This is Zeda Pingel before and after her Gardasil vaccination. One may say that not being vaccinated puts others at risk. We will examine that in this article. Let us not forget that forcing someone to put something in their body (especially something that puts them at risk) is also wrong. This is a clear NAP violation, is it not? Read Zeda's story here.
I want to write this article not only for those familiar with libertarian philosophical terminology, but also for those concerned parents and individuals who really want the best for humanity, and maybe don't really have an interest in "libertarianism," as such.
Those parents, friends, and family members who are concerned and strongly feel that the unvaccinated individuals of the world are putting the "rest of us" at risk.
That said, I also wish to address those who think in terms of libertarian principle, and may construe non-vaccination with a potential NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) violation. The Non-Aggression Principle asserts that it is always wrong to initiate force against another individual.
LET'S DIG IN.
Do unvaccinated individuals put others at greater risk of contracting diseases?
Of course, this is an entirely valid and sensible question because, if unvaccinated individuals do indeed put other individuals at greater risk than vaccinated individuals, being "unvaxxed" could then be construed almost as an act of aggression. Of course, this already oversimplifies the ethical end of the matter by not taking into account the potential for vaccine injury (some individuals are genetically predisposed to adverse reactions and thus could not be held as culpable for not being vaccinated as others without said predispositions), but that notwithstanding, let's move on for the sake of efficiency.
A couple facts.
- Most adults walking around today, who have not had booster shots in the last ten years, likely no longer have vaccine-induced "immunity."
- The theory of vaccine-induced "herd immunity" says that most people are protected from diseases because almost all people still have vaccine-induced immunity.
Substantiation of these facts:
Here are two images taken directly from the manufacturer-issued vaccine inserts. The first is for the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine, and the second is from the Varicella (Chickenpox) vaccine.
MMR
MEASLES VACCINE DURATION: 10 to 13 years. This is the "considered to be protected for life" the CDC mentions verbatim on their website?
VARIVAX
I would like to draw your attention to something interesting noted in the Varivax vaccine package insert photo. Note where it says:
A boost in antibody levels has been observed in vaccines following exposure to wild-type varicella which could account for the apparent long-term protection after vaccination in these studies.
(emphasis mine)
What this means is that the researchers are not sure whether some of the longer protection they observed was due to the vaccine or exposure to wild-type chickenpox. The CDC says the same thing HERE:
It is not known how long a vaccinated person is protected against varicella...Several studies have shown that people vaccinated against varicella had antibodies for at least 10 to 20 years after vaccination. But, these studies were done before the vaccine was widely used and when infection with wild-type varicella was still very common.
(emphasis mine)
Did you catch that? The duration studies used to measure the effectiveness of the Varivax vaccine were done BEFORE THE VACCINE WAS WIDELY USED, and when natural immunity (due to wild-type exposure) was common.
I fail to see how this constitutes "science." Either way, it is clear that adequate testing of these vaccines regarding duration has not been done, and that the testing that has been done has revealed a maximum duration for these two vaccines of 10-13 years. This leads us directly to the next topic. That of vaccine-induced "herd immunity." Here is what current mainstream "medical opinion" (US Department of Health and Human Services) has to say about it:
For "herd immunity" to work, the majority needs to be vaccine immune. THE MAJORITY OF ADULTS (as demonstrated via the package inserts above) ARE NOT. (source.)
Herd Immunity.
Wait a second. If the government/CDC is also telling us that vaccine-induced immunity has only been shown to last around ten years, then this whole definition (see screenshot above), their definition, is untenable.
"Most members of the community" cannot be protected if the vaccines are only lasting 10 to 13 years.
What's more, the goal posts are continually moving. The percentage of the population these "medical authorities" say need to be vaccinated in order for "herd immunity" to be achieved is continually changing. You can learn more about this, as well as see data showing that most deadly diseases were in steep decline prior to the introduction of routine vaccination programs worldwide due to cleanliness, sanitation, and better nutrition, in this video. If you do not have time right now, though, I urge you to scroll on to the next section, where I will be pulling all of the previously addressed information together to help form my conclusion.
Do unvaccinated individuals pose a greater risk to their peers than "fully-vaxxed" individuals?
I would like to start by first noting a rarely mentioned fact:
RECENTLY VACCINATED INDIVIDUALS ALSO POSE A RISK.
Here is a screenshot from world-renowned Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (hopkinsmedicine.org) which has recently been scrubbed from the website:
Right, you say, but that's for immunocompromised individuals, not for healthy people like "us."
Well, that may be true, but if live virus vaccines can shed and harm immunocompromised individuals and infants, shouldn't this also be viewed as "putting others at risk" or violating the NAP, as well?
Finally, the numbers.
I'll just take the measles as an example. In the last 17 years in the USA, 11 deaths have included measles written as a cause of death on the death certificate (source). When I ran a search on the CDC's VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Report System) Database searching for reports of deaths after measles vaccination from January, 2000, to May, 2017 (the most recent date for which data exists) I yielded a result listing 81 reported deaths in association with measles vaccines.
Of course, these reports are not conclusive evidence that each adverse event reported was caused by the vaccine. That said, since the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out approximately $3.6 billion dollars in damages since it's inception in 1988, two years after the US government made it illegal to sue vaccine companies,one has to wonder which information is truly to be believed.
Why pay billions in compensation if "the science is settled," and "vaccines are safe"? It seems to me this VAERS data is all the more significant in view of this knowledge. Add to that the recent scandal/cover up at the CDC, former decades-long editors for the New England Journal of Medicine exposing high-level fraud and payoffs between researchers and drug companies, and one would be acting in foolishness to not examine the info more closely.
So yeah. 81 reported deaths, versus 11 verified ones.
Knowing the government and pharmaceutical industry as revealed by the data and their actions thus far, one must also be forced to wonder about ignored/unreported cases.
In summary, most adults are no longer vaccine-immune to the viruses and diseases they were vaccinated for, vaccine-induced "herd immunity" is a demonstrably unscientific and untenable idea/theory, and a strong argument can be made for the measles vaccine killing and harming far more than measles itself does in well-nourished, sanitary, first-world nations. None of this is to mention the systematic destruction of long-term human immunity that is happening because of all this, and the loss of placental/breastmilk transferred immunity to infants (due to vaccinated mothers never developing natural, wild-type immunity to pass on).
Talk about a NAP violation. How's wrecking the human collective immuno-defense system worldwide and denying helpless infants a chance to receive natural immunity to potentially life-threatening diseases from their mothers? (To learn more, please see this article.
As for the rest, I leave that to you, and your research, but please know that when you say "your unvaccinated kid is dangerous," I could say the very same thing about your vaccinated child, and the program you rely on, which is systematically destroying the human immune system defense worldwide. What's more, it is always a NAP violation to force someone to put something into their body, no matter which way you slice it.
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
