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  
•       •       •

3026 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Apr 2014 at 4:27 PM (20 weeks 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 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 39 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 »






Report