Sweden rejects mandatory vaccinations?

[Will Wiley]

I'm finding it hard to precisely follow the story online (maybe some of our Swedish members can help), but it looks like a bill was proposed in the Swedish parliament to make (some?) vaccinations mandatory but that it was rejected.
One of the reasons seems to be that the coercion involved violated the Swedish constitution. Another was possibly this.

It violates the Nuremberg Code (vaccines lack satisfactory scientific foundation, since there have never been any adequate risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. Thus all vaccination must be seen as experimental mass research.

Which was I think in a statement from the Swedish NHF.

Does anyone have any insight into what happened.

I think this is from the parliament??
https://data.riksdagen.se/fil/77EB646D-37F9-4E33-9A89-331A5AA0E85A

I think the NHF made some recommendations and the parliament went with those.

But what did the Swedish parliament actually say?

 

[bilby]

I'm finding it hard to precisely follow the story online (maybe some of our Swedish members can help), but it looks like a bill was proposed in the Swedish parliament to make (some?) vaccinations mandatory but that it was rejected.
One of the reasons seems to be that the coercion involved violated the Swedish constitution. Another was possibly this.

It violates the Nuremberg Code (vaccines lack satisfactory scientific foundation, since there have never been any adequate risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. Thus all vaccination must be seen as experimental mass research.

Which was I think in a statement from the Swedish NHF.

Does anyone have any insight into what happened.

I think this is from the parliament??
https://data.riksdagen.se/fil/77EB646D-37F9-4E33-9A89-331A5AA0E85A

I think the NHF made some recommendations and the parliament went with those.

But what did the Swedish parliament actually say?

Well this is abject nonsense:

It violates the Nuremberg Code (vaccines lack satisfactory scientific foundation, since there have never been any adequate risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. Thus all vaccination must be seen as experimental mass research.

As the risk benefit-analyses for vaccines are numerous and compelling.

But I can understand that mandatory vaccination might be illegal, if lawmakers were of the (apparently mistaken) opinion that the public would not act against their own interests by refusing beneficial medical treatment.

If you make your constitution idiot proof, someone develops a bigger idiot.

 

[bilby]

I do wonder about your motives for presenting these way out-there crazy ideas about vaccines as though they were worthy of serious discussion.

They are not; and it would be a gross error to assume that a reasoned response to such absurdity was somehow an indication that it deserves to be taken seriously. It does not. Anti-vaccination is as crazy as flat-earthism, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster.

You need to be grossly reality impaired to take this crap seriously. Vaccines are experimental mass research in exactly the same way that contrails are chemicals sprayed by Major League Baseball to keep the public docile.

You 'think' that this came from the Swedish NHF? It's your quote, why don't you know its source? Why should we care about something you 'think' came from the NHF? Who are the NHF, and why would anyone take them seriously?

A quick google suggests that they are a bunch of loons. Do you have any reason why we should trust the opinion of an unknown person who might be associated with a disreputable bunch of apparent loons?

 

[whichphilosophy]

I'm finding it hard to precisely follow the story online (maybe some of our Swedish members can help), but it looks like a bill was proposed in the Swedish parliament to make (some?) vaccinations mandatory but that it was rejected.
One of the reasons seems to be that the coercion involved violated the Swedish constitution. Another was possibly this.


Which was I think in a statement from the Swedish NHF.

Does anyone have any insight into what happened.

I think this is from the parliament??
https://data.riksdagen.se/fil/77EB646D-37F9-4E33-9A89-331A5AA0E85A

I think the NHF made some recommendations and the parliament went with those.

But what did the Swedish parliament actually say?

Well this is abject nonsense:

It violates the Nuremberg Code (vaccines lack satisfactory scientific foundation, since there have never been any adequate risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. Thus all vaccination must be seen as experimental mass research.

As the risk benefit-analyses for vaccines are numerous and compelling.

