Debating the Eugenics Behind Vaccinations

The following debate originally took place upon my post, “Over a Century of Vaccine Injuries and Deaths in Children“…

Rayn: Eugenics…

(Original post located here)

Jennifer H.: On which side?

Rayn: On the “official” side, like usual…

Rayn: Same target, as usual, too…

Jennifer H.: I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to say. Can you clarify?

Rayn: Okay. Read the “product information sheet” for the MMR-II vaccine:

https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM123789.pdf

Pay special attention to the sections entitled, “Contraindications,” “Warnings,” “Precautions,” and “Adverse Reactions.”

Also, if you have been previously vaccinated at any time, exactly how many of those times were you, your parents, or guardian, given any sort of product insert to read over *before* making a final decision to “consent”? In my case, I can attest to receiving this information a full 0% of the time, over the course of a fifteen year period, spanning across doctor’s offices in three States, and through over a dozen needle jabs…

Jennifer H.: Literally every time, actually, because that’s what they’re for? I had to sign a consent form to get a flu shot.

Jennifer H.: Not sure what that has to do with eugenics but OK, at least I’m clear on what this is now.

Jennifer H.: If you choose not to read what you’re signing that’s on you. ??

Jennifer H.: So, out of curiosity, what exactly is using the threat of disability as a tool of fear called?

Jennifer H.: It sounds oddly familiar. Hmm…

Rayn: My parents never received one even once, not for myself, nor any of my three siblings. Can’t “choose not to read” what was never provided in two decades of vaccinations, across three States.

Jennifer H.: So the consent forms were…blank?

Jennifer H.: Still waiting for the answer to the original question, but I guess talking about package inserts is way easier than clarifying what “target” you’re talking about.

Jennifer H.: “If I derail enough, everyone will forget this was about eugenics!”

Jennifer H.: I wonder what letting people die of vaccine-preventable disease would be called. ?

Rayn: Using the threat of disability as a tool of fear? By all means, feel free to pontificate away…

Rayn.: “If I derail enough, everyone will forget this was about eugenics!” I knew you were speed-posting for a reason…

Rayn: Derail away…

Jennifer H.: “Speed-posting”? You know it’s the same number of words whether I break them up into multiple comments or not, right?

Jennifer H.: I’m derailing by pointing out you haven’t said a word about eugenics since your first two comments. Hilarious. Get a dictionary.

Jennifer H.: I don’t have time for this dance, bye. 

Rayn: “I guess talking about package inserts is way easier than clarifying what ‘target’ you’re talking about.” There were many targets mentioned, and all qualified as “vulnerable,” if you were to force me to group them, to save yourself a read…

Rayn: By speed-posting, I refer to you peppering my post with four more replies, a minute or two apart, after your first one, while I merely try to respond to your first one. And, as you do this, it causes a notification prompt to overlay the phone screen I’m writing on, so that it becomes difficult to even write. Word count has no relevance, here. Seems like you never intended to have more than the superficial appearance of a discussion on this topic with me. Not really surprised, of course…

Rayn: “I’m derailing by pointing out you haven’t said a word about eugenics since your first two comments”? Keep dreaming. You attempt to derail with your ridiculous Strawman of my position, just like I illustrated… “If I derail enough, everyone will forget this was about eugenics!” Rest assured that I didn’t forget, and have plenty more to say on the topic. Get a dictionary? Get over yourself!

Rayn: “I don’t have time for this dance, bye.” You’re the only one dancing, here. It’s not entertaining to witness, though…

Jennifer H.: Wow, imagine having to wait a second to continue typing. 

Rayn: Wow… Imagine having to actually read a link I shared in reply to your question. Then, imagine having to use the attention span required to understand my position, in the way that I knew would make it most clear. Now, imagine having to do this ALL BEFORE speed-posting four more times. Imagine not confusing a vaccine product information sheet with a consent form, while indicating your error in the form of purely ironic condescension…

Jennifer H.: You’ve still said nothing. ???

