Slashdot Mirror


Bill Gates Says Anti-Vaccine Effort Kills Children

Hugh Pickens writes writes "CNN has an interesting interview with Bill Gates who says that unbelievable progress is being made in both inventing new vaccines and making sure they get out to all the children who need them. The improvements could cut the number of children who die every year from about 9 million to half that. But Gates has harsh words for those who engage in anti-vaccine efforts, especially Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who falsified data to 'prove' a fraudulent link between vaccines and autism. 'It's an absolute lie that has killed thousands of kids,' says Gates. 'Because the mothers who heard that lie, many of them didn't have their kids take either pertussis or measles vaccine, and their children are dead today.'"

832 comments

  1. Wow by DFENS619 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone mod Bill +1 hero so he gets out of the troll area

    1. Re:Wow by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even if it were true (vaccines cause autism), as Penn & Teller wisely argued: Vaccines SAVE more lives than they kill/damage.

      See the video for yourself - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:Wow by sortius_nod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I must agree with him, and I didn't realise how bad this was in the US until I saw a documentary the other night on the "war against vaccination" in the US. Pretty much the people against vaccination keep changing the reasoning why the vaccinations are "bad".

      One minute it's the MMR vaccines that cause autism, then it's the mercury based preservatives, then it's the amount of shots kids get, blah blah blah. Basically all the reasons have been refuted by scientific studies (Denmark was used quite often as they keep medical records on all their citizens).

      One of the anti-vaccine idiots even had the balls to say that it was up to the scientific community to disprove that vaccines are dangerous.

      Jim Carey and that other bitch both need to be hurt with hot pokers. The simple fact that autism becomes apparent at the time when kids get their vaccinations does not mean that the vaccinations cause autism. In fact, the studies showed that vaccinated kids had the same rate of autism as non-vaccinated kids.

      Pseudo-science will always win because the media outlets can get "passionate" famous people behind the campaigns.

    3. Re:Wow by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bill's charitable work is actually quite awesome. Among other things, his foundation is very good at making sure that their funding goes to projects that actually work (surprisingly unusual in the non-profit world).

      Now, I don't approve of how he made his money, but I do approve of him using his money to help people rather than just hang out and be rich with Warren Buffett all day.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is worse than that. Just look at the number of famous, retarded actors who became scientologists.

    5. Re:Wow by Ganthor · · Score: 1

      If I had a mod point!! - You'd have it.

    6. Re:Wow by Ganthor · · Score: 1

      I think I saw that one too.

      One comment I thought was worth reflecting on was that vaccines have actually been quite successful in eliminating these illnesses from the community. So much so that people have now forgotten what these diseases are like and now focussing on the much smaller rate of (alleged) complications.

    7. Re:Wow by mibe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude, vaccines aren't 100%. Not everyone who gets a shot is immune to the disease. For some diseases it's more variable than others (see: BCG vaccine for TB), and it's not always clear why, although HLA haplotypes have been put forward as a potential explanation. That pretty much counters every one of your arguments. So keep that in mind whenever you go to write another anti-vaccination rant and think first, "Hey, if vaccines - like virtually everything else in medicine - aren't 100% effective, how does this affect what I'm planning to say?"

    8. Re:Wow by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 5, Informative
      I prefer this one: Penn Point.
      Specifically about Asshole Andrew Wakefield's ("who used to be a doctor but is now just a guy") fraudulent falsification of results in order to line his own pockets with money from a firm of lawyers who wanted to sue pharmaceutical companies.

      Even if vaccinations DID cause autism, which they don't and there's no proof and this Wakefield's study has been *completely* discredited (it's complete bullshit) but even if it DID cause autism, which it DOESN'T! and let's make this clear, it DOES NOT cause autism, it DOESN'T! It does NOT cause autism. But even if it did, which it doesn't, even if it did, which it doesn't, even if it did, which it doesn't. It doesn't. It DOES NOT. It would STILL be worth it to give vaccinations

    9. Re:Wow by Kongming · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why is the commenter worried? If his children have been 'vaccinated', then how can they catch measles?

