Not Conclusive After All - Autism and Vaccines

66 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

iyraste1313 wrote:

So legally in Canada re Section 1 of our Charter rights, the State cannot impose, unless it can prove greater danger to the public...But of course when did anyone in canada ever take the Charter seriously, certainly not the 98% of judges who haven´t studied Charter rights nor have a clue as to what Section 1 means....

Really. Here's Section 1 of the Charter:

Quote:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

So, show me, exactly, where the Charter guarantees the right or freedom of Canadians not to be subject to vaccination. Please.

Bacchus

While no good evidence exists for low autism and ASD prevalence in Amish populations, there are more likely alternative explanations even if it were true. Autism is proven to have many genetic or epigenetic links.[15] If prevalence of ASDs did vary in a relatively isolated, closed population such as Amish communities, it would more likely be explained by gene pool variations to the general population. Similarly to Amish having statistically higher rates of some conditions (such as dwarfism, angelman syndrome and metabolic disorders), they could also be expected to have lower rates of some others.[16]

In addition to likely or established gene pool variations, Amish populations have significantly different lifestyles to the general population.[17] An example being dietary differences.[18] Diet and environmental factors are known to significantly impact the make-up of gut microbiomes.[19] Gut microbiome differences have also been associated with autism.[19][20][21][22] Amish also avoid many modern technologies.[23] Given the wide range of different lifestyle factors involved, apart from proposed vaccination rate differences, there are too many confounding variables to make any meaningful link to a hypothesised autism prevalence difference.

Sineed

iyraste1313 wrote:

you miss the point of the article...that studies must be done comparing the effects of vaccinated to unvaccinated children, that there are substantial studies to suggest linkage...I don´t claim any definitive position on this as I haven´t the time to investigate thoroughly.....

Many people who have both the time and the training in both doing the science and in reading scientific papers have definitely shown that there is NO LINK between vaccines and autism. That dog won't hunt.

Quote:

But the point is that the state must not mandate without definitive evidence which it does not have.

Although I am ardently pro-vaccine, I am divided on the issue of making them mandatory. For health care workers, yes. But for the general public, I would prefer public education campaigns. As for the evidence, however, it is overwhelmingly in favour of vaccines, which were the most dramatically beneficial health care initiative of the 20th century. They have saved millions of lives, irradicated smallpox and in general made being a parent less scary.

What is natural? Dying of a vaccine preventable disease in childhood.

Vaccines are also natural, derived from gluten-free organic free range pathogens.

 

Bacchus

Plus the fact that 85% or more of Amish get vaccinated.

 

I have a lot of dealings with the Amish in the heart of Amish country )pennsylvania) and just about all of them vaccinate and see doctors.

 

They even have their own health plan

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

Really. Here's Section 1 of the Charter:

Quote:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

So, show me, exactly, where the Charter guarantees the right or freedom of Canadians not to be subject to vaccination. Please.

It doesn't really seem to me like Section 1 of the Charter really guarantees any rights or freedoms.  Presumably it is vague by design.

Unionist

wage zombie wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Really. Here's Section 1 of the Charter:

Quote:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

So, show me, exactly, where the Charter guarantees the right or freedom of Canadians not to be subject to vaccination. Please.

It doesn't really seem to me like Section 1 of the Charter really guarantees any rights or freedoms.  Presumably it is vague by design.

Well actually yeah, it does, by reference to the "rights and freedoms set out in it", which are in other sections, such as:

Quote:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

  • (a) freedom of conscience and religion;

  • (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

  • (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

  • (d) freedom of association.

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

Etc. Section 1 merely sets out the exception - "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" - which looks broad, but hasn't been treated that way by the courts.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Here is a compilation of abstracts, 86 Research Papers Supporting the Vaccine/Autism Link, but the media keeps telling us there is no evidence that vaccines can cause autism.

Thanks so much for these, iyraste1313.  Do you have any resources that refute the whole "climate change" lie, that you could share with us? 

It's important that babble be entirely neutral on topics like this, and not appear biased in favour of responsible science.  "Teach both theories", right?

Misfit

I had a coworker whose daughter got the measles. The girl suffered extensive brain damage and hearing loss. A neighbour of ours had a daughter who had the measles as a baby and suffered extensive brain damage and hearing loss. I honestly hope that people who do not vaccinate their children never have to suffer the consequences of doing so. I only wish that they would vaccinate their children.

pookie

Unionist wrote:

iyraste1313 wrote:

So legally in Canada re Section 1 of our Charter rights, the State cannot impose, unless it can prove greater danger to the public...But of course when did anyone in canada ever take the Charter seriously, certainly not the 98% of judges who haven´t studied Charter rights nor have a clue as to what Section 1 means....

Really. Here's Section 1 of the Charter:

Quote:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

So, show me, exactly, where the Charter guarantees the right or freedom of Canadians not to be subject to vaccination. Please.

I agree with you in general,  Unionist, but this particular approach to the Charter is simply incorrect.  The Charter doesn't mention abortion either - by design, in fact - yet I am sure you would not argue it therefore doesn't pertain to that choice.

Off the top of my head, I could see a liberty argument (although I do not think the other aspects of section 7 would be satsified) and a conscience/religion argument for resisting a state-mandated vaccine.  But I am also entirely confident that any such infringement would be upheld as a a reasonable limit.

pookie

iyraste1313 wrote:

you miss the point of the article...that studies must be done comparing the effects of vaccinated to unvaccinated children, that there are substantial studies to suggest linkage...I don´t claim any definitive position on this as I haven´t the time to investigate thoroughly.....

But the point is that the state must not mandate without definitive evidence which it does not have.

So legally in Canada re Section 1 of our Charter rights, the State cannot impose, unless it can prove greater danger to the public...But of course when did anyone in canada ever take the Charter seriously, certainly not the 98% of judges who haven´t studied Charter rights nor have a clue as to what Section 1 means....

On its face this is, simply, an absurd assertion.  What exactly are you relying on for this?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
.I don´t claim any definitive position on this as I haven´t the time to investigate thoroughly.....

I've seen that heuristic so many times.

"I'm not saying that the Christian God created the universe -- none of us really knows, right? -- but here's eleventeen hundred articles refuting evolution, so we can all make up our own minds!"

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

So much straw...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Oh, I'm sure iyraste1313 will prove me wrong, and you right, by investigating thoroughly and then taking ownership of their actual position on the subject.  That'll show me.

Do you have a position?  Of the kind that you can share?

Unionist

pookie wrote:

I agree with you in general,  Unionist, but this particular approach to the Charter is simply incorrect.  The Charter doesn't mention abortion either - by design, in fact - yet I am sure you would not argue it therefore doesn't pertain to that choice.

I was testing iyraste. S/he failed.

Quote:
Off the top of my head, I could see a liberty argument (although I do not think the other aspects of section 7 would be satsified) and a conscience/religion argument for resisting a state-mandated vaccine.

You're the expert, not me. But I would see a Section 7 security argument more than liberty - same as Morgentaler held for forcing a woman to carry a foetus to term. As for conscience or religion? Very far-fetched.

Quote:
But I am also entirely confident that any such infringement would be upheld as a a reasonable limit.

Me too.

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

Etc. Section 1 merely sets out the exception - "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" - which looks broad, but hasn't been treated that way by the courts.

Yes, that is what I was referring to-- "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".  That can mean anything.

I feel better hearing from you that it hasn't been treated that way by the courts.  On the other hand I have heard of Canadians getting body cavity searches while coming home from abroad.

Pages