Mandatory jabs!

[MKG]

I can't help smiling. You're absolutely right, Riff-Raff. Following the course of this debate, I have become convinced that the government were advocating compulsion. I've just gone back and read the article which started all of this, and it clearly states that the government say they have no plans for compulsory vaccination.

Just shows to go you.

[Martin]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/ ... y?va=emote

"Children who have not received all their vaccinations should not be allowed to start school, a Labour MP has suggested.

Speaking in the left-wing Fabian Society magazine, Mary Creagh said the move would increase the uptake of the controversial MMR vaccine.

In the same article, public health expert Sir Sandy Macara suggests linking child benefits to vaccinations"

which was followed by "the government have no present plans.............."

The whole thread in my understanding was concerning government even contemplating such totalitarian lunacy - and as was very reasonably pointed out, it rightfully arouses strong emotions.

I am totally unable to see why I should HAVE to justify homoeopathy to anyone, particularly in a thread about peoples choice to have (or not have) vaccinations, as I explained, I have taken part in very long and essentially circular arguments on the subject before, and am in no mood to repeat it!

"mostly practiced by the misguided, charlatans and snake-oil salesmen and which withstands cursory examination by science or even simple logic about as well as a cream cracker withstands sand blasting – and at the same time disparage in the most juvenile terms..........." - pots and kettles job!

As Clara pointed out, it is entirely reasonable to view a vast proportion of humanity's blind trust in allopathy with dismay too - for any belief system to declare itself to be not only "the only way" but to dare to suggest that it should be enforcible in law (as has been suggested by some in this thread, and by the loony Mary Creagh) is petrifying!

Freedom of choice is incredibly important- whether it be religion (try proving THAT!), or what school of therapy you choose to follow - basic human rights.............

[QuakerBear]

Wo, wo, wo! Calm down everyone.

Martin, I don't advocate mandatory vaccination, no government has the right to choose what can happen to an individuals body and then implement that decision against the individuals will. But if we are to counter the oppositions stance with any chance of success we must fully understand why they are advocating a specific course of action.

The government are trying to make vaccines mandatory becuase they genuinely belive they are doing what's best for people and that they are protecting children from what, in their view, not necessarily mine, are irresponsible parents. Thus if we are to counter their arguements it must be done using evidence and hard science which they have no option but to accept.

With refernce to the journal I recomended: There is no written source which is not partisan to some degree. However within Vaccine you will find articles citing opposing views, each article will also have been heavily reviewed before it's even been considered for publication and, again I return to referencing, you can see where the evidence has come from, look up authors careers, check what they cite etc..

With some of the sites previously cited on this discusion you can't reference them because they may not even contain footnotes! One article I read simple said, 'a study', what! That's utter piffle, one can't write, 'a study', discuss it's supposed results and expect to be taken with any degree of seriousness. The articles were also writen by people with a strong agenda, rather then well trained observers who are willing to write up an experiment and admit they got results contrary to what they would have expected or even inconclusive results.

To conclude, and sorry for the rant. None of us can be specialists in every field which effects our lives and we can't have all of the data available to us. Therefore we're forced to make decisions based on something as simple as how trustworthy the souces are. I will never trust a source that has originated from someone with little or no formal training who uses over-simplified and/or excessively emotional language and who does not even understand the priciples of experimentation and peer review.

God gave me reason and discernment and I'll be darned if I'm going to spurn that wonderful gift.

[Martin]

you're STILL missing the point! "Science" has nothing to do with it, its about principles - we should not have to "prove or disprove" anything to government. Government should realise that freedom of choice is (or should be) sacrosanct!
Why do you suppose these scientists to be totally beyond reproach, and the results of their machinations irrefutable? - you miss the point that it can only ever be "as far as current knowledge takes them" (which over the years has brought us blood letting and widespread ECT as "therapy" - drugs by the score that are hailed as wonderdrugs today, and found to be deadly dangerous tomorrow........)
This is why I got so cross, and started mildly emoting - if we start off down that road - "government knows best" we'll have compulsory mass-medication across the board - religion - can't prove that, no peer reviewed works, therefore that'll be banned............NOW do you get it?
It's not necessarily about "being right", its about the right to be wrong!