      Many vaccines are not (cannot be?) given until a certain age. If enough people go unvaccinated that outbreaks become possible, children too young to receive the vaccine can become infected. There is also, of course, the cost to society as a whole when there is an outbreak.

      --
      (no sig)
    10. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Vaccines are not 100% effective. They just don't work on some people. Therefore parents have the right to be worried about other kids not being vaccinated even though their own kids are because the vaccine may not have worked on their own children. Forcing other kids to be vaccinated is a whole other story. Even if I was 100% sure vaccines are perfectly safe, I would still think that as a matter of principle, nobody should be forced to ingest or basically put anything inside their body if they don't want to.

      Note that there is a big difference between a vaccine not working on everyone and not working on anyone. Also, if a vaccine worked on only 1 out of 1000 people and was absolutely safe, I see no reason not to vaccinate people. Those it works on will be protected, and those it doesn't work on won't have lost anything.

      Your rant does not give you much credit though. Your comment alone is enough to put you in the 'holier than thou' category of Slashdoters. Don't get me wrong, I really don't judge you based on what you think of vaccines. It's the way you discuss this topic that I have a problem with. I'm almost tempted to assume that you also believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Your rhetoric and the flawed arguments you use are very similar to those of Creationists.

    11. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, didn't Warren Buffet pledge a good chunk of his fortune to Bill's foundation?

    12. Re:Wow by Brett+Buck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. Bill got this on right. Modern Western society has gotten so comfortable assuming that their every need will be taken care of by someone that they, in about a generation, have forgotten the horror of all the childhood diseases. The chance of dying from whooping cough, if you get it, is orders of magnitude higher than the incidence of autism (once you take out the current over-diagnosis - autism is the new trendy thing to think your kid has, just like ADD ten years ago).

            I even hear of people refusing *polio* vaccines. Mine was the first generation of children that didn't have to spend all summer dreading signs of the flu and wondering if you were going to be *living the rest of your life in an iron lung*. Believe me, if you have ever seen that - you are going to get your kid all the vaccines they make,

    13. Re:Wow by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      But one of the reasons (but not the only reason) why people in poor parts of the world have so many children is because they still have a high mortality rate from preventable disease. In the rich world, where people rarely die from childhood diseases, we see birth rates declining.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    14. Re:Wow by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I suspect that the comment you note is largely correct. Back when this was still on view at your friendly local hospital, people had a certain... urgency about vaccinations.

      I suspect that there is one other slightly subtler sub-factor: the difficulty of intuitively comparing small risks. The vaccines that draw the most fire today are the ones for comparatively non-scary sounding diseases. Everybody knows that things like polio and smallpox were Seriously. Bad. News. Things like Measles and Mumps, though, just don't sound that scary. However, Measles, for example, does have a .3% mortality rate, and the risk of encephalitis or corneal damage isn't fun either. However, people are very bad, intuitively, at comparing very small and very large values. The rate of complications and fatalities from the MMR vaccine is lower than that of the diseases it helps prevent(even weighted with the less than 100% probability of getting the disease); but not quite zero. However, since both values are very small, they both fall into the "small; but gnawingly nonzero" risk category, which makes them feel close to equivalent. With something like Polio vs. Polio vaccine, the high risk/low risk intuition is straightforward and emotions match math. With low risk/lower risk, the math holds up; but intuition and emotion don't necessarily fall into line...

    15. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I remember when it first started with parents refusing to let heir kids get the vaccinations, what made the biggest impression was an old doctor
      interviewed on tv he was basically crying his eyes out pleading for the parents to let the kids have the vaccinations, because he remember the the kids
      he had seen die before the vaccine was invented

    16. Re:Wow by sortius_nod · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wow, you really are a fool. You have no idea about herd immunity, nor do you understand how vaccines have changed the world.

      Polio is still a massive problem in the 3rd world, as is TB and other diseases that have been all but eradicated in industrialised nations. All it would take is a generation if idiots like you to put the industrialised world back to where the 3rd world is.

