conditions such as fevers and middle ear infections pose a much greater challenge to the immune system than vaccines do.[33] Also, because of changes in vaccine formulation, the number of immunological components in the fourteen vaccines administered to U.S. children in 2009 is less than 10% of what it was in the seven vaccines given in 1980.[31]

Numerous studies have tested the assertion that "vaccine overload" damages the immune system, generally by studying whether vaccination increases the risk of acquiring other (non-vaccine-preventable) infectious diseases. These studies have repeatedly found that vaccine burden does not compromise overall immunity.[34] The lack of evidence supporting the vaccine overload hypothesis, combined with these findings directly contradicting it, have led to the conclusion that currently recommended vaccine programs do not "overload" or weaken the immune system.[35]

[edit] Thiomersal
Main article: Thiomersal controversy
In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) asked vaccine makers to remove the organomercury compound thiomersal from vaccines as quickly as possible, and thiomersal has been phased out of U.S. and European vaccines, except for some preparations of influenza vaccine.[36] The CDC and the AAP followed the precautionary principle, which assumes that there is no harm in exercising caution even if it later turns out to be unwarranted, but their 1999 action sparked confusion and controversy that has diverted attention and resources away from efforts to determine the causes of autism.[36] Since 2000, the thiomersal in child vaccines has been alleged to contribute to autism, and thousands of parents in the United States have pursued legal compensation from a federal fund.[37] A 2004 Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee favored rejecting any causal relationship between thiomersal-containing vaccines and autism.[38] Currently there is no accepted scientific evidence that exposure to thiomersal is a factor in causing autism.[39]

[edit] MMR vaccine
Main article: MMR vaccine controversy
In the UK, the MMR vaccine was the subject of controversy after publication in The Lancet of a 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield, et al., reporting a study of 12 children mostly with autism spectrum disorders with onset soon after administration of the vaccine.[40] During a 1998 press conference, Wakefield suggested that giving children the vaccines in three separate doses would be safer than a single vaccination. This suggestion was not supported by the paper, and several subsequent peer-reviewed studies have failed to show any association between the vaccine and autism.[41] It later emerged that Wakefield had received funding from litigants against vaccine manufacturers and that Wakefield had not informed colleagues or medical authorities of his conflict of interest;[42] had this been known, publication in The Lancet would not have taken place in the way that it did.[43] Wakefield has been heavily criticized on scientific grounds and for triggering a decline in vaccination rates,[44] as well as on ethical grounds for the way the research was conducted.[45] In 2009 The Sunday Times reported that Wakefield had manipulated patient data and misreported results in his 1998 paper, creating the appearance of a link with autism.[46]

In 2004 the MMR-and-autism interpretation of the paper was formally retracted by 10 of Wakefield's 12 co-authors.[47] The CDC,[48] the IOM of the National Academy of Sciences,[49] and the UK National Health Service[50] have all concluded that there is no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. A systematic review by the Cochrane Library concluded that there is no credible link between the MMR vaccine and autism, that MMR has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death and complications, that the lack of confidence in MMR has damaged public health, and that design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies are largely inadequate.[2]

A special court convened in the United States to review claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ruled on 12 February 2009 that parents of autistic children are not entitled to compensation in their contention that certain vaccines caused autism in their children.[51]

[edit] Prenatal infection
There is evidence that schizophrenia is associated with prenatal exposure to rubella, influenza, and toxoplasmosis infection. For example, one study found a seven-fold increased risk of schizophrenia when mothers were exposed to influenza in the first trimester of gestation. This may have public health implications, as strategies for preventing infection include vaccination, antibiotics, and simple hygiene.[52] When weighing the benefits of protecting the woman and fetus from influenza against the potential risk of vaccine-induced antibodies that could conceivably contribute to schizophrenia, influenza vaccination for women of reproductive age still makes sense, but it is not known whether vaccination during pregnancy helps or harms.[53] The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Family Physicians all recommend routine flu shots for pregnant women, for several reasons:[54]

their risk for serious influenza-related medical complications during the last two trimesters;
their greater rates for flu-related hospitalizations compared to nonpregnant women;
the possible transfer of maternal anti-influenza antibodies to children, protecting the children from the flu; and
several studies that found no harm to pregnant women or their children from the vaccinations.
Despite this recommendation, only 16% of healthy pregnant U.S. women surveyed in 2005 had been vaccinated against the flu.[54]

[edit] Aluminum
Aluminum compounds are used as immunologic adjuvants to increase the effectiveness of many vaccines.[55] Although the quantities of aluminum ingested in this way are much smaller than the quantities ingested from other sources such as infant formula,[56] questions have been raised about the safety of aluminum used in vaccines.[57] In some cases these compounds have been associated with redness, itching, and low-grade fever,[55] and aluminum as such is considered neurotoxic for humans, but its use in vaccines has not been associated with serious adverse events.[58] In some cases aluminum-containing vaccines are associated with macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF), localized microscopic lesions containing aluminum salts that persist up to 8 years. However, recent case-controlled studies have found no specific clinical symptoms in individuals with biopsies showing MMF, and there is no evidence that aluminum-containing vaccines are a serious health risk or justify changes to immunization practice.[58]

[edit] Individual liberty
Further information: Vaccination policy
Compulsory vaccination policies have provoked opposition at various times from people who say that governments should not infringe on the freedom of an individual to choose medications, even if the choice increases the risk of disease to themselves and others.[3][59] If a vaccination program successfully reduces the disease threat, it may reduce the perceived risk of disease enough so that an individual's optimal strategy is to refuse vaccination at coverage levels below those optimal for the community.[60] If many exemptions are granted to mandatory vaccination rules, the resulting free rider problem may cause loss of herd immunity, substantially increasing risks even to vaccinated individuals.[61]

[edit] Religion
Main article: Vaccination and religion
Vaccination has been opposed on religious grounds ever since it was introduced, even when vaccination is not compulsory. Some Christian opponents argued, when vaccination was first becoming widespread, that if God had decreed that someone should die of smallpox, it would be a sin to thwart God's will via vaccination.[62] Religious opposition continues to the present day, on various grounds, raising ethical difficulties when the number of unvaccinated children threatens harm to the entire population.[61] Many governments allow parents to opt out of their children's otherwise-mandatory vaccinations for religious reasons; some parents falsely claim religious beliefs to get vaccination exemptions.[63]