Rayn: Back to what I was trying to illustrate when I shared the “product information sheet” above, but you were incapable of ascertaining on your own, while then feeling compelled to condescend, in the face of your failure… While those with certain known medical issues are often directed by doctors not to take vaccinations for fear of injury, those who haven’t yet been diagnosed, due to the rarity of their illness, or a lack of adequate healthcare to have our identified, are in danger of vaccine injury or death. Plain and simple.

Jennifer H.: Consent forms list risks, sweetheart. Try again.

Rayn: You think you are saying something? You can’t even distinguish between a consent form and a product information sheet…

Rayn: ?

Jennifer H.: You can even ask for information, that’s how informed consent works. That’s the point of the form. If you just sign it because it’s in front of you, I can’t help you.

Rayn: Sweetheart? Okay, Swami… So, you can only “help” those with enough agency and/or intelligence to question a pushy doctor’s “recommendations”… Talk about privilege… This is about as arrogant as your claim that those “undiagnosed,” yet fully aware of a parent’s medical condition, though never asked by a vaccine-peddling medical profession, nor offered any tests to identify said condition, should be simply labeled as “undiagnosed,” rather than “undiagnosed, but at risk, until further testing is completed,” seemingly for the sole purpose of forcing the uninformed to accept legal responsibility for any possible vaccine injuries. Impressive!

By the way, the only thing my vaccine consent forms stated was that “patient was made aware of the risks.” The form was always standard, and single page, with the vaccine administered to be penciled in to a pre-assigned blank space. There isn’t enough room to write out even one of the product information sheets upon this sheet of paper, let alone the room to put them all upon it, considering the fact that it is standard form, used for all.

Meanwhile, whenever my parents or I questioned the vague “risks” language contained within the so-called “consent form,” doctors only mentioned local swelling, and fever. One or two mentioned “rare life threatening complications,” but assured us that we were not at risk – something they felt confident to do, even without asking anything relevant about our medical history.

Jennifer H.: I answered the question you asked. Looks like you didn’t like the answer. And the question didn’t have anything to do with the OP anyway. ??

Rayn: You didn’t answer. You just confused a product information sheet with a consent form, which allowed you to answer what must have been your own unrelated question about consent forms… Try again, please. I await your reply.

Jennifer H.: So what do vaccine-preventable diseases do in your world? Who tends to die from them?

Jennifer H.: You’re acting like there’s only one set of risks to consider, which is cute, but no.

Rayn: Nope. Specifically said they weren’t being considered. No informed consent. Nice try…

Rayn: Any more dancing?

Rayn: I might drop a hot sixteen bars to get you started…

Jennifer H.: Undiagnosed contraindicating conditions are a risk of *literally any medical treatment,* try again. This just in, people can have things they don’t know about. Relevance to vaccines in particular?

Rayn: This just in: no informed consent. Wait… Said that, originally…

Jennifer H.:

“‘I guess talking about package inserts is way easier than clarifying what ‘target’ you’re talking about.’ There were many targets mentioned, and all qualified as “vulnerable,” if you were to force me to group them, to save yourself a read…”

So what you want me to do is read your source and then form your argument for you. That’s not how that works.

Rayn: Nope. You were only required to read the source and answer my question for a further reply from me. But, you were much too busy speed-posting, mocking my non-position, and dancing, to do so. Your loss. Rest assured, though, that reading IS EXACTLY how this works…

Rayn:  I’ll respond to [the rest], but was “undiagnosed medical conditions” all you read on the “product information sheet,” eh? Wait. Those are my words. You are looking more and more like you never read it…

Jennifer H.: So, let me get this straight, you’re given a form and you just sign it? Then you complain you weren’t informed? Is that the jist here?

Rayn: What about this particular illness?

