1. Herd immunity did NOT come from vaccinated populations. The beginning was from a certain amount of people who had become NATURALY immune to the disease. The number was greatly increased to fit the pharmaceutical industry's needs for profit.
2. We know vaccines contain ingredients that are known to cause cancer, yet the vaccine insert clearly states that vaccines are not tested for carcinogenic probabilities or to see if they can mutate/cause a different strain of that disease. Why is that?
Hey moron, you have what laws should be manditory or not mixed up. first of all my neighbor killed his little sister while high from smoking weed. he made his five year old sister jump off a twenty foot high roof while holding an umbrella! he later hung him self. you dont think that effected other people. People should definately be punished for smoking pot. Next,all evidence of the effects of vaccines is unstable. so you cant say it should be manditory.
You need to do some research and do some traveling read some books.
Bill Gates has given millions of dollars for vaccine research and says it is
a great way to reduce the Earths population watch the video. Look at every side effect of every drug the pharmaceuticals sell all full of side effects Help yourself
the government is not in that business but people like you put them there a disease like polio??? You don't know what you are saying. Wake up or shut up!
You need to do some research and do some traveling read some books.
Bill Gates has given millions of dollars for vaccine research and says it is
a great way to reduce the Earths population watch the video. Look at every side effect of every drug the pharmaceuticals sell all full of side effects Help yourself
the government is not in that business but people like you put them there. Wake up or shut up!
Enjoy your slavery, Celladore. Enjoy your Baxter International created virus ("vaccine"). I hear that RFID will keep your identity safe, too. But, as a safeguard, the govt would like to start using that camera of yours. They'd like to install a couple 5-6 more, as well. You don't have anything to hide, right?
Hey Celladore, if big pharma produces a "vaccine" for this latest strain that's going to be the next big pandemic, Will it still be effective once it mutates? (and it will.)
Vaccinations contain mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum, detergent, and other toxins. You propose that everyone who refuses to poison themselves with MERCURY should be SHOT IN THE HEAD?
2. Nothing should be "Mandatory" especially anything so controversial as a fucking Vaccination you imbecile.
4. your FDA that is the US Food and Drug Administration has been caught out many times being grievously corrupted in favour of Corporate Pharmaceutical companies, ifyou cant extrapolate that information from around you including books and the internet then certainty your rambling proves that you are a stuttering rambling Idiot.
And to the tard who posted this shitty video: You go get vaccinated. Then you'll be immune to everything and won't have a reason to complain about the rest of us. Dumbass.
If you don't understand why it is wrong for the government to forcibly inject chemicals into peoples bodies against their will, then you are a completely and utterly morally bankrupt.
Nothing in life is 100%, if you want a 100% chance that you won't catch a disease, then put a bullet through your head. But, if you wish to be alive, you will have to get used to the idea that nothing is 100%.
Is it wrong for parents to force their children to have a vaccine. I think if you poll the under-10-years-old demographic, you may find that the majority of them would rather not be stuck with a bunch of needles. What do we do then oh mighty moral arbiter?
It's not wrong for parents to force their children to do anything. Children are the responsibility of their Parents, and their Parents have the responsibility to do what they think is best for the children. Even if that goes against yours or my ideals.
What if there is an intoxicated man running around a busy downtown street getting in fist fights with the people around him. If a police officer is forced to tase him would you claim "omg your electrocuting his body against his will, you are so morally bankrupt"?
I didn't think so. You admit, then, that there are circumstances where if one person poses a danger to others, the government can forcibly intervene? I argue that unvaccinated people do pose this danger.
The example isn't the important point. The reasoning is that a government entity (i.e. the police) can forcefully remove someone (whether it be by taser, or handcuffing, or jailing, or killing) who is a danger to others.
PS, the reason tasers are used now is so that police can have an effective method of incapacitating someone without getting themselves (or others) in harms way. If someone is attacking people with a knife, what is your solution? Have officers run in there and risk getting stabbed? Perhaps shoot the guy? Or simply tase him? The moral choice is pretty clear to me.