      Having lived in Cambodia and seen first hand what polio, TB, measles outbreaks, and the like can do, well, I can assure you that vaccination is worth it. Whether it is 100% effective or not. Again, herd immunity.

      Your arguments don't hold up when looking at outbreaks from an immunologists point of view. The whole idea is herd immunity, not that the vaccine works on everyone. Once vaccination rates are above 90% it's quite difficult for a disease to move from small outbreak to pandemic. Your argument that there's no mention of how many vaccinated people caught the measles means nothing, it's actually the worst way to back your argument up - There's no data on this therefore it must exist!

      Questioning something with an intelligent argument backed up by research and logic is valid, questioning without any intelligent argument and using a lack of data to back your argument up is beyond stupid.

    17. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No rebuttals, of course, but modded down to -1.
      We can't have people seeing FACTS which don't agree with your pro-'vaccination' dogma, can we!

      Just as I said - the 'geniuses' of Slashdot haven't got a clue why they believe what they believe in... but they'll jump at the chance to lambast anybody who questions their 'wisdom'.

    18. Re:Wow by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      It's funny, Bill has become quite an international hero after being seen as the devil of IT.

      As a businessman, I despise him. As a philanthropist, well, he's fast becoming a hero of mine.

      I feel so conflicted.

    19. Re:Wow by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      Dear Jenny McCarthy, Correlation != causation. I'm sure that's much too difficult for you to understand, which in itself is easy to understand since you're famous for your tits not your brain. I liked you a lot better in Playboy Magazine where we didn't have to listen to you speak.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    20. Re:Wow by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 4, Informative

      You fail at "I have a basic understanding of the world I live in 101". Go to www.gapminder.org . Watch the videos, peruse the data.

      In short: the only path out of overpopulation is development. Again and again, we see that when infant mortality rates fall the families become precipitously smaller. Because all humans understand the concept of "I have a kid, he probably won't die, and if I have only one (perhaps two), he can go to school and have a life better than mine beyond my wildest dreams".

      Vaccination, because it enhances child survival, is a crucial tool against overpopulation and for development.

    21. Re:Wow by Belial6 · · Score: 0

      Your not real bright if you couldn't figure out that the people who argue against vaccines are saying that the mercury based preservatives are causing autism, and while MMR is the biggest culprit, one can also get the same results with less dangerous vaccines by taking a bunch of them.

      Right or wrong, their argument is consistent. When people like you try to reword their argument and accuses them of being stupid because your strawman makes no sense, you validate their concerns. You can officially count yourself among the anti-vaccine crusaders.

      Of course, it is also important to not be as radically ignorant in favor of vaccines as the people who are radically ignorant against them. For example, while it is clear that the Polio vaccine has been an amazing boon to humanity, the chicken pox vaccine has the potential to do exactly the opposite. Converting a childhood inconvenience into a deadly adult disease doesn't make a huge amount of sense.

      The concept of vaccines is a great one. But with all good ideas, it can be implemented badly, and it can be implemented well. That means that it isn't a question of whether 'vaccines are good' or 'vaccines are bad' It is a question of 'is vaccine X a good', and as a completely separate question, 'is vaccine Y good'.

    22. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Anti-Vax Tards keep moving the goalposts.
       
      Pretty soon they'll be saying the alcohol swabs used on injection sites are the real cause of autism.

    23. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously, you need to do better.

      1. Some of these facts are too old to be relevant. Mistakes that happened over 50 years ago don't prove today's vaccines don't work. Ok, so vaccines did not work all the time, so what? Mistakes happen with everything. Intel just recalled some motherboards and CPUs because they were defective, does this mean all motherboards and CPUs produced are defective?
      Note: you can be suspicious of vaccines all you want, I really don't care, but there's no reason to be more suspicious of vaccines than anything else. Arguing otherwise unreasonably can kill people.

      2. Most of your sources are not academic. Novelists and journalists are not experts. Novels are not scientific studies.

      3. Your interpretation of some of the examples you mention is false. Take the second to last example

      - In the New England Journal of Medicine July 1994 issue a study found that over 80% of children under 5 years of age who had contracted whooping cough had been fully vaccinated.