But I can understand that mandatory vaccination might be illegal, if lawmakers were of the (apparently mistaken) opinion that the public would not act against their own interests by refusing beneficial medical treatment.

If you make your constitution idiot proof, someone develops a bigger idiot.

It depends on the nature of the disease and also it is rare for vaccinations to be mandatory.

 

[Will Wiley]

I'm finding it hard to precisely follow the story online (maybe some of our Swedish members can help), but it looks like a bill was proposed in the Swedish parliament to make (some?) vaccinations mandatory but that it was rejected.
One of the reasons seems to be that the coercion involved violated the Swedish constitution. Another was possibly this.


Which was I think in a statement from the Swedish NHF.

Does anyone have any insight into what happened.

I think this is from the parliament??
https://data.riksdagen.se/fil/77EB646D-37F9-4E33-9A89-331A5AA0E85A

I think the NHF made some recommendations and the parliament went with those.

But what did the Swedish parliament actually say?

Well this is abject nonsense:

It violates the Nuremberg Code (vaccines lack satisfactory scientific foundation, since there have never been any adequate risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. Thus all vaccination must be seen as experimental mass research.

As the risk benefit-analyses for vaccines are numerous and compelling.
.

Why did you misrepresent what was written?
It says the risk risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated.

Can you present any scientific study comparing the risk benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated?

 

[Will Wiley]

You need to be grossly reality impaired to take this crap seriously.?

Just present the studies.Or if you don't have the studies, then please get some help Bill.

 

[bilby]

Well this is abject nonsense:

It violates the Nuremberg Code (vaccines lack satisfactory scientific foundation, since there have never been any adequate risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. Thus all vaccination must be seen as experimental mass research.

As the risk benefit-analyses for vaccines are numerous and compelling.
.

Why did you misrepresent what was written?
It says the risk risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated.

Can you present any scientific study comparing the risk benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated?

I didn't misrepresent anything; and I am talking about exactly that type of risk-benefit analysis.

If you wanted scientific studies, you would use the ones from your other thread, or from Google Scholar, as linked to and recommended on that thread.

Your pointlessly belligerent response only confirms my suspicion that your motive is not to understand reality, but to question it, in the hope that others might imagine that it is questionable.

It's not; and you are not a warrior for truth, helping to defend humanity from the evil vaccinators; you are an ill-informed loon trying to use weak psychological tricks to further a cause that cannot be advanced through appeals to facts or reason.

Take it elsewhere, moron. I have better things to do than to do your homework for you, just so you can ignore it. If you care to know, you know where to look.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well this is abject nonsense:

It violates the Nuremberg Code (vaccines lack satisfactory scientific foundation, since there have never been any adequate risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. Thus all vaccination must be seen as experimental mass research.

As the risk benefit-analyses for vaccines are numerous and compelling.

But I can understand that mandatory vaccination might be illegal, if lawmakers were of the (apparently mistaken) opinion that the public would not act against their own interests by refusing beneficial medical treatment.

If you make your constitution idiot proof, someone develops a bigger idiot.

It depends on the nature of the disease and also it is rare for vaccinations to be mandatory.

Vaccinations should be mandatory. These crazy people are putting everyone else at risk. At the very least, unvaccinated children should not be allowed in public or private school.

 

[Jayjay]

Swedish parliament probably voted on something. But NHF seems to be a quack alternative medicine lobby group, hardly a reliable source for anything vaccination related. Furthermore whatever NHF had in their own fliers might not be the same reasoning that the Swedish parliament used.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I would like to thank the anti-vaxxers for the gift of mumps and measles in my neighborhood.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I would like to thank the anti-vaxxers for the gift of mumps and measles in my neighborhood.

I was about to bring up how we see a rise in these diseases in the Somali neighborhoods in MN. Near you? It's a shame that these anti-vaxxers can't just hurt themselves, they have to hurt the most vulnerable in our society as well.