Funny that, I think freedom to do what the fuck you like with your own body should be mandatory; at least my way doesn't force people to have poisonous mercury injected into them & their kids whilst destroying the bodies immune system.
This video is nonsense. It's clear that you did not research the subject but are simply expressing uninformed opinions. Many studies show vaccine safety issues. The U.S. vaccine database (VAERS) receives approx. 14,000 adverse reaction reports every year. Vaccines pose greater risks than publicly acknowledged. Parents must remain free to reject them. This is not a conspiracy. Also, unvaccinated people cannot pose risks to the vaccinated if vaccines are effective. Research before you have a baby.
Its clear that you did not watch my video on the subject, but are simply expressing uninformed opinions. The safety issues with vaccines, including the adverse reaction you mentioned, are mostly products of allergic reaction or bodily rejection of said vaccine. Both of these adverse reactions can be tested beforehand in almost all cases, making it a moot point.
No, I did watch the entire video. Safety issues are more complex than your simplistic response (allergic reactions or bodily rejection). In addition, people are NOT being screened beforehand, so your solution is moot. One day, you may decide to have a child. I imagine you will more fully (and sincerely) investigate this subject at that point.
As I stated in the video, unvaccinated people DO POSE A RISK because vaccines, while EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE, are NOT 100% effective for all people. Please don't use the same logical fallacy creationists love to employ against evolution. Namely "if evolution cannot explain every minute detail of life with 100% efficiency, then it must not be a valid theory."
The logical fallacy is inherent to your own argument, namely that unvaccinated people somehow have an obligation to protect the vaccinated. How ironic! Actually, studies show that many vaccinated people spread disease to others. For example, live virus shots cause "secondary transmissions." I can't debate this further with you, but would recommend that you do an honest investigation. Conflicts of Interest permeate the licensing process. Google "Medalerts VAERS database" for more info as well.
Studies do not show that "many" vaccinated people spread the disease to others. There are extremely rare documented cases of secondary transmissions in a select few vaccines, most vaccines have no documented transmissions. This is a scenario where one must ask, does the benefit of saving an enormous amount of lives and eliminating harmful disease outweigh the remote possibility of secondary transmission?
If some decidedes for themselves not to wear a bike helmet, that's Natural Selection really. However, if a christian Scientists refuses to get a child to a hospitol and the child dies, to me that's the moral equivalent of actually putting the child onan alter to a god and stabbing him.
I generally agree but a lot of people are killed in cars by the people in the back seat or occasionally the person in the seat next to you, as they fly around the car.
As for vaccines you're absolutely bang on. It's doubly important in a world that is SO crowded and SO mobile that everyone be vaccinated so as to turn the human population into a viral or a bacterial strain's idea of a waste land rather than a smorgasbord. It's that old scalliwag evolution again!
Actually, seat belt and helmet laws do affect the rest of us because they lead to lower health costs. Insurance rates are higher in places where there aren't as many "nanny laws" as you call them.
You make a good point here Cousino, and I would agree with you except that (for the most part) health insurance and care in general is paid for by yourself privately (since we have no universal health care system). Thus your tax dollars don't go directly to supporting people who don't have or won't follow these laws.
Having fast cars puts people at risk. Operating cranes in downtown areas puts people at risk. Small planes & amateur pilots put people at risk. Allowing backpaking, cross country skiing, spelunking, and canoeing puts rescuers at risk. we allow people, as a part of being free, to do a lot of things that may put others at risk. We also have overcrowded jails. You want to release a violent offender to put an unvaccinated person in jail? I think you have lost perspective.
First off, I never mentioned anything about jail time - I am still not sure on what I believe the punishment should be. Fast cars put no one at risk unless people speed, which is against the law. Operating cranes properly and safely puts no one at risk (you can also avoid cranes if you so choose, something you can't do with unvaccinated folk). Small planes, backpacking, and rescue operations are risks which individuals choose to make of their own free will.
Small planes, backpacking, and rescue operations are risks which individuals choose to make of their own free will."