      If 80% of the population had been vaccinated, then that would explain why 80% of those vaccinated contracted that disease... Let me explain with another example: if a building collapses in China and 80% of the victims are Chinese, that's because most people in China are Chinese, not because being Chinese somehow makes you vulnerable to die in an accident. Without the percentage of vaccinated children, the number of sick children is useless. The interpretation you made of this fact is wrong.

      The last fact you mention is also misinterpreted in your comment. There can be many reasons to vote against mandatory vaccination and a strong reason is because mandatory vaccination is unethical. Not because vaccines don't work, but because people have a right to choose to receive medical treatment and modify their body. For children, parents make the decision. It's just a matter of general medical ethics and it has nothing to do with vaccines themselves. And of course there could be other reasons why these people voted the way they did. You can't just decide for them what their reasons were.

      4. Your logic is flawed (see points 1 and 3) and your personal attacks really don't help taking you seriously. Between your comment and the science you're calling out, well the science seems much more credible.

    24. Re:Wow by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agreed with most of your post except this:

      One of the anti-vaccine idiots even had the balls to say that it was up to the scientific community to disprove that vaccines are dangerous.

      It is. Or if not prove, at least demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt. If someone's telling me to inject this cocktail of drugs and denatured organisms into my kids' bloodstream, I'm going to want some sort of assurance that it's not going to do harm. It's the reason the US has the FDA. So that drug companies can't just go off propounding their latest money-spinner without verifying that it doesn't cause irreparable harm to those that take them.

      That said, I think most commonly-used vaccinations have long since proved themselves in that regard.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    25. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't. I'd rather be crippled from polio than live under despotism. He should spend his money teaching people how to treat one another, rather than simply saving lives without any thought toward what the result will be. We don't need more of us. We need better of us.

    26. Re:Wow by Fozzyuw · · Score: 2

      I do approve of him using his money to help people rather than just hang out and be rich with Warren Buffett all day.

      I guess they still "hang out and be rich". In 2006 [Warren Buffet] made American history by making the largest ever charitable donation by an individual – $37bn to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

      --
      "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
    27. Re:Wow by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Hey, is it possible to dislike the tactics of Microsoft without having to take potshots at everything Gates does? Is it possible that (GASP) he actually is onboard the "saving children's lives with vaccines" train?

      I mean geez its like you cant dislike one aspect of anything on slashdot; no, you have to hate everything it has ever been involved with! Microsoft is litigous, anticompetitive, and anti-oss? That means Balmer must beat his wife! Gates must hate babies!

      Grow up, kids. Im sure theres some PR here, but dont kid yourself that theres nothing redeeming about Gates as a person.

    28. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I stay healthy:

      1) Good diet
      2) Vitamins
      3) Daily exercise (running, swimming, endurance training and strength training)
      4) Tai chi
      5) Meditation
      6) Books
      7) Sex
      8) Laughter

    29. Re:Wow by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 2

      I think it is time to get rid of the Bill Gates "Borg" icon. While I believe it was relevant a few years ago, with his hero mod status I think he deserves a halo.

      --
      Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    30. Re:Wow by Prune · · Score: 1

      And how does this jive with your oh-so-unassailable position? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html. I see both sides behaving with religious certainty on this issue. How sad.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    31. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Once you are crippled with Polio you will be in a position to swing around such hyperbole. Until then, you should keep such comments to yourself, it is an insult to people that are or have suffered from such diseases.

    32. Re:Wow by Americano · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, is this the same Dr. Hadwen who is known for his "denial of the germ theory of disease"? The same Dr. Hadwen who spoke in the late 1800's and early 1900's against vaccination?

      Yes, I'm sure he has a lot of relevant medical opinions. Maybe he can tell us all about how the Black Bile Humor causes most of our diseases, and recommend Bloodletting by leeches as a remedy for every ailment we get, as well?

      Sorry, pal, but questioning his medical opinion today is pretty much mandatory for anybody who professes to have an understanding of science, biology, and disease.

