If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Dear Prudence, are anti-vaxxers a dangerous plague on society? Prudence: Yes. Vaccination trifecta now in play   (slate.com) divider line 189
    More: Obvious, vaccinations, biological fathers, society  
•       •       •

3025 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Apr 2014 at 4:27 PM (15 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-08 02:52:44 PM
to elaborate on the headline,

yesssss
 
2014-04-08 02:54:33 PM
i57.tinypic.com
 
2014-04-08 03:00:30 PM
She's getting medical help from her pediatrician, so the child will (should?) recover with no permanent problems, but I so want to slap this woman up side the head with a stack of science.

This sounds like something you'd hear on The Simpsons.
 
2014-04-08 03:01:07 PM

hervatski: [i57.tinypic.com image 500x376]


Hehe
 
2014-04-08 03:17:18 PM
Whenever we have the antivaccination threads, there are always those who pop up and talk about how it's the parent's right to be able to raise their children in whatever manner necessary.

My solution is this: Allow parents to not vaccinate their children, but should it be shown that their unvaccinated children caused another child or person to become ill by a preponderance of the evidence, those parents should be liable for all damages necessary to cover the cost of treating the child or person or for wrongful death of that child or person (should it get to that point).

We'll see how many anti-vaccination proponents there are once they get slapped a few times with thousands of dollars in damages from other families.
 
2014-04-08 03:18:31 PM

RexTalionis: Whenever we have the antivaccination threads, there are always those who pop up and talk about how it's the parent's right to be able to raise their children in whatever manner necessary.

My solution is this: Allow parents to not vaccinate their children, but should it be shown that their unvaccinated children caused another child or person to become ill by a preponderance of the evidence, those parents should be liable for all damages necessary to cover the cost of treating the child or person or for wrongful death of that child or person (should it get to that point).

We'll see how many anti-vaccination proponents there are once they get slapped a few times with thousands of dollars in damages from other families.


Since negligence is duty - breach - causation and damages, let's create a statutory duty that a parent should vaccinate their children if possible.
 
2014-04-08 03:21:13 PM
And because this chart gave me so much joy last autism/vaccination thread, I'll share again:

img.fark.net
 
2014-04-08 03:42:02 PM
More like plague carriers, amirite?
 
2014-04-08 03:45:45 PM

RexTalionis: My solution is this: Allow parents to not vaccinate their children, but should it be shown that their unvaccinated children caused another child or person to become ill by a preponderance of the evidence, those parents should be liable for all damages necessary to cover the cost of treating the child or person or for wrongful death of that child or person (should it get to that point).

We'll see how many anti-vaccination proponents there are once they get slapped a few times with thousands of dollars in damages from other families.


Brilliant!  But can't you file suit over that already?  Granted you need the preponderance of evidence first...
 
2014-04-08 03:52:37 PM

nmrsnr: And because this chart gave me so much joy last autism/vaccination thread, I'll share again:

[img.fark.net image 750x477]


I loved the observation that everyone would get autism before all females get it.
 
2014-04-08 03:53:59 PM

RexTalionis: Whenever we have the antivaccination threads, there are always those who pop up and talk about how it's the parent's right to be able to raise their children in whatever manner necessary.

My solution is this: Allow parents to not vaccinate their children, but should it be shown that their unvaccinated children caused another child or person to become ill by a preponderance of the evidence, those parents should be liable for all damages necessary to cover the cost of treating the child or person or for wrongful death of that child or person (should it get to that point).

We'll see how many anti-vaccination proponents there are once they get slapped a few times with thousands of dollars in damages from other families.


My solution is this:  Quarantine.  You can do whatever you like with your kid, just don't expect to be able to go into any public place.  And enjoy homeschooling.

There is a small measles outbreak where I am.  Some high school kids may have been exposed.  As a precaution, almost 100 students aren't able to return to class.  While most are able to get their work done remotely, some may have their high school year extended to accommodate the lost time.

Sucks to be them, but it was easily solvable with a needle in their childhood.
 
2014-04-08 03:56:48 PM

nmrsnr: And because this chart gave me so much joy last autism/vaccination thread, I'll share again:

[img.fark.net image 750x477]


Yeah, I could see that getting you some bites even if it doesn't show causation or anything.  LOL  Oy.
 
2014-04-08 04:06:04 PM

nmrsnr: And because this chart gave me so much joy last autism/vaccination thread, I'll share again:

[img.fark.net image 750x477]


Reminds me of this comic:

www.explainxkcd.com
 
2014-04-08 04:17:15 PM

RexTalionis: Whenever we have the antivaccination threads, there are always those who pop up and talk about how it's the parent's right to be able to raise their children in whatever manner necessary.

My solution is this: Allow parents to not vaccinate their children, but should it be shown that their unvaccinated children caused another child or person to become ill by a preponderance of the evidence, those parents should be liable for all damages necessary to cover the cost of treating the child or person or for wrongful death of that child or person (should it get to that point).

We'll see how many anti-vaccination proponents there are once they get slapped a few times with thousands of dollars in damages from other families.


I don't think we'd need to get lawyers involved.  Just remove the religious exemption from the vaccination mandate to have you kid attend a public school.  Or at least strengthen it to the point where it has to be an established belief of not only yourself but your church/congregation/coven/scientology center.

If the choice is having to homeschool or exposing their kid to autism, most parents would choose the autism.
 
2014-04-08 04:34:36 PM
Anti-Vaxxers should have the right to not vaccinate, but they should have to live on an island together.
 
2014-04-08 04:35:29 PM

unyon: Quarantine


Not good enough.

Welcome to AntiVax Island.
 
2014-04-08 04:38:07 PM

SuburbanCowboy: Anti-Vaxxers should have the right to not vaccinate, but they should have to live on an island together.


I was going to say asteroid, but I guess your idea is more plausible.
 
2014-04-08 04:40:25 PM

SuburbanCowboy: Anti-Vaxxers should have the right to not vaccinate, but they should have to live on an island together.


She's waiting.

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2014-04-08 04:40:30 PM
Forget the anti-vaxxing idiot and her poor kid, who the fark goes to church with co-workers?
 
2014-04-08 04:42:05 PM

unyon: There is a small measles outbreak where I am.


Whooping Cough where I am. And I can tell my Doc was surprised by the shocked expression on my face when she dropped that bomb shell. I thought she was kidding. Nope. (Of course I got a booster...)

I just can't believe it. I really can't. The entire anti-vaxx thing is like some special kind of stupid.

But to inflict whooping cough on a little kid... man, you're now entering the realm of simply being evil.
 
2014-04-08 04:43:40 PM

impaler: nmrsnr: And because this chart gave me so much joy last autism/vaccination thread, I'll share again:

[img.fark.net image 750x477]

I loved the observation that everyone would get autism before all females get it.



That, right there, is the hardest I've laughed this week. For realz.
 
2014-04-08 04:45:00 PM
Why is this in the politics tab?
 
2014-04-08 04:48:08 PM
They are biological hazards, and you round them up like yellow people after pearl harbor and put them in camps and vax them and when the vax sets in then you can let them go.
If they miss work or something, fark them. Don't give them a felony, just make them sit through education seminars, like they do with drunks they catch. It's for public safety, just lie with drunks.
I can't be driving around endangering everyone with a car.
And no one else should be walking around airports, and public places harboring poxes.
Fark 'em.

I got your religious freedom right here in this farking syringe.
 
2014-04-08 04:48:18 PM

impaler: nmrsnr: And because this chart gave me so much joy last autism/vaccination thread, I'll share again:

[img.fark.net image 750x477]

I loved the observation that everyone would get autism before all females get it.


Statistics, motherfarker, do you speak it?
 
2014-04-08 04:52:10 PM

Destructor: unyon: There is a small measles outbreak where I am.

Whooping Cough where I am. And I can tell my Doc was surprised by the shocked expression on my face when she dropped that bomb shell. I thought she was kidding. Nope. (Of course I got a booster...)

I just can't believe it. I really can't. The entire anti-vaxx thing is like some special kind of stupid.

But to inflict whooping cough on a little kid... man, you're now entering the realm of simply being evil.


I understand the fear of having to take care of an autistic child. Being responsible for a kid with special needs is incredibly hard work. When you're off the clock, you're not really off the clock. When you're on the clock, virtually all of your energy and attention is devoted to them.

That life is many magnitudes better than the life of a parent with a kid who died from a disease we learned how to prevent decades ago.
 
2014-04-08 04:54:28 PM

RexTalionis: My solution is this: Allow parents to not vaccinate their children, but should it be shown that their unvaccinated children caused another child or person to become ill by a preponderance of the evidence, those parents should be liable for all damages necessary to cover the cost of treating the child or person or for wrongful death of that child or person (should it get to that point).


What a thoroughly horrible idea. Your suggestion is that some children have to die in order to teach retards a lesson. Why should any child have to suffer in the first place at the hands on another set of parents? We require obligatory school attendance (or a legally sanctioned alternative). We can certainlly legally require all children to get vaccinated.
 
2014-04-08 04:55:13 PM

RexTalionis: Whenever we have the antivaccination threads, there are always those who pop up and talk about how it's the parent's right to be able to raise their children in whatever manner necessary.

My solution is this: Allow parents to not vaccinate their children, but should it be shown that their unvaccinated children caused another child or person to become ill by a preponderance of the evidence, those parents should be liable for all damages necessary to cover the cost of treating the child or person or for wrongful death of that child or person (should it get to that point).

We'll see how many anti-vaccination proponents there are once they get slapped a few times with thousands of dollars in damages from other families.


When measles have an incubation time measured in days, how will you know the source?

It makes people LESS likely to report these issues as it provides a disincentive. It increases public risk, and I don't think it would have the effect you want.
 
2014-04-08 04:56:20 PM

Dafatone: Forget the anti-vaxxing idiot and her poor kid, who the fark goes to church with co-workers?


people in small towns? people who practice a minority religion in their area and work together?
 
2014-04-08 04:56:48 PM
I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.
 
2014-04-08 05:00:39 PM
The first kid they don't vaccinate:
1.  Take the kid.
2.  Sterilize both parents.
3.  Post a warning about them in their community as "dangerous disease carriers"(even if their parents were smart and got them vaccinated, they probably skipped their boosters)
 
2014-04-08 05:01:29 PM

nmrsnr: And because this chart gave me so much joy last autism/vaccination thread, I'll share again:

[img.fark.net image 750x477]


the error bars are so small that they cannot be represented on that scale
 
2014-04-08 05:02:40 PM

whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.


I wanna see where you're going with this. Tell us your conclusion.
 
2014-04-08 05:03:44 PM
Maybe it is time to fight "like" with "like"

Anti-vax arguments seem to come to "I don't agree to it because it MIGHT harm my child" - and no math/ratio information will sway that inherent drive to protect newbies.

Maybe something other than "you are shiat-flinging stupid"?

Maybe we need to mimic the ceremonies other societies used to mark an infants' passages - to wit? "Yes, it is scary, yes, babby might die....however? if babby lives, there is your proof God has blessed your house and we welcome this strong new life into the communal fold.  if you opt not to participate babby cannot join the tribe and must be outcast as weak."  There are thousands of years of just this participation-by=pressure to draw on.

I sat up after every "puppy-shot" visit my kid had, fearful - but the idea of NOT vaxxing wasn't even on the radar......nice to think I may have to booster to protect myself from two-legged petri dishes who apparently are too delicate to risk after surviving the crap shoot that is "two joined cells and through the canal into lights and oxygen" - no mean feat, btw, and a pretty fair first guide into "ready to join the world with my peers".

It isn't stupidity, it is selfishness - and it will doom us all - you'd think bible-centric folk would get that - that and the communal celebration of potentially dangerous rites of passage completed.....but, no....that is too simple.
 
2014-04-08 05:06:28 PM
I have a cousin who is anti-vaxxer.  She is a lovely, caring, positive person, and she is not stupid. She is just really, really wrong about this. And there is no reason that will reach her about this topic - it ties too deeply to paranoia undergrid with a real, reasonable concern about shady business practices and bought-and-paid-for research.

I don't think we will ever change the mind of someone who is anti-vax. It's not worth it to even"gently broach this subject." Prudie is just wrong about that. But it is important to talk about it with others, and it is really important to disagree with her if she brings it up when others are present. We do not need new anti-vaxxers.
 
2014-04-08 05:06:40 PM

SuburbanCowboy: Anti-Vaxxers should have the right to not vaccinate, but they should have to live on an island together.


What would you call it -- "Incubator Isle"?

///only if a giant dome can go over the whole thing
 
2014-04-08 05:09:23 PM

RexTalionis: Whenever we have the antivaccination threads, there are always those who pop up and talk about how it's the parent's right to be able to raise their children in whatever manner necessary.

My solution is this: Allow parents to not vaccinate their children, but should it be shown that their unvaccinated children caused another child or person to become ill by a preponderance of the evidence, those parents should be liable for all damages necessary to cover the cost of treating the child or person or for wrongful death of that child or person (should it get to that point).

We'll see how many anti-vaccination proponents there are once they get slapped a few times with thousands of dollars in damages from other families.


I have a better solution: vaccinations are absolutely required in all cases where they don't pose a clear and demonstrable threat to health (ie: allergies, immunocompromised). If a parent refuses to vaccinate their kid, the child will become a temporary ward of the state, receive their vaccinations, and be returned to their parents.

Fixes the problem and no kids have to die.
 