And which put other people at risk, people have to come rescue backpackers, mountain climbers and spelunkers on a regular basis and that is very dangerous for the rescuers. If you grant free will there, how do you distinguish it from declining vaccinations? What if the person declining vaccination is a hermit or lives on his own island?
The rescuers CHOOSE to be rescuers! Even so, I am not saying you can or should eliminate every possible situation that could put others in danger, or else we would just do away with driving cars all together. But we can eliminate additional risks which pose none or little inconvenience to society (i.e. by banning drunk driving). In a similar fashion, we can't remove all possible exposure to disease, but can remove the additional risks by requiring everyone to become vaccinated.
Unfortunately you can't make laws which get so specific. If someone was living as a hermit on an island, I wouldn't care if they were vaccinated or not, in the same sense that if someone was the only person driving in an area and wanted to drive drunk, I wouldn't care about that either. But how do you include this in the law? No drinking and driving unless no one else is on or going to be on the road, in which case feel free to get plastered and run some shit over?
So why are you stopping here, why not save us from all the other risky behaviors by thrillseekers and those that lack caution? Much of their behavior puts others at risk.
I don't think it should be a law to get vaccinated, but it you are not (and it's free), and as a result you get and spread a disease for someone else, that should be a crime ranging from assault to manslaughter.
Sort of, yes. It's more like saying that drugs and alcohol should be legal, but if you use them in a way that harms others you should be tried for hurting others, not for using the drug or alcohol.
1. Herd immunity did NOT come from vaccinated populations. The beginning was from a certain amount of people who had become NATURALY immune to the disease. The number was greatly increased to fit the pharmaceutical industry's needs for profit.
2. We know vaccines contain ingredients that are known to cause cancer, yet the vaccine insert clearly states that vaccines are not tested for carcinogenic probabilities or to see if they can mutate/cause a different strain of that disease. Why is that?
omgwtfcraka 2 months ago
Hey moron, you have what laws should be manditory or not mixed up. first of all my neighbor killed his little sister while high from smoking weed. he made his five year old sister jump off a twenty foot high roof while holding an umbrella! he later hung him self. you dont think that effected other people. People should definately be punished for smoking pot. Next,all evidence of the effects of vaccines is unstable. so you cant say it should be manditory.
jbc45lc 6 months ago
Celladore0, I fully support your video. Vaccination per the CDC schedule should absolutely be mandatory. Keep it up!
nkt425 6 months ago
mandatory? hell no. more people got sick from the H1N1 than from the flu. mandatory shots is criminal
JFKEQUALS911 1 year ago
You need to do some research and do some traveling read some books.
Bill Gates has given millions of dollars for vaccine research and says it is
a great way to reduce the Earths population watch the video. Look at every side effect of every drug the pharmaceuticals sell all full of side effects Help yourself
the government is not in that business but people like you put them there a disease like polio??? You don't know what you are saying. Wake up or shut up!
dragonseptor 1 year ago
You need to do some research and do some traveling read some books.
Bill Gates has given millions of dollars for vaccine research and says it is
a great way to reduce the Earths population watch the video. Look at every side effect of every drug the pharmaceuticals sell all full of side effects Help yourself
the government is not in that business but people like you put them there. Wake up or shut up!
dragonseptor 1 year ago
oh my god, this guy is an idiot, lmao
backyardigansmama 1 year ago
Comment removed
mitchwas 2 years ago
ur gay.
VaccineRevolution 2 years ago
"ur gay"
-
That means "Your gay", which means that someone can have a gay (my gay, your gay etc)
So I don't think he has a gay.
justforflag2 2 years ago
Comment removed
johngrover77 2 years ago
Comment removed
johngrover77 2 years ago
stupid as fuck...u should be vaccinated ....
underoath115 2 years ago
Come near my child with any kind of vaccine..well lets just say Mrs. Mossberg will chew your head off. Enjoy your shot :)
VaderPX4Storm 2 years ago
LOL! This guy is a moron and he can't even speak properly.