 

[tupac chopra]

Well this is abject nonsense:

It violates the Nuremberg Code (vaccines lack satisfactory scientific foundation, since there have never been any adequate risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. Thus all vaccination must be seen as experimental mass research.

As the risk benefit-analyses for vaccines are numerous and compelling.
.

Why did you misrepresent what was written?
It says the risk risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated.

Can you present any scientific study comparing the risk benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated?

I didn't misrepresent anything; and I am talking about exactly that type of risk-benefit analysis.

If you wanted scientific studies, you would use the ones from your other thread, or from Google Scholar, as linked to and recommended on that thread.

.

I've been reading through the ones you linked to but obviously none of those relate this, as they are about effectiveness of the vaccine itself.
I've then tried several searches in google scholar but cannot find any that compare the overall health of vaccinated people and unvaccinated people.

Do you know of studies or were you just assuming such studies must exist?
Thank you

 

[bilby]

Well this is abject nonsense:

It violates the Nuremberg Code (vaccines lack satisfactory scientific foundation, since there have never been any adequate risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. Thus all vaccination must be seen as experimental mass research.

As the risk benefit-analyses for vaccines are numerous and compelling.
.

Why did you misrepresent what was written?
It says the risk risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated.

Can you present any scientific study comparing the risk benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated?

I didn't misrepresent anything; and I am talking about exactly that type of risk-benefit analysis.

If you wanted scientific studies, you would use the ones from your other thread, or from Google Scholar, as linked to and recommended on that thread.

.

I've been reading through the ones you linked to but obviously none of those relate this, as they are about effectiveness of the vaccine itself.
I've then tried several searches in google scholar but cannot find any that compare the overall health of vaccinated people and unvaccinated people.

Do you know of studies or were you just assuming such studies must exist?
Thank you

I think the Journal of the Bleeding Bloody Obvious may have published a paper entitled 'People who are in the process of dying young from infectious diseases have less positive health outcomes than those who are not infected'.

It was in the same issue as 'Infrequently seen side effects don't occur as often as endemic infections'.

What you are asking for is fucking ludicrous; and you are doing your cause no good by presenting its adherents as morons who can't complete a 'join the dots' puzzle with two dots.

 

[tupac chopra]

Well this is abject nonsense:

It violates the Nuremberg Code (vaccines lack satisfactory scientific foundation, since there have never been any adequate risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. Thus all vaccination must be seen as experimental mass research.

As the risk benefit-analyses for vaccines are numerous and compelling.
.

Why did you misrepresent what was written?
It says the risk risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated.

Can you present any scientific study comparing the risk benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated?

I didn't misrepresent anything; and I am talking about exactly that type of risk-benefit analysis.

If you wanted scientific studies, you would use the ones from your other thread, or from Google Scholar, as linked to and recommended on that thread.

.

I've been reading through the ones you linked to but obviously none of those relate this, as they are about effectiveness of the vaccine itself.
I've then tried several searches in google scholar but cannot find any that compare the overall health of vaccinated people and unvaccinated people.

Do you know of studies or were you just assuming such studies must exist?
Thank you

I think the Journal of the Bleeding Bloody Obvious may have published a paper entitled 'People who are in the process of dying young from infectious diseases have less positive health outcomes than those who are not infected'.

It was in the same issue as 'Infrequently seen side effects don't occur as often as endemic infections'.

What you are asking for is fucking ludicrous; and you are doing your cause no good by presenting its adherents as morons who can't complete a 'join the dots' puzzle with two dots.

I don't think you understood. Do you know of any studies that might show unintended side effects of vaccinating people? To do this you would compare the health of vaccinated people and unvaccinated.

If you don't know of such studies that is fine. I'd be very interested in reading such if they exist.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well this is abject nonsense:

It violates the Nuremberg Code (vaccines lack satisfactory scientific foundation, since there have never been any adequate risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. Thus all vaccination must be seen as experimental mass research.