2014-04-08 05:09:36 PM

nmrsnr: And because this chart gave me so much joy last autism/vaccination thread, I'll share again:

[img.fark.net image 750x477]


High School econ classes (they still have those, right?) should include a mandatory segment on shiat like this. Call it "lies with statistics and how to identify them" or something.
 
2014-04-08 05:11:14 PM

RexTalionis: Whenever we have the antivaccination threads, there are always those who pop up and talk about how it's the parent's right to be able to raise their children in whatever manner necessary.

My solution is this: Allow parents to not vaccinate their children, but should it be shown that their unvaccinated children caused another child or person to become ill by a preponderance of the evidence, those parents should be liable for all damages necessary to cover the cost of treating the child or person or for wrongful death of that child or person (should it get to that point).

We'll see how many anti-vaccination proponents there are once they get slapped a few times with thousands of dollars in damages from other families.


Meh non-vaccinated children should be forced into isolation from the rest of society. Make them go live on an island somewhere, like Rikers Island.
 
2014-04-08 05:11:30 PM

DeaH: I have a cousin who is anti-vaxxer.  She is a lovely, caring, positive person, and she is not stupid. She is just really, really wrong about this. And there is no reason that will reach her about this topic - it ties too deeply to paranoia undergrid with a real, reasonable concern about shady business practices and bought-and-paid-for research.

I don't think we will ever change the mind of someone who is anti-vax. It's not worth it to even"gently broach this subject." Prudie is just wrong about that. But it is important to talk about it with others, and it is really important to disagree with her if she brings it up when others are present. We do not need new anti-vaxxers.


Willful ignorance is another word for stupidity. Your cousin is stupid.
 
2014-04-08 05:12:05 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.

I wanna see where you're going with this. Tell us your conclusion.


Nowhere, really. Not until I learn more about it. I suspect it's probably more than just conspiratorial nonsense.
 
2014-04-08 05:13:55 PM

Serious Black: That life is many magnitudes better than the life of a parent with a kid who died from a disease we learned how to prevent decades ago.


You are right. And you have made me sad.
 
2014-04-08 05:15:58 PM

DeaH: I have a cousin who is anti-vaxxer.  She is a lovely, caring, positive person, and she is not stupid. She is just really, really wrong about this. And there is no reason that will reach her about this topic - it ties too deeply to paranoia undergrid with a real, reasonable concern about shady business practices and bought-and-paid-for research.

I don't think we will ever change the mind of someone who is anti-vax. It's not worth it to even"gently broach this subject." Prudie is just wrong about that. But it is important to talk about it with others, and it is really important to disagree with her if she brings it up when others are present. We do not need new anti-vaxxers.


Those two statements contradict each other.
 
2014-04-08 05:16:16 PM

whidbey: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.

I wanna see where you're going with this. Tell us your conclusion.

Nowhere, really. Not until I learn more about it. I suspect it's probably more than just conspiratorial nonsense.


i have nothing to contribute, i just want to quote this for posterity

lord
 
2014-04-08 05:17:31 PM

impaler: nmrsnr: And because this chart gave me so much joy last autism/vaccination thread, I'll share again:

[img.fark.net image 750x477]

I loved the observation that everyone would get autism before all females get it.


It appears that autism is the next stage in human evolution.
 
2014-04-08 05:17:48 PM

whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.


It tells me that some people are damn sick and tired of people endangering their own kids and other people's kids because of some long-discredited fraudulent medical claims, and don't see any remaining value in trying to be polite about it.  Given the level of obstinate stupidity involved in the anti-vax viewpoint, it's reasonable to conclude that shaming is a viable way to attack the problem.
 
2014-04-08 05:18:00 PM

nmrsnr: And because this chart gave me so much joy last autism/vaccination thread, I'll share again:

[img.fark.net image 750x477]


That is GLORIOUS!!!
 
2014-04-08 05:18:40 PM
They recommend getting certain vaccines every time you're pregnant now because of anti vaccine morons.
 
2014-04-08 05:19:42 PM

Karac: RexTalionis: Whenever we have the antivaccination threads, there are always those who pop up and talk about how it's the parent's right to be able to raise their children in whatever manner necessary.

My solution is this: Allow parents to not vaccinate their children, but should it be shown that their unvaccinated children caused another child or person to become ill by a preponderance of the evidence, those parents should be liable for all damages necessary to cover the cost of treating the child or person or for wrongful death of that child or person (should it get to that point).

We'll see how many anti-vaccination proponents there are once they get slapped a few times with thousands of dollars in damages from other families.

I don't think we'd need to get lawyers involved.  Just remove the religious exemption from the vaccination mandate to have you kid attend a public school.  Or at least strengthen it to the point where it has to be an established belief of not only yourself but your church/congregation/coven/scientology center.

If the choice is having to homeschool or exposing their kid to autism, most parents would choose the autism.


The wording of religious exemption is ridiculous to begin with; It breaks down to "you believe your kid was given enough of an immune system by god, and that to vaccinate would be an affront to your faith by challenging your god's work as incomplete"... So the moment anyone w/a religious vaccination puts a bandaid on their kid, aren't they saying god didn't give their kid good enough clotting agents?  Or to specifically address anti-vaxxers' claim to a right to send their kids to public schools - wouldn't they believe god created their kids with enough information already in their brains, that to educate their kids would be an affront to god's work as incomplete?
 
2014-04-08 05:20:14 PM

whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.


The assholedom has been thoroughly earned.
 
2014-04-08 05:21:40 PM
Serious Black:

I understand the fear of having to take care of an autistic child. Being responsible for a kid with special needs is incredibly hard work. When you're off the clock, you're not really off the clock. When you're on the clock, virtually all of your energy and attention is devoted to them.

Isn't this what parenting should be?
 
2014-04-08 05:21:49 PM
My gf's sister is an anti-vaxxer, planning now for her first kid. She's very new age-y, but otherwise bright. But you cannot talk her out of this position. Because Big Pharma. And chemtrails. Or something.
 
2014-04-08 05:28:00 PM

SuburbanCowboy: Anti-Vaxxers should have the right to not vaccinate, but they should have to live on an island together.


We could put them on Vashon Is, but change the name to Vaxshun Is

Am I doing this right?.
 
2014-04-08 05:32:34 PM

Warlordtrooper: DeaH: I have a cousin who is anti-vaxxer.  She is a lovely, caring, positive person, and she is not stupid. She is just really, really wrong about this. And there is no reason that will reach her about this topic - it ties too deeply to paranoia undergrid with a real, reasonable concern about shady business practices and bought-and-paid-for research.

I don't think we will ever change the mind of someone who is anti-vax. It's not worth it to even"gently broach this subject." Prudie is just wrong about that. But it is important to talk about it with others, and it is really important to disagree with her if she brings it up when others are present. We do not need new anti-vaxxers.

Those two statements contradict each other.


Which two?
 
2014-04-08 05:33:31 PM

JesusJuice: DeaH: I have a cousin who is anti-vaxxer.  She is a lovely, caring, positive person, and she is not stupid. She is just really, really wrong about this. And there is no reason that will reach her about this topic - it ties too deeply to paranoia undergrid with a real, reasonable concern about shady business practices and bought-and-paid-for research.

I don't think we will ever change the mind of someone who is anti-vax. It's not worth it to even"gently broach this subject." Prudie is just wrong about that. But it is important to talk about it with others, and it is really important to disagree with her if she brings it up when others are present. We do not need new anti-vaxxers.

Willful ignorance is another word for stupidity. Your cousin is stupid.


She is stupid about that topic, certainly. Is she dumb in general? No.
 
2014-04-08 05:33:58 PM

hardinparamedic: whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.

The assholedom has been thoroughly earned.


Yeah but what if it turns out that there really are side effects? That some people are sensitive to the vaccinations?

Have there even been studies done on this?

I still see a lot of blind hostility.
 
2014-04-08 05:36:11 PM

whidbey: hardinparamedic: whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.

The assholedom has been thoroughly earned.

Yeah but what if it turns out that there really are side effects? That some people are sensitive to the vaccinations?

Have there even been studies done on this?

I still see a lot of blind hostility.


There are vaccinations that can prevent blindness. Study it out.
 
2014-04-08 05:37:51 PM

Cletus C.: whidbey: hardinparamedic: whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.

The assholedom has been thoroughly earned.

Yeah but what if it turns out that there really are side effects? That some people are sensitive to the vaccinations?

Have there even been studies done on this?

I still see a lot of blind hostility.

There are vaccinations that can prevent blindness. Study it out.


Well, seeing you weigh in on this almost answers my question outright.
 
2014-04-08 05:40:44 PM

whidbey: Cletus C.: whidbey: hardinparamedic: whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.

The assholedom has been thoroughly earned.

Yeah but what if it turns out that there really are side effects? That some people are sensitive to the vaccinations?

Have there even been studies done on this?

I still see a lot of blind hostility.

There are vaccinations that can prevent blindness. Study it out.

Well, seeing you weigh in on this almost answers my question outright.


I'm pretty sure you're trolling with your posts here, good buddy. I wasn't really biting, just trying to make a funny.
 
2014-04-08 05:42:22 PM

Semantic Warrior: Serious Black:

I understand the fear of having to take care of an autistic child. Being responsible for a kid with special needs is incredibly hard work. When you're off the clock, you're not really off the clock. When you're on the clock, virtually all of your energy and attention is devoted to them.

Isn't this what parenting should be?


Unless you've been a parent to a high-maintenance child, it's impossible to know just how ragged they will run you. I'm only an uncle to one, and the few times I have taken full responsibility for my niece have involved far more work and far more attention than any job I've ever had.
 
2014-04-08 05:43:24 PM
A friend's young daughter has recently had a case of mumps and is suffering terribly from a fairly common pancreatitis complication, swollen, painful tummy, vomiting, etc.

That poor kid... When I had pancreatitis, it felt like someone was taking a 4" core sample straight through my abdomen. At first, I couldn't even tell exactly what hurt; front, back, or center... I ended up spending almost 48 hours on a morphine drip, I can imagine what it's like for a kid...
 
2014-04-08 05:44:15 PM

Warlordtrooper: Those two statements contradict each other.


No, they don't, actually. This is A) A scary thing and B) something you need to realize in order to help innoculate yourself:

Being intelligent is A) Not protection from conspiracy theories, and B) *NOT PROTECTION FROM BRAINWASHING*. I'd have to dig up the studies, but I definitely recall reading somewhere that being intelligent *still* doesn't protect a person from brainwashing.

What can make you more vulnerable is the oh-too-human belief of "OH. Only idiots fall for conspiracy theories." And since few people *really* think of themselves as an idiot, this easily translates/morphs into "And I'm not an idiot. So this thing I believe can't be a conspiracy theory. So people who argue against me are wrong, or are dumb and not educated enough."
 
2014-04-08 05:45:01 PM

whidbey: hardinparamedic: whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.

The assholedom has been thoroughly earned.

Yeah but what if it turns out that there really are side effects? That some people are sensitive to the vaccinations?

Have there even been studies done on this?

I still see a lot of blind hostility.


There are potential side effects to vaccination, and some people are sensitive to them; it''s just that other than mild side effects (which are basically common cold-like symptoms) are so rare compared to potentially fatal complications from the contagious diseases vaccinations are designed to prevent.
Since there have been so many outbreaks of whooping cough and measles, the odds are against antivaxxers.


The irony of the antivax movement is that if you really are paranoid about vaccinating your kid, you're best scenario situation is to be completely silent about it, and immerse your kid within fully vaccinated kids.  The vocal movement of the situation only leads like-minded (or like-empty-minded) parents to congregate together, allowing all of their unvaccinated kids to be exposed to each other, so that if one does contract something, it's all but certain all the kids will.
 
2014-04-08 05:45:15 PM

whidbey: hardinparamedic: whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.

The assholedom has been thoroughly earned.

Yeah but what if it turns out that there really are side effects? That some people are sensitive to the vaccinations?

Have there even been studies done on this?

I still see a lot of blind hostility.


Yes, gentle flower, there can be side effects - and, yes, there have even been rare fatalities.
Yes, there have been studies - and, even, r/l tales by the odd farker

You know what else comes with such potential? Life - all of it - all of our activities

The hostility you may be seeing is the same that humankind has always held for those who are a danger. The blind hostility is because, unlike in the past, when we were holding handkerchiefs full of crush violets to our noses (a "pocket full of posey") to ward off the plague, we KNOW how to avoid these illnesses.

TO answer your question? The potential side effects- generally high fever ( but including, yes, death) of vaccines are FAR less than the potential side effects (loss of limbs, infertility, loss of hearing, scarring and yes, death - much of it) of NOT vax'ing.

The eradication of these diseases - indeed - the inception of the means to do so - is old enough - and researched enough - that your question is almost silly, And I say that as someone who lost two great uncles to the first version of polio vax.

In a society that thinks nothing of moving from Oxy's at 16 for wisdom teeth surgery to outright heroin usage, I find the hand-wringing on the over/under on vax for newbies quite strange.
 
2014-04-08 05:46:21 PM
I had a Facebook friend (an old high school acquaintance) unfriend me after I debunked (very politely, mind you) her antivaxx talking point about formaldehyde in vaccines. Seems she couldn't handle her worldview being challenged.
 
2014-04-08 05:48:13 PM
Thanks to Facebook, I recently found out that a good friend of mine from high school is an anti-vaxxer. I haven't tried to confront her about it at all. To be honest, I'm having trouble even processing the opinion that "Jenny McCarthy & I know more about basic health care than doctors." Just does not compute.
 
2014-04-08 05:50:16 PM
There's good evidence that almost all car accidents happen on roadways. I'm not going to take that chance with my children. That's why I drive on the sidewalk. If some of your children get run over, that's a risk I'm willing to take.

I don't actually have any children, but it seems like a good parallel to the anti-vax attitude. Except for the "good evidence" part, I suppose.
 
2014-04-08 05:53:35 PM
On the off chance that any of you anti-vaxx shiat wizards actually DO give a shiat about autism you should be very interested in this:

www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/04/02/298332344/map-of-the-developing- hu man-brain-shows-where-problems-begin

We're starting to uncover the specific mechanisms during the second trimester when autism, schizophrenia and other neurodevelopmental disorders happen. This means we will be able someday to detect and treat it in utero.

Obviously, the fact that we've known for decades that autism develops years before vaccines are administered and four months before the child is born rather undermines your insane bullshiat theories, but like I said there's a slim chance you actually give a shiat about autism itself. Or, you know, back to your shiat wizarding.
 
2014-04-08 05:54:40 PM

parasol: whidbey: hardinparamedic: whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.

The assholedom has been thoroughly earned.

Yeah but what if it turns out that there really are side effects? That some people are sensitive to the vaccinations?

Have there even been studies done on this?

I still see a lot of blind hostility.


Yes, gentle flower, there can be side effects


See, there's that hostility again.

- and, yes, there have even been rare fatalities.
Yes, there have been studies - and, even, r/l tales by the odd farker

You know what else comes with such potential? Life - all of it - all of our activities


Potential that means nothing if there are side effects and fatalities that haven't been documented.

Yes, there have been studies

Care to elaborate?
 
2014-04-08 05:54:48 PM

Splish: There's good evidence that almost all car accidents happen on roadways. I'm not going to take that chance with my children. That's why I drive on the sidewalk. If some of your children get run over, that's a risk I'm willing to take.

I don't actually have any children, but it seems like a good parallel to the anti-vax attitude. Except for the "good evidence" part, I suppose.


The anti-seatbelt stupidity is a pretty good parallel. You know the kind of moran who doesn't wear a seatbelt because he thinks it's safer to be thrown through the windshield in a crash than be strapped in the car when the inevitable Hollywood style car fire that happens during all car crashes.
 
2014-04-08 05:55:30 PM

whidbey: hardinparamedic: whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.

The assholedom has been thoroughly earned.

Yeah but what if it turns out that there really are side effects? That some people are sensitive to the vaccinations?

Have there even been studies done on this?

I still see a lot of blind hostility.


i hear a lot about 'double blindness' studies with vaccines

do we really want to inject chemicals that can cause double blindness into our children?
 
2014-04-08 05:56:14 PM

Felgraf: Warlordtrooper: Those two statements contradict each other.

No, they don't, actually. This is A) A scary thing and B) something you need to realize in order to help innoculate yourself:

Being intelligent is A) Not protection from conspiracy theories, and B) *NOT PROTECTION FROM BRAINWASHING*. I'd have to dig up the studies, but I definitely recall reading somewhere that being intelligent *still* doesn't protect a person from brainwashing.

What can make you more vulnerable is the oh-too-human belief of "OH. Only idiots fall for conspiracy theories." And since few people *really* think of themselves as an idiot, this easily translates/morphs into "And I'm not an idiot. So this thing I believe can't be a conspiracy theory. So people who argue against me are wrong, or are dumb and not educated enough."


It's about making yourself feel special because you have special knowledge that no one else has, or everyone else is part of the "sheeple" but you are one of the enlightened ones. It's all about appealing to the ego, and intelligent people are far more vulnerable to those kinds of manipulations. That's why being really smart makes you more likely to get sucked into a cult, because as you said, you think you're too smart for it and would never admit that you've been suckered.

That's why there's a lot of money to be made spreaking anti-vaxxer propoganda. If they buy into that crap, they'll buy your crap by the crapload. It's the old adage "follow the money" all over again, and the money is very good selling to people who want to feel like they're special and elite.
 
2014-04-08 05:57:56 PM

whidbey: Yeah but what if it turns out that there really are side effects? That some people are sensitive to the vaccinations?

Have there even been studies done on this?

I still see a lot of blind hostility.


There are possible reactions, most of them minor. And yes, studies have been done. However, the known percentage of serious reactions is very small. So yes further study can and should be done to determine if vaccines can be made safer.

However what is very well known is what life was like before vaccines. So yes people are hostile to idiots who would want to return to a world where 1 in 100 children died from horrible diseases to save the 1 in 1,000,000 who might have a reaction to modern vaccines.
 
2014-04-08 05:58:35 PM

sprawl15: whidbey: hardinparamedic: whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.

The assholedom has been thoroughly earned.

Yeah but what if it turns out that there really are side effects? That some people are sensitive to the vaccinations?

Have there even been studies done on this?

I still see a lot of blind hostility.

i hear a lot about 'double blindness' studies with vaccines

do we really want to inject chemicals that can cause double blindness into our children?


And I swear to god I had someone use that argument in person with me while arguing over vaccines.

And now I want to go find that woman and slap her senseless.
 
2014-04-08 05:59:25 PM

whidbey: parasol: whidbey: hardinparamedic: whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.

The assholedom has been thoroughly earned.

Yeah but what if it turns out that there really are side effects? That some people are sensitive to the vaccinations?

Have there even been studies done on this?

I still see a lot of blind hostility.


Yes, gentle flower, there can be side effects

See, there's that hostility again.

- and, yes, there have even been rare fatalities.
Yes, there have been studies - and, even, r/l tales by the odd farker

You know what else comes with such potential? Life - all of it - all of our activities

Potential that means nothing if there are side effects and fatalities that haven't been documented.

Yes, there have been studies

Care to elaborate?


There are farking mountains and mountians of data on the side effects of vaccines. They all say the same thing - there are a few side effects at statistically irrelevant levels compared to the disease itself. It makes the consensus on climate change or evolution look relatively weak.

It is fundamentally impossible for a vaccine given at one year to affect brain development that occurs in utero 18 months earlier. The entire anti-vaxx movement barely existed until admitted fraud and now banned from practicing medicine Andrew Wakefield published what later turned out to be fabricated evidence.

Given that it's based on a guy who lied and made shiat up and doesn't ever provide a mechanism by which it could happen the notion deserves ridicule.
 
2014-04-08 05:59:33 PM

whidbey: hardinparamedic: whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.

The assholedom has been thoroughly earned.

Yeah but what if it turns out that there really are side effects? That some people are sensitive to the vaccinations?

Have there even been studies done on this?

I still see a lot of blind hostility.


It's been studied to death, over and over.   So yes, there is hostility, but it is not blind.  And yes, there are a very small number of (non-autism-related) bad reactions to vaccines--just like any medical procedure (or just about anything we do), vaccination involves some degree of risk.  The benefits at an individual and population level vastly outweight the level of risk involved.  (For what it's worth, I keep my own vaccines, and those of my kid, up to date.)

And again, the alleged autism connection has been studied repeatedly, very thoroughly, and debunked.  The antivaxxers started out by relying on a paper by one Andrew Wakefield.   The paper has been discredited as fraudulent, was withdrawn by the Lancet, and Wakefield was barred from practicing medicine in the UK.  Multiple later studies found no connection between vaccination and autism.

I can't really discern what really keeps antivaxxers going, given Wakefield's proven fakery--I guess it's just a general paranoia about "Big Pharma."  But really, if you're going to distrust everything sold or promoted by corporate interests, you shouldn't be eating anything except food you grow yourself or buy straight from the farmer, and shouldn't use any products except those made from wood you've cut and hewn yourself or metal that you've smelted and forged for yourself.
 
2014-04-08 06:00:19 PM

BigBooper: So yes further study can and should be done to determine if vaccines can be made safer.


That's also my concern.

However what is very well known is what life was like before vaccines. So yes people are hostile to idiots who would want to return to a world where 1 in 100 children died from horrible diseases to save the 1 in 1,000,000 who might have a reaction to modern vaccines.

But I believe the concerns are whether or not that ratio is accurate, that there could be more fatalities or ill side effects.
 
2014-04-08 06:00:41 PM
Anti-vaxxers are just this generations Pascal's wager.   They don't see people sick from the diseases that the vaccines are supposed to help with, versus the "Hell" case of getting autism.  So they follow the logic of Pascal's Wager.  I know several highly intelligent people that fell into the trap of Pascal's Wager because of their kids.  People do crazy things for/about their babies.  Doesn't help that pregnant brain isn't a highly rationale one.
/I only ever hear of female anti-vaxxers.  I have to assume there are male ones, but they are the minor minority right?
 
2014-04-08 06:01:27 PM

whidbey: parasol: whidbey: hardinparamedic: whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.

The assholedom has been thoroughly earned.

Yeah but what if it turns out that there really are side effects? That some people are sensitive to the vaccinations?

Have there even been studies done on this?

I still see a lot of blind hostility.


Yes, gentle flower, there can be side effects

See, there's that hostility again.

- and, yes, there have even been rare fatalities.
Yes, there have been studies - and, even, r/l tales by the odd farker

You know what else comes with such potential? Life - all of it - all of our activities

Potential that means nothing if there are side effects and fatalities that haven't been documented.

Yes, there have been studies

Care to elaborate?


1 - I am not hostile at all - truly - this isn't a great medium to convey emotion, so please, trust that
2 - Side effects and fatalities are well documented - particularly the later since a death certificate is involved - similarly, the CDC and Pediatric Associations submit studies.

I understand an inherent suspicion of "big pharma" - I remember Thalidomide - however, the "vaccines cause autism" theory has been largely debunked and "I have a right to put my child at risk" went out the proverbial window when we made car seats mandatory.

Please don't ask me to post links for you - I am cooking pork chops - which apparently are the next harbringer of "not ebola" hommoragic fever - along with a nice sweet potato side dish.
 
2014-04-08 06:02:26 PM

Raoul Eaton: I guess it's just a general paranoia about "Big Pharma."  But really, if you're going to distrust everything sold or promoted by corporate interests, you shouldn't be eating anything except food you grow yourself or buy straight from the farmer, and shouldn't use any products except those made from wood you've cut and hewn yourself or metal that you've smelted and forged for yourself.


If the anti-vaxxing paranoia is about distrust of corporate interests, then that legitimately shows a greater need for transparency, especially when it comes to things we are ingesting into our bodies.
 
2014-04-08 06:02:48 PM

whidbey: hardinparamedic: whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.

The assholedom has been thoroughly earned.

Yeah but what if it turns out that there really are side effects? That some people are sensitive to the vaccinations?

Have there even been studies done on this?

I still see a lot of blind hostility.


I say we let the people who are against vaccines keep it up until something really nasty is brought back like polio. When their kids are having to have machines breath for them maybe they'll change their minds?
 
2014-04-08 06:03:44 PM

parasol: Please don't ask me to post links for you - I am cooking pork chops - which apparently are the next harbringer of "not ebola" hommoragic fever - along with a nice sweet potato side dish.


That actually sounds lovely.
 
2014-04-08 06:05:41 PM

whidbey: Raoul Eaton: I guess it's just a general paranoia about "Big Pharma."  But really, if you're going to distrust everything sold or promoted by corporate interests, you shouldn't be eating anything except food you grow yourself or buy straight from the farmer, and shouldn't use any products except those made from wood you've cut and hewn yourself or metal that you've smelted and forged for yourself.

If the anti-vaxxing paranoia is about distrust of corporate interests, then that legitimately shows a greater need for transparency, especially when it comes to things we are ingesting into our bodies.


It's about listening to a guy called Wakefield who WE NOW KNOW LIED ABOUT EVERYTHING

That's it. There's no legitimacy. period.
 
2014-04-08 06:06:02 PM

whidbey: Yeah but what if it turns out that there really are side effects? That some people are sensitive to the vaccinations?

Have there even been studies done on this?

I still see a lot of blind hostility.


In a procedure as common as vaccination, even low-frequency complications become very obvious very quickly.

So the answer to this is yes, studies have been done, issues have been noted and corrected, and doctors will note something like a low-grade uncommon allergy and take steps to mitigate it.  And low-grade allergies to additives is about the worst complication that ever happens with modern vaccines, no other complication has occurred.

Most people would consider a 0.1 in 100k chance to have to take an antihistamine pill for a couple of days a reasonable alternative to having a 1 in 10 chance to be permanently scarred by a disease that confines you to a wheelchair for the rest of your life (polio) or a 1 in five change of getting a disease that kills you outright half the time (smallpox).

// Amusingly, the chemical that the anti-vaxxers blame for the rise in autism, themiosal, hasn't been in use in vaccines for two decades.  Not because of the mercury thing, because other cheaper and more effective preservative compounds displaced it.

worlddan: What a thoroughly horrible idea. Your suggestion is that some children have to die in order to teach retards a lesson. Why should any child have to suffer in the first place at the hands on another set of parents? We require obligatory school attendance (or a legally sanctioned alternative). We can certainlly legally require all children to get vaccinated.


In at least the states where the bulk of the US population lives, you  have to home-school if you want to not vaccinate your children.  Attendance at state-supported institutions (including charters, but not fully private schools) is legally predicated on your kid being vaccinated.

Maybe it's different in states with a population density of like one guy and half a mule per square light-year like Montana, but everywhere else basic public health concerns actually are legally enforced.
 
2014-04-08 06:10:54 PM

A Terrible Human: I say we let the people who are against vaccines keep it up until something really nasty is brought back like polio. When their kids are having to have machines breath for them maybe they'll change their minds?


That's not actually how vaccines work.  They don't grant 100% immunity, they protect the overall population by granting sufficiently statistically widespread immunity that there isn't a sufficiently viable set of vectors for the disease to get from one non-immune person to the next.

Unvaccinated kids are as likely or more to kill random innocent bystanders who  are vaccinated as themselves.
 
2014-04-08 06:12:10 PM

whidbey: Raoul Eaton: I guess it's just a general paranoia about "Big Pharma."  But really, if you're going to distrust everything sold or promoted by corporate interests, you shouldn't be eating anything except food you grow yourself or buy straight from the farmer, and shouldn't use any products except those made from wood you've cut and hewn yourself or metal that you've smelted and forged for yourself.

If the anti-vaxxing paranoia is about distrust of corporate interests, then that legitimately shows a greater need for transparency, especially when it comes to things we are ingesting into our bodies.


You do understand that the modern concept of "transparency" means "feed it to me"?

If you are concerned, and want to know, don't come to fark - do your homework - and it is some deep reading. The research into brain development, in utero, and the explosive growth in neurons that results in autism will keep you engaged for long enough to cook a turkey - it did here. I look forward to this research as it moves forward.

Just saying "well? I am not sure, and no one has given it to me in memo form" only works for fast food managers.
 
2014-04-08 06:12:58 PM

max_pooper: Splish: There's good evidence that almost all car accidents happen on roadways. I'm not going to take that chance with my children. That's why I drive on the sidewalk. If some of your children get run over, that's a risk I'm willing to take.

I don't actually have any children, but it seems like a good parallel to the anti-vax attitude. Except for the "good evidence" part, I suppose.

The anti-seatbelt stupidity is a pretty good parallel. You know the kind of moran who doesn't wear a seatbelt because he thinks it's safer to be thrown through the windshield in a crash than be strapped in the car when the inevitable Hollywood style car fire that happens during all car crashes.



My dad won't wear seatbelts because he thinks they're an infringement on his freedom.

///He wears 'em when I drive, though.  The car doesn't go into gear until all buckes are buckled.
//First time I did that, we had to sit in the driveway for about 15 minutes with the motor running and the gear in "park" before he realized I was serious....

/Don't mean to threadjack with a CSB - just pointing out there are multiple ways for smart people to arrive at blatantly stupid opinions
 
2014-04-08 06:15:02 PM

Serious Black: Semantic Warrior: Serious Black:

I understand the fear of having to take care of an autistic child. Being responsible for a kid with special needs is incredibly hard work. When you're off the clock, you're not really off the clock. When you're on the clock, virtually all of your energy and attention is devoted to them.

Isn't this what parenting should be?

Unless you've been a parent to a high-maintenance child, it's impossible to know just how ragged they will run you. I'm only an uncle to one, and the few times I have taken full responsibility for my niece have involved far more work and far more attention than any job I've ever had.



They can wear you down until your last remaining neuron is a smoking, worn-out nub.

//speaking from lots of experience
 
2014-04-08 06:18:47 PM

parasol: whidbey: Raoul Eaton: I guess it's just a general paranoia about "Big Pharma."  But really, if you're going to distrust everything sold or promoted by corporate interests, you shouldn't be eating anything except food you grow yourself or buy straight from the farmer, and shouldn't use any products except those made from wood you've cut and hewn yourself or metal that you've smelted and forged for yourself.

If the anti-vaxxing paranoia is about distrust of corporate interests, then that legitimately shows a greater need for transparency, especially when it comes to things we are ingesting into our bodies.


You do understand that the modern concept of "transparency" means "feed it to me"?


It's a two-way street. But you're basically saying "leave Big Pharma alone."

Just saying "well? I am not sure, and no one has given it to me in memo form" only works for fast food managers.

It actually works for most honest people who have concerns and also have the guts to admit they haven't done the research.
 
2014-04-08 06:19:01 PM

Raoul Eaton: max_pooper: Splish: There's good evidence that almost all car accidents happen on roadways. I'm not going to take that chance with my children. That's why I drive on the sidewalk. If some of your children get run over, that's a risk I'm willing to take.

I don't actually have any children, but it seems like a good parallel to the anti-vax attitude. Except for the "good evidence" part, I suppose.

The anti-seatbelt stupidity is a pretty good parallel. You know the kind of moran who doesn't wear a seatbelt because he thinks it's safer to be thrown through the windshield in a crash than be strapped in the car when the inevitable Hollywood style car fire that happens during all car crashes.


My dad won't wear seatbelts because he thinks they're an infringement on his freedom.

///He wears 'em when I drive, though.  The car doesn't go into gear until all buckes are buckled.
//First time I did that, we had to sit in the driveway for about 15 minutes with the motor running and the gear in "park" before he realized I was serious....

/Don't mean to threadjack with a CSB - just pointing out there are multiple ways for smart people to arrive at blatantly stupid opinions


No, I think you had an apt post. I also knew someone who didn't wear a seatbelt because he thought it would be better to be "thrown clear" in case of a wreck. He was a supposedly smart man, but somehow that idea had gotten into his brain and he wouldn't let it go. It's the tendency to confuse what's possible with what's probable. Is it possible he'd be correct? yes. Is it probable that he'd be worse off for not wearing his seat belt? Yes.

That's the same thing about vaccine paranoia. is it possible that something could go wrong with it? Yes. But it's a lot more probable that something will go wrong without a vaccine. And I'm afraid it's going to take a few kids of anti-vaxxers getting crippled, blinded, or deafened from an easily preventable disease before they understand why what they're doing is stupid.
 
2014-04-08 06:19:56 PM

Raoul Eaton: I can't really discern what really keeps antivaxxers going, given Wakefield's proven fakery--I guess it's just a general paranoia about "Big Pharma."


One of my favourite "conspiracy theories" is how Big Pharma is secretly funding the anti-vaccination movement.
 
2014-04-08 06:20:33 PM
Who needs bioterrorism when you've got anti-vaxxers?
 
2014-04-08 06:21:07 PM

whidbey: Yeah but what if it turns out that there really are side effects? That some people are sensitive to the vaccinations?

Have there even been studies done on this?

I still see a lot of blind hostility.


Let's take the polio vaccine.

Before the Salk vaccine, something like one in four children contracted the virus.  Most recovered completely, but many, well, didn't.  My mother caught it at the age of 2 - she spent time in an iron lung, she was in hospital for going on a couple of years, she was sent home to die and miraculously pulled through.  It left her unable to walk unaided for the rest of her life, and she was extremely lucky to avoid post-polio syndrome in her middle-age.  Oh, and hard and expensive to insure until the ACA went into law.

In 1952, there were 57,628 cases reported, 3,145 died and 21,269 had lasting paralysis.  Nine years later, thanks to the vaccine, there were 161 reported cases.  The last reported cases in the US were in unvaccinated populations (Amish) in 1979.  This year, even India has been declared Polio-free.

Even if the old vaccine had had health risks, it would have been fairly easy to see if "number of deaths" was significantly less than three thousand.  The current vaccine has less than a one in a million chance of an allergic reaction (to trace antibiotics) which can be life-threatening - given that there are approximately 4 million births a year in this country, that's 4 children a year who will go into anaphylaxis, and in all likelihood there'll be a nurse with an epi pen right there.  So... what's it to be, three thousand deaths and 20,000 cripplings a year, or 4 kids have a touch-and-go moment?
 
2014-04-08 06:23:19 PM

DeaH: I have a cousin who is anti-vaxxer.  She is a lovely, caring, positive person, and she is not stupid. She is just really, really wrong about this. And there is no reason that will reach her about this topic - it ties too deeply to paranoia undergrid with a real, reasonable concern about shady business practices and bought-and-paid-for research.

I don't think we will ever change the mind of someone who is anti-vax. It's not worth it to even"gently broach this subject." Prudie is just wrong about that. But it is important to talk about it with others, and it is really important to disagree with her if she brings it up when others are present. We do not need new anti-vaxxers.


That's called being stupid. Doesn't matter your reasoning, being an anti-vaxxer is just flat out idiotic, reckless and you should go on a list. Much like a sexual predator, you should go on a list and when moving into a neighborhood, have to go door to door admitting how stupid you are. In addition, can be booted out of the community of it decides to vote on you being removed for recklessly endangering the community.
 
2014-04-08 06:25:15 PM

max_pooper: Splish: There's good evidence that almost all car accidents happen on roadways. I'm not going to take that chance with my children. That's why I drive on the sidewalk. If some of your children get run over, that's a risk I'm willing to take.

I don't actually have any children, but it seems like a good parallel to the anti-vax attitude. Except for the "good evidence" part, I suppose.

The anti-seatbelt stupidity is a pretty good parallel. You know the kind of moran who doesn't wear a seatbelt because he thinks it's safer to be thrown through the windshield in a crash than be strapped in the car when the inevitable Hollywood style car fire that happens during all car crashes.


You not wearing a seatbelt doesn't put me at risk.
 
2014-04-08 06:27:48 PM

whidbey: parasol: whidbey: Raoul Eaton: I guess it's just a general paranoia about "Big Pharma."  But really, if you're going to distrust everything sold or promoted by corporate interests, you shouldn't be eating anything except food you grow yourself or buy straight from the farmer, and shouldn't use any products except those made from wood you've cut and hewn yourself or metal that you've smelted and forged for yourself.

If the anti-vaxxing paranoia is about distrust of corporate interests, then that legitimately shows a greater need for transparency, especially when it comes to things we are ingesting into our bodies.


You do understand that the modern concept of "transparency" means "feed it to me"?

It's a two-way street. But you're basically saying "leave Big Pharma alone."

Just saying "well? I am not sure, and no one has given it to me in memo form" only works for fast food managers.

It actually works for most honest people who have concerns and also have the guts to admit they haven't done the research.


Ah! The "Big Pharma" argument!
 
2014-04-08 06:28:09 PM

Splish: You not wearing a seatbelt doesn't put me at risk.


It he's in the same car as you it does.
 
2014-04-08 06:29:29 PM

RexTalionis: Whenever we have the antivaccination threads, there are always those who pop up and talk about how it's the parent's right to be able to raise their children in whatever manner necessary.

My solution is this: Allow parents to not vaccinate their children, but should it be shown that their unvaccinated children caused another child or person to become ill by a preponderance of the evidence, those parents should be liable for all damages necessary to cover the cost of treating the child or person or for wrongful death of that child or person (should it get to that point).

We'll see how many anti-vaccination proponents there are once they get slapped a few times with thousands of dollars in damages from other families.


I'm half-tempted to go all Coase Theorem here and say "or just allow parents of other children in the neighborhood to pay these parents to have their children vaccinated."

Kidding about that. But seriously, I think the problem here is the assumption of rational actors, which is what you need to get someone to internalize an externality. It's established that anti-vaxxers are impervious to science and can't generally be reasoned with. How can we expect them to calculate the risk of liability? Hell, even after the huge jury awards start coming out, they'll probably start embracing conspiracy theories about how the cases were rigged.
 
2014-04-08 06:32:32 PM

whidbey: parasol: whidbey: Raoul Eaton: I guess it's just a general paranoia about "Big Pharma."  But really, if you're going to distrust everything sold or promoted by corporate interests, you shouldn't be eating anything except food you grow yourself or buy straight from the farmer, and shouldn't use any products except those made from wood you've cut and hewn yourself or metal that you've smelted and forged for yourself.

If the anti-vaxxing paranoia is about distrust of corporate interests, then that legitimately shows a greater need for transparency, especially when it comes to things we are ingesting into our bodies.


You do understand that the modern concept of "transparency" means "feed it to me"?

It's a two-way street. But you're basically saying "leave Big Pharma alone."

Just saying "well? I am not sure, and no one has given it to me in memo form" only works for fast food managers.

It actually works for most honest people who have concerns and also have the guts to admit they haven't done the research.


You started out in this thread sounding like someone who was genuinely curious but not too well-informed.  You've been given some good answers, and you just keep popping back with "tell me more."  If you want more detail, go look it up yourself.  We're not your research assistants.  Start with Wakefield, who started this idiocy.
 
2014-04-08 06:34:03 PM

whidbey: It's a two-way street. But you're basically saying "leave Big Pharma alone."


Are you going to put the on a *list*, Skookum?

/You of all people have no real ground to biatch about hostility.
//Given that you built a troll alt to FOSTER it.
 
2014-04-08 06:34:24 PM

Jim_Callahan: In at least the states where the bulk of the US population lives, you have to home-school if you want to not vaccinate your children. Attendance at state-supported institutions (including charters, but not fully private schools) is legally predicated on your kid being vaccinated.

Maybe it's different in states with a population density of like one guy and half a mule per square light-year like Montana, but everywhere else basic public health concerns actually are legally enforced.


"Although exemptions vary from state to state, all school immunization laws grant exemptions to children for medical reasons.  Almost all states, except Mississippi and West Virginia, grant religious exemptions for people who have religious beliefs against immunizations.  Nineteen states allow philosophical exemptions for those who object to immunizations because of a personal, moral or other beliefs."

Actually, anti-vaxers can get around the requirements pretty easily. I wouldn't exactly call California. Michigan, Texas, or Ohio unpopulated states. All four of those states allow "philosophical" exemptions.
 
2014-04-08 06:36:47 PM

Shedim: Raoul Eaton: I can't really discern what really keeps antivaxxers going, given Wakefield's proven fakery--I guess it's just a general paranoia about "Big Pharma."

One of my favourite "conspiracy theories" is how Big Pharma is secretly funding the anti-vaccination movement.



So if I switch sides, who do I contact to start getting paid?  I could use a little cash right about now....
 
2014-04-08 06:38:48 PM

whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.


Some people don't suffer fools lightly.  Especially fools who endanger others with their foolishness.
 
2014-04-08 06:41:40 PM

Raoul Eaton: whidbey: parasol: whidbey: Raoul Eaton: I guess it's just a general paranoia about "Big Pharma."  But really, if you're going to distrust everything sold or promoted by corporate interests, you shouldn't be eating anything except food you grow yourself or buy straight from the farmer, and shouldn't use any products except those made from wood you've cut and hewn yourself or metal that you've smelted and forged for yourself.

If the anti-vaxxing paranoia is about distrust of corporate interests, then that legitimately shows a greater need for transparency, especially when it comes to things we are ingesting into our bodies.


You do understand that the modern concept of "transparency" means "feed it to me"?

It's a two-way street. But you're basically saying "leave Big Pharma alone."

Just saying "well? I am not sure, and no one has given it to me in memo form" only works for fast food managers.

It actually works for most honest people who have concerns and also have the guts to admit they haven't done the research.

You started out in this thread sounding like someone who was genuinely curious but not too well-informed.  You've been given some good answers, and you just keep popping back with "tell me more."


Actually, I asked for specific studies which prove that side effects and fatalities aren't something to be concerned about.

If you want more detail, go look it up yourself.  We're not your research assistants.  Start with Wakefield, who started this idiocy.

I'm convinced that Wakefield's work has been debunked.

There is clearly a bigger issue here, that there is distrust of pharmaceutical companies and for good reason. And until that trust is either restored or earned, the concerns should not be simply waved aside.
 
2014-04-08 06:43:37 PM

whidbey: Raoul Eaton: whidbey: parasol: whidbey: Raoul Eaton: I guess it's just a general paranoia about "Big Pharma."  But really, if you're going to distrust everything sold or promoted by corporate interests, you shouldn't be eating anything except food you grow yourself or buy straight from the farmer, and shouldn't use any products except those made from wood you've cut and hewn yourself or metal that you've smelted and forged for yourself.

If the anti-vaxxing paranoia is about distrust of corporate interests, then that legitimately shows a greater need for transparency, especially when it comes to things we are ingesting into our bodies.


You do understand that the modern concept of "transparency" means "feed it to me"?

It's a two-way street. But you're basically saying "leave Big Pharma alone."

Just saying "well? I am not sure, and no one has given it to me in memo form" only works for fast food managers.

It actually works for most honest people who have concerns and also have the guts to admit they haven't done the research.

You started out in this thread sounding like someone who was genuinely curious but not too well-informed.  You've been given some good answers, and you just keep popping back with "tell me more."

Actually, I asked for specific studies which prove that side effects and fatalities aren't something to be concerned about.

If you want more detail, go look it up yourself.  We're not your research assistants.  Start with Wakefield, who started this idiocy.

I'm convinced that Wakefield's work has been debunked.

There is clearly a bigger issue here, that there is distrust of pharmaceutical companies and for good reason. And until that trust is either restored or earned, the concerns should not be simply waved aside.


Then don't send your children to public school. Problem solved.
 
2014-04-08 06:45:10 PM

divx88: DeaH: I have a cousin who is anti-vaxxer.  She is a lovely, caring, positive person, and she is not stupid. She is just really, really wrong about this. And there is no reason that will reach her about this topic - it ties too deeply to paranoia undergrid with a real, reasonable concern about shady business practices and bought-and-paid-for research.

I don't think we will ever change the mind of someone who is anti-vax. It's not worth it to even"gently broach this subject." Prudie is just wrong about that. But it is important to talk about it with others, and it is really important to disagree with her if she brings it up when others are present. We do not need new anti-vaxxers.

That's called being stupid. Doesn't matter your reasoning, being an anti-vaxxer is just flat out idiotic, reckless and you should go on a list. Much like a sexual predator, you should go on a list and when moving into a neighborhood, have to go door to door admitting how stupid you are. In addition, can be booted out of the community of it decides to vote on you being removed for recklessly endangering the community.


The problem is that quite intelligent people can have stupid ideas, so you would have a hard time just saying its a problem of the stupid. The other issue is that not all anti-vaxxers are still raising children. Some of them are grand parents, and some of them just do not trust the large pharmaceutical companies, and the anti-vax stuff is just one arrow in the quiver. It's comforting to make this a simple issue, but that's called being stupid (about the issue - I am certain you are lovely and reasonable on other topics).

Any helpful registry would target the unvaccinated children. And that makes children a potential target for violence. I doubt you want that. Better would be disallowing religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccination requirements. Anti-vaxxers would scream bloody murder, but they are in the minority and it would provide better protection than a list.
 
2014-04-08 06:47:44 PM

whidbey: BigBooper: So yes further study can and should be done to determine if vaccines can be made safer.

That's also my concern.

However what is very well known is what life was like before vaccines. So yes people are hostile to idiots who would want to return to a world where 1 in 100 children died from horrible diseases to save the 1 in 1,000,000 who might have a reaction to modern vaccines.

But I believe the concerns are whether or not that ratio is accurate, that there could be more fatalities or ill side effects.


Google (scholar) is your friend.
Tracking side effects? Scientists are on it.
There is no good scientific evidence to support a link between MMR vaccine and autism or inflammatory bowel disease; indeed there is mounting evidence that shows no link.
This study provides strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR vaccination causes autism.
Even before it is available to the public: Trials of a new version of the smallpox vaccine have been halted because of a rare side effect.
 
2014-04-08 06:48:30 PM

iq_in_binary: whidbey: Raoul Eaton: whidbey: parasol: whidbey: Raoul Eaton: I guess it's just a general paranoia about "Big Pharma."  But really, if you're going to distrust everything sold or promoted by corporate interests, you shouldn't be eating anything except food you grow yourself or buy straight from the farmer, and shouldn't use any products except those made from wood you've cut and hewn yourself or metal that you've smelted and forged for yourself.

If the anti-vaxxing paranoia is about distrust of corporate interests, then that legitimately shows a greater need for transparency, especially when it comes to things we are ingesting into our bodies.


You do understand that the modern concept of "transparency" means "feed it to me"?

It's a two-way street. But you're basically saying "leave Big Pharma alone."

Just saying "well? I am not sure, and no one has given it to me in memo form" only works for fast food managers.

It actually works for most honest people who have concerns and also have the guts to admit they haven't done the research.

You started out in this thread sounding like someone who was genuinely curious but not too well-informed.  You've been given some good answers, and you just keep popping back with "tell me more."

Actually, I asked for specific studies which prove that side effects and fatalities aren't something to be concerned about.

If you want more detail, go look it up yourself.  We're not your research assistants.  Start with Wakefield, who started this idiocy.

I'm convinced that Wakefield's work has been debunked.

There is clearly a bigger issue here, that there is distrust of pharmaceutical companies and for good reason. And until that trust is either restored or earned, the concerns should not be simply waved aside.

Then don't send your children to public school. Problem solved.


So it isn't in our best interest to make pharmaceutical companies a little less big, scary and unregulated, it's up to us to go somewhere else.

Same advice they gave to blacks, just saying.
 
2014-04-08 06:49:51 PM
That last sentence should also be a hyperlink, but Fark ate it:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6985/full/428789b.html
 
2014-04-08 06:50:26 PM

whidbey: Actually, I asked for specific studies which prove that side effects and fatalities aren't something to be concerned about.


No, actually you've been borderline tone and concern trolling this entire thread, because you don't like the fact that people have gotten tired of anti-vaxxers accusing them of maiming and killing children, inane conspiracy theories, and circular arguments that get repeated every time the topic comes up, no matter how many times it's pointed out that vaccine adverse events are rare, do not cause autism, etc.

For MMR, for example, the side effects most common are a fever, which while unpleasant, are hardly life threatening. The odds of a fatal or life-threatening reaction in the United States are 1:1,000,000. The odds of measles encephalopathy is around 1:1000, and a fatal degenerative nerve condition induced by measles occurs in 1:10,000 cases.

whidbey: There is clearly a bigger issue here, that there is distrust of pharmaceutical companies and for good reason. And until that trust is either restored or earned, the concerns should not be simply waved aside.


No one is waving concerns aside. What they are pointing out is that there is ample evidence from independent resources, Governments, and universities unaffiliated with pharmaceutical companies to demonstrate that your concerns can be addressed and - provided you are able to perform a basic risk versus benefit assessment, can be seen that even though there is a VERY SLIGHT risk of an adverse event, the benefit FAR outweighs the harm.

Of course, these concerns could be addressed in a five second google search.
 
2014-04-08 06:53:31 PM

whidbey: So it isn't in our best interest to make pharmaceutical companies a little less big, scary and unregulated, it's up to us to go somewhere else.

Same advice they gave to blacks, just saying.


You normally post intelligent, relevant commentary on threads on FARK.

This is not one of your most intelligent, or relevant commentary events on FARK.

And in reality, Vaccines in the United States are thoroughly tested, highly regulated, and evaluated, with each adverse event able to be tracked using the VAERS system (whether it's honest or not is another question, since VAERS is open to accept entries from anyone - healthcare or not, and is frequently reported with the intent of litigation.)
 
2014-04-08 06:55:46 PM

hardinparamedic: No, actually you've been borderline tone and concern trolling this entire thread, because you don't like the fact that people have gotten tired of anti-vaxxers accusing them of maiming and killing children, inane conspiracy theories, and circular arguments that get repeated every time the topic comes up, no matter how many times it's pointed out that vaccine adverse events are rare, do not cause autism, etc.


Whatever gets you through the night.

And you've done little to dispel my suspicions of anti-anti-vaxxers. You're downright rude, and unwilling to entertain that the distrust against corporate pharmaceutical practices are valid. So far, I've just heard the "go somewhere else" argument.

Welcome to Fark, right?
 
2014-04-08 06:58:14 PM

RexTalionis: Whenever we have the antivaccination threads, there are always those who pop up and talk about how it's the parent's right to be able to raise their children in whatever manner necessary.

My solution is this: Allow parents to not vaccinate their children, but should it be shown that their unvaccinated children caused another child or person to become ill by a preponderance of the evidence, those parents should be liable for all damages necessary to cover the cost of treating the child or person or for wrongful death of that child or person (should it get to that point).

We'll see how many anti-vaccination proponents there are once they get slapped a few times with thousands of dollars in damages from other families.


But if al the other children are already vaccinated....
 
2014-04-08 07:00:50 PM

whidbey: Actually, I asked for specific studies which prove that side effects and fatalities aren't something to be concerned about.


If only one of the largest and most famous US government programs that every five-year-old already knows about had an entire branch dedicated to your question which could be easily found by literally just typing "vaccine side effects" into google and hitting the I'm Feeling Lucky button and following some obvious links.

Alas, the information is clearly deeply hidden and obscure, so it will just have to remain a mystery why literally everyone on FARK now thinks you're one of the world's biggest morons for not being able to find it yourself.  Truly, an enigma for the ages why our standards are so unreasonably high.
 
2014-04-08 07:01:08 PM

whidbey: And you've done little to dispel my suspicions of anti-anti-vaxxers. You're downright rude, and unwilling to entertain that the distrust against corporate pharmaceutical practices are valid. So far, I've just heard the "go somewhere else" argument.


Wait, he gave you evidence to show that vaccines are safe, regardless of whether you agree with corporate practices or not. What more do you want? I haven't seen you bring anything near as informative as what he brought.
 
2014-04-08 07:01:55 PM

whidbey: And you've done little to dispel my suspicions of anti-anti-vaxxers. You're downright rude, and unwilling to entertain that the distrust against corporate pharmaceutical practices are valid. So far, I've just heard the "go somewhere else" argument.


Okay. So thank you for proving my point.

You're a tone troll. That was your entire motivation in this thread. You really don't care that we have to deal with this idiocy on a day to day basis, or that there is motivation that can be found in a five second google search to treat anti-vaxxers like the idiots they are. You just don't think someone should be mean to you on the internet because you have an opinion (That is either misinformed, at best - or at worse, you're concern trolling and "just asking questions" to either get a rise out of people, or to hide the fact you're either bought into McCarthy et all's idiocy, hold some pretty interesting conspiracy theories, or you have a lack of knowledge of the topic at hand.

So which is it?
 
2014-04-08 07:04:26 PM

clowncar on fire: But if al the other children are already vaccinated....


Vaccination is only nominally effective if a certain percentage of vaccinated children are reached - i.e. the "herd immunity" levels for vaccination. The reason for this is that while vaccination primes the immune system to respond to small viral or bacterial loads encountered in passing situations, if a high enough viral or bacterial load is achieved, infection can still occur.

Vaccination is like armor. It makes you difficult to get sick, but it does not make you immune, per say, with a few exceptions.
 
2014-04-08 07:06:06 PM

whidbey: And you've done little to dispel my suspicions of anti-anti-vaxxers. You're downright rude, and unwilling to entertain that the distrust against corporate pharmaceutical practices are valid. So far, I've just heard the "go somewhere else" argument.


SAys the creator of Skookum.

Why, again, should we assume you aren't trolling here?

Are we all going on a list?
 
2014-04-08 07:06:11 PM

whidbey: iq_in_binary: whidbey: Raoul Eaton: whidbey: parasol: whidbey: Raoul Eaton: I guess it's just a general paranoia about "Big Pharma."  But really, if you're going to distrust everything sold or promoted by corporate interests, you shouldn't be eating anything except food you grow yourself or buy straight from the farmer, and shouldn't use any products except those made from wood you've cut and hewn yourself or metal that you've smelted and forged for yourself.

If the anti-vaxxing paranoia is about distrust of corporate interests, then that legitimately shows a greater need for transparency, especially when it comes to things we are ingesting into our bodies.


You do understand that the modern concept of "transparency" means "feed it to me"?

It's a two-way street. But you're basically saying "leave Big Pharma alone."

Just saying "well? I am not sure, and no one has given it to me in memo form" only works for fast food managers.

It actually works for most honest people who have concerns and also have the guts to admit they haven't done the research.

You started out in this thread sounding like someone who was genuinely curious but not too well-informed.  You've been given some good answers, and you just keep popping back with "tell me more."

Actually, I asked for specific studies which prove that side effects and fatalities aren't something to be concerned about.

If you want more detail, go look it up yourself.  We're not your research assistants.  Start with Wakefield, who started this idiocy.

I'm convinced that Wakefield's work has been debunked.

There is clearly a bigger issue here, that there is distrust of pharmaceutical companies and for good reason. And until that trust is either restored or earned, the concerns should not be simply waved aside.

Then don't send your children to public school. Problem solved.

So it isn't in our best interest to make pharmaceutical companies a little less big, scary and unregulated, it's up to us to go somewhere else.
...


You're confusing the industry that monitors the effects of vaccines for the industry that manufactures them.

The pharma companies are monitored just fine, by the scientists that study the effects of the products they sell. If there are problems with them, they are observed and published. By scientists. With years of education under their belts and in this particular scientific pursuit some of the most rigorous standards of pedigree and ethics in all of the sciences.

People who don't have similar education don't get to put the rest of us and our children in danger because they think they are smarter than the best educated and most thoroughly vetted scientific community in the world.

You don't like big pharma? Fine. They're not the ones who ultimately find out if their products are harming you. The people whose job that is have determined that their products are in fact safe. Don't believe them? Tough, either do as they and the rest have society have deemed necessary for the survival of the whole or GET THE FARK OUT.
 
2014-04-08 07:06:18 PM
By the way,  whidbey, do you know why I don't have any patience for the anti-vaccination movement? Because in 7 years of working with critically ill pediatric and infant patients, I've seen around a dozen of them die from vaccine preventable diseases, and about twice that number end up permanently disabled.

On the other hand, the worst I've seen from a vaccination was an occasional febrile seizure requiring tylenol and observation. No deaths.
 
2014-04-08 07:07:15 PM
 
2014-04-08 07:11:11 PM

DeaH: divx88: DeaH: I have a cousin who is anti-vaxxer.  She is a lovely, caring, positive person, and she is not stupid. She is just really, really wrong about this. And there is no reason that will reach her about this topic - it ties too deeply to paranoia undergrid with a real, reasonable concern about shady business practices and bought-and-paid-for research.

I don't think we will ever change the mind of someone who is anti-vax. It's not worth it to even"gently broach this subject." Prudie is just wrong about that. But it is important to talk about it with others, and it is really important to disagree with her if she brings it up when others are present. We do not need new anti-vaxxers.

That's called being stupid. Doesn't matter your reasoning, being an anti-vaxxer is just flat out idiotic, reckless and you should go on a list. Much like a sexual predator, you should go on a list and when moving into a neighborhood, have to go door to door admitting how stupid you are. In addition, can be booted out of the community of it decides to vote on you being removed for recklessly endangering the community.

The problem is that quite intelligent people can have stupid ideas, so you would have a hard time just saying its a problem of the stupid. The other issue is that not all anti-vaxxers are still raising children. Some of them are grand parents, and some of them just do not trust the large pharmaceutical companies, and the anti-vax stuff is just one arrow in the quiver. It's comforting to make this a simple issue, but that's called being stupid (about the issue - I am certain you are lovely and reasonable on other topics).

Any helpful registry would target the unvaccinated children. And that makes children a potential target for violence. I doubt you want that. Better would be disallowing religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccination requirements. Anti-vaxxers would scream bloody murder, but they are in the minority and it would provide better protection than a ...


You are correct, but it is extremely infuriating. This isn't a "life style" that only effects them, it effects everyone.

 ... I wouldn't want a list, it's more of a rant.
 
2014-04-08 07:15:26 PM

hardinparamedic: By the way,  whidbey, do you know why I don't have any patience for the anti-vaccination movement? Because in 7 years of working with critically ill pediatric and infant patients, I've seen around a dozen of them die from vaccine preventable diseases, and about twice that number end up permanently disabled.

On the other hand, the worst I've seen from a vaccination was an occasional febrile seizure requiring tylenol and observation. No deaths.


Yeah well you could have said that to begin with instead of assuming my posts are trolls. Still seeing a lot of hostility and self-righteousness here. To me, that says there's more to what's going on.
 
2014-04-08 07:16:02 PM

hardinparamedic: By the way,  whidbey, do you know why I don't have any patience for the anti-vaccination movement? Because in 7 years of working with critically ill pediatric and infant patients, I've seen around a dozen of them die from vaccine preventable diseases, and about twice that number end up permanently disabled.

On the other hand, the worst I've seen from a vaccination was an occasional febrile seizure requiring tylenol and observation. No deaths.


People are terrible at assessing risk objectively. They're terrified of dying in a plane crash (1:5,051 chance) but will think nothing of getting in the car and driving (1:84 chance of death by auto accident). They'll be afraid to get back in the water because of sharks (1:60,453 chance of death by shark attack), but they'll think nothing about chowing down on that Double Whopper (1:5 chance of dying from heart disease/heart attack).

Source
 
2014-04-08 07:21:29 PM

whidbey: To me, that says there's more to what's going on.


Which is, perhaps, why people are hostile. He showed you independent studies on the dangerous of vaccines versus the dangers of the diseases they vaccinated against. Non-big-pharma studies.

But you care *MORE ABOUT THE TONE* than the actual argument.

It's like going into a thread about young earth creationism and going "MAN!A lot of you are really hostile to these people that want to teach intelligent design in schools! I don't know about the anti-evolutionists, but the ANTI-anti evolutionists tell me all I need to know!"
 
2014-04-08 07:22:02 PM

whidbey: Yeah well you could have said that to begin with instead of assuming my posts are trolls. Still seeing a lot of hostility and self-righteousness here. To me, that says there's more to what's going on.


It's not self-righteousness. When I made the comment that they earned this up thread, I actually meant it, and your posts were seeming more and more like someone with an alternative agenda to promote, and less and less like someone who was genuinely curious. In this case, it's not a hidden agenda, but quite literally being tired of individuals who outright define Dunning-Kruger with their attitude of "My university of google is better than your 20+ years of research on the matter saying otherwise", and dealing with slimeballs who have gone so far as to attempt to ruin the careers of pro-vaccination critics by using Scientology-like tactics. (Skeptic and Cancer Blogger Orac was the target of an attempt by Age of Autism to have his career ruined, and actually had several of his coworkers contacted by AoA moderators who tried to paint him as a pedophile to his employer). Even FARK's own BadAstronomer Phil Plait has weighed in on the matter.

If it's the later and not the former, then I apologize to you for being so harsh.
 
2014-04-08 07:23:44 PM

RexTalionis: whidbey: And you've done little to dispel my suspicions of anti-anti-vaxxers. You're downright rude, and unwilling to entertain that the distrust against corporate pharmaceutical practices are valid. So far, I've just heard the "go somewhere else" argument.

Wait, he gave you evidence to show that vaccines are safe, regardless of whether you agree with corporate practices or not. What more do you want? I haven't seen you bring anything near as informative as what he brought.



It's getting to be like a conversation with a 3-year-old who responds to every piece of information with "but why"?  Except that the 3-year-old has a valid excuse.  It's getting pretty tiresome.  I don't see a single post in this thread white-knighting for pharmaceutical companies -- I just see responses providing more levels of detail showing that vaccinations are in fact well-studied and regulated.  There may be reasons to dislike pharmaceutical companies, but providing vaccinations against communicable disease isn't one of them.
 
2014-04-08 07:24:35 PM

whidbey: I don't know about anti-vaxxers, but the anti-anti-vaxxers are kind of assholes. So that tells me something right away.


The anti-anti-vaxxers are merely assholes. The anti-vaxxers are flat out cold-blooded murderers.

Now, go on and keep telling us which side you think is worse.
 
2014-04-08 07:25:19 PM
It's really hard to grasp why smart people tend to hold outrageous and patently false beliefs. 

Just the other day I was in a facebook discussion where a group of my friends had watched a police video and immediately demanded for the officer's head. I pointed out that half of the video was missing and we don't know what led up to the point at the start of the video, and that we should wait for that information.

They wouldn't have any of that nonsense and started calling me a troll, etc. 

The term you all are looking for is called anchoring.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring It is apparently extremely hard habit to kick and one that we almost always engage in. 

It explains why you will come across a very intelligent family or friend, but they believe in the most absurd things.
 
2014-04-08 07:27:32 PM

hardinparamedic: If it's the later and not the former, then I apologize to you for being so harsh.


No worries.
 
2014-04-08 07:28:50 PM

Felgraf: whidbey: To me, that says there's more to what's going on.

Which is, perhaps, why people are hostile. He showed you independent studies on the dangerous of vaccines versus the dangers of the diseases they vaccinated against. Non-big-pharma studies.

But you care *MORE ABOUT THE TONE* than the actual argument.

It's like going into a thread about young earth creationism and going "MAN!A lot of you are really hostile to these people that want to teach intelligent design in schools! I don't know about the anti-evolutionists, but the ANTI-anti evolutionists tell me all I need to know!"


Well, it is a rule that if you get impatient with idiots, it means you're wrong, even when you're right.
 
2014-04-08 07:31:33 PM

SuburbanCowboy: Anti-Vaxxers should have the right to not vaccinate.


Themselves yes. They can also jump off a bridge but arent allowed to push their children off one.
 
2014-04-08 07:33:57 PM

SuburbanCowboy: Anti-Vaxxers should have the right to not vaccinate, but they should have to live on an island together.


Your right to deny evidence-based, effective, and safe medical care with a reasonable chance of maiming or killing a child if it is not done should end with you as an adult.
 
2014-04-08 07:37:10 PM
How can I be sure my kids vaccine's don't have any GMO's in them?
 
m00
2014-04-08 07:38:02 PM
For whidbey:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raggedy_Ann

Marcella died at age 13, shortly after being vaccinated at school for smallpox without her parents' consent. Authorities blamed a heart defect, but her parents blamed the vaccination. Gruelle became an opponent of vaccination, and the Raggedy Ann doll was used as a symbol by the anti-vaccination movement.
 
2014-04-08 07:38:58 PM

whidbey: also have the guts to admit they haven't done the research.


Yes, such bravery to admit that you're too lazy to put a couple of key words into Google.
 
2014-04-08 07:42:39 PM

whidbey: Raoul Eaton: whidbey: parasol: whidbey: Raoul Eaton: I guess it's just a general paranoia about "Big Pharma."  But really, if you're going to distrust everything sold or promoted by corporate interests, you shouldn't be eating anything except food you grow yourself or buy straight from the farmer, and shouldn't use any products except those made from wood you've cut and hewn yourself or metal that you've smelted and forged for yourself.

If the anti-vaxxing paranoia is about distrust of corporate interests, then that legitimately shows a greater need for transparency, especially when it comes to things we are ingesting into our bodies.


You do understand that the modern concept of "transparency" means "feed it to me"?

It's a two-way street. But you're basically saying "leave Big Pharma alone."

Just saying "well? I am not sure, and no one has given it to me in memo form" only works for fast food managers.

It actually works for most honest people who have concerns and also have the guts to admit they haven't done the research.

You started out in this thread sounding like someone who was genuinely curious but not too well-informed.  You've been given some good answers, and you just keep popping back with "tell me more."

Actually, I asked for specific studies which prove that side effects and fatalities aren't something to be concerned about.

If you want more detail, go look it up yourself.  We're not your research assistants.  Start with Wakefield, who started this idiocy.

I'm convinced that Wakefield's work has been debunked.

There is clearly a bigger issue here, that there is distrust of pharmaceutical companies and for good reason. And until that trust is either restored or earned, the concerns should not be simply waved aside.


Big Pharma doesn't make a lot of (if any) money on vaccines.

I'm not convinced this is about people not trusting big pharma. I think this is more about a few people unwilling to admit something about themselves (bad genetics, actions during pregnancy, poor parenting, etc, etc), but more than willing to pick a scapegoat so that they can feel better about themselves. Normally, I would not care. However, there coping mechanism has an effect on a great number of people. There are the people that will believe their insane claims, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and there are people that will be effected by the erosion of herd immunity. I do not think that as a society we should tolerate such non-sense when it causes harm to so many people.

In other words: If you want to be a part of this society, you ability to deny reality in a way that negatively harms such a large number of people must be reigned in. You have to choices; you can submit or you can go organize your own society, away from the people living in the real world.
 
2014-04-08 07:42:54 PM

m00: Marcella died at age 13, shortly after being vaccinated at school for smallpox without her parents' consent. Authorities blamed a heart defect, but her parents blamed the vaccination. Gruelle became an opponent of vaccination, and the Raggedy Ann doll was used as a symbol by the anti-vaccination movement.


www.earth-policy.org

Smallpox killed hundreds of thousands of people worldwide before aggressive vaccination wiped out all but a few samples in a lab. There has not been an in the wild case of smallpox in over 25 years. The smallpox vaccine was also fundamentally different than most vaccines, in that it actually induced cowpox. In fact, known heart disease is an absolute contraindication to vaccination.

Unfortunately, fatal vaccine side effects occur - no medication or biological is 100% safe. And there are, literally, 1:1,000,000 children who will have an undiagnosed mitochondrial defect or metabolic problem that has laid dormant (not autism.) But the chance of a dangerous event in one child, which has a better chance of being struck by lightning each year, is not a reason to withhold a therapy that is - when used properly by a trained healthcare provider -
 
2014-04-08 07:43:19 PM

whidbey: So far, I've just heard the "go somewhere else" argument.


Funny, since anybody can look at this thread and, at a glance, see you responding to arguments that were anything BUT "go somewhere else."

And boo hoo, somebody was rude to you on Fark. You're such a precious farking snowflake this thread. Who exactly pissed into your Cheerios?
 
2014-04-08 07:56:40 PM

m00: Marcella died at age 13, shortly after being vaccinated at school for smallpox without her parents' consent. Authorities blamed a heart defect, but her parents blamed the vaccination. Gruelle became an opponent of vaccination, and the Raggedy Ann doll was used as a symbol by the anti-vaccination movement.


I love how they literally took a post hoc fallacy as their emblem.  Sort of summarizes how stupid the whole thing is.  Someone dies of a heart defect cascading into cardiac arrest coincidentally after a round of vaccinations, therefore the vaccinations must be the cause?

You know what?  I bet she had breakfast that day, too.  OMG BREAKFAST CAUSES HEART ATTACKS GUYS.
 
2014-04-08 08:36:14 PM

Jim_Callahan: whidbey: Actually, I asked for specific studies which prove that side effects and fatalities aren't something to be concerned about.

If only one of the largest and most famous US government programs that every five-year-old already knows about had an entire branch dedicated to your question which could be easily found by literally just typing "vaccine side effects" into google and hitting the I'm Feeling Lucky button and following some obvious links.

Alas, the information is clearly deeply hidden and obscure, so it will just have to remain a mystery why literally everyone on FARK now thinks you're one of the world's biggest morons for not being able to find it yourself.  Truly, an enigma for the ages why our standards are so unreasonably high.


Nope
Good post but it won't "do" to answer the concerns of someone questioning the integrity of "Big Pharma" and the tiny portion of side effects of a series of vaccines and why the math on that may, or may not be, skewed....there ARE, after all, multiple internet sources on any given topic.

No - I think, if the concern is about Big Pharma playing loose somehow....perhaps endangering the youngest of us then the answer might be this:

Are you Anti Big Pharm because they do, after developing a new nostrum, make obscene amounts of profit - and that almost always means some sort of back-room, money-grubbing, market screwing deal....somewhere? Such profits that mean they will both sell openly things that cause side-effects BUT ALSO take those profits and mess with the stock market and the health care system. In short? Big Pharma may or may not be proffering poison to our babbies but they are also robbing us somehow, right?

If that is the "argument" then lets add it up - A series of vaccinations, generally two (first and booster) and generally finished by the age of 12.  Let us say 15 total at a pediatric co-pay of $10 each for $150.
Then lets look at the profit margin for an adult population, in an aging situation, who also have a $10 co-pay on an average of six medications - some of which, btw, also lead to side effects and death.

So - far as it looks, Big Pharma's biggest evil isn't vaccines - hate on them for the right reasons.

And it isn't Autism
 
2014-04-08 08:39:11 PM
It looks like autism becomes obvious between six months and three years. Does anyone have a problem vaccinating after that time?
 
2014-04-08 08:43:31 PM

Destructor: It looks like autism becomes obvious between six months and three years. Does anyone have a problem vaccinating after that time?


Everyone, actually. Mainly because it places kids who are in the age group that is traditionally rendered disabled or dead from vaccine preventable disease at risk by withholding a proven treatment.

www.cdc.gov
 
2014-04-08 08:52:05 PM

hardinparamedic: Everyone, actually. Mainly because it places kids who are in the age group that is traditionally rendered disabled or dead from vaccine preventable disease at risk by withholding a proven treatment.


Trying to work out a solution.... :-(

I don't have one. All I can say, if it were my kids, I'd want them vaccinated.
 
2014-04-08 09:03:16 PM

whidbey: parasol: whidbey: Raoul Eaton: I guess it's just a general paranoia about "Big Pharma."  But really, if you're going to distrust everything sold or promoted by corporate interests, you shouldn't be eating anything except food you grow yourself or buy straight from the farmer, and shouldn't use any products except those made from wood you've cut and hewn yourself or metal that you've smelted and forged for yourself.

If the anti-vaxxing paranoia is about distrust of corporate interests, then that legitimately shows a greater need for transparency, especially when it comes to things we are ingesting into our bodies.


You do understand that the modern concept of "transparency" means "feed it to me"?

It's a two-way street. But you're basically saying "leave Big Pharma alone."

Just saying "well? I am not sure, and no one has given it to me in memo form" only works for fast food managers.

It actually works for most honest people who have concerns and also have the guts to admit they haven't done the research.


So do the research. Stop expecting people to spoonfeed you knowledge. Go out and learn something for yourself.
 
2014-04-08 09:11:00 PM

Needlessly Complicated: Why is this in the politics tab?


This was my first thought as well.
 
2014-04-08 09:44:11 PM

whidbey: hardinparamedic: By the way,  whidbey, do you know why I don't have any patience for the anti-vaccination movement? Because in 7 years of working with critically ill pediatric and infant patients, I've seen around a dozen of them die from vaccine preventable diseases, and about twice that number end up permanently disabled.

On the other hand, the worst I've seen from a vaccination was an occasional febrile seizure requiring tylenol and observation. No deaths.

Yeah well you could have said that to begin with instead of assuming my posts are trolls. Still seeing a lot of hostility and self-righteousness here. To me, that says there's more to what's going on.


Now you know how creationists feel.
 
2014-04-08 09:45:35 PM

whidbey: Yeah well you could have said that to begin with instead of assuming my posts are trolls. Still seeing a lot of hostility and self-righteousness here. To me, that says there's more to what's going on.


Person A: "2+2 = 7 my good chap!"
Person B: "2+2 = 4 you fuking retard"

By your logic, person A is likely correct.

Which is why you're an idiot that kills children.
 
2014-04-08 09:54:51 PM

AnonAmbientLight: It's really hard to grasp why smart people tend to hold outrageous and patently false beliefs. 

Just the other day I was in a facebook discussion where a group of my friends had watched a police video and immediately demanded for the officer's head. I pointed out that half of the video was missing and we don't know what led up to the point at the start of the video, and that we should wait for that information.

They wouldn't have any of that nonsense and started calling me a troll, etc. 

The term you all are looking for is called anchoring.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring It is apparently extremely hard habit to kick and one that we almost always engage in. 

It explains why you will come across a very intelligent family or friend, but they believe in the most absurd things.


I didn't know there was an actual term for it. Good to know.
 
2014-04-08 10:11:50 PM

Needlessly Complicated: Why is this in the politics tab?


Social policy; therefore, politics.
 
2014-04-08 10:33:03 PM

threedingers: I had a Facebook friend (an old high school acquaintance) unfriend me after I debunked (very politely, mind you) her antivaxx talking point about formaldehyde in vaccines. Seems she couldn't handle her worldview being challenged.



api.ning.com
 
2014-04-08 10:34:37 PM

Destructor: It looks like autism becomes obvious between six months and three years. Does anyone have a problem vaccinating after that time?


But what about the retroactive autisms?
 
2014-04-08 11:50:31 PM

max_pooper: The anti-seatbelt stupidity is a pretty good parallel. You know the kind of moran who doesn't wear a seatbelt because he thinks it's safer to be thrown through the windshield in a crash than be strapped in the car when the inevitable Hollywood style car fire that happens during all car crashes.


Hey, i dated this chick who had a friend that dated a firefighter and he told me about a lady that was in a car accident and she was nearly cut in half by her seatbelt. She totally died from the thing that was designed to save her life. Ever since then I've put my life in the Lord's hands when I drive and He's seen fit to keep me safe for 20+ years now. But now I've got Obama breathing down my neck making it a damned law that I have to wear it. Obama wants me to go against God's will and get cut in half by a seatbelt. Thanks but no thanks. I'll trust the Lord any day over some seatbelt designed by a scientiest, or by that half-muslim in the White House.
 
2014-04-09 01:17:18 AM

Destructor: It looks like autism becomes obvious between six months and three years. Does anyone have a problem vaccinating after that time?


Autism has been discovered in fetuses. So that should get rid of the vaccine hypothesis once and for all.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/03/26/294446735/brain-changes-su g gest-autism-starts-in-the-womb
 
2014-04-09 02:17:34 AM

mgshamster: Destructor: It looks like autism becomes obvious between six months and three years. Does anyone have a problem vaccinating after that time?

Autism has been discovered in fetuses. So that should get rid of the vaccine hypothesis once and for all.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/03/26/294446735/brain-changes-su g gest-autism-starts-in-the-womb


Were the parents vaccinated? I bet they were. Just goes to show how long lasting the damage from vaccinations can be!

/Please don't take this seriously.
 
2014-04-09 02:44:14 AM

Repo Man: threedingers: I had a Facebook friend (an old high school acquaintance) unfriend me after I debunked (very politely, mind you) her antivaxx talking point about formaldehyde in vaccines. Seems she couldn't handle her worldview being challenged.


[api.ning.com image 483x555]


It's a well-known phenomenon that, when faced with evidence that refutes one's position, most people double-down rather than concede.
 
2014-04-09 02:46:32 AM

ArcadianRefugee: It's a well-known phenomenon that, when faced with evidence that refutes one's position, most people double-down rather than concede.


and I never understood why we do that as often as we do.
 
2014-04-09 03:30:40 AM
One time my doctor told me that vaccines are safe, and I almost believed her.  But then I asked her if she's ever been paid money to show her vagina in a magazine, and she said "no".  Glad I asked the tough questions and found that she clearly doesn't have the proper background to have an opinion on this topic.
 
2014-04-09 05:01:31 AM

log_jammin: ArcadianRefugee: It's a well-known phenomenon that, when faced with evidence that refutes one's position, most people double-down rather than concede.

and I never understood why we do that as often as we do.


Because being wrong is uncomfortable and your mind will do anything to make the feelings associated with being wrong go away.
 
2014-04-09 05:57:16 AM

RexTalionis: Whenever we have the antivaccination threads, there are always those who pop up and talk about how it's the parent's right to be able to raise their children in whatever manner necessary.

My solution is this: Allow parents to not vaccinate their children, but should it be shown that their unvaccinated children caused another child or person to become ill by a preponderance of the evidence, those parents should be liable for all damages necessary to cover the cost of treating the child or person or for wrongful death of that child or person (should it get to that point).

We'll see how many anti-vaccination proponents there are once they get slapped a few times with thousands of dollars in damages from other families.


Wouldn't they only pose a danger to other, un-vaccinated children?  It sounds self-correcting.

/All those that think plastic containers, vaccines, hormones given to cows, irradiated food and genetically modified fruit/vegetables are bad - please pick up your "stupid" sign on the way out.
 
2014-04-09 05:59:20 AM

Shedim: Because being wrong is uncomfortable and your mind will do anything to make the feelings associated with being wrong go away.


true, but you'd think we would want to make sure we aren't wrong again.
 
2014-04-09 06:00:32 AM

tbeatty: Wouldn't they only pose a danger to other, un-vaccinated children?  It sounds self-correcting.


true. and it would only cost us the lives of an untold number of children.
 
2014-04-09 06:19:29 AM

log_jammin: Shedim: Because being wrong is uncomfortable and your mind will do anything to make the feelings associated with being wrong go away.

true, but you'd think we would want to make sure we aren't wrong again.


Rationally, yes. The problem is that learning the correct information and accepting it means changing ways of thinking and behaviour, and people are often all too willing to throw that in the "Too Hard" basket and hold onto their wrong beliefs. Maybe it's a source of comfort or validation to them, or maybe they think everyone else is wrong, or maybe it's the linchpin in their entire worldview and yanking it out would force them to confront all their wrong beliefs at once and effectively force them to reconstruct their entire sense of self.

Either way, the comfort of a wrong belief is (to them) a better alternative to being wrong, and being wrong means they have to change, and change is haaaaaaaaaaaaard.
 
2014-04-09 06:37:06 AM

mgshamster: Autism has been discovered in fetuses. So that should get rid of the vaccine hypothesis once and for all.


Just for the record: I'm pro-vaccination. I'm just trying to think of a way to overcome concerns of people who are anti-vax.
 
2014-04-09 07:09:23 AM

tbeatty: Wouldn't they only pose a danger to other, un-vaccinated children? It sounds self-correcting.

/All those that think plastic containers, vaccines, hormones given to cows, irradiated food and genetically modified fruit/vegetables are bad - please pick up your "stupid" sign on the way out.


No, for two reasons.

1) VAccines aren't impenetrable shields. They're armor, or, perhaps in a better analogy, like a levee. They will defend you from some attacks (or, in the second analogy, some amount of flooding), but if you send in enough attacks (or enough extra water), it will overwhelm the defenses. A high enough viral load can still make you sick, even if you're vaccinated.

2) A hefty number of unvaccinated folks, living right next to vaccinated folks, is a wonderful recipe for new strains. You've got a bunch of unvaccinated folks (Breeding ground/reservoir for the virus), combined with a selective pressure (A large number of people it can't yet exploit, but is often alongside).
 
2014-04-09 07:16:33 AM

whidbey: Have there even been studies done on this?


Plenty, but that doesn't deter people who "know" things, right?
 
2014-04-09 07:35:01 AM

Shedim: log_jammin: Shedim: Because being wrong is uncomfortable and your mind will do anything to make the feelings associated with being wrong go away.

true, but you'd think we would want to make sure we aren't wrong again.

Rationally, yes. The problem is that learning the correct information and accepting it means changing ways of thinking and behaviour, and people are often all too willing to throw that in the "Too Hard" basket and hold onto their wrong beliefs. Maybe it's a source of comfort or validation to them, or maybe they think everyone else is wrong, or maybe it's the linchpin in their entire worldview and yanking it out would force them to confront all their wrong beliefs at once and effectively force them to reconstruct their entire sense of self.

Either way, the comfort of a wrong belief is (to them) a better alternative to being wrong, and being wrong means they have to change, and change is haaaaaaaaaaaaard.


I find this stuff fascinating. I work in health care so I see it a lot. Everytime I just study their face looking for a cognitive dissonance twitch or some rational explanation but I get nothing. So I become even more fascinated... Do you have any good books or sources to recommend?
 
2014-04-09 07:49:13 AM

RexTalionis: Since negligence is duty - breach - causation and damages, let's create a statutory duty that a parent should vaccinate their children if possible.


This is why I like you.
 
2014-04-09 08:21:36 AM

Semantic Warrior: Karac: RexTalionis: Whenever we have the antivaccination threads, there are always those who pop up and talk about how it's the parent's right to be able to raise their children in whatever manner necessary.

My solution is this: Allow parents to not vaccinate their children, but should it be shown that their unvaccinated children caused another child or person to become ill by a preponderance of the evidence, those parents should be liable for all damages necessary to cover the cost of treating the child or person or for wrongful death of that child or person (should it get to that point).

We'll see how many anti-vaccination proponents there are once they get slapped a few times with thousands of dollars in damages from other families.

I don't think we'd need to get lawyers involved.  Just remove the religious exemption from the vaccination mandate to have you kid attend a public school.  Or at least strengthen it to the point where it has to be an established belief of not only yourself but your church/congregation/coven/scientology center.

If the choice is having to homeschool or exposing their kid to autism, most parents would choose the autism.

The wording of religious exemption is ridiculous to begin with; It breaks down to "you believe your kid was given enough of an immune system by god, and that to vaccinate would be an affront to your faith by challenging your god's work as incomplete"... So the moment anyone w/a religious vaccination puts a bandaid on their kid, aren't they saying god didn't give their kid good enough clotting agents?  Or to specifically address anti-vaxxers' claim to a right to send their kids to public schools - wouldn't they believe god created their kids with enough information already in their brains, that to educate their kids would be an affront to god's work as incomplete?


The whole idea that this is worthy of religious exemption is ridiculous. We don't provide religious exemptions for people who want to drive drunk because they feel jesus takes the wheel for them, or even people who want to let their kids ride in the car without a seat belt for the very obvious reason that those actions could potentially cause harm to others, and your right to practice religion does not give you the right to harm other people in doing so. So why the everliving fark are we allowing people religious exemptions in this case to potentially harm other people and their own children? We need to stop catering to them and crack down on this shiat already. No matter what people think, there is no constitutional right to do every freaking stupid thing you want to.
 
2014-04-09 08:28:12 AM

whidbey: If the anti-vaxxing paranoia is about distrust of corporate interests, then that legitimately shows a greater need for transparency, especially when it comes to things we are ingesting into our bodies.


What drives the anti-vax movement is the desire for purity run rampant.
 
2014-04-09 08:28:51 AM
The best part was the last sentence in the letter:  "she's immune to reason."
 
2014-04-09 08:39:37 AM

whidbey: hardinparamedic: By the way,  whidbey, do you know why I don't have any patience for the anti-vaccination movement? Because in 7 years of working with critically ill pediatric and infant patients, I've seen around a dozen of them die from vaccine preventable diseases, and about twice that number end up permanently disabled.

On the other hand, the worst I've seen from a vaccination was an occasional febrile seizure requiring tylenol and observation. No deaths.

Yeah well you could have said that to begin with instead of assuming my posts are trolls. Still seeing a lot of hostility and self-righteousness here. To me, that says there's more to what's going on.


Your uneducated opinion is literally killing children and infants and you think the person who has to watch them die is the asshole because they're upset about it. That's just great. But I guess what's a few dead kids compared to your ability to feel right about things you have no comprehension of and no intention to investigate.
 
2014-04-09 08:47:33 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: What drives the anti-vax movement is the desire for purity run rampant.


Like someone else hinted at upthread, anti-vaxers exhibit the same kind of mistrust and "skepticism" that Teabaggers have towards evolution and climate change.
 
2014-04-09 09:07:35 AM

ib_thinkin: RexTalionis: Since negligence is duty - breach - causation and damages, let's create a statutory duty that a parent should vaccinate their children if possible.

This is why I like you.


Hey, welcome back!
 
2014-04-09 09:14:07 AM

GoldSpider: Monkeyhouse Zendo: What drives the anti-vax movement is the desire for purity run rampant.

Like someone else hinted at upthread, anti-vaxers exhibit the same kind of mistrust and "skepticism" that Teabaggers have towards evolution and climate change.


Which is unsurprising since both movements aren't grounded in rationality but rather fear.
 
2014-04-09 09:33:10 AM

RexTalionis: Hey, welcome back!


Thanks for the month!

It's good to be back. I don't know how long I'll be around; I'm in a little bit of a business lull at the moment.
 
2014-04-09 10:29:37 AM
This sucks, and what I am getting out of this is that now is a good time to invest in companies that still produce Iron Lungs.
 
2014-04-09 10:30:14 AM

ib_thinkin: RexTalionis: Hey, welcome back!

Thanks for the month!

It's good to be back. I don't know how long I'll be around; I'm in a little bit of a business lull at the moment.


Ah, well, enjoy the lull when you can. I assume you're finished with law school now?
 
2014-04-09 11:26:12 AM

Karac: RexTalionis: Whenever we have the antivaccination threads, there are always those who pop up and talk about how it's the parent's right to be able to raise their children in whatever manner necessary.

My solution is this: Allow parents to not vaccinate their children, but should it be shown that their unvaccinated children caused another child or person to become ill by a preponderance of the evidence, those parents should be liable for all damages necessary to cover the cost of treating the child or person or for wrongful death of that child or person (should it get to that point).

We'll see how many anti-vaccination proponents there are once they get slapped a few times with thousands of dollars in damages from other families.

I don't think we'd need to get lawyers involved.  Just remove the religious exemption from the vaccination mandate to have you kid attend a public school.  Or at least strengthen it to the point where it has to be an established belief of not only yourself but your church/congregation/coven/scientology center.

If the choice is having to homeschool or exposing their kid to autism, most parents would choose the autism.


+1000

If you want to abuse your child, ok I guess that's your "right" but how the hell are you allowed to endanger MY child because you are a moron?
 
2014-04-09 11:55:55 AM

HawaiiE: I find this stuff fascinating. I work in health care so I see it a lot. Everytime I just study their face looking for a cognitive dissonance twitch or some rational explanation but I get nothing. So I become even more fascinated... Do you have any good books or sources to recommend?


Link

Not as good, but I thought it was interesting:
Link
 
2014-04-09 12:21:24 PM

HawaiiE: I find this stuff fascinating. I work in health care so I see it a lot. Everytime I just study their face looking for a cognitive dissonance twitch or some rational explanation but I get nothing. So I become even more fascinated... Do you have any good books or sources to recommend?


The Panic Virus, by Seth Mnoonkin is a good book that goes into how this whole controversy started, as well.

Doctor Paul Offit, the inventor of the rotavirus vaccine (A disease which, outside of first world medical treatment, kills hundreds of thousands of kids each year) and who was pretty viciously attacked by the anti-vax movement, wrote a book called Autism's False Prophets, which goes into more detail about their tactics and obfuscation.
 
2014-04-09 01:45:00 PM

log_jammin: tbeatty: Wouldn't they only pose a danger to other, un-vaccinated children?  It sounds self-correcting.

true. and it would only cost us the lives of an untold number of children.


The response was to making the sick children pay for the other sick children.  Except both didn't get vaccinated so who's at fault?  It's not rational to find fault when both would be equally to blame.
 
2014-04-09 02:14:45 PM
Felgraf:
2) A hefty number of unvaccinated folks, living right next to vaccinated folks, is a wonderful recipe for new strains. You've got a bunch of unvaccinated folks (Breeding ground/reservoir for the virus), combined with a selective pressure (A large number of people it can't yet exploit, but is often alongside).

Viruses don't work like that.  There is no selective pressure for a virus.  Bacteria do behave that way, not viruses.  The flu is a good example.  It varies yearly in various forms that are unrelated to whether humans are vaccinated or not or whether it's severe or not, primarily because it's mutation is in different animals and it's technically not a separate organism.  If there were selective pressure, the flu would become stronger every year, but it does not.  Virus' evolution mechanism is through horizontal gene transfer between species.  Polio, that only naturally infects humans, hasn't evolved into any type of "superstrain" and has largely been eradicated by vaccines because of that.  Viruses evolve by jumping species and grabbing different bits of genetic material from different species (SIV -> HIV, etc).   Staphylococcus aureus, on the other hand,  is a living organism that goes through natural selection that favors anti-biotic resistant members, whence MRSA.
 
2014-04-09 07:29:08 PM
If my vaccinated kid ever catches a completely preventable disease, believe me, I'm finding out where all the anti-vax parents in my neighborhood live and burning down their farking houses.
 
2014-04-09 07:41:20 PM

The Dog Ate My Homework: If my vaccinated kid ever catches a completely preventable disease, believe me, I'm finding out where all the anti-vax parents in my neighborhood live and burning down their farking houses.


Is your kid vaccinated against smallpox?  If not, why not?
(Hint: if they are relatively young, they probably aren't).
 
2014-04-10 12:27:16 AM

tbeatty: The response was to making the sick children pay for the other sick children.  Except both didn't get vaccinated so who's at fault?  It's not rational to find fault when both would be equally to blame.


that makes no sense whatsoever
 
2014-04-10 01:19:36 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: GoldSpider: Monkeyhouse Zendo: What drives the anti-vax movement is the desire for purity run rampant.

Like someone else hinted at upthread, anti-vaxers exhibit the same kind of mistrust and "skepticism" that Teabaggers have towards evolution and climate change.

Which is unsurprising since both movements aren't grounded in rationality but rather fear.


img.fark.net
 
2014-04-10 03:29:48 AM

tbeatty: Is your kid vaccinated against smallpox?  If not, why not?


If his kid catches smallpox, he needs to call the FBI because his child is the victim of an intentional biological weapons attack. The only two samples of smallpox virus left in the world are in secure freezers locked inside of Biosafety Level IV labs, guarded by small armies of First World nations.

Smallpox was eradicated by a highly aggressive and successful worldwide vaccination effort, and a case has not been seen in the wild since 1986. (IIRC, two cases since that time occured in laboratory workers)
 
2014-04-10 03:49:03 AM

log_jammin: tbeatty: The response was to making the sick children pay for the other sick children.  Except both didn't get vaccinated so who's at fault?  It's not rational to find fault when both would be equally to blame.

that makes no sense whatsoever


Did you have difficulty following the conversation?  Go reread it.  Slower this time.
 
2014-04-10 04:11:16 AM

hardinparamedic: tbeatty: Is your kid vaccinated against smallpox?  If not, why not?

If his kid catches smallpox, he needs to call the FBI because his child is the victim of an intentional biological weapons attack. The only two samples of smallpox virus left in the world are in secure freezers locked inside of Biosafety Level IV labs, guarded by small armies of First World nations.

Smallpox was eradicated by a highly aggressive and successful worldwide vaccination effort, and a case has not been seen in the wild since 1986. (IIRC, two cases since that time occured in laboratory workers)


Winner, winner, chicken dinner.  Viruses that have vaccines, don't spread to those vaccinated.  Viruses that do change, do it outside human species.  Smallpox took 100 years to eradicate but it didn't become more virulent as it only had human hosts.  It just died.  Whence, if a vaccine is effective and the species scope limited (i.e. smallpox), it doesn't matter if infected people are near inoculated ones.  Otherwise, smallpox would never have been eradicated, we'd have super smallpox.  Or resistant smallpox.  Viruses don't work that way so parents of vaccinated children don't really need to worry about those that don't.  The risk is to those that aren't vaccinated or viruses that jump species like influenza and grab sequences from each species it visits (i.e. no completely effective vaccine exists).  Fearing the unvaccinated is like fearing HIV positive kids or kids with cancer.
 
Displayed 189 of 189 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report