Statement on Narcolepsy and Vaccination:
http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/influenza/pandemic/h1n1_safety_assessing/narcolepsy_statement/en/

Rayn: Signing a consent form without reading the package insert makes NOT for informed consent.

Rayn: Read it, this time

Jennifer H.: Then you complain that I didn’t do the work of making your own argument so you wouldn’t have to. I sense a theme here.

Rayn: BEFORE you reply, please…

Rayn: What does that article say?

Rayn: Allow me to help… “Narcolepsy is a condition that has a strong genetic linkage, being almost uniquely seen in persons who have the (HLA) DQB1*0602 genotype”

Rayn: My father has narcolepsy.

Jennifer H.: Rayn, I don’t think you’re understand the point here. What do you think the consent form is for? Why aren’t you asking questions before you sign it? Clearly, you’re capable of forming the questions and typing them into Google.

Jennifer H.: I know what narcolepsy is. What is your point? Again, “read this link and decide what I’m trying to say” is not an argument.

Jennifer H.: Yes, vaccines have risks? So do all medical treatments? Yes, some people don’t know they have conditions that put them at risk? If they have a list of those conditions, they still don’t know they have them? Your point?

Rayn: My siblings and I were never made aware of the genetic test, nor were any of us even asked about this. It would take a single conversation, but it never happened once for any of the four of us, at any time in almost two decades.

Jennifer H.: I mean, OK? What’s that have to do with vaccines and whether they’re eugenics? I don’t quite understand someone who looks at the inadequacies of our healthcare system and decides vaccines in particular are a deliberate plot to target vulnerable populations. Not lack of quality healthcare. That seems like missing the forest for the trees.

Rayn: I also have a neurological condition that caused me to have seizures at birth, and require a year of phenobarbitol therapy. I’m continuously put at risk by ignorant health care professionals who are not in the business of informing patients of their personal, individual risks.

Rayn: Gonna eat dinner, then I’ll reply more…

Jennifer H.: Again, that’s a failure of the healthcare system?

Jennifer H.: But if you thought about that for a second, you might not be a libertarian anymore. ??

Rayn: You are being intellectually dishonest to claim lack of informed consent is a flaw of the health care system, rather than a feature. Then, to make matters more illogical, you then give this “inadequate” system unfettered access to the vulnerable, without applying the principle of informed consent. Too bad for those suckers, because they signed a (non-informed) “consent form.” And, lest we forget, vaccines are de facto mandatory in the US, so any disingenuous claims that “undiagnosed contraindicating conditions are a risk of *literally any medical treatment*” go out the window, when refusal to “consent” to this alleged “medical treatment” (“preventative medicine,” and hence purely “optional”) can lead the State to abduct children from parents, in many States, and force a full cocktail of back-logged vaccines into their body, against consent. Sounds oddly familiar, eh?

Rayn: Ahhh… Now, the undue hostility and condescension make perfect sense… Angry that I’m a libertarian, eh, Gluntz 2.0? You must really hate consent! 😀

No problem. For your determined dedication to passive-aggressive snobbery, I allot you this shiny award: 

(Jennifer H. removes me as Facebook “friend”)

(Jennifer H. sends me a private Facebook message)

***********Beginning of Jennifer’s H.’s private message***********

Jennifer H.: Maybe I like people actually having access to quality healthcare without someone else whining about how they didn’t “consent” to pay it because their money is more important than someone else’s life, Rayn. Maybe I like that. Maybe I like people not having to twist themselves into knots to blame the entire broken healthcare system on vaccines. Maybe I like people who have known me for years not willfully twisting my views and ignoring practically daily (and unpopular) posts on medical consent just so they don’t have to stop twisting themselves into pretzels because “MUH MONEY!!!” Maybe that’s what I like, Rayn.

Just go ahead and call me “passive-aggressive,” though, because making a post public so that someone can see your response (but not reply) after unfriending you isn’t at all.