[edit] Alternative medicine
Many forms of alternative medicine are based on philosophies that oppose vaccination and have practitioners who voice their opposition. These include anthroposophy, some elements of the chiropractic community, non-medically trained homoeopaths, and naturopaths.[10]

Historically, chiropractic strongly opposed vaccination based on its belief that all diseases were traceable to causes in the spine, and therefore could not be affected by vaccines; Daniel D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, wrote, "It is the very height of absurdity to strive to 'protect' any person from smallpox or any other malady by inoculating them with a filthy animal poison."[64] Vaccination remains controversial within chiropractic.[65] Although most chiropractic writings on vaccination focus on its negative aspects,[64] antivaccination sentiment is espoused by what appears to be a minority of chiropractors.[65] The American Chiropractic Association and the International Chiropractic Association support individual exemptions to compulsory vaccination laws, and a 1995 survey of U.S. chiropractors found that about a third believed there was no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease.[65] While the Canadian Chiropractic Association supports vaccination,[64] a survey in Alberta in 2002 found that 25% of chiropractors advised patients for, and 27% against, vaccinating themselves or their children.[66]

Although most chiropractic colleges try to teach about vaccination responsibly, several have faculty who seem to stress negative views.[65] A survey of a 1999–2000 cross section of students of Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, which does not formally teach antivaccination views, reported that fourth-year students opposed vaccination more strongly than first-years, with 29.4% of fourth-years opposing vaccination.[67]

Several surveys have shown that some practitioners of homeopathy, particularly homeopaths without any medical training, advise patients against vaccination.[68] For example, a survey of registered homeopaths in Austria found that only 28% considered immunization to be an important preventive measure, and 83% of homeopaths surveyed in Sydney, Australia did not recommend vaccination.[10] Many practitioners of naturopathy also oppose vaccination.[10]

[edit] Financial motives
Critics of vaccines state that the profit motive explains why vaccination is required, and that vaccine makers cover up or suppress information, or generate misinformation, about safety or effectiveness.[3] Some vaccine critics allegedly have financial motives for criticizing vaccines.[45] Legal counsel and expert witnesses employed in anti-vaccine cases may be motivated by profit.[69]

In the late 20th century, vaccines were a product with low profit margins.[70] The number of companies involved in vaccine manufacture declined, with only Merck, Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi continuing major production. In addition to low profits and liability risks, manufacturers complained about low prices paid for vaccines by the CDC and other U.S. government agencies.[71] In the early 21st century the vaccine market greatly improved with the approval of the vaccine Prevnar (a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine), along with a small number of other highly-priced blockbuster vaccines such as Gardasil and Pediarix that each provided sales revenues of over $1 billion in 2008.[70]

[edit] Dispute resolution
Main article: Vaccine court
The U.S. Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was created to provide a federal no-fault system for compensating vaccine-related injuries or death. It is funded by a 75 cent excise tax on vaccines sold in the country and was established after a scare in the 1980s over the DPT vaccine: even though claims of side effects were later generally discredited, large jury awards had been given to some claimants of DPT vaccine injuries, and most DPT vaccine makers had ceased production. Claims against vaccine manufacturers must be heard first in the vaccine court.[37] By 2008 the fund had paid out 2,114 awards totaling $1.7 billion.[72] Thousands of cases of autism-related claims are pending before the court, and have not yet been resolved.[37] In 2008 the government conceded one case concerning a child who had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder and whose autism-like symptoms came after five simultaneous injections against nine diseases.[73]

[edit] History

Edward JennerReligious arguments against inoculation were advanced even before the work of Edward Jenner; for example, in a 1772 sermon entitled "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation" the English theologian Rev. Edward Massey argued that diseases are sent by God to punish sin and that any attempt to prevent smallpox via inoculation is a "diabolical operation".[62] Some anti-vaccinationists still base their stance against vaccination with reference to their religious beliefs.[74]

After Jenner's work, vaccination became widespread in the United Kingdom in the early 1800s.[75] Variolation, which had preceded vaccination, was banned in 1840 because of its greater risks. Public policy and successive Vaccination Acts first encouraged vaccination and then made it mandatory for all infants in 1853, with the highest penalty for refusal being a prison sentence. This was a significant change in the relationship between the British state and its citizens, and there was a public backlash. After an 1867 law extended the requirement to age 14 years, its opponents focused concern on infringement of individual freedom, and eventually a 1898 law allowed for conscientious objection to compulsory vaccination.[3]

In the 19th century, the city of Leicester in the UK achieved a high level of isolation of smallpox cases and great reduction in spread compared to other areas. The mainstay of Leicester's approach to conquering smallpox was to decline vaccination and put their public funds into sanitary improvements.[76] Bigg's account of the public health procedures in Leicester, presented as evidence to the Royal Commission, refers to erysipelas, an infection of the superficial tissues which was a complication of any surgical procedure.

In the U.S., President Thomas Jefferson took a close interest in vaccination, alongside Dr. Waterhouse, chief physician at Boston. Jefferson encouraged the development of ways to transport vaccine material through the Southern states, which included measures to avoid damage by heat, a leading cause of ineffective batches. Smallpox outbreaks were contained by the latter half of the 19th century, a development widely attributed to vaccination of a large portion of the population.[77] Vaccination rates fell after this decline in smallpox cases, and the disease again became epidemic in the 1870s (see smallpox).

1904 cartoon opposing the mandatory vaccination law in Brazil. "The Congress", depicted as a Roman Caesar, threatens "the People", in rags, with a sharp object and shackles.Anti-vaccination activity increased again in the U.S. in the late 19th century. After a visit to New York in 1879 by William Tebb, a prominent British anti-vaccinationist, the Anti-Vaccination Society of America was founded. The New England Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League was formed in 1882, and the Anti-Vaccination League of New York City in 1885.