    33. Re:Wow by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      'Doctor of Chiropractic' ?????????? you might as well put 'troll' there....

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    34. Re:Wow by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I'm more offended at the idiots who gave what's-her-name serious air-time than the woman herself. When you're a stupid ditz and your kid has problems, I can see how you might cling to any irrational "answer". But for the media to give her a platform and credibility to spew her ignorant bullshit was ridiculous. I have big boobies and I'm a mommy, so listen to me! I know everything! It's like people who let their kid drown in a bucket and then go on a nation-wide crusade to label every bucket with a warning or outlaw buckets or require a license to own a bucket.

      You'd have to be an idiot to say that there isn't crass commercialism and profit motive behind vaccinations and that alone may drive some questionable government purchases of mass quantities of vaccinations and distributions or encouragement of some vaccinations. And you'd have to be an idiot to say that there are no side-effects or potential dangers or that there isn't or won't be one that completely fucks it up and kills a bunch of people (or otherwise harms them) as a result. You'd probably have to be an idiot to say that there isn't any chance that a government would use vaccinations as a carrier for some sort of ulterior ingredient. Governments are evil and they've done worse. Even to their own populations.

      But you'd also have to be an idiot not to recognize the good that vaccinations have done and the overwhelming evidence of positive outcome, overall.

      One thing I've never understood, however . . . is why we care so much about ensuring that EVERYONE gets a series of vaccinations? I mean, as long as I'm vaccinated and I vaccinate my kid, what the fuck does it matter if five kids in their class don't get vaccinated? If I'm the only person in my neighborhood with locked doors and an alarm system, my neighbors will get robbed. How does that affect me? Or is it that those five kids might somehow get sick and breed some super-death version of sickness that will be able to overcome our vaccinations and they'll get to us, anyway?

      Anyway, are you seriously surprised that people are so against vaccines (and with dumb reasons, at that)? I mean, there are plenty of people who don't believe in hospitals and sit by their four year old child's bed-side "praying" the sickness away while they die right before their eyes of something that a doctor could have cured with five dollars worth of medicine.

    35. Re:Wow by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      Nice trolling there. Chiropractors are not doctors.

    36. Re:Wow by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is. Or if not prove, at least demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt.

      There's a big difference there. You can't prove a negative, just like you can't prove the non-existence of something. To use our favorite analogy: I can't prove that a god doesn't exist; the best I can do is look at the god you posit, and demonstrate that it's unlikely to exist. Replace "god" with "unicorn", "leperchaun", "santa", or "autism causing vaccine" as required. With vaccines, we showed that removing mercury from them did not lead to a reduction in autism rates - in fact, the rates were completely unaffected. The reasonable conclusion based on that data is that mercury in vaccines does not cause autism, but it doesn't "prove" that vaccines do not cause autism.

    37. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Studies? Link please? Seen or heard of any autistic Amish children? Apparently some doctors that have been working with them for 35 fucking years haven't.

      http://editor.nourishedmagazine.com.au/articles/why-dont-the-amish-have-autistic-children.

      http://www.whale.to/vaccine/olmsted_on_autism111.html

      And before anyone even chimes in about the Amish being different because of how they live lets get a few things clear: 1. they have not been isolated long enough to be genetically different. 2. They breath the same air we do, drink the same water, and eat roughly the same foods as any other rural area of the country that does not really so heavily on processed "grocery store" goods.

    38. Re:Wow by sortius_nod · · Score: 0

      Two things:

      1) the Daily Mail is a bottom feeder tabloid
      2) Andrew Wakefield's research paper was pulled by The Lancet due to back room deals with the supporting agency of the anti-vaccine crusaders.

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

    39. Re:Wow by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      The Amish vaccinate and their autism rates are lower.

      What's your point?

    40. Re:Wow by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      You can't tell from the article itself, but apparently that's from the newspaper's archives and the piece was written in 2006. Here is basically the same story from a different paper: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/3340027/US-scientists-back-autism-link-to-MMR.html - this one has a time stamp.

      Dr Stephen Walker seems not to have published on the issue. Five years later that probably means he didn't get any results worth publishing.