MohammadSucksCock 2 years ago
From what i have understand when i have done my resarch about this waccine, it is very very dangerous. I shall not take this waccine. Thats for sure.
fettkatt87 2 years ago
Enjoy your slavery, Celladore. Enjoy your Baxter International created virus ("vaccine"). I hear that RFID will keep your identity safe, too. But, as a safeguard, the govt would like to start using that camera of yours. They'd like to install a couple 5-6 more, as well. You don't have anything to hide, right?
Hey Celladore, if big pharma produces a "vaccine" for this latest strain that's going to be the next big pandemic, Will it still be effective once it mutates? (and it will.)
kjax76 2 years ago 2
You try to put one in me, and I'll put a bullet in you, and GOD would bless me for it - Praise God, Amen!
Cabanas751Dunhill 3 years ago
Vaccinations contain mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum, detergent, and other toxins. You propose that everyone who refuses to poison themselves with MERCURY should be SHOT IN THE HEAD?
RLore18 3 years ago 4
Morons abound.
Cabanas751Dunhill 3 years ago
number 1 is not a personal insult, if anybody listen tto your video they will see that number 1 is a provable fact.
theblackBay 3 years ago
sorry 3. was a personal insult and i decided to delete it.
theblackBay 3 years ago
just a couple of points:
1. You are a fucking idiot
2. Nothing should be "Mandatory" especially anything so controversial as a fucking Vaccination you imbecile.
4. your FDA that is the US Food and Drug Administration has been caught out many times being grievously corrupted in favour of Corporate Pharmaceutical companies, ifyou cant extrapolate that information from around you including books and the internet then certainty your rambling proves that you are a stuttering rambling Idiot.
theblackBay 3 years ago 5
Right on!
And to the tard who posted this shitty video: You go get vaccinated. Then you'll be immune to everything and won't have a reason to complain about the rest of us. Dumbass.
NoisemakerArrow 3 years ago
Comment removed
b0mbcityrocker 3 years ago
Vaccination: A very complicated subject, not appreciated here.
halfasheep 3 years ago
No, it's not and HEALTH is not understood.
Cabanas751Dunhill 3 years ago
Ahem, I am with you on the vaccine thing.
halfasheep 3 years ago
If you don't understand why it is wrong for the government to forcibly inject chemicals into peoples bodies against their will, then you are a completely and utterly morally bankrupt.
Nothing in life is 100%, if you want a 100% chance that you won't catch a disease, then put a bullet through your head. But, if you wish to be alive, you will have to get used to the idea that nothing is 100%.
amcnea 3 years ago
Is it wrong for parents to force their children to have a vaccine. I think if you poll the under-10-years-old demographic, you may find that the majority of them would rather not be stuck with a bunch of needles. What do we do then oh mighty moral arbiter?
Celladore0 3 years ago
It's not wrong for parents to force their children to do anything. Children are the responsibility of their Parents, and their Parents have the responsibility to do what they think is best for the children. Even if that goes against yours or my ideals.
amcnea 3 years ago
Here is a great example:
What if there is an intoxicated man running around a busy downtown street getting in fist fights with the people around him. If a police officer is forced to tase him would you claim "omg your electrocuting his body against his will, you are so morally bankrupt"?
I didn't think so. You admit, then, that there are circumstances where if one person poses a danger to others, the government can forcibly intervene? I argue that unvaccinated people do pose this danger.
Celladore0 3 years ago
Wow, you really have no morality what-so-ever do you?
YES IT IS WRONG TO TASE A DRUNK GUY STARTING FIST FIGHTS.
There many many drunk people before our police started using tasers. We handled them just fine without electrocuting the shit out of them.
Shocking somebody with electricity until they comply with your wishes WAS called torcher.
That is until the gave tasers to the police. Now it is call standard operating procedure.
amcnea 3 years ago
The example isn't the important point. The reasoning is that a government entity (i.e. the police) can forcefully remove someone (whether it be by taser, or handcuffing, or jailing, or killing) who is a danger to others.
Celladore0 3 years ago
No, are constitution "SHOULD" protect against cruel and unusual punishment.
It is both cruel and unusual to electrocute a guy for starting a fist fight.