John Pitcairn, the wealthy founder of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company (now PPG Industries) emerged as a major financer and leader of the American anti-vaccination movement. On March 5, 1907, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, he delivered an address to the Committee on Public Health and Sanitation of the Pennsylvania General Assembly criticizing vaccination.[78] He later sponsored the National Anti-Vaccination Conference, which, held in Philadelphia on October, 1908, led to the creation of The Anti-Vaccination League of America. When the League was organized later that month, Pitcairn was chosen to be its first president.[79] On December 1, 1911, he was appointed by Pennsylvania Governor John K. Tener to the Pennsylvania State Vaccination Commission, and subsequently authored a detailed report strongly opposing the Commission's conclusions.[79] He continued to be a staunch opponent of vaccination until his death in 1916.

In November 1904, in response to years of inadequate sanitation and disease, followed by a poorly-explained public health campaign led by the renowned Brazilian public health official Oswaldo Cruz, citizens and military cadets in Rio de Janeiro arose in a Revolta da Vacina or Vaccine Revolt. Riots broke out on the day a vaccination law took effect; vaccination symbolized the most feared and most tangible aspect of a public health plan that included other features such as urban renewal that many had opposed for years.[80]

In the early 19th century, the anti-vaccination movement drew members from across a wide range of society; more recently, it has been reduced to a predominantly middle-class phenomenon.[81] Arguments against vaccines in the 21st century are often similar to those of 19th-century anti-vaccinationists

URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-vaccinationist

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

Lots of Problems

Copy Pasted

I want to warn you in advance folks that tonight I am going to do a lot of reading; I'm going to quote a lot of different people, and I want you to understand from the start that I am not making up anything from what I'm going to be saying here tonight, but that everything I mention here is scientific fact which I have discovered in my own research.

I make this warning because you are not going to want to believe what you are about to hear. I'm going to talk to you tonight about vaccinations. Most of you out there have probably received some form of vaccination at one point or another in your life, or you may have children who are in the process of receiving vaccinations. Well, I have some very bad news for you folks; you, once again, have been conned. I am sure, that you, like myself, have been raised to believe that doctors know what is best for you, that everything that comes out of the medical industry is done to help you and that everything that doctors do is safe and well-tested and proven, vaccinations included.

unfortunately, we have all been lied to, and once again, me and all of you are responsible because we would rather put the responsibility of our health into someone else's hands, instead of taking charge of our own lives and our own well-being.

I'm going to say this bluntly, so that it will make an impact on you and so that you will hear me. You and your children are being poisoned, folks, and you are making pharmaceutical companies incredibly rich, and you are also unknowingly helping along the progress of what is going to become the greatest epidemic that the human race has ever seen, namely AIDS. With ignorance and foolish trust in the experts, you have been had.

Now, the theory of vaccinations is based on four basic principles. Number one: Vaccinations are relatively harmless; Number two: Vaccinations are effective; Number three: Vaccinations are responsible for the decline of infectious diseases, and Number four: Vaccinations are the only practical and dependable way to prevent both epidemics and potentially dangerous diseases. But, ladies and gentlemen, every single one of these assumptions is totally false.

The theory of vaccinations states that by giving a person a mild form of the disease, by the use of an immunizing agent, specific antibodies are produced that will protect the organism when the real thing comes along. it sounds plausible enough, but it is totally wrong. No greater lie has ever been told to you, and believe it or not, vaccinations will not protect you from any disease and you can still get, and many people are getting measles, small pox, polio, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus and other common diseases even after they have been vaccinated. This is a matter of public record, and I will give you some statistics later on that will truly shock you.

Let me read you a little portion from Walene James' book, Immunizations; the Reality Behind the Myth. But before that, write down this author and title; that's Walene James, W-a-l-e-n- e, last name James, J-a-m-e-s, and the title is Immunizations; the Reality Behind the Myth. Most of what I'm reading from here tonight comes right out of that book, and it's very well footnoted and documented, but to save time, I'm not going to read you all the references, but you can get

the book and you can check it out and you can check out the references.

Here we go...

Besides introducing foreign proteins and even live viruses into the bloodstream, each vaccine has its own preservative, neutralizer and carrying agent, none of which are indigenous to the body. For instance, the triple antigen, DPT, which is the Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus vaccine, contains the following poisons: Formaldehyde, Mercury, and aluminum phosphate, and that's from the Physician's Desk Reference, 1980. The packet insert accompanying the vaccine, lists the following poisons: aluminum potassium sulfate, a mercury derivative called Thimersol and sodium phosphate. The packet insert for the polio vaccine lists monkey kidney cell culture, lactalbumin hydrozylate, antibiotics and calf serum. The packet insert for the MMR vaccine produced by Merck Sharp and Dhome which is for measles, mumps and rubella lists chick embryo and neomycin, which is a mixture of antibiotics.

Now chick embryo, monkey kidney cells and calf serum are all foreign proteins which are biological substances composed of animal cells which because they enter directly into the bloodstream can become part of our genetic material. They can become part of our genetic material, folks, remember that, it's going to be important later. These foreign proteins, as well as other carriers and reaction products of a vaccine are potential allergens and can produce anaphylactic shock. Folks, anaphylactic shock is a nice word for brain damage. Reading on...

Another problem with vaccines is that they go directly into the bloodstream without filtering by the liver. Dr. William Albrecht tells us the following, "If you take water into your system as a drink, it goes into your bloodstream directly from the stomach, but if you take in fats, they move in through your lymphatic system. When you take other substances like carbohydrates and proteins, they go into the intestines and from there are passed into the liver as the body's chemical filter. Before they go out into the blood and circulate in the body. Most of your vaccination serums and proteins are not filtered by the liver, consequently vaccinations can be a terrific shock to the system. Injections of foreign substances like viruses, toxins and foreign proteins into the blood stream via vaccinations, have been associated with diseases and disorders to the blood, brain, nervous system and skin. Rare diseases such as atypical measles and monkey fever as well as such well- known disorders as premature aging, allergies, etc. have been associated with vaccines. Also linked to immunizations are such well-known diseases as cancer, leukemia, paralysis, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, and sudden infant death syndrome."

Folks, I'm not making this up. This is mostly out of Physician's Desk Reference, 1980, and Organic Consumer Reports of 1977.

