Here's the problem with that. If someone doesn't vaccinate their child and sends them to public school, they have a risk of picking it up or spreading it to others. So it's one thing to choose not to be vaccinated, but it's another if it's going to effect someone else. True, some people may be allergic to certain vaccines, but there are alternatives.

@bleurowz As well, the odds of something bad happening is so great and yet the odds of being affected by not being vaccinated is so small...1/1000...people take greater chances driving their children to work and yet still choose not to take a chance with vaccinating them...the public health is worth the risk if you want to be part of society...it is a price for living among each other...

@bleurowz How would they do this if the testing and education take place during infancy and as toddlers. They wouldn't be in school yet?? Also infants are at the greatest risk of reactions and with the diseases and are one of the vulnerable groups we are meant to protect by being vaccinated. So I'm not sure how testing and education are not viable solutions to the problem with the increase in antivaccination movements? Do we really need to abandon our human rights and revok the right to bodily autonomy to get our rates up to a protective level? Also is it really a good idea to hand over our bodies to the government and the law to allow them domain over our bodies in order to avoid the difficulty of convincing others to comply with something for public safety? I respectfully must disagree it gives the government far too much power to allow our human rights to be given up in exchange for possible protection from illnesses. Force would only be met with resistance and outcries and mobs and fighting and other horrible incidences education is more subtle and easily accepted. We have seen it before with the bans on alcohol a few decades ago. We have a lower percentage of drunks via education than we did when alcohol was illegal. Look to historical graphs to confirm this don't just take my word on it. Also look at the war on drugs how well that is working out our prisons are bursting with drug addicts but informing people on how the drugs affect their bodies has very recently began to slowly chip away at the monumental drug problem our war on drugs has created. So I don't see force as a reasonable solution only one of despiration and as humans we should be above that kind of despirate action of sacrificing the weak for the good of the group.

@KimAndBri See my separate response above about the measles outbreak. I agree people have a right to not to be vaccinated. However, the public has a right not to be vulnerable to diseases because someone else decided not to get vaccinated. I don't believe in forcing injections, but anyone who may be a public health threat should not be allowed to expose themselves or be exposed to anyone who may be vulnerable. Unvaccinated people who don't get an illness themselves can still be a carrier.

Agreed.

MCR-5 is one of the batches of aborted fetuses used in vaccine manufacturing I think this batch is from an aborted fetuses kidneys but I'm not certain. I do know however that according to manufacturers inserts that many vaccinations are produced using fetal tissue as a growth medium for human specific viruses.

@KimAndBri Nothing you have posted supports this.

How does this open a conversation? This comment seems more like an attack on others than a window into anything with any depth to it.

What about people whom have allergies to ingredients or whom have genetic mutations that do not allow them to process the vaccines in the same manner as is anticipated to be average? What of the immunocompromised that are ineligable medically? You aren't being very open ended or thoughtful in your response just short and cut and dry black and white. I'm not sure how this kind of retoric is productive? Please explain your thinking a little more in depth.

@KimAndBri

Attacking people is against Agnostic.com guidelines. I don't owe you or anyone else an explanation.

7 Reasons Anti-Vaxxers are Total Idiots

[dailywire.com]

@ToolGuy

Exactly.

@ToolGuy (GASP! FLUTTER EYELIDS!) Really?

Vulnerable infants must be tested for liver enzymes birth defects....this co factor explains why most humans tolerate vax while others suffer horrible reactions such as induced symptomatic severe autism

@GreenAtheist I accept the retraction of the autism induced vaccine study.

@itsmedammit I know nothing about such a study....I only know that newborns have a variety of liver function enzyme abilities....from zero to strong like mine and my daughters all of us are vaxxed....but my great nephew was born in Blank Children's Hospital one of the few who test most newborns for liver function beyond visual jaundice exam....he needs daily injections just to digest his food AND MEDICALLY all vaccines are contraindicated for him....we will reduce the epidemic of autism by testing liver function to prevent high fevers and brain damage in toddlers

@GreenAtheist Vaccines have not been shown to cause autism.

[cdc.gov]

There is no autism epidemic. There are people who wish to sell books that would like to sell you on that idea. They probably have smoe swamp land for you in Florida, too.