I might not agree with Adam on a lot politically but at least his head isn’t completely up his ass on which side cares even the slightest bit for autistic people, so thanks, I guess.

Just keep allying yourselves with the ones who think we’re a plot to weaken the population, see how that works out for you.

Next time someone’s cursing me for defending medical consent, I’ll remember how much I actually hate it, because some libertarian defending the “freedom” not to fund an equitable system said so.

Obviously, if doctors don’t give you to care you deserve, it’s because vaccines. No other reason.

Hope your children don’t die of a preventable illness before you wake up.

***********End of Jennifer H.’s private message***********

(I view Jennifer H.’s private Facebook message, which registers it as “seen”)

***********Beginning of My Private Message to Jennifer H.***********

Rayn: I know exactly what’s taking place here. So, I might as well quote what I posted on my FB page back in May of 2013: “so much of the ‘controversy’ regarding vaccines really comes from ‘gut-reaction’ responses to the subject, along with the push to frame all debates on the topic into the false paradigm of ‘pro-vaccination’ versus ‘anti-vaccination’ – an activity that has taken CENTER STAGE, over the facts! Strangely, there appears to be no room in the minds of these two extremist groups for individuals to be somewhat pro-vaccination, while also somewhat anti-vaccination, and, they are FAR from interested in understanding the reasons behind viewpoints that don’t correspond 100% with their own. It’s ALL OR NOTHING in their minds. Both of these ‘sides’ could use a lesson in respect, as well as THE RULES OF LOGICAL DEBATE!”

https://www.facebook.com/acidrayn/posts/4803490126793

Rest assured that I won’t be swayed from my *actual* position, which was about eugenics, no matter what sort of arrogant, presumptuous language and underhanded, passive-aggressive tactics you direct at me – especially since this toxic-waste-style of communication is now seeping out of an individual who claims to have “known me for years.” As I already indicated, you were much too eager to discard any effort to dialogue or debate with me in a respectable, open-minded manner, where we could *both* carefully pose questions to each other, and reply, with full understanding of the sensitive nature of the topic. Instead, you chose to waste your time and negative energy disproving the sorts of totally irrelevant, cookie-cutter, Straw-man-level positions that can be searched out on google, with both sides of the debate laid out. You obviously didn’t come to my post equipped with the tools required to understand an organic individual viewpoint, that might not show up in the top searches on the internet, with corresponding thought-free replies, ready to be cut and paste, or tweaked enough to appear as though original. Your weak efforts to frame my argument in terms and ideas I never said -ones that *just so happen* to fall under the category of “easy to discredit,” represent nothing more than a pathetic cop-out, because you were unable to rise to the challenge of organic dialogue or debate with me. Sorry I don’t fit into your neat little box of dismissal. As I said, yesterday: your loss.

Rayn: And, of course, now that you’ve unfriended me, in a cowardly effort to execute a hit-and-run on my Facebook wall, you find yourself shamelessly private messaging me, with new hostilities, and presenting a WHOLE NEW ARGUMENT WITH YOURSELF (since virtually NOTHING you’ve written in your message represents my viewpoint). “Mmm. That is rather slippery of you,” Hughes. You’re only introducing this new set of crude, lazy anti-libertarian red herrings, that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ME, to divert attention from the original topic. Am I really supposed to waste my time responding to positions you keep trying to pin on me that aren’t even mine? Am I really obligated to include myself in a conversation that you’re having with yourself? Sickening. *sigh* Fine… I never whined about not consenting to pay for other people’s access to quality health care. I never placed money as more important than someone’s life. I never twisted myself into knots, here, nor do I blame the entire broken healthcare system on vaccines. I don’t see daily posts from you, because “muh newsfeed algorithm” has yet to recognize your celebrity status, and even if I had noticed, this correspondence would still lead me to believe that you do not respect the concept of “informed consent” in regards to vaccine schedules in the US, no matter where else you imagine you championed the cause of medical consent, nor how long we’ve personally been acquainted. I never twisted myself into pretzels, here, and most especially not for any money you imagine me to have. Finally, though you never even asked, yet force the issue, I’ll note that I’m actually a Voluntaryist, so my only “side” is that of co-existence through the Self-Ownership and the Non-Aggression principle. I ally myself with love and peace through *free-will* – the final of which represents the real meaning of lower-case “l” libertarian. By the way, I am disabled, along with both of my parents, and spent most of my life in poverty, including almost four years in the NYC shelter system, from 12-15 years old. If you weren’t such an arrogant, narrow-minded, know-it-all during this correspondence, you might have actually found yourself legitimately understanding my economic experiences and viewpoints – possibly even respecting them. Perhaps, it’s time for *you* to take your head out of the sand. You’re really “showing your ass” when you assume such an undignified position.