It is NOT cruel or unusual to electrocute a guy for assault with a deadly weapon. In fact it has been customary to kill people in such circumstances.
And how did this turn from a fist fight to a deadly weapon?
Police have tasered when there is NO threat, just the person is being non-cooperative, such as going completely limp.
amcnea 3 years ago
PS
In fact police have also tasered people for being on drugs and being non-responsive.
They tasered people for having a seizure and being non-responsive.
They tasered little children for being non-cooperative.
They have tasered peaceful protestors for being non-cooperative.
Electrocuting someone for being non-cooperative is cruel and unusual, IT IS TOURCHER, and IT IS SOP (standard operating procedure).
Electrocuting someone for assault with a deadly weapon is better then killing them.
amcnea 3 years ago
PS, the reason tasers are used now is so that police can have an effective method of incapacitating someone without getting themselves (or others) in harms way. If someone is attacking people with a knife, what is your solution? Have officers run in there and risk getting stabbed? Perhaps shoot the guy? Or simply tase him? The moral choice is pretty clear to me.
Celladore0 3 years ago
Just run up and stick their kids with a hypodermic needle.
T850CSM101a1676 3 years ago
great video.
share for you.
nosehappen 3 years ago
This is borrowed jonggyogwan museulram attack.
Yum yum.
nosehappen 3 years ago
Funny that, I think freedom to do what the fuck you like with your own body should be mandatory; at least my way doesn't force people to have poisonous mercury injected into them & their kids whilst destroying the bodies immune system.
scallywicca 3 years ago 2
This video is nonsense. It's clear that you did not research the subject but are simply expressing uninformed opinions. Many studies show vaccine safety issues. The U.S. vaccine database (VAERS) receives approx. 14,000 adverse reaction reports every year. Vaccines pose greater risks than publicly acknowledged. Parents must remain free to reject them. This is not a conspiracy. Also, unvaccinated people cannot pose risks to the vaccinated if vaccines are effective. Research before you have a baby.
ThinkTwiceGlobal 3 years ago
Its clear that you did not watch my video on the subject, but are simply expressing uninformed opinions. The safety issues with vaccines, including the adverse reaction you mentioned, are mostly products of allergic reaction or bodily rejection of said vaccine. Both of these adverse reactions can be tested beforehand in almost all cases, making it a moot point.
Celladore0 3 years ago
No, I did watch the entire video. Safety issues are more complex than your simplistic response (allergic reactions or bodily rejection). In addition, people are NOT being screened beforehand, so your solution is moot. One day, you may decide to have a child. I imagine you will more fully (and sincerely) investigate this subject at that point.
ThinkTwiceGlobal 3 years ago
agree with you.
nosehappen 3 years ago
As I stated in the video, unvaccinated people DO POSE A RISK because vaccines, while EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE, are NOT 100% effective for all people. Please don't use the same logical fallacy creationists love to employ against evolution. Namely "if evolution cannot explain every minute detail of life with 100% efficiency, then it must not be a valid theory."
Celladore0 3 years ago
The logical fallacy is inherent to your own argument, namely that unvaccinated people somehow have an obligation to protect the vaccinated. How ironic! Actually, studies show that many vaccinated people spread disease to others. For example, live virus shots cause "secondary transmissions." I can't debate this further with you, but would recommend that you do an honest investigation. Conflicts of Interest permeate the licensing process. Google "Medalerts VAERS database" for more info as well.
ThinkTwiceGlobal 3 years ago
Studies do not show that "many" vaccinated people spread the disease to others. There are extremely rare documented cases of secondary transmissions in a select few vaccines, most vaccines have no documented transmissions. This is a scenario where one must ask, does the benefit of saving an enormous amount of lives and eliminating harmful disease outweigh the remote possibility of secondary transmission?
Celladore0 3 years ago
Does a person infected with HIV or AIDS have an obligation to protect and inform his or her partner?
