You bet it is scary stuff that people are allowed to afflict others with no responsibility or care for the harm they cause. You hopefully noted that the part was about identifying those responsible and prosecuting them " I do wish that we had the technology to determine the person who by their refusal to vaccinate caused harm to another", why is that any different to identifying and prosecuting someone who deliberately lights a house on fire, runs another person over, stabs someone, shoots someone, releases a biological weapon into a human population (though refusing to be vaccinated and then spreading the disease could be akin to that if there was no valid reason) or should those people also be exempt from justice?
5 Likes
Itâs no real secret⊠itâs in advertising, marketing, public relations etc. Some of the best types of report to pick your data from are peer reviewed reports because they hold more âstreet credâ and companies pay for that information. They choose the data that best suits the scenario whether that be to do with time or space restraints or market placement.
1 Like
Absolutely⊠but the middle ground for one is not the middle ground for another obviously. Iâve seen people make emotional decisions against things like gravity because the majority agreed. Weâve gone to war over WMDs that never existed. Weâve watched politicians lie through their teeth only to receive a slap on the wrist. Weâve watch companies sell private information for profit with no repercussions. Weâve seen developers build with sub standard products in order to turn a greater profit, car companies do the dodgey on safety then try to squirm out of it.
As Galileo put it âIn questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.â
Regardless of how uncomfortable it makes us feel I believe reasoning, questioning and debate is essential until the truth is discovered. That is not to say we should sit on our hands until such date as who knows how long that will take but the conversation needs to continue.
1 Like
I did note that but prosecution in this case should be for those who have committed a crime with intent to harm. Iâm sure people donât think âI might just not get a jab this year so I can infect the neighbours kidsâ.
Education and understanding are far more important and if there are questions then they need answering not ridiculing.
I feel even more adamant about this topic now as Iâm surprised by the reaction Iâve received. We have human rights⊠choice is one of those rights. If people are going out and purposely spreading a biological weapon then we have laws and lawmakers to deal with that⊠this is not a security problem itâs a socal and health problem.
1 Like
Based on your post when is truth discovered and what is the litmus test for truth? For example a number of sceptics deny the efficacy of vaccinations for various maladies while pointing to the margins. Examples include small pox and polio; have vaccines all but eradicated them from the human condition, did humans coincidentally build up a resistance in the decades after vaccines were deployed, was it all a plot by big pharma, or were those diseases reduced by improved nutrition or praying more often?
3 Likes
What is ever the litmus test for truth? The search for truth is a continuum, there are so many parts to make up the whole and just because something doesnât seem to fit now doesnât mean itâs wrong. If thereâs a question then itâs just begging for an answer but that doesnât mean the answer will be correct.
1 Like
Then philosophically are you stating there is never truth, only opinion?
3 Likes
Opinion is part of the road to truth or should we just parrot the pollies?
1 Like
Iâll leave you with your re-entrant recursive thoughts 
3 Likes
I will stipulate that manufacturers have tried to influence public perception by manipulating the study/review process. One classic is to only publish âgoodâ studies and to leave âbadâ studies in the bottom draw. I have no idea if that has been shown in the vaccine industry. That is a long way from showing that the whole system is corrupt. I agree that where big money is at stake there is a risk that there will be corruption to get more. But assuming the checks and balances in place have all failed without any evidence is just pointless.
Another problem with this is you have missed the point of peer review and how it operates. It is to prevent exactly the problem you describe. For your explanation to work it involves reviewers colluding with authors and with each other. We do not see whistle-blowers revealing these flaws on a grand scale. It requires all potential whistle-blowers to be silent or silenced. This has to happen many times. You say there is no conspiracy so all these people decided to behave this way independently, without conspiring they all sing the same song. I mention conspiracy not because I think it happens but because it would have to happen for fraud to occur on such a scale.
The world of academia is very competitive, a researcherâs reputation will grow much more by successfully going against the trend than conforming. Fame and fortune awaits the person who breaks the story of massive errors or faking. Yet there are none.
If this fraud is commercially motivated as you claim surely it would be in the interest of any manufacturer to dob in the opposition. Yet it doesnât happen.