Now, let me tell you some of the effects of vaccinations that the medical profession admits to as expected side effects of various vaccines, again from Walene James' book. The insert for the DTP vaccine, which is for Diphtheria, Pertussis and Tetanus, under side effects and adverse reactions are listed the following:

1.Severe temperature elevations 105 degrees or higher.
2.Collapse with rapid recovery.
3.Collapse followed by prolonged prostration in shock-like state.
4.Screaming episodes.
5.Isolated convulsions with or without fever.
6.Frank encephalopathy, which is brain damage, with changes in the level of consciousness, focal neurological signs, convulsions with or without permanent neurological and/or mental deficit.
Nice big words,folks, but it's talking about brain damage, shock and severe temperature.

The occurrence of sudden infant death syndrome, which is SIDS, that's the acronym, has been reported following the DPT vaccine. Now, the whooping cough vaccine which is a component in the DPT vaccine has such a high percentage of neurological complications, including death, that several physicians have decided not to give it at all.

And that is quoting Dr. Robert Mendelsohn. He goes on to say, Dr. Edward B. Shaw, a distinguished university of California physician has stated in the Journal of the American Medical Association in March, 1975, "I doubt that the decrease in pertussis is due to the vaccine, which itself is a very poor antigen, and an extremely dangerous one, with many very serious complications."

Reading on from Walene James' book: "A recent study at UCLA estimates that as many as 1 in every 13 children had persistent, high-pitched crying after the DTP shot. This may be indicative of brain damage in the recipient child," says Dr. Bobby Young. And later on he says, "You know, we start off with healthy infants, and we pop them not once, but three or four times with a vaccine. The probability of causing damage is the same each time. My greatest fear is that very few of them escape some kind of neurological damage out of this."

An even more recent figure on the reaction to the DTP vaccine indicates that 1 in every 100 children react with convulsions or collapse or high-pitched screaming. One out of every 3 of these, that is 1 out of every 300 will remain permanently damaged. Now, according to the testimony of the Assistant Secretary of Health, Edward Grant, Jr., before the u.S. Senate Committee on May 3rd, 1985, every year 35,000 children suffer neurological damage because of the DTP vaccine. Bet your doctor didn't tell you that, folks. It just makes you wonder why he never told you this, doesn't it. It also makes you want to run out and get your kids vaccinated, doesn't it? Well, it gets worse.

Here are some of the long term effects of vaccines. This brings us to perhaps the most serious charge against vaccination, the subtle long-term effects. And again, I'm reading from Walene James' book.

Evidence suggests that immunizations damage the immune system itself. By focusing exclusively on increased antibody production, which is only one aspect of the immune process, immunizations isolate dysfunction and allow it to substitute for the entire immune response, because vaccines trick the body so that it will no longer initiate a generalized response. They accomplished what the entire immune system seems to have been evolved to prevent. That is, they place the virus directly into the blood and give it access to the major immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it.

The long-term persistence of viruses and other foreign proteins within the cells of the immune system has been implicated in a number of chronic and degenerative diseases. In 1976 Dr. Robert Simpson of Rutgers university addressed science writers at a seminar of the American Cancer Society, and pointed out the following. "Immunization programs against flu, measles, mumps, polio and so forth may actually be seeding humans with RNA to form latent pro viruses in cells throughout the body. These latent pro viruses could be molecules in search of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Parkinson's disease, and perhaps cancer."

Remember that, folks, seeding humans with RNA to form latent pro viruses in cells throughout the body. That's important. Moving on...

Live viruses, the primary antigenic material of vaccines, (don't be scared by antigenic, folks, it just means any agent that will stimulate antibody production) the primary antigenic material of vaccines, which are live viruses, are capable of surviving or remaining latent in the host cell for years, without provoking acute disease. They attach their own genetic material as an extra particle or episome to the chromosomes of the host cell and replicate along with it. This allows the host cell to continue its own normal functions for the most part, but imposes on it additional instructions for the synthesis of viral proteins. This presence of antigenic material in the host cell can not fail to provoke auto immune phenomenon, such as herpes, shingles, warts, tumors, both benign and malignant, and diseases of the central nervous system such as various forms of paralysis and inflammation of the brain.

So what we're actually talking about here, folks, is viral genetic material being incorporated into your cells, and laying the groundwork for auto immune diseases. And we're going to get into this right now. Reading on...

If the components of the immune system were designed to help the organism discriminate self from non-self as a number of researchers believe, then latent viruses, auto immune phenomenon and cancer would seem to represent different aspects of chronic immune failure, wherein the immune system cannot recognize its own cells as unambiguously its own, or eliminate parasites as unequivocally foreign. By the same token, we might say that the inability of the immune system to distinguish between harmful and harmless substances in the environment, such as allergies, constitutes another aspect of chronic immune failure.

Folks, what they're saying here is that vaccines encourage chronic immune failure, by virtue of the genetic material that you get shot up into your bloodstream whenever you get vaccinated.

The well-known author, lecturer and health activist, Betty Lee Morales, writes that her parents who were naturopathic doctors predicted 50 years ago that cancer would be epidemic in her lifetime as a result of mass vaccinations.

Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, who is an authority on vaccinations, and truly one of the most heroic medical doctors in this century... [Because he is telling the truth]... extends this idea when he says, "I think that most of the degenerative diseases are going to be shown to be due to x-rays, drugs and polluted food, additives, preservatives, and immunizations. With all of our discoveries about the effects on the human body of ingesting substances not found in nature, one thing we ought to know by now, is that many of these toxins, and vaccinations are toxins by definition, kill slowly, or kill only after the lapse of significant periods of time.

And that's a quote from Nicholas von Hoffman in his Washington Post column. Now from around the world. From West Germany, we read of more vaccination casualties. A reader writing to Organic Consumer Report, June 13, 1968 mentions an article which appeared in Medical World which stated that about 3,000 children each year suffer varying degrees of brain damage as a result of the small pox vaccination. This same writer mentions another medical journal in which Dr. G. Kotel reported that in the previous year, small pox vaccination damaged the hearing of 3,296 children in W. Germany and 71 became totally deaf. Hearing loss was reported by Dr. William Albrecht, who said in the article that I quoted earlier, that a typhoid shot he received made him stone deaf in one ear as well as deathly ill at the time of the shot. Now listen to this, folks, because this is where the big con starts.