Celladore0 3 years ago
If some decidedes for themselves not to wear a bike helmet, that's Natural Selection really. However, if a christian Scientists refuses to get a child to a hospitol and the child dies, to me that's the moral equivalent of actually putting the child onan alter to a god and stabbing him.
dechha1981 3 years ago
"If some decidedes for themselves not to wear a bike helmet, that's Natural Selection really."
Thats why the Darwin Award exists.
LaughingOtoko 3 years ago 2
You read my mind!
dechha1981 3 years ago
I generally agree but a lot of people are killed in cars by the people in the back seat or occasionally the person in the seat next to you, as they fly around the car.
As for vaccines you're absolutely bang on. It's doubly important in a world that is SO crowded and SO mobile that everyone be vaccinated so as to turn the human population into a viral or a bacterial strain's idea of a waste land rather than a smorgasbord. It's that old scalliwag evolution again!
Boldhome 3 years ago
Actually, seat belt and helmet laws do affect the rest of us because they lead to lower health costs. Insurance rates are higher in places where there aren't as many "nanny laws" as you call them.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
You make a good point here Cousino, and I would agree with you except that (for the most part) health insurance and care in general is paid for by yourself privately (since we have no universal health care system). Thus your tax dollars don't go directly to supporting people who don't have or won't follow these laws.
grnsmurf28 3 years ago
There should be financial incentives to encourage it, but putting someone in jail for refusing is stupidand overkill.
sarabellumm 3 years ago
It's not stupid because not getting vaccinated puts other people at risk.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
Having fast cars puts people at risk. Operating cranes in downtown areas puts people at risk. Small planes & amateur pilots put people at risk. Allowing backpaking, cross country skiing, spelunking, and canoeing puts rescuers at risk. we allow people, as a part of being free, to do a lot of things that may put others at risk. We also have overcrowded jails. You want to release a violent offender to put an unvaccinated person in jail? I think you have lost perspective.
sarabellumm 3 years ago
First off, I never mentioned anything about jail time - I am still not sure on what I believe the punishment should be. Fast cars put no one at risk unless people speed, which is against the law. Operating cranes properly and safely puts no one at risk (you can also avoid cranes if you so choose, something you can't do with unvaccinated folk). Small planes, backpacking, and rescue operations are risks which individuals choose to make of their own free will.
Celladore0 3 years ago
Small planes, backpacking, and rescue operations are risks which individuals choose to make of their own free will."
And which put other people at risk, people have to come rescue backpackers, mountain climbers and spelunkers on a regular basis and that is very dangerous for the rescuers. If you grant free will there, how do you distinguish it from declining vaccinations? What if the person declining vaccination is a hermit or lives on his own island?
sarabellumm 3 years ago
The rescuers CHOOSE to be rescuers! Even so, I am not saying you can or should eliminate every possible situation that could put others in danger, or else we would just do away with driving cars all together. But we can eliminate additional risks which pose none or little inconvenience to society (i.e. by banning drunk driving). In a similar fashion, we can't remove all possible exposure to disease, but can remove the additional risks by requiring everyone to become vaccinated.
Celladore0 3 years ago
Unfortunately you can't make laws which get so specific. If someone was living as a hermit on an island, I wouldn't care if they were vaccinated or not, in the same sense that if someone was the only person driving in an area and wanted to drive drunk, I wouldn't care about that either. But how do you include this in the law? No drinking and driving unless no one else is on or going to be on the road, in which case feel free to get plastered and run some shit over?
Celladore0 3 years ago
So why are you stopping here, why not save us from all the other risky behaviors by thrillseekers and those that lack caution? Much of their behavior puts others at risk.
sarabellumm 3 years ago
I don't think it should be a law to get vaccinated, but it you are not (and it's free), and as a result you get and spread a disease for someone else, that should be a crime ranging from assault to manslaughter.
st1rn3r 3 years ago
Isn't that like saying that you don't think that drunk driving should be illegal, but if someone gets killed as a result, then it's manslaughter?
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
Sort of, yes. It's more like saying that drugs and alcohol should be legal, but if you use them in a way that harms others you should be tried for hurting others, not for using the drug or alcohol.
st1rn3r 3 years ago