Should eradicating autism be a hate crime?

Post Reply New Topic

No, they just won't get the vaccine. Don't be so ridiculous.

I also fail to see how I'm being selfish - though by all means, call me it all you like, sticks and stones and all that - or how I'm bringing these diseases back. The children I know who've not been vaccinated are the healthiest ones I know, so I have yet to see any evidence that not vaccinating makes your children sick and likely to get infected. I've also yet to see a modern case of any of the worst of the diseases. And as I said, I've had mumps myself, and rubella went around my school like wildfire when we were all vaccinated, so the theory that it won't go around if you're vaccinated also doesn't hold water in my experience.

And does this mean you're saying you don't want your children to have a healthy immune system? Because a well-functioning immune system means you'll carry diseases around and make things worse?! You really are more blinkered than I thought...

vaccines strengthen the immune system too they don't prevent people from having the virus
To use a sci-fi metaphor vaccines are a message about the weaknesses in your enemies defences
not as you admit yourself an impenetrible wall/shield against them

Both you and LeKiwi show your ignorance by using subpar arguments
And I request that the two of you either a take this to vaccine related thread or...
stop entirely
she refuses to listen to what you call reason
and regardless of what you say she will choose to remain in a state you call ignorant.
One last thing in case i wasan't clear

How about rabies? If one gets bit by a rabid animal and does not get all the neccesary jabs at once, one DOES die. Full stop. There is only a single known case of a person surviving after getting rabies, and it was pretty damned close to a miracle.

So I'd figure one wouldn't want to opt for not getting one's shots after being bit by a bat, or being attacked by an odd dog which seemed to wander along aimlessly and was drooling all over itself, due to the "vaccine toxicity".

At least there's one vaccination about which it is sure impossible to claim that it does not work.

Perhaps this could sound a bit far-fetched, but I'm sure you understand what my point is. There ought to be limits to everything; to this too.

Vaccines are not the ultimate evil, neither are they some major conspiracy to milk people's money; they could have been turned into a means for making profits somewhere along the way, but so were many other good things. Enough is enough.

What the...?

Isn't that illegal?

My post was about people who ELECT not to be vaccinated.

I totally accept the fact that there will be a (small) percentage of people who are known to be at significantly greater risk from vaccines. I have no objection whatsoever to their remaining unvaccinated.

You certainly do introduce an additional risk to vaccinated people, but that is not under your control.

You will certainly be at risk from vaccinated people who carry a disease, as you remain unprotected. This is not your fault at all. If the majority of people are vaccinated, this means that few people will carry diseases, and hence they will mostly not threaten you with infection.

Every person who elects (out of pure selfishness), to refuse vaccination, will increase your risk of infection considerably. They will be more susceptible to infection. You can do nothing about you own vulnerability. I would expect you to be the most outspoken advocate of vaccination, as you are far more at risk from these inconsiderate people than are vaccinated persons.

If the majority are vaccinated, and you become infected, that is really unlucky.

If the percentage vaccinated drops significantly, your risk shoots up, and getting infected becomes the norm - expect to get every infection.

Quite frankly, both sides in this debate seem to come across as fairly "religious" in their attitude, at least sometimes. Not in a good way.

This is somewhat off topic, and not targeted at anyone in particular, but: There is this one person an old friend of mine cares about, a novice in an Orthodox convent. Some time ago she ended up with chronic lead poisoning, and, even though she was slowly dying, she refused to go to a doctor because she had some twisted "spiritual" reason for it (I don't remember whether she wanted to die sooner and see God or it was something else). Eventually, someone succeeded in bringing her to the emergency room, and once the doctor saw her and learned what was happened, he simply did not let her go. It could be argued that she should have also been given a "choice" - but, to be honest, I'm glad the doctor did not grant it to her.

Then there are Jehovah's witnesses who refuse blood transfusions and refuse to have them done to their children, even if this means the child will die, or other cult members who do similar things. They also seem to be just making their own choice.

