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
    More: Obvious, vaccinations, biological fathers, society  
•       •       •

3062 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Apr 2014 at 4:27 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

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

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

We'll see how many anti-vaccination proponents there are once they get slapped a few times with thousands of dollars in damages from other families.
2014-04-08 05:17:48 PM  
6 votes:

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


It tells me that some people are damn sick and tired of people endangering their own kids and other people's kids because of some long-discredited fraudulent medical claims, and don't see any remaining value in trying to be polite about it.  Given the level of obstinate stupidity involved in the anti-vax viewpoint, it's reasonable to conclude that shaming is a viable way to attack the problem.
2014-04-08 04:52:10 PM  
6 votes:

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

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

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

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


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

That life is many magnitudes better than the life of a parent with a kid who died from a disease we learned how to prevent decades ago.
2014-04-08 06:50:26 PM  
5 votes:

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 05:45:15 PM  
5 votes:

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 07:21:29 PM  
4 votes:

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 05:44:15 PM  
4 votes:

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 04:34:36 PM  
4 votes:
Anti-Vaxxers should have the right to not vaccinate, but they should have to live on an island together.
2014-04-08 07:06:18 PM  
3 votes:
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 06:38:48 PM  
3 votes:

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 06:12:10 PM  
3 votes:

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 05:20:14 PM  
3 votes:

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


The assholedom has been thoroughly earned.
2014-04-08 05:15:58 PM  
3 votes:

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

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


Those two statements contradict each other.
2014-04-08 05:11:30 PM  
3 votes:

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

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


Willful ignorance is another word for stupidity. Your cousin is stupid.
2014-04-08 03:53:59 PM  
3 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

Sucks to be them, but it was easily solvable with a needle in their childhood.
2014-04-08 03:18:31 PM  
3 votes:

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

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

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


Since negligence is duty - breach - causation and damages, let's create a statutory duty that a parent should vaccinate their children if possible.
2014-04-08 07:42:54 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:23:44 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:22:02 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:11:11 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:06:06 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:53:31 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:34:03 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:32:32 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:21:07 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:19:01 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:05:41 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:54:48 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:53:35 PM  
2 votes:
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 05:50:16 PM  
2 votes:
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 05:21:40 PM  
2 votes:
Serious Black:

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

Isn't this what parenting should be?
2014-04-08 05:19:42 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


The wording of religious exemption is ridiculous to begin with; It breaks down to "you believe your kid was given enough of an immune system by god, and that to vaccinate would be an affront to your faith by challenging your god's work as incomplete"... So the moment anyone w/a religious vaccination puts a bandaid on their kid, aren't they saying god didn't give their kid good enough clotting agents?  Or to specifically address anti-vaxxers' claim to a right to send their kids to public schools - wouldn't they believe god created their kids with enough information already in their brains, that to educate their kids would be an affront to god's work as incomplete?
2014-04-08 05:18:40 PM  
2 votes:
They recommend getting certain vaccines every time you're pregnant now because of anti vaccine morons.
2014-04-08 05:09:23 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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


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

Fixes the problem and no kids have to die.
2014-04-08 05:00:39 PM  
2 votes:
The first kid they don't vaccinate:
1.  Take the kid.
2.  Sterilize both parents.
3.  Post a warning about them in their community as "dangerous disease carriers"(even if their parents were smart and got them vaccinated, they probably skipped their boosters)
2014-04-08 04:48:08 PM  
2 votes:
They are biological hazards, and you round them up like yellow people after pearl harbor and put them in camps and vax them and when the vax sets in then you can let them go.
If they miss work or something, fark them. Don't give them a felony, just make them sit through education seminars, like they do with drunks they catch. It's for public safety, just lie with drunks.
I can't be driving around endangering everyone with a car.
And no one else should be walking around airports, and public places harboring poxes.
Fark 'em.

I got your religious freedom right here in this farking syringe.
2014-04-08 04:38:07 PM  
2 votes:

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


I was going to say asteroid, but I guess your idea is more plausible.
2014-04-08 03:52:37 PM  
2 votes:

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

[img.fark.net image 750x477]


I loved the observation that everyone would get autism before all females get it.
2014-04-09 08:21:36 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2014-04-08 10:33:03 PM  
1 vote:

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



api.ning.com
2014-04-08 09:03:16 PM  
1 vote:

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 08:43:31 PM  
1 vote:

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 08:36:14 PM  
1 vote:

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 07:43:19 PM  
1 vote:

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 07:38:58 PM  
1 vote:

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 07:24:35 PM  
1 vote:

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 07:16:02 PM  
1 vote:

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 07:06:11 PM  
1 vote:

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 07:01:55 PM  
1 vote:

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 07:01:08 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:47:44 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:43:37 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:25:15 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:23:19 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:20:33 PM  
1 vote:
Who needs bioterrorism when you've got anti-vaxxers?
2014-04-08 06:12:58 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:01:27 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:59:33 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:59:25 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:57:56 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:56:14 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:55:30 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:48:13 PM  
1 vote:
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 05:46:21 PM  
1 vote:
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 05:45:01 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:11:14 PM  
1 vote:

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

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

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


Meh non-vaccinated children should be forced into isolation from the rest of society. Make them go live on an island somewhere, like Rikers Island.
2014-04-08 05:06:28 PM  
1 vote:
I have a cousin who is anti-vaxxer.  She is a lovely, caring, positive person, and she is not stupid. She is just really, really wrong about this. And there is no reason that will reach her about this topic - it ties too deeply to paranoia undergrid with a real, reasonable concern about shady business practices and bought-and-paid-for research.

I don't think we will ever change the mind of someone who is anti-vax. It's not worth it to even"gently broach this subject." Prudie is just wrong about that. But it is important to talk about it with others, and it is really important to disagree with her if she brings it up when others are present. We do not need new anti-vaxxers.
2014-04-08 05:03:44 PM  
1 vote:
Maybe it is time to fight "like" with "like"

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

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

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

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

It isn't stupidity, it is selfishness - and it will doom us all - you'd think bible-centric folk would get that - that and the communal celebration of potentially dangerous rites of passage completed.....but, no....that is too simple.
2014-04-08 04:56:20 PM  
1 vote:

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


people in small towns? people who practice a minority religion in their area and work together?
2014-04-08 04:55:13 PM  
1 vote:

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

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

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


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

It makes people LESS likely to report these issues as it provides a disincentive. It increases public risk, and I don't think it would have the effect you want.
2014-04-08 04:54:28 PM  
1 vote:

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


What a thoroughly horrible idea. Your suggestion is that some children have to die in order to teach retards a lesson. Why should any child have to suffer in the first place at the hands on another set of parents? We require obligatory school attendance (or a legally sanctioned alternative). We can certainlly legally require all children to get vaccinated.
2014-04-08 04:42:05 PM  
1 vote:

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


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

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

But to inflict whooping cough on a little kid... man, you're now entering the realm of simply being evil.
2014-04-08 04:35:29 PM  
1 vote:

unyon: Quarantine


Not good enough.

Welcome to AntiVax Island.
2014-04-08 02:52:44 PM  
1 vote:
to elaborate on the headline,

yesssss
 
Displayed 74 of 74 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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