    41. Re:Wow by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Informative

      "One thing I've never understood, however . . . is why we care so much about ensuring that EVERYONE gets a series of vaccinations? I mean, as long as I'm vaccinated and I vaccinate my kid, what the fuck does it matter if five kids in their class don't get vaccinated? "

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

      If there aren't enough vaccinated people around, and the disease is in the community, and you or your family can't have the vaccine for some reason (e.g. egg allergy, for a common one) ... then you're fucked. It's in your interest that as many people as possible around you get the vaccine too.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    42. Re:Wow by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      which in certain parts of the world contributes directly to overpopulation which has an even *higher* death toll from hunger and secondary effects like war.

      But here's the rebuttal. Sick people eat, but they don't work. That reduces economic activity and wealth per capita, the latter which has a strong negative correlation with female fertility.

      That's what you're missing in your concern about overpopulation. For example, malaria infects hundreds of millions of people a year yet only about a million die each year. The rest while sick (which can be a long time off and on with chronic malaria) aren't working and aren't improving their lives or their society.

    43. Re:Wow by quenda · · Score: 1

      "Proof" here means evidence of a certain level of safety or confidence. Do not confuse it with a mathematical proof.
      A mathematical proof may be 100%, but is only applies within a particular formal construct, not the real world. Or you might as well say you cannot prove anything, because all proofs rely on unproven axioms.

    44. Re:Wow by EdIII · · Score: 0

      Pseudo-science will always win because the media outlets can get "passionate" famous people behind the campaigns.

      Yeah.... that and fucking mercury based preservatives sounds extra healthy doesn't? Kind of like radium water back a hundred years ago.

      When you read all the crap that is in the vaccines and basically all the crap that is in food too, you really do start to wonder what the heck is going on. It doesn't help with the rampant corruption that an average person can't fucking trust anyone either. You want the unwashed masses to trust the scientists and the governments? Then they need to step up and get rid of the corrupt bullshit like the entire Pharmacon industry.

      I don't object to vaccines on principles or disagree with the science of how it works, just all the apparent crap that comes in the syringe with it. As a victim of mercury poisoning (thank the corrupt FDA for kowtowing to the Tuna and Fishing industries with effectively non-existent regulations on mercury) you will never convince me that anything with mercury in it is going to be healthy for a child.

      So don't just blame the pseudo-science here. When you can't trust the government, corporations, and medical community to care about you and not the money, don't be surprised when the unwashed masses start to embrace the people taking advantage of that mistrust and fear to bash science.

      Yes. I did think that the mercury based preservatives could have been causing those kids to become autistic. It wasn't anti-science that caused me to have this belief, but my complete lack of faith *in the ethics of those responsible* for the vaccines.

      I am a rational person, you might even say a scientist. So I can accept this new data without a problem. Let's just not make it a reason to give a pass to all those assholes in the boardroom meetings in Big Pharma.

      For fuck's sake. The FDA is letting one of those behemoth's spin off one of their divisions so they can shut it down because they got caught putting money ahead of people's lives and people *died*.

      I would let Jim Carey and Jenny McCarthy have a pass before I let Big Pharma have a pass. Their beliefs were *reasonable* at the time and they were passionate about the quality of life of future children. Can we say the same about Big Pharma? Absolutely Not. Those people have been caught time and time again.

    45. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while it is clear that the polio vaccine has been an amazing boon to humanity,

      meh... not so clear...

      Poorer sanitation of the time resulted in a constant exposure to the virus, which enhanced a natural immunity within the population. In developed countries during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, improvements were made in community sanitation, including better sewage disposal and clean water supplies. These changes drastically increased the proportion of children and adults at risk of paralytic polio infection, by reducing childhood exposure and immunity to the disease.

      I'd never say that vaccine was a bad one... just that we get in trouble simplifying stuff. The 1950's US epidemic notwithstanding, by the time the vaccine was developed, polio was in decline, and worldwide had declined by half in the 30 or so years leading up to the vaccine. Vaccine or not, humanity would likely have beaten it anyway. This medical and science stuff is hard... it's much easier to make sweeping generalizations than it is to actually understand the science (which I certainly do not, but I tend to trust those that do).