[The Riff-Raff Element]

you're STILL missing the point! "Science" has nothing to do with it, its about principles - we should not have to "prove or disprove" anything to government. Government should realise that freedom of choice is (or should be) sacrosanct!
Why do you suppose these scientists to be totally beyond reproach, and the results of their machinations irrefutable? - you miss the point that it can only ever be "as far as current knowledge takes them" (which over the years has brought us blood letting and widespread ECT as "therapy" - drugs by the score that are hailed as wonderdrugs today, and found to be deadly dangerous tomorrow........)
This is why I got so cross, and started mildly emoting - if we start off down that road - "government knows best" we'll have compulsory mass-medication across the board - religion - can't prove that, no peer reviewed works, therefore that'll be banned............NOW do you get it?
It's not necessarily about "being right", its about the right to be wrong!

Martin - you're tilting at windmills. Democratic government should include the right to freedom for anyone to do what they wish and live as they wish provided that their actions do no demonstrable harm to others. Fair enough?

Now, how many people would argue that laws requiring - compelling - parents to secure their young children safely when driving are not reasonable?

Without conducting an exhaustive survey I would be willing to suggest that pretty much everybody thinks this to be a sensible compulsion to protect the wellbeing of children.

Vaccination is more of a grey area: there are risks and there are rewards. So there needs to be a discussion and presentation of evidence to decide to what extent - if any - a failure to vaccinacte a group of children could present a risk to the wellbeing of others. Simple as that.


Few people consider scientists to be infallable, and certainly most good scientists wouldn't be to arrogant to consider themselves so, which is why proper studies have to undergo peer review.

Absolute certainties in science (including the existence or otherwise of God) are very, very rare. Beware the atheist scientist - if she or he is willing to discard God without being able to prove it they are quite capable of discarding other hypothesis as well.

[Martin]

it's that "Pandora's Box" thing again, you can unstrap a child from a car seat, but once that jab's been administered, you can't put it back in the box!

[MKG]

Oooh - bad analogy there Martin. You can't strap a child into a car after the accident that threw him through the windscreen.

[Martin]

ok, lets be pedantically specific then - in the question of car seats, SHOULD the advice that it's safer ever be discredited/disproved, you can just stop using the car seat..........if your child has been vaccinated, you can't get it back out, you can't UNvaccinate them! - the Pandora's Box analogy!
Perfectly good analogy to my mind, but there you go, I believe in freedom to choose!

[MKG]

Not pedantic. A loosely-stated analogy can turn around later and bite an argument on it's bum. Which would be a shame because this argument is a good one which I'm enjoying. Just looking after your democratic intersts, mate

[The Riff-Raff Element]

it's that "Pandora's Box" thing again, you can unstrap a child from a car seat, but once that jab's been administered, you can't put it back in the box!

Ah - you're just being silly now. You can't un-kill a child from death by measles either. The Pandora's box analogy can be a good one (as in the GMO debate) but it's hardly valid for every eventuality. No one is even attempting to discredit the use of car seats for kiddies whereas the discussion about vaccines is ongoing.

Do you think that the definition of freedom in a democracy I have given is a fair one or not?

[red]

"Children who have not received all their vaccinations should not be allowed to start school, a Labour MP has suggested.

Speaking in the left-wing Fabian Society magazine, Mary Creagh said the move would increase the uptake of the controversial MMR vaccine.

wholly ridiculous scheme. uninforcible. legally the parents are obliged to provide an education for their children, at school (or otherwise) - if they refused to have them vaccinated.. and refused to home ed.. then the kids would receive no education. when the local authority establish an education is not taking place.. they will issue a school attendence order.. but the kids wont be able to attend school cos they are not vaccinated. this move would make it feasible for kids to have no education and no vaccination... very effective...

stupid MP

but to be fair :

In a brief statement, a party spokesman said: "Labour has no plans to introduce compulsory vaccination for children."

and

The proposal was strongly condemned by the chairman of the British Medical Association, Dr Hamish Meldrum, who said forcing parents to have their children inoculated was "morally and ethically dubious".

the BMAhave a lot of info on the subject, and do not recommend compulsory vaccination.

I can see their point on not splitting the MMR into 3 - as it would increase the likelihood of the disease being caught. however I still maintain that it should be offered if there is a reason.

[QuakerBear]

Well said Riff-Raff.

Martin, neither I nor anybody I live and work with are beyond reproach and a large proportion of science is investigating, critiquing (why didn't the Big Guy give me the gift of good spelling? ) others' work. 'Scientists' aren't one big homogenous group who are out to get you either.