Sometimes debates on this issue start to remind me of such things, because it occasionally feels like ideology (such as Big Pharma vs. let's-come-back-to-nature) starts to overshadow the genuine health concerns. The component of sincerely wishing to make the best choice is still around, but the ideas behind it, as well as the whole outlook on reality that underlies it, become altered to the point of being unrecognizable.

I hope this isn't happening here. It's difficult to tell - at this point the thread is already making my head spin and I probably need to come back to it after a while to really digest what is going on.

And if they die because they get a vaccine-preventable illness thanks to you, then it will be your fault.

You say that you're studying to become a naturopath? I certainly hope you are not representative of most NP students.

You must be very young. You have now officially met someone who has shingles, and it it exquisitely painful - air blowing across the skin can be excruciating. Each outbreak is like having chickenpox all over again (but with localized lesions), and one's lesions are contagious to those not vaccinated, not having been previously exposed or with compromised immune systems (children and the elderly, HIV, etc.) The virus remains in the body for the rest of your life, and can be activated by stressors or age.

Mumps? Sterility in males. Rubella? If had by the mother while pregnant, miscarriage and if born, the affected child can have blindness, deafness, heart defects, behavior disorders, mental retardation, bone disease, liver disease, and “blueberry muffin skin” (dark areas of pooled blood). And the fact that your uncle "only" limps - my goodness. And he may yet get post-polio syndrome.

If yours is the standard NP take on medicine, give me allopathic medicine any day. Whew!

And this misses the point. Who would want to get physically sick at all just because they didn't get vaccinated on account of the fact they might theoretically become autistic?

Assuming of course one could inexplicably alter the genes already scientifically implicated in autism, by simply getting vaccinated.

Let's see, parent's have been implicated, then vaccines, and now genes.

And if that turns out not to be true, I wonder what will be implicated next.

I can just see the reports:

In a recent study, doornobs have been found to cause autism. Out of 80,000 autistic children tested, 100% were found to use doornobs to open doors. Scientists are now studying how healthy doornob turning is, and are advising parents to strongly encourage their children not to touch them when they want to go outside. Instead, they recommend breaking a window and leaving it broken.

LMAO!

NTs would all have to start wearing those waistband sterilizer dispensers.

And books would appear all over the country about how turning doornobs is unhealthy.

And PSAs would be released saying "Don't turn those knobs!! !"

Oh, and diet pills would have to become 100x's stronger.

I must admit the diet pill comment whizzed well over my head. 80

I wouldn't say I'm representative of all naturopathic students at all - probably because I don't think it's possible for anyone to representative of a naturopathic student. Just as I'm not representative of all NZers, or all blondes, or all women, or all of any other group I belong to. We're all different, such is the beauty of life.

Autism isn't the reason I don't get vaccinated or I won't be having my children vaccinated; if my kids are autistic then so be it, as I've said it's strongly in my family anyway - it's more the point that they're filled with all sorts of horrendous toxins, they don't work anyway, they're linked with much more than just a tenuous/firm (depending on your belief) cause of autism; there's also the various neurological and physiological diseases they've been implicated in (and not just the mercury component either), so I really just don't see the point. Why inject all that junk into your child when there's no guarantee he or she won't be protected after it all anyway? If they work as you say they do then you'll be protected from these things, so what's the fuss? We survived millions upon millions of years without them; it's a personal choice on an optional drug, not a 'shun the heathen' religious decision.

Hate Crime is the wrong word since their is no real hate involved. NT's who wish to eradicate autism think they are doing it "in our best intrests". The Nazis didn't think they had the Jews best interests at heart, they just blamed them for everything and anything.

I suppose you could call prenatal screenings for autism and subsequent abortions genocide. At the very least its a form of Eugenics, and the reason eugenics is considered a failed science is because it's impossible to know where to draw the line. Indeed killing off all autistics before they are born could have deprived mankind of some of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time.