In case after case of deaths which are really deaths from vaccinations, the cause of death is never listed as the vaccine. Asthma, however, acute lymphatic leukemia, streptococcal cellulitis, tubercular meningitis, and infantile paralysis are just a few of the fake causes of death listed on the death certificate of people who are dying from vaccinations. So much for these poisons being safe, now let's see how effective they are.

Statistics from around the world show unequivocally that infectious diseases like small pox, diphtheria, whooping cough, scarlet fever, etc., began to disappear long before vaccinations ever came on the scene. Now I'm quoting World Health Statistics Annual 1973-1976, Volume II. "There has been a steady decline of infectious diseases in most developing countries regardless of the percentage of immunizations administered in these countries."

I'll bet you didn't know that, folks, and I'll bet you didn't know this either, but I do know this from my research and from my own experimentation; personal hygiene and diet stop diseases, folks, not injecting virulent free-floating genetic material into your veins with all kinds of poisonous cancerous carrying agents which is what vaccines are. I'm going to now give you a key as to why you've been conned into believing that vaccines do stop diseases. I'm looking at a chart from Australian Nurses Journal from June of 1981. A top chart shows a curve of deaths per million children under 15 attributable to scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles. We're looking at a graph here. The graph runs the years from 1860 to 1965, and the death rate just goes down, having peaked in 1860 at 6,000 fatalities per million, and bottoming out near zero in 1965. So, it's just a downward sloping line going down from 6000 to 0 from 1860 to 1965. It looks really impressive, like could all of these communicable diseases have been wiped out.

However, the only problem is that immunizations were introduced into this picture in the 1940s when the number of fatalities per million had already dropped from 6000 to 1000, thus from looking at the nearly straight line of the curve, you see that the vaccinations did absolutely nothing, because there is no alteration in the rate of disappearance of these diseases from the vaccinations, at the time when the vaccinations first started to be administered.

A similar chart below it refers to tuberculosis and typhoid from 1900 to 1960, and again the line's a straight slopes downward, and you can see that the epidemics simply ran their course naturally, and are totally unaffected by the vaccination programs, but the medical industry wants you to believe that vaccines are what wipe out diseases and that is totally a bold-faced lie.

If you've never read the book, How To Lie With Statistics, by Daryl Huff, I strongly suggest you do because you will get a much better idea of how you've been tricked.

Now, I want to tell you about a much bigger lie that you've been fed. I want to talk to you about polio, because polio is a disease that most people think was the great success story of vaccinations. Let me read again from Walene James' book. Jonas Salk, the discoverer of the Salk polio vaccine has been called the 20th century miracle maker, and the savior of countless lives. We read glowing reports of the dramatic decrease in polio in the u.S. as a result of the Salk vaccine.

For instance, the Virginia State Department of Health distributes a folder which tells us that polio vaccines reduced the incidence of polio in the u.S. from 18,000 cases in 1954 to fewer than 20 in 1973-78. A recent article in Modern Maturity states that in 1953 there were 15,000 some odd cases of polio in the u.S. and by 1957 due to the Salk vaccine, the number had dropped to 2499.

However, during the 1962 Congressional hearings on HR10541, Dr. Bernard Greenberg, head of the Department of Biostatistics at the university of North Carolina, School of Public Health, testified that not only [now listen to this, folks...] not only did polio increase substantially after the introduction of mass and frequently compulsory immunization programs, but statistics were manipulated and statements made by the Public Health Service to give the opposite impression.

You have been lied to folks. The polio vaccine caused more polio than it protected people from. Moving on...

For instance, in 1957, the North Carolina Health Department made glowing claims for the efficacy of the Salk vaccine, showing how polio steadily decreased from 1953 to 1957. These figures were challenged by Dr. Fred Klenner who pointed out that it wasn't until 1955 that a single person in the state even received the polio vaccine injection.

Even then, the injections were administered on a very limited basis because of the number of polio cases resulting from the vaccine. It wasn't until 1956 that polio vaccinations assumed inspiring proportions. The 61% drop in polio cases in 1954 was credited to the Salk vaccine, when it wasn't even in the state yet. Nevertheless, by 1957, when the massive vaccination program had taken place, polio was again on the increase.

Digest that for a minute, folks, let Bill flip the tape over, and we'll be back in a minute......... Okay, back to the Salk vaccine.

Other ways polio statistics were manipulated to give the impression of Salk vaccine success follow:

1.Redefinition of an epidemic. More cases were required to refer to polio as an epidemic after the introduction of the Salk vaccine. In other words, you needed 20 cases per hundred thousand to have an epidemic before the vaccine was introduced, and after the vaccine they changed that number to 35 cases per hundred thousand per year to require the definition of epidemic.
2.Redefinition of the disease. In order to qualify for classification as paralytic polio mytolitis, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days after the onset of the disease.
Now that's after they started the vaccination programs, folks. Before the vaccination program started in 1954, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for only 24 hours. What this means folks, is that if you walked into a doctor's office before the vaccine was introduced, and you said, "Oh, I have paralytic symptoms here. I've had them for about 2 weeks." They'd say, "Oh, that's polio. You've had it for more than a day." But after the vaccine, if after the vaccine, you walked into that same doctor's office, and you say, "Oh, I've had these symptoms for 2 or 3 weeks, now." They'd say, "Oh, wait two months, then we can call it polio." That's how the statistics get manipulated, folks. Moving on...

Doctor Greenberg said, "This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely paralytic poliomyelitis, with a longer lasting paralysis.

The third way statistics were manipulated was mislabeling. After the introduction of the Salk vaccine, cocsacci virus and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis," explained Dr. Greenberg, "and in 1954 large numbers of these cases were undoubtedly mislabeled as paralytic polio." Now, another way of reducing the incidence of disease by way of semantics or statistical artifacts, as Dr. Greenberg calls it, is to simply reclassify the disease.