    46. Re:Wow by MadCat221 · · Score: 1

      Your propensity for foul language casts doubt on your claims that you are a "rational person".

    47. Re:Wow by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 1

      I think that the GP's outrage is more that this is coming as a response to people who display existing evidence (that vaccines is harmless), by people who ignore all that data and instead make speculative claims without themselves having sufficient medical background, and/or without any data to back it up.

      Yes, the tradition in science is that things need to be proven, and that we should acknowledge what is not yet proven, and even that we should take any credible evidence opposing existing theories and attempt to find the truth. However, the question is, is their pop-culture "science" founded on credible evidence, and does it itself acknowledge data in opposition to its views?

      Or in short, they're taking advantage of scientist's willingness to be proven false in the face of data, while not showing the same courtesy.

    48. Re:Wow by pandaman9000 · · Score: 1

      Take a look at what over zealous use of immunization costs. Taking the worst case scenario of your side of the argument only proves that in fringe cases and exceptional circumstances (malnutrition, poverty, poor sanitation) that induce higher rates in all conditions will there be a good argument for vaccination.

    49. Re:Wow by rainmouse · · Score: 1

      Pseudo-science will always win because the media outlets can get "passionate" famous people behind the campaigns.

      What's more is the media are making a fortune from killing children by peddling fear and misinformation while publicity starved celebrities from yesteryear will tout any radical bullshit in order to get just one more hit of the publicity heroin.

    50. Re:Wow by LurkerXXX · · Score: 3, Informative

      You might want to rethink your stance on Chicken Pox vaccines.

      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/varicella/dis-faqs-gen.htm

      "Many people are not aware that before a vaccine was available approximately 10,600 persons were hospitalized and 100 to 150 died as a result of chickenpox in the U.S. every year."

      "Can a healthy person who gets varicella die from the disease?

      Yes. Many of the deaths and complications from chickenpox occur in previously healthy children and adults. From 1990 to 1994, before a vaccine was available, about 50 children and 50 adults died from chickenpox every year; most of these persons were healthy or did not have a medical illness (such as cancer) that placed them at higher risk of getting severe chickenpox. Since 1999, states have been encouraged to report chickenpox deaths to CDC. These reports have shown that some deaths from chickenpox continue to occur in healthy, unvaccinated children and adults. Most of the healthy adults who died from chickenpox contracted the disease from their unvaccinated children."

    51. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agreed with most of your post except this:

      One of the anti-vaccine idiots even had the balls to say that it was up to the scientific community to disprove that vaccines are dangerous.

      It is. Or if not prove, at least demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt.

      That's an unfair shift of burden.

      If you wanna make a claim on something, you should be the one who proves it.

      Newton didn't say, "Gravity causes the apple to fall. Now you prove me wrong or I'm right!".

    52. Re:Wow by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Well not trying to flame here, but then that makes you snobbish.

      A rational person could also be a vulgar person. Many times when I am quite passionate about a subject, especially one in which millions have been harmed, I can indeed become vulgar.

      To discount what I have said because of the inclusion of some language hardly seems rational.

    53. Re:Wow by Kozz · · Score: 1

      Jim Carey and that other bitch both need to be hurt with hot pokers.

      I know it's too little, too late, but for what it's worth, I'm not sure that Jim Carrey himself ever had anything to do with the anti-vaccine stuff (I welcome corrections), it was mostly ("that other bitch" as you say) his now ex-wife Jenny McCarthy. And interestingly, McCarthy recanted her claim that vaccines caused her child's problems a little over a year ago. Too bad the confession doesn't get as much traction as the anti-vaccine rant that McCarthy gave when on Oprah, etc.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    54. Re:Wow by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      There is a proportion of people who can't be directly protected by vaccination. Sometimes there are other medical issues that make vaccinating them a bad idea. Sometimes they are too young. Sometimes people are given the vaccine but don't actually develop immunity.

