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  
•       •       •

3051 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 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
 
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