Now, I have my own version of this here, folks. From the Los Angeles County Health Index Morbidity and Mortality Reportable Disease Data, I'm looking at a chart of cases of viral or aseptic meningitis and polio from 1955 to 1966, and lo and behold, what do I find. From 1955 to 1966 cases of polio dropped from 273 cases to 5. Ah, but, the number of cases of aseptic meningitis from 1955 to 1966 increases in almost the same proportion from 50 cases to 256 cases. They simply changed the name, same disease, and you thought polio was wiped out at that point.

Now, folks, the reality is this. Diseases, like everything else in nature, follow cycles. They come in, they reach their peak and leave, and no vaccination program on Earth has ever been able to change that. Polio disappeared in Europe between 1940 and 1950 without any vaccination programs, whatsoever.

In 1958, Israel had a massive type 1 polio epidemic after mass immunizations. And from the same hearings on HR10541, that I talked about earlier, we find out that Massachusetts had a type 2 polio outbreak and there were more paralytic cases in people who were triple vaccinated than in the people who were unvaccinated. Surprise, surprise! You thought the vaccine protected you, didn't you? Well, most of those cases of polio came from the vaccination. And that's fact, folks. Even Jonas Salk has admitted it now that more than two-thirds of the polio in this country [then] came from his vaccine. From Coutler and Fisher's book, DPT: A Shot in The Dark, we learn:

There is a natural tendency for doctors to under-report whooping cough when it occurs in a vaccinated population, and to over report it when it appears in an unvaccinated population. Which means that if you go into a doctor's office and you are allegedly vaccinated, and you have whooping cough, they won't call it whooping cough. They'll call it something else, and that's how they keep all our statistics nice and safe and clean. Same thing's been done with measles, folks; reading from Walene James' book:

1.From 1958 to 1966, the number of measles cases reported each year dropped from 800,000 to 200,000. The drug industry claimed this was due to vaccinations. However, there are some very interesting discrepancies. Number one, the incidence of measles had already been declining steadily for the past 100 years and was totally unaffected by the immunization programs for measles.
2.It wasn't until 1967 that the live virus vaccine, which is presently used, was introduced, because the killed virus vaccine which came out in 1963 was found to be ineffective and harmful, and yet, the vaccine which was good, and which they alleged did the job, did not even come out during the time that they are trying to take credit for wiping out the diseases in.
3.A survey of pediatricians in New York City revealed that only 3.2% of them were actually reporting measles cases to the Health Department, and
4.in 1974 the Center for Disease Control determined that there were 36 cases of measles in all of Georgia. But the Georgia State Surveillance System reported 660 cases that same year. Folks, you can't believe anything you read, because every single statistic out there has been manipulated and twisted, and that's a fact that I can tell you unequivocally, from my own research. Let me read a little bit about rubella here:
A large proportion of children are found to be sero-negative (which means they show no evidence of immunity in blood tests) 4-5 years after receiving the rubella vaccination. In another study, 80% of army recruits who had been immunized against rubella, came down with the disease. Once again, folks, evidence that these vaccinations will not even protect you against the disease they are supposed to protect you from. And it goes on to say here that the same results were shown in a consecutive study that took place in an institution for the mentally retarded.

Now, could the real reason vaccination promise and performance seem so contradictory be that the vaccination premise itself is faulty? As stated earlier, the theory of vaccination postulates that the use of immunizing agents produces a mild form of the disease for which specific antibodies are formed that will protect the body when the real thing comes along. But as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't work that way and Dr. Alec Burton, who is another brave doctor out there, points out the following:

That there are children with what is called A Gamma Globulin Anemia [which means that they cannot produce antibodies], and yet these same children develop and recover from measles and other diseases as spontaneously as other children.

Now what this means is that there are children out there who can't produce antibodies. Nevertheless, antibodies are the things that vaccines are supposed to stimulate in you against the particular diseases they're designed for, and yet, as shown here by Dr. Alec Burton, even without those antibodies, you will get cured or you will naturally become healthy again after having this disease without any vaccination. So, folks, so much for the idea that vaccinations are the only way to protect you, and the basic premise that they are built on, namely stimulating antibodies, is totally wrong.

Okay. Another quote from Walene James' book. The mystery begins to unravel when we look at the work of Drs. Dettman and Kalikerinos. In one of their articles, they quote Dr. Wendall Bellfield of San Jose, California, who says the following. "Antibodies are not needed when the primary immunological defense which is leukocytes and interferon, etc. is functioning at maximum capacity.

Interferon production appears to occur only when the ascorbate level [and ascorbate is just a big word for vitamin C] and the primary defense components are at low levels, thereby permitting some viruses to survive the primary defense.

What this basically means, folks, is that the premise that vaccinations are built upon are totally false. Vaccinations are allegedly designed to stimulate antibody production for the specific diseases they're designed for, and yet, as Dr. Burton showed earlier, antibodies are not even necessary for your body to properly and effectively combat diseases.

In short, folks, this means that vaccines do not protect you against the diseases they are supposed to protect you from. Diseases, in this day and age have become self-fulfilling prophecy because doctors tend not to diagnose specific diseases if the subject has already been vaccinated against those specific diseases. Vaccinations, unquestionably, do not guarantee you any protection, their side effects are disastrous, and often worse than the disease, itself, and worse still, the premise that vaccines are built upon, are pure, unadulterated nonsense.

You've been taught that antibodies, are the little shock troops of your immune system, that they go out and kill all the nasty germs that are attacking you day in and day out, and the reality, however, is that antibody production is not your primary immunological defense, and that the idea of stimulating them by injecting you with poisons, serums, and free-floating genetic material, and all kinds of poisonous agents and stabilizers and vaccines, is completely absurd.

Okay, let me read you a little bit about immunity here, because it's going to become important over the next few minutes in what I'm talking about. When immunity to a disease is acquired naturally, [and again, from Walene James' book] the possibility of reinfection is only 3.2%, according to journalist Marion Thompson. If the immunity comes from a vaccination, however, the chance of reinfection is 80%.