As the risk benefit-analyses for vaccines are numerous and compelling.
.

Why did you misrepresent what was written?
It says the risk risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated.

Can you present any scientific study comparing the risk benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated?

Yeah, those that legitimately can't be vaccinated can and will die when herd immunity dissolves enough and they get diseases that shouldn't be in the environment.

I swear to gawd, shit is just too good. Too few people are needlessly dying of diseases apparently. People have to find anything to be angry and suspicious about.

The anti-vaxxers are scourge of humanity. The want to get diseases, I'm sure they can go get it in a safe and environmentally isolated way, locked away in a bunker.

 

[bilby]

Well this is abject nonsense:

It violates the Nuremberg Code (vaccines lack satisfactory scientific foundation, since there have never been any adequate risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. Thus all vaccination must be seen as experimental mass research.

As the risk benefit-analyses for vaccines are numerous and compelling.
.

Why did you misrepresent what was written?
It says the risk risk-benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated.

Can you present any scientific study comparing the risk benefit analysis comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated?

I didn't misrepresent anything; and I am talking about exactly that type of risk-benefit analysis.

If you wanted scientific studies, you would use the ones from your other thread, or from Google Scholar, as linked to and recommended on that thread.

.

I've been reading through the ones you linked to but obviously none of those relate this, as they are about effectiveness of the vaccine itself.
I've then tried several searches in google scholar but cannot find any that compare the overall health of vaccinated people and unvaccinated people.

Do you know of studies or were you just assuming such studies must exist?
Thank you

I think the Journal of the Bleeding Bloody Obvious may have published a paper entitled 'People who are in the process of dying young from infectious diseases have less positive health outcomes than those who are not infected'.

It was in the same issue as 'Infrequently seen side effects don't occur as often as endemic infections'.

What you are asking for is fucking ludicrous; and you are doing your cause no good by presenting its adherents as morons who can't complete a 'join the dots' puzzle with two dots.

I don't think you understood. Do you know of any studies that might show unintended side effects of vaccinating people? To do this you would compare the health of vaccinated people and unvaccinated.

If you don't know of such studies that is fine. I'd be very interested in reading such if they exist.

There are loads of such studies. Every new vaccine goes through a number of clinical trials, and amongst the things that are tested are both short and long term side effects. Where severe effects are found, the vaccines are not approved; those that pass the tests - ie have benefits that FAR outweigh their risks - are the only ones that get approval. This is true not only for vaccines, but for all registered medications, and medical devices.

You can find the results for any specific vaccine by searching Google Scholar. As you have already been told several times. Why do you expect other people to do your homework?

There are no such studies for vaccines in general, because to be of any value, such studies must be specific to a particular formulation.

Now, having been spoon-fed the answer you could do easily have found for yourself had you really cared, and which makes clear that the benefits of vaccines massively outweigh their risks, will you promise never again to pretend that you are unsure whether vaccines are safe, on this or any other forum?

I thought not.

 

[tupac chopra]

There are loads of such studies. Every new vaccine goes through a number of clinical trials, and amongst the things that are tested are both short and long term side effects. Where severe effects are found, the vaccines are not approved; those that pass the tests - ie have benefits that FAR outweigh their risks - are the only ones that get approval. This is true not only for vaccines, but for all registered medications, and medical devices.

You can find the results for any specific vaccine by searching Google Scholar. As you have already been told several times. Why do you expect other people to do your homework?

There are no such studies for vaccines in general, because to be of any value, such studies must be specific to a particular formulation.

Now, having been spoon-fed the answer you could do easily have found for yourself had you really cared, and which makes clear that the benefits of vaccines massively outweigh their risks, will you promise never again to pretend that you are unsure whether vaccines are safe, on this or any other forum?

I thought not.