Letâs change track. Why do you pick on the vaccination industry as one that is rife with fraud? What is it about vaccination that really bothers you?
4 Likes
So are you saying you believe there is a risk of corruption but itâs pointless to check if a few checks and balances come up ok?
I donât think I have missed the point. Peer reviews are supposed to help prevent this problem and are an important part of evidencing a debate, however, they are not infallible. What Iâm talking about is the use of those reports and how they are manipulated in order to fit the requirements of the issue.
Sadly no we donât see them on a grand scale. As we have seen when one does blow the whistle they are demonised and persecuted⊠ie Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden etc etc (there is a list of whistleblowers here List of whistleblowers - Wikipedia). Theyâre not all evil doombringers with horns.
Fame perhaps but as weâve seen with the history of whistleblowers, fortune is lacking. Most people are afraid to blow the whistle, and rightly so, but those brave enough to swim against the current need to be prepared for an exhaustive swim.
Firstly I donât remember claiming that. Secondly, can you categorically say it doesnât happen?
Why do you assume Iâm picking on the âvaccination industryâ? (interesting phrase that).
I have no issues with the idea of vaccination if itâs safe, but thatâs me and I donât have the right to dictate to others on what decisions they should make. This is all about choice.
1 Like
At last progress. What do you think of the herd immunity argument?
4 Likes
Thatâs a loaded question⊠what argument are you referring to in particular?
1 Like
Herd immunity is a well known âargumentâ many would consider factual.
Google can be your friend. The basic definition is the resistance to the spread of a contagious disease within a population that results if a sufficiently high proportion of individuals are immune to the disease, especially through vaccination.
https://www.vaccinestoday.eu/stories/what-is-herd-immunity/
When to get vaccinated | Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care
and so on and there you go. Maybe you learned something today since the crux of it all is vaccination?
Is willingly and knowingly neglecting the welfare of the herd because it is your choice on, in your opinion?
5 Likes
Sorry you are so wrong on this. The law is about reasonable people, by that I mean what a reasonable person would expect. That is why some acts by people while not having intent to harm but that do cause harm can be and are offences.
Manslaughter is the act of killing another person or person without intent to do so ie to murder someone requires intent but to kill someone and be charged with manslaughter requires no intent except that someone dies because of the actions of another were not reasonable. They may not be charged with Manslaughter but may be charged with Criminal damage or assualt depending on the circumstances. However accidental death is not an act that may be prosecuted, depending on how the death occurred as an example a child runs onto a road in such a manner that the driver of a car who was driving to the required and careful standards unavoidably hits and kills the child this would not be prosecuted but if the driver was speeding without lawful reason they would likely be charged and prosecuted with some offence.
I donât take away the right of choice but I also do uphold the right of consequences of those choices. One may choose to speed but if one does and are then caught doing so then they face the penalties/consequences of that choice. A person can choose to smoke cigars/cigarettes but if they do so and cause harm to another I support their right to sue the one who caused that harm. I even support the right of someone to refuse a vaccination but I also support the right of others to then take legal action that may include criminal proceedings if by that choice they harmed others, this is reasonable. What some people seek to do is assert their right to choices but they then donât want to be held to account for those choices.
Did I seek to ridicule? I donât think I did but if you felt that way I do apologise, I was responding to your post that noted prosecution was scary. For me the lack of care that some take in regards to others welfare is scary, I see it everyday with people speeding and breaking the rules on roads, improper handling of foodstuffs, lax safety standards, defective goods that endanger others and yes, those who refuse vaccinations because the disease it helps to protect against is of no real concern to the person refusing the vaccine.
I agree education is needed, particularly educating those who seek to avoid vaccination because they donât agree with it, that the reason to get vaccinated is not just about the person getting the vaccine but it is about helping to protect others. And sorry the jury is out on this matter otherwise we would still have major outbreaks worldwide of Smallpox, Polio, Tetanus, Whooping Cough, Measles and similar diseases that were and are reduced in threat by vaccines, it is just some refuse to accept the verdict. When hopefully a universal vaccine to Influenza is produced I am sure there would still be people who would refuse to get vaccinated for no other reason than that was their choice, but if by that choice they caused harm to another person then they should be held accountable for their choices.
