The more I study genomic variations (which influence our variable ability to manage key cellular and enzyme biochemical reactions), the clearer it is to me that 'one size fits all' therapies, which would include vaccinations, are going to have adverse, unintended or null reactions for a small but meaningful number of individuals. And this can be documented. When the government, at whatever level, insists that you cannot opt out of one of its mandated programs, your right to make an "informed choice" goes out the window.

I do believe that as we gain more understanding of individual genetic variability over the next 5-10 years, the defined dangers of vaccines to specific sub-genomic types will be uncovered, and that yes, autism, etc. are complex but definable side effects that do occur in some individuals. We may be better able to predict who will be at risk, and perhaps how to work around those risks to maximize public health protection.

In the meantime, the concept of forced vaccinations is a prime example of how when the state tells you that you must submit 'for the greater good', you need to look behind the curtain, as there is almost certainly more to the story.

Just possibly the reason that so many people are pushing vaccines is that they prevent crippling diseases and death and provide for a healthier and longer life for people. Maybe we don't long for the days of rooms full of iron lungs and people partially crippled from polio, or the fun of smallpox.

This picture brings back the highly discounted and disproven link to autism.

And, yes, the people who produce these products make money.

While I'm not an advocate of government forced anything, I rather suspect that Natural News.com has its own agenda. But if you really want to know the truth, I think you'll need to do the research yourself. I see many items in that diagram which are stated as fact but are controversial and may not be fact at all.

I, a robust healthy 81 year old who skis and can work construction for a ten hour day have lifetime immunity from measles and chicken pox, German measles and mumps. Had them and got through them, no problem.

This list of vaccines they have added is absurd. Diphtheria and Polio, yes; Small pox if needed due to an outbreak; yes. Otherwise, people should be free to deny these poisons in their bloodstream.

If you want to drink the koolaid propaganda from Big Pharma, inject away!

Other people are not obligated to protect you from your vaccines failure at the expense of the side, or direct effects.

Have you heard of “Measles parties?”

http://vaccineliberationarmy.com/2013/04...

http://vactruth.com/history-of-vaccine-s...

This seems an odd thread to read. Most of the time, folks in the Gulch are pro-science but I am seeing a lot of comments that seem to equate vaccines with poisons. This is sooo not so.

Let us take a look at that: When you catch a disease, your body has a shot at finding some prominent epitope on the surface of the organism and making antibodies specific to it. (Your body cannot always do this.) When that organism tries to infect you again, the Lymphocytes that are dedicated to that particular epitope go wild and have an orgy and reproduce all over the place. Their offspring then start to produce the antibodies that protect you from that disease.

Sometimes the epitope is unique to a single organism. Sometimes it crosses from one species, or even from one phylum to another. Examples: Getting cowpox protects you from subsequent infection from smallpox. Developing antibodies to Schistosomiasis (a parasitic worm) can protect you from malaria.

When a vaccine is made, it is done in one of three ways (that I know of; I have never been in this part of the medical industry): they can weaken the disease so that it does not cause devastation and death but is otherwise the same and make that into the vaccine, they can kill the organism and make that into the vaccine, or they can take certain epitopes from the organism and combine them with some other molecule (often albumin) and then make that the vaccine. (This last method sometimes lets your body make antibodies to organisms it could not respond to on its own - such as some cancers.) All of these methods are ways of 'delivering the epitope' into your system so that you immune response can develop antibodies to it. It is your own body that provides the immune response and hence the resistance to disease, just as if you caught the disease naturally, but with a lower death rate.

In addition to the epitope, a vaccine often contains artificial substances such as 'the stuff they grew the virus on/in' (eg egg or media), preservatives (Thimerosal is the one that most people are concerned about) and some saline. Some vaccines also have a small amount of antibiotics in them to prevent growth of bacteria. Many vaccines in the US are now available in single dose packages without Thimerosal and other preservatives.

There are undeniably idiosyncratic reactions to vaccines that cause serious problems or death. These were more common when egg was used as a growth medium and horse serum was used as a carrier. Serious reactions still occur, but they are rare. I have never seen a study that presented what I thought was well documented evidence that anything related to vaccination caused autism or a high rate of deaths. I have, however, seen a number of anti-vaccination sites that include pretty ridiculous deaths in their statistics: a girl died of unknown causes nearly 2 years after she had a vaccination; she had no symptoms that would seem to relate her death to the vaccination - but it was attributed thereto statistically.

So we have a numbers game. Let me take the measles vaccine as an example: The rate of fatal reaction to a measles vaccine is about one person per million; the rate of death for measles in an unvaccinated population is about 135 per million. So I really wonder at the resistance against getting vaccinated: it seems pretty logical to me to get vaccinations.

Now 'being forced' to do anything - eat chocolate chip cookies, even - raises my hackles. I would like to propose that most of the people on this list would consider that it is the prerogative of a private organization to require vaccinations to be valid in order to 'attend or participate in that private organization'. So one answer to the question of how to deal with vaccinations in schools and supermarkets and airplanes and Disneyland is to let the private organizations police their own territories. If you consider that the public schools are 'owned' by the populace, then they get to vote as to what to do about vaccinations...which I thought was what had occurred. (If I am wrong, please tell me.) This means that if you want to change the regulations for attendance to public schools we should discuss who 'owns' those schools and hence who has the right to make the rules pertaining to them. (Of course, that can also mean that we have to carry our proof of vaccination around with us from now on.)

Fortunately, we do not have to be perfect in our vaccination strategy. If we get 'good enough' then herd immunity will make it statistically unlikely for a disease to be transmitted through a population. If we get to that point, then the people who have immunodeficiency problems will not be at risk. And I will not be at risk of having no place for me in the hospital if I get in a car accident because all of the beds are filled with influenza victims.

Jan, wanted to be an immunologist at one time
(Ed. for punctuation & clarity)

So, how do my fellow Objectivists think the force should be applied? At first, it will only apply to kindergartners, and 7th graders simultaneously. I've read the legislation and spoken with some lawmakers and it's pretty clear that children who don't have all 35 injections prior to starting school in the fall of 2016 will be given a "catch up" schedule of up to 15 vaccines over the following school year, ongoing until they are caught up. But, by then, it will probably be 38 or so. Any who don't fully comply, including those at private schools, will be listed as "truant" and CPS will remove the children from the home with law enforcement assisting (there's the gun part). It's pretty clear that the parents will then likely be jailed. The charge against the parents will be child-endangerment. One of our judicial committee members stated that the state has "an obligation" to interfere with the family structure on these cases.

By the time any of this starts to take place there will probably be a federal law in place for adults. I haven't read the draft on that and can only guess at how force will be applied. How do you think it should be applied? My personal favorite is the removal of basic rights, like the right to travel. Imagine ducking the cops while driving to work each day because your drivers license is invalid. That'd get most of us to roll up our sleeves, I'm guessing - maybe even while waiting in line at the DMV.

What do you think will work? Let's brainstorm...

maybe LL should investigate forced vaccines.

Let's face it...there are large numbers of parents in our country who wouldn't even feed their kids if they weren't forced to. I've seen stories here in Florida of parents who left infants in the car while they're in the bar having a few. While I, too, eschew the notion of compulsion under law to do some of these things, at times they are apparently necessary.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. Neither side what's to admit that the other side has some good points. So both are forcing people in to diametrically opposing views.