Rayn: And, are you legit “whining” that, after you unfriended me, then revisited the very post on my wall with which you initiated a correspondence with me only to run away from, and noted that I had responded to your hit-and-run effort by still posting my reply to you, anyway, and neutralizing your “unfriend” effort, by simply setting my post to “public” so as to ensure your ability to still see my reply to you, and hopefully, give you a FB notification, too, you’re now salty that your act of unfriending me prevents you from directly replying to said post… one of the *very things* you intended to happen after you unfriended me, in your hit-and-run effort, in the first place? Who told you to flee, little rabbit? Angry that I thwarted your dastardly efforts? Don’t worry. I’ll do it again, when I post a screenshot of your private message to me, here, *along* with my reply.

You are not even the first member (among a certain NYC-based group), and I doubt you will be the last, to initiate manipulative, unduly hostile communications with me. And, just like always, I will not let the team-blue goon squad, who never even took the time to understand my anti-political views, to unload their mind-poison onto me, based of their own fucking personal hang-ups! You thought it was appropriate to mock my communication difficulties, repeatedly. I attempted to carefully present my position to you, while getting a certain level of feedback from you, in order to organically proceed, based upon it… I communicate in this way because I struggle with selective mutism. And, publicly posting my words is especially very physically difficult for me, due to adrenaline, with the struggle I experience being directly proportional to the level of misunderstanding available, or taking place. I tried to pace myself, in part, to prevent EXACTLY what happened here. But, you became impatient and obnoxious. So, you eagerly attempted to spin my completely legitimate efforts to engage in a clear, comfortable, evenly-paced correspondence out to be some sort of personal plot against you, as though I actually INVITED you to create my position, for me! And… of course… OF COURSE… in the end, you got to do JUST THAT FOR YOURSELF, at MY EXPENSE! You ran away with the correspondence, carelessly framing my position, even as I spent the entire rest of the conversation deflecting Straw-men, and playing “catch-up.” And, when you ironically placed quotes around mentions of me “derail[ing]” our communication, as though to indicate that you’re somehow quoting ME, so I respond by noting that your presumptuous speed-postings were in fact, my source of derailment, you mocked me, further. Hence, I had every intention of unfriending you. But, it would have been at least seven days after this correspondence, in order to give us both the opportunity to make our positions on the vaccines and eugenics topic fully clear. This way, you would not confuse my lack of desire to keep you as a friend as an imagined online debate “win” for yourself. Good riddance!