And that doesnât make it about the welfare of humanity? Which then could be about national security and why the Governments of the World stockpiled Tamiflu etc during a previous outbreak to ensure the security of their nations was able to be maintained in the event of a catastrophic outbreak of a pandemic Flu. The rules were drawn up about who would be treated preferentially which included frontline health personnel, the Defence Forces, the Judiciary, The Political arm, and the Public Services. Health problems are of major concern to a nationâs security and can be and are regulated, people are quarantined, people can be prosecuted.
4 Likes
Iâm well aware of herd immunity but syncretic asked about the argument. Iâm just asking him/her to elaborate⊠and I learn something every day 
3 Likes
I think quite a few people would disagree with you there. I think part of the reason the Choice Community exists is that people feel that certain things are unreasonable and that the law has not addressed those things.
With regards to your next two paragraphs⊠I donât disagree⊠as I said âwe have laws and lawmakers to deal with thatâ.
That was a more general comment about what happens when someone challenges the status quo, I didnât mean you personally 
There have been many cases where vaccines have caused problems with peoples health and sometimes very serious problems. I donât think we can blame people for being afraid that they, or their child, could be affected adversely. That deserves some respect one would think. I donât think that most people who are against vaccinating are saying you shouldnât do it⊠they just donât believe they should have to.
Absolutely⊠but if only a minority of people werenât vaccinated with the universal influenza vaccine then wouldnât they be the people at risk?
Yes, exactly, the law prevails⊠not that weâve had an outbreak in this country⊠but I admit, it could happen.
1 Like
I suspect you are well aware that most vaccines are not 100% effective, some need recurrent boosters to stay effective, and some like the flu vaccine have quite varied results from year to year, roughly 30-70%. FWIW it appears most vaccines average around 90% effective with the exception of polio that is 99-100% IF all the recommended doses are taken.
and
4 Likes
Thatâs part of the problem that some people think they are the only ones at risk if they donât vaccinate even after it has been made plain that it isnât the case. There are some people in all communities who 1) cannot be vaccinated because of other health issues, 2) there are some who even when vaccinated are still able to be infected because the vaccines do not work as well for them, 3) there are some who cannot be vaccinated because of their age. All these people then rely on the benefits of herd immunity to help protect them from getting infected. Every person who chooses to not be vaccinated purely by choice is putting those more vulnerable people at risk. Once it reaches a level that Herd Immunity is very compromised then the incidence of larger outbreaks becomes more pronounced, and why things like Measles and Whooping Cough have started to reappear more regularly. Polio is again rearing itâs head as a big problem in communities where vaccination has not been adhered to eg India.
Influenza vaccines as among all the other types are not perfect and some people can become ill or die due to having a vaccine. But when the risk is assessed the risk of vaccine complications compared to the complications of the disease they are protecting against is very very much smaller. If you (by that I mean a person not you specifically) are affected adversely by a vaccine then it is important to you and those who are involved with you. Even as a Society we are impacted by the loss of even one life or the effect it can have on a life eg disability but compared to a disease that is many times more effective at causing those issues the risks are very small.
As to outbreaks, yes earlier in the 20th Century Australia like the rest of the World was suffering from a Worldwide outbreak of Polio. People from all walks of life were afflicted and affected. My Uncle was afflicted and my Motherâs parents & family were put into quarantine. Some people in their town were sent to a purpose built community and were surrounded by armed guards and barbed wired, if they died their remains were incinerated and dumped at sea. Leprosy sufferers had similar experiences being confined to remote areas or isolated on islands so they could not infect others. In the event of such large outbreaks of any deadly/dangerous disease you can be certain they will carry out the same types of actions even in our lawful communities in these days. Ebola in Africa was receiving the same treatment once people realised it could spread to other countries, not a disease we can currently vaccinate against but just to show what steps might happen.
7 Likes
This is great stuff I can see where youâre coming from and yes, vaccines have helped do fantastic things. Iâm not denying it, Iâm simply questioning the denial of others rights to question and choose.
And thereâs the rub⊠itâs when people see things like this Samoa recalls vaccine after baby deaths | SBS News in the news itâs hard to think about everyone else⊠parents taking their children in for MMR will likely think twice.
3 Likes