Did you hear that, folks? Eighty percent chance of reinfection from unnaturally acquired immunity from vaccinations. Dr. William Howard Hay has pointed out that in any epidemic of communicable disease, only a small percentage of the population contracts the disease. Most people are naturally immune, so if a man who has been vaccinated does not contract the disease that really proves absolutely nothing. If he had not been vaccinated, the chances are he would not have contracted the disease, anyway. We have no way of knowing. Further,

Just because you give somebody a vaccine and maybe get an antibody reaction doesn't mean a thing. The only true antibodies, of course, are those you get naturally.

And that's from Dr. Dettman in an interview with Jay Patrick. Natural diseases are a lot safer than acute artificial complications from vaccinations. And that's a quote from Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, whom I mentioned earlier.

However, perhaps the strongest statement against the effectiveness of artificial immunization comes from Dr. William Howard Hay. It is nonsense to think that you can inject pus, which is most of the serums that we're talking about, into a little child, and in any way improve its health. There is no such thing as immunization, but we sell it under that name. If we could, by any means, build up a natural resistance to disease through these artificial means, I would applaud it to the echo, but we cannot do it.

The body has its own methods of defense. These defense methods depend upon the vitality of the body at the time. If it is vital enough, the body will resist all infections. If it isn't vital enough, it won't and you can't change the vitality of the body for the better by introducing poisons of any kind into it.

And those poisons of any kind he's referring to are vaccines. Vaccinations are poisons, they do not protect you, they are weakening our immune systems, and my research indicates that allergies are the direct result of large scale immunization programs foisted upon us in the last fifty years, and isn't it weird how right now, there is such a big push on to force every child and every person in the u.S. to be vaccinated for all kinds of diseases. Thanks, Bill Clinton. Now, be logical, folks. The only person you put at risk, even by the medical industry's own stupid logic is yourself, if you refuse to be vaccinated. Think about it; if everyone else is vaccinated, then they shouldn't get the disease, right? Then the only person that you're putting at risk by not being vaccinated is you. Makes sense. Then how does the government dare to justify forced vaccination?

I can assure you that even without any intentionally created diseases, many Americans will be dying over the next ten to fifteen years, and AIDS will be blamed. Be careful.

Wouldn't it be ironic if AIDS as we know it, did not exist at all. >From my own research I can tell you with complete confidence that the vaccines being foisted upon us can weaken our immune systems to the degree that AIDS-like symptoms and reactions will be all too common with or without AIDS. Do you remember what I read earlier about the genetic material being introduced into our bloodstreams from vaccinations, and producing auto-immune diseases. Folks, we don't even need a government-created disease to have massive epidemic rates of auto-immune failure, because that's what these vaccines are promoting.

Now you've been conned another way, and this is by the word virus. Because you think you know what a virus is, and you do not. Rest assured viruses are not what you think they are, and I'm gonna quote you a little bit more from Walene , to give you a hint.

All living organisms, including bacteria and viruses contain genetic material, which is DNA and RNA. In fact, live viruses themselves are genetic messages.

Live bacteria and viruses can transfer their genetic information through animal cells, including human cells which are taken up by other cells in the body. Although the body generally will not make antibodies against its own tissue, it appears that slight modifications of the antigenic character of tissues will cause it to appear foreign to the immune system, and thus a fair target for antibody production. [Remember what I said earlier, about how vaccines give us genetic material that can incorporate into our cells.]

Thus vaccines lay the foundation for auto-immune diseases and other disorders of the immune system such as rheumatoid arthritis, rheumatic fever, lupus, sclerodema, and a lot of other nasty diseases. It is reasonable to assume that our contemporary "epidemic of allergies" has at least some of its roots in the practice of vaccination.

And again, that's from Walene James.

Now beware, folks, I have saved the best for last. The Clinton Administration has buckled under the pressure to implement a stepped up mass vaccination program. Every day I see stories of the various state laws forcing Americans to inject these poisons into their veins and don't buckle to the pressure, because you don't have to because no one, absolutely no one, can force you to inject anything into your blood, and no one can force you or your children to be vaccinated. I've avoided vaccinations, and you can, too.

They will threaten you with not letting your kids go to school, or not get a job, or anything else they can think of, but it is all, excuse this folks, it's all bullshit. However, if enough people do not speak up now, we may all be forced to take in these horrible poisons.

Often, all it takes to avoid vaccinations, is a simple form you can type up by yourself, referring to Senate bill 942 #3380, under the title, Exemption From Immunizations, and let me read that bill right now, it's really interesting. 3380. Immunization of a person shall not be required for admission to a school or other institution if the guardian parent or adult has assumed responsibility for his or her custody or care in the case of a minor, or the person seeking admission themselves, files with the governing authority a letter or affidavit stating that such vaccination is contrary to his or her belief.

The other thing you can do is go to your doctor and ask for a vaccination guarantee. Basically, what you're saying in this little form is that, you're guaranteeing me that this vaccination will protect me and not cause any nasty side effects, or you will give me a million dollars. And if a doctor refuses to sign that you can refuse to get the vaccination.

Now, even better, there's a book written by a lawyer who's done a lot in this area and has a lot of first-hand experience in circumventing vaccination laws. It's called, Dangers of Compulsory Immunizations; How to Avoid Them Legally, by Tom Finn.

Your best bet is also to get a copy of a little booklet called, Vaccinations Do Not Protect, by Eleanor McBean. Get a pen, folks. You won't find these books in Barnes and Noble.

You can call 203-929-1557, that's 203-929-1557, and ask for Jo Willard, because the only place I know you can get any of the books I talked about today, is from an organization called Natural Hygiene, in Connecticut. That's 203-929-1557, and ask for Jo Willard.

In the McBean book are the forms that I mentioned earlier. It'll be four bucks, or maybe ten bucks, if you get both of them. You can even learn how to travel abroad without getting vaccinated, folks.

Get educated and let your representatives in Congress know, and let your family doctors know that you know what's going on, because you have to protect yourself and your kids.

Your congressmen and doctors may not have any clue about any of this, and you have to educate them, because most doctors are woefully ignorant of these things, and have also, like you and me, abdicated their responsibilities for most of their life.