Rayn: By the way, since you were sloppily tagging up all over this post, graffiti-style, yesterday, through your unnecessary, yet gratuitous, use of the “reply” feature, confusing and muddling what would have otherwise been a single, clear, thread, when considering that only the two of us were corresponding, I did, in fact, miss out on giving you a reply that I should have included, originally. You claimed that I presented “a deliberate plot to target vulnerable populations.” Not sure if this is too nuanced for your obtuse debate-style, but I should point out that “deliberate” is *much* too strong of a word. I believe that the vulnerable have coldly been considered as an “acceptable loss.” Our human right to choose an individualized health care regiment that provides us with full agency over our own “risks” regarding “preventative medical treatments” is being artificially, forceful pitted against a lifetime of enforced medical “treatments” by the State. And, this takes place by way of a nationwide “treatment” schedule, based upon the “assumption” of a healthy, non-medically-vulnerable “patient,” at the risk of injury or death, which is stated in the very product information sheet that pushy doctors don’t provide, in their effort to bypass informed consent, even as their “consent forms” fallaciously claim that risks were discussed. With no surprise, this collectivist-style “medical system” demands access to untested-for-vulnerability newborns, and children, and not protecting those in peripheral risk groups, who require further expensive genetic testing, before proceeding with enforced vaccine schedules.

Also, I may very well be “capable of forming [medical] questions and typing them into Google,” but your privilege is showing, again. I graduated HS in 1998. My parents and I didn’t have a computer, or a “google” to use when I was a minor, Swami.

***********End of My Private Message to Jennifer***********

(I attempt to reply to Jennifer H.’s private Facebook message to me)

(I discover that Jennifer H. has since “blocked” me on Facebook)

(I publish my reply to Jennifer H. onto my original Facebook posting)

(I discover that Jennifer and I are still “friends” on GoodReads)

(I send my reply to Jennifer H. through a private GoodReads message)

***********Discussion Continues on Original Facebook Posting***********

Sara: “Hope your children don’t die of a preventable illness before you wake up”. What a cunt!

Rayn: Pure cowardice, from the forked tongue of a barren lizard…

Rayn: Whoopsie! State-administered vaccine magically turns out to somehow be “contaminated” with previously-dead strain of Polio virus in “overpopulated” country of brown-skinned people with sparse, rudimentary plumbing…

Check out this article, from three days ago…

Vaccine Raises Spectre of ‘Dead’ Polio Strain’s Spread:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/vaccine-raises-spectre-of-dead-polio-strains-spread/articleshow/66001135.cms?from=mdr

Rayn: Notice how this gutless worm eagerly FEAR-MONGERS about the threat of viral INFECTION, and DEATH, in her attempt to publicly force her completely unsolicited medical opinions upon me regarding what preventative treatments my son should receive? And, see how she feels privileged to assign herself this role, as a total non-medical-professional, without even an iota of knowledge about my child’s medical information, nor his medical history? Seems super-unscientific and uber-irresponsible, to me!

And, this is especially rich, coming from the hypocrite who accusingly asked me, earlier in this post, “So, out of curiosity, what exactly is using the threat of disability as a tool of fear called?”

It’s called being a pro-vaccination extremist, Susan!

Rayn: Being coerced by State-run “health campaign” into accepting lifelong schedule of allegedly “scientific” “expert-recommended” “preventative medicine” -based injections, beginning with “assumed healthy” newborn children, exposing them to attenuated pathogenic disease in order to build up temporary “immunity” to said disease, while frequently repeating “treatment” whenever antibodies aren’t present, all while pressuring the full population into participation through “herd immunity” tyranny, with almost no regard for personal risks and benefits to the individual… “SCIENTIFIC” and GOOD!

Weighing one’s own individual risks, by considering all personal medical information, and full medical history, in conjunction with the established, yet, rarely-discussed-by-doctors “contraindications,” “warnings,” “precautions” and “adverse reactions” of temporary-immunity-based vaccinations, including the possibility of acquiring a vaccine-strain of a virus, a debilitating shoddy-ingredient-based* lifelong allergy, asthma, neurological condition, or even death, versus the possibility of becoming infected with a wild strain of said virus, including resulting illness, and subsequent lifelong debilitating conditions, or death, AS WELL AS the possibility of fully recovering, with a newly-acquired lifelong immunity from the experience… “USING THE THREAT OF DISABILITY AS A TOOL OF FEAR” and BAD!

*chicken embryo, aborted fetal cells, peanut oil, formaldehyde, mercury, aluminum, etc.