Time to show some of my other views as context I feel. I will give an example. Mr. QB and his research group are currently working on someting which has the potential of really helping everyone in the UK and northern Europe. They're doing sterling work and are willing to give so much to their research because they can see how important it is. Blocking them at almost every turn is a certian government department who won't let them conduct research lest they discover problems and who are ignoring and gaging aspects of their results which show problems for the future. I should say here that they're not in any field such as stem cells, nuclear power stations or GM crops which have morally difficult areas. In this example scientists, including the dashing Mr. QB, are not the problem, it's the government using the science and manipulating the scientists through their funding that is the problem.

One must always be prepared to prove one's point, if you are unable to it will only highlight that you are not best placed to make the decision in the first place. Thus if a parent wishes to deny a vaccination they must be able to 'fight fire with fire', to prove they are capable of making the decision. And after all, when you really througherly research a position you sometimes change your mind, I have done anyway.

I feel I have to rely on good science as the only strong way to fight a government I despise, distrust and find morally poo.

[MKG]

Well, I've gone from one extreme viewpoint to sitting on the fence; now I have to argue with you, QB, on that one. There's no such thing as "good" science (or bad for that matter), only good and bad scientists. And scientists, being scientists, will pursue anything which they find scientifically interesting (yes, OK, I'm generalising again). So called "good" science is a procedural description rather than a moral one - it's carried out in a proper scientific manner. The Manhattan Project was "good" science, regardless of anyone's moral stance on nuclear weaponry.

Generally speaking, scientists will defend their particular area of interest, just as politicians will toe the party line. What you appear to be saying is that you would trust a scientist more than you would a politician (and, given what you say about Mr. QB, I'd be doing exactly the same in your position). But he isn't "all scientists" (not that there is such an entity). "Good" science has given us pretty awful weapons, thalidomide (and that WAS "good" science - no-one has ever been permitted to perform testing on pregnant women), DDT, napalm, Magnus Pyke and the internal combustion engine. It's also given us some pretty effective vaccines, the internet, the tomography scanner, flue-gas desulphurisation, the eradication of smallpox and (at last) more efficient battery technology. But ALL of those things were "good" at the time they were delivered, and I'm sure that all of the scientists concerned thought they were doing the right thing.

But whoever made it a fact of life that the judgement of scientists cannot be flawed? Or, if you like, substitute politicians. I would like to make my own decisions, informed as well as can be, before I decide upon the personal use of any new development. However, I cannot control the effects that development may have upon me if it is foisted upon the world because politicians and scientists (and, yes, the regulatory agencies who are supposed to be there for our protection) all agree that it is good for me.

Politicians and scientists are, I'm sure, educated and highly-qualified within their fields. How that has become conflated with "knows what's best for everyone" is beyond my understanding. Vaccination is undeniably a good thing if you are looking at populations. However, when it comes down to an individual child and its parents, then those parents, no matter how ill-educated, are the ones in the best position and with the most right to decide what is best for their little Johnny.

No, I don't have the first idea how to make such an ideal world where everyone has their individual say about contentious issues. But I'd still argue that we should be trying to attain it.

[Martin]

primarily in response to QBs last post.......
I think you're almost right........only the presumptive boot should be on the other foot!........The presumption should be that the government has to prove to US that it's right, and then only in an "advisory" way - or we'd be spending ALL our time in having to look up the minutiae of our objections to every damn fool bit of legislation a depraved government lands upon us.......
I've heard some dreadful and depraved ideas come out of this government, things like peering at kids in the womb to see if they have criminal tendencies....(sic).....
If we went at it "your way" we'd have to prove to some brainless eejit that we were fit enough to have charge of a dog or cat, and need a degree in
"politically correct thought" before parenting could be embarked upon........
I've just been to our local market, where the typical 4x4s were disporting themselves en masse (4 kids, 4 fathers)....most of them couldn't find their a*ses without a map - fit to decide about vaccinations? - probably unfit to decide what to have for supper!........but to remove their right to have kids, or to choose their medical treatment means that we open the floodgates for a police state.
The very complexion of science has changed over the last 50 years, to my mind for the worst - back in the 60's there were still places available at university in "pure science" - research for research's sake - nowadays nearly all science is funded by global capitalism, particularly Big Pharma, the GM lobby, the the Agrochemical brigade, who take and abuse the products of science to their warped ends. As to the morality of such organisations, I reckon their lobbying budgets are generally in inverse proportion to their intrinsic "worth and goodness".......

[QuakerBear]

One day we'll make the world perfect Martin