URL: http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/vaccinations-the-hour-of-the-time.html

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

The strength of vaccines is an empirical question

So if vaccines are good, then we should all get them to protect against infectious diseases.

It can't be resolved by debate (this debate is invalid) only by empirical measurements.

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

It gives up your indvidual rights as a united states citizen

First of all if you don't like the way things are run vote to correct the situation otherwise leave. By living in the United States you abide by the social contract. You live in a democracy so you must be vaccinated if it is what has been voted on and approved. You state that vaccines can and will be harmful, this is a blanket statement. First focusing on the can, getting out of bed can be harmful, walking downstairs can be harmful, eating can be harmful. There is harm every where and every day. Just because there is a small risk does not mean we should pass vaccinations by and risk coming down with something that has the potential to kill. All your stats you give, there is no evidence to back it up so there is no point in believing it. Also what question was the government asked when they said we need to reduce population, and which government was questioned. The goal of humanity is to preserve humanity this means that by giving vaccinations we are lowering the risk of infectious disease. Thus protecting humanity, not lowering population.

TO BE HONEST- wouldnt you rather have a few minor rare side effects than having widespread diseases all over the world resulting in people dying in their thousands and there being unfair suffering??!

saying the government can do whatever they want is not right its like telling them ok heres my body inject me with what ever you want.
You are being injected with some thing that can be or will be harmful. in 1950 the Polio Vaccination was infected with a virus called Simian Virus 40 (SV40). SV40 caused Lung and Brain cancer to most of the recipricants of the vaccination. in 1976 the swine flu vaccine was given out and caused a little less than 50% to become paralyzed and die. when questioned the government stated that we needed to reduce population. What if you where the so called population needed to be reduced???

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

Autism- NO WAY!

I agree that there is no evidence currently that vaccinations cause autsim. I also wouldn't vaccinate my child for any reason.

Autism seems to always been seen as the reason parents don't vaccinate and I can tell you that, for me, it couldn't be farther from the truth. The multitude of other reactions (Guillain-Barré, SIDS, Juvenile Diabetes, Rheumatoid Arthritis, anaphylactic shock, death, etc.) had a much larger impact on me. Also, I'm not inherently distrustful of the medical industry (I conceived through IVF so I LOVE modern medicine!) but when they are pushing a HepB vaccine on a 12 hour old infant their motives become suspect.

It is frustrating to me that the vaccine debate swirls around Autism, MMR, and Jenny McCarthy. It is like this is a *new* problem! Have we forgotten Barbara Loe Fisher and her fight to get DTP off the market? It was killing kids and causing developmental disabilities in others and they've since changed it (to DTaP, the "a" being acelular). For some reason the media loves the Autism link - perhaps because it is so pervasive and not understood disorder? Regardless, it is the least of the problems with vaccines - so please research beyond Autism when you are exploring vaccines.

I also wanted to point out a major flaw in the panelists discussion of non-vaxers. There is this persistent idea that vaccinating is a societal obligation and moral imperative. This theory stems from the thought that non-vaccinated children are relying on the "herd" to protect them from illness. Also, since some people can't get vaccines for medical reasons that non-vaccinated children are posing a threat to them. There are several major flaws with this idea. the largest of which is children are only a minority of the human "herd" - what about the adult population that harbor NO IMMUNITY to illnesses because they have waned from vaccines and were never developed naturally through illness. Even the CDC shows grave numbers for adult vaccination.http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/vaccinations-for-grown-ups/
"only 2.1 percent of adults ages 18 to 64 are immunized against tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough, the journal reports. A vaccine against shingles is recommended for all adults over 60, but only 1.9 percent of adults have been immunized."
How can the non-vaccinated children be responsible for the lack of eradication of these vaccine available diseases? If herd immunity requires 70-90% immunity levels, how can we pretend to have herd immunity?

Second, if you believe that vaccine's work, why are you worried about your vaccinated child? This doesn't apply to those too young to be vaccinated and those who can not - however I've heard parents of vaccinated kids blame the non-vaccinated kids. Why aren't they upset at the medical community because their vaccine didn't work?

Lastly, read up on what vaccines actually do. Many don't prevent transmission of an disease but decrease the severity of the illness. Whooping Cough, for example, does not stop transmission. That means your vaccinated child can have the pathogen and pass it to others but may not have any symptoms or very light symptoms. If a baby or immuno-compromised person gets Pertussis how do we know it is a non-vaccinated person's fault? Once again, why aren't we railing at the medical community that these vaccines aren't living up to their *miracle status*?

I respect anyone's decision to vaccinate or not vaccinate. Trust me, thinking that my child would be the one that got HepB from some freak accident and died kept me up late at night! It isn't an easy decision but let's protect everyone's right to make an informed decision.

Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Yes because... No because...

Herd Effect is Pointless

The herd effect is completely valid. In all compulsory immunizations there will be exemptions, such as in childhood vaccinations. When people choose to be exempted, they could be still protected because of the little chance of encountering the disease. Under the 1st amendment, the US cannot discriminate against people for their own religious beliefs. In religious cases such as the Mormons and the Amish, it is morally unjust and against god's will to use unnatural vaccines. As John Adams once said. "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” - 1772 By this he is meaning it is in no man's ability to deny anybody their right of liberty, in this case the right to choice whether for or against these vaccinations.

But the main point here is that the Constitution guarantees these exemptions and when they do occur, the people will still be protected because the vaccinated people will prevent the not vaccinated from ever being in contact with the disease.

The herd effect argues that if enough members of a population are vaccinated from a certain disease, than all non-vaccinated will be protected from the disease as they will have such a low possibility of coming with the disease that it can be classified as nearly impossible.

The big problem with this argument is that if vaccination is made compulsory and everyone is made to receive it, who is left un-vaccinated to benefit from the Herd Effect? If government force vaccinations on everyone, then everyone is thus vaccinated. Who then would be un-vaccinated and benefit from the herd effect?

I am aware that is the US there are certain religious or philosophical reasons why a person can be considered exempt from compulsory immunization; these people would benefit from the herd effect, however this is not truly compulsory immunization. A distinction should be made, otherwise the argument of the ehrd effect is counter-intuitive.

Debates > Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization