Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

3052 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Apr 2014 at 4:27 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report