You still don't understand I don't think. Obviously what is being referred to are studies on the overall health of people after they have been vaccinated over a longer time period. What happens to people over the months or years following vaccination and comparing that to people who were not vaccinated.
It should be obvious that's what was asked for. So I'm not sure why you keep dancing around avoiding it and abusing people

Now, have you ever read such a study?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There are loads of such studies. Every new vaccine goes through a number of clinical trials, and amongst the things that are tested are both short and long term side effects. Where severe effects are found, the vaccines are not approved; those that pass the tests - ie have benefits that FAR outweigh their risks - are the only ones that get approval. This is true not only for vaccines, but for all registered medications, and medical devices.

You can find the results for any specific vaccine by searching Google Scholar. As you have already been told several times. Why do you expect other people to do your homework?

There are no such studies for vaccines in general, because to be of any value, such studies must be specific to a particular formulation.

Now, having been spoon-fed the answer you could do easily have found for yourself had you really cared, and which makes clear that the benefits of vaccines massively outweigh their risks, will you promise never again to pretend that you are unsure whether vaccines are safe, on this or any other forum?

I thought not.

You still don't understand I don't think. Obviously what is being referred to are studies on the overall health of people after they have been vaccinated over a longer time period. What happens to people over the months or years following vaccination and comparing that to people who were not vaccinated.
It should be obvious that's what was asked for. So I'm not sure why you keep dancing around avoiding it and abusing people

Now, have you ever read such a study?

You mean like vaccinations against polio or smallpox or TB? Is that what you mean? I don't get what you are asking. Are you implying that we should not be vaccinating against these and other diseases because it might be better to NOT vaccinate but that we don't really know that for sure? Is that what you are asking?

How are vaccinations different from using antibiotics or good hygiene, both discoveries that when practiced save lives? How do we do studies on groups of people who don't use antibiotics or practice modern medicine or the lessons of germ theory? Do we just pick out a group and deny them this knowledge and observe them while they die? What are you asking should happen?

 

[tupac chopra]

You mean like vaccinations against polio or smallpox or TB? Is that what you mean? I don't get what you are asking. Are you implying that we should not be vaccinating against these and other diseases because it might be better to NOT vaccinate but that we don't really know that for sure? Is that what you are asking?

Not at all. I think we should vaccinate. But we also should try to see if we can improve vaccinations if they are having side effects.

 

[bilby]

There are loads of such studies. Every new vaccine goes through a number of clinical trials, and amongst the things that are tested are both short and long term side effects. Where severe effects are found, the vaccines are not approved; those that pass the tests - ie have benefits that FAR outweigh their risks - are the only ones that get approval. This is true not only for vaccines, but for all registered medications, and medical devices.

You can find the results for any specific vaccine by searching Google Scholar. As you have already been told several times. Why do you expect other people to do your homework?

There are no such studies for vaccines in general, because to be of any value, such studies must be specific to a particular formulation.

Now, having been spoon-fed the answer you could do easily have found for yourself had you really cared, and which makes clear that the benefits of vaccines massively outweigh their risks, will you promise never again to pretend that you are unsure whether vaccines are safe, on this or any other forum?

I thought not.

You still don't understand I don't think. Obviously what is being referred to are studies on the overall health of people after they have been vaccinated over a longer time period. What happens to people over the months or years following vaccination and comparing that to people who were not vaccinated.
It should be obvious that's what was asked for. So I'm not sure why you keep dancing around avoiding it and abusing people

Now, have you ever read such a study?

I understand perfectly what you want; and I just gave you a link to thousands of them.

It's not my fault if your religion tells you that they don't exist; they still do, even if you don't understand that fact.

The people who are telling you that no such studies exist are lying to you, or are as badly misled as you are. Something you could find out for yourself, if your beliefs didn't debar you from actually looking at the studies on the basis that that can't possibly exist.

I understand that the pope refused to see the moons of Jupiter when Galileo demonstrated his telescope, and for the same reason - he knew they couldn't exist because his faith said so, and so he wasn't going to believe his lying eyes.