Vaxx IS NOT VAGUE....NOT ABOUT FASCISM nor herds....exactly what is in the precise dose is the main question here....you are correct some people should not be vaxxed ....age varies from newborn to centenarians....live enzyme defects is probably the key co-factor why some are harmed by vax and others same age weight sex tolerate and benefit from vax

That is awesome I would love to watch something like that.

I was wondering the same.

I mean that according to the FDA manufacturers inserts many vaccines are made using aborted fetuses as a growth medium and all of the ones that use fetal tissue contain DNA and RNA strands with in the finished product accoding to the FDA's own clinical trials absent an inert placebo study group but still worth reading. I am wondering what everyones thoughts on the potential effects of the DNA and RNA remanents being injected into people would or could be.

@KimAndBri You are not being clear. It sounds like nonsense. Can you cite any of this?

@chazwin Yes here are the excipient lists.
[cdc.gov]

@chazwin [vaccinesafety.edu]

@chazwin the vaccine safety website is the web site that the FDA sends you to for manufacturers package inserts.

@chazwin I could post all the inserts as well in link form but they are all at least a dozen pages long and there are a whole lot of them. So if you want more information I would be happy to post the links but if not I will just stick to the excipient lists. I'm so glad no one has gotten all nasty or accusing in this post. Thank you for the intellectual questioning I know it is supposed to be expected in a group like this one but I haven't found it prior to this group.

@KimAndBri You can post as many pages as you like, but you will still have to say what exactly you are objecting too, and where that objection relates to what you are posting.

But, sadly as we stand at the moment, your statement dies not even parse, let alone make any sense.
I repeat quote; "Mainly how does everyone think that the foreign DNA and RNA chains from fetal cell lines are affecting the people that have taken the vaccines with them in them"

@chazwin I'm not objecting to anything. I am asking opinions and to discuss theoretically about how this particular ingredient could potentially affect those of us whom have recieved the injections.

@chazwin Also it is not a statement it is a theoretically posed question so I'm not sure how that makes no sense.

Well yes but I am asking opinions on the DNA effects as those have not been studied and there isn't data to support anyones opinions it is a theoretical conversation. The only fact involved is the presence of DNA in the vaccines. Everything beyond that is theory and or opinions.

@KimAndBri I don’t speculate...I only deal in facts, the only opinion I have is that we should refrain from concluding anything without being fully conversant of the facts. I have no opinion on this subject, other than to believe that the risk of not having the general population vaccinated outweighs any other concerns.

That is correct. I am asking for opinions there can't really be facts aside from the presence of the DNA in the vaccines as no studies have been done. The question is theoretical.

No studies have really been done on this specifically so we do not know if there is evidence or not. That is one reason it is a great topic for speculation.

That is true and we should trust the science. I am asking about some of the data that the FDA has in their manufacturers inserts about the ingredients and finished product contaminants of human DNA and RNA being present in vaccines. I am asking about speculation of what those human DNA and RNA fragments could mean for the people they are injected into. I'm not saying vaccines are bad just that they are a pharmacuetical and should be respected as such. We should make ourselves aware of the potential negative outcomes of using a pharmacuetical product as well as the positive ones. After all even asprin can come at a price and so can even penicillin. My mother is lethally allergic to penicilin and has a bleeding disorder so she can't take either one of these miracle drugs that save billions they would kill her. I am simply pointing out that we should consider all aspects of every product we take in or utilize.

Cumpolsery would include those with cancer and genetic mutations and severe allergies to ingredients and therefore would kill those who should not have them. How does that help anyone? Sorry but nothing is one size fits all. Most people do likely benefit from vaccination but there are those in the minority that can not have them and making them compulsery does not account for those who can't take them and it sacrifices them. So why would you want to essentially kill several thousand children to protect other children from illness? I mean I get wanting everyone who can be vaccinated to get vaccinated but everyone being forced to is a lot too much and takes away our basic human rights. I must respectfully disagree with compulsery vaccination though I am completely for willful vaccination.

@KimAndBri Obviously those with other health issues who would be harmed by vaccines would be exempt. Our health service is designed to cure people not kill them.

@Moravian Actually if they aren't thought of at the time the bills are being written and proposed into laws and passed into action then they can be forgotten and have been in many cases in history with other cumpulsary laws. Wording is very tricky but I agree over all those who would come to great harm or be at risk of death should be exempt. I still don't agree with taking away peoples right to decide though.I feel education on the subject is far better than forcing things on and into people.