      These people are protected in modern society because as long as a sufficient proportion of people are vaccinated it is very difficult for the disease to spread effectively but if the proportion but if too many people start refusing vaccines that can break down.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    55. Re:Wow by Myopic · · Score: 2

      Billions of children have taken vaccines. We have great statistics on the positive and negative effects of vaccines. The vast overwhelming majority of people benefit; a sad rare few are harmed. In the difficult calculus of medicine, we judge them to be worth it, and we even set up (in the USA) a formal system to provide for those rare sad few cases.

      The problem is when people say that we need to prove they are safe, which is a nonsense thing to say because it preposterously presumes that we haven't already done that. And you recognize that, which is great. I claim that people who don't recognize that, can never be convinced, because they are obviously not able to be convinced by evidence, because the evidence is long since 'in'.

    56. Re:Wow by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I charge that the vaccine naysayers, along with naysayers of many other things that are true, are absolutely using the word "proof" in the mathematical sense. Their brains find that the only way to avoid cognitive dissonance is to use the only tool of logic which can allow their absurd beliefs to continue: that it is, in fact, impossible to "prove" that the belief is wrong.

    57. Re:Wow by 246o1 · · Score: 0

      Two things:

      1) the Daily Mail is a bottom feeder tabloid
      2) Andrew Wakefield's research paper was pulled by The Lancet due to back room deals with the supporting agency of the anti-vaccine crusaders.

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

      Not only did Wakefield have a huge conflict of interest, but his study has been demonstrated to have included false date (in his sample size of twelve!!!), and he is no longer a doctor due to his incompetent and hugely unethical behavior.

      Somebody mod GP down, please, as uninformative and misleading.

      --
      Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
    58. Re:Wow by EllisDees · · Score: 2

      >Yeah.... that and fucking mercury based preservatives sounds extra healthy doesn't

      OMG Mercury!!! Run!

      Seriously though, ethyl mercury is an entirely different chemical from methyl mercury. One bio-accumulates, the other doesn't. One is far more dangerous than the other. It would probably benefit you to learn the difference.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    59. Re:Wow by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      "Proof" here means evidence of a certain level of safety or confidence.

      That's all fine and good, as long as we're operating on your definition of "proof". But it's not you that we're trying to convince, so your definition is largely irrelevant in this discussion. What matters is what the opposition means when they say they want "proof".

    60. Re:Wow by sirrunsalot · · Score: 1

      Mod parent +10. Windows is a small price to pay if it gives someone the power to do so much good in the world.

    61. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vaccines are usually made using eggs. Pharmaceutical companies inject eggs with the disease which infects the eggs. Then the eggs are drained and the contents are put through a centrifuge to separate the fluids. They extract the fluid and apply a chemical/radiation process to inert\sterilize the virus.

      The problems are:

      1. Essentially raw eggs are injected into your blood stream. Its not exactly the most hygiene fluid available. Would you crack open and egg and inject yourself with raw (but sterile egg)

      2. There have been countless health violations at pharmaceuticals. In vaccines, contaminants such as caustic chemicals, glass shards, and metal filings have all be found in vaccines. This is usually not make available to the public. FWIW: The worse time to get a vaccine is during a major breakout (aka flu) since Quality controls are complete ignored in order to speed up the process to get enough vaccine produced.

      3. Sometimes the sterilization process isn't complete. A small portion of the public is injected with live virus which of course infects the person with the disease. The small number of people that become infected is written off as an acceptable risk by the medical profession (unless of course your the one that gets infected). Processes that use chemicals for sterilization, separation, may leave toxic chemicals in the vaccine. Some of the chemicals they source may come from China which contain containments, which are not checked at the vaccine manufacturing facility.

      The idea of vaccines isn't the problem. Its the process and lack of quality controls and poor practices of pharmaceuticals are the danger.

      Of course Bill Gates\Microsoft is actively involved in releasing GM bugs (aka GM Mosquitoes) in order to fix bug transmitted diseases. Since When has Microsoft ever released a product that didn't have a major issue (bugs, security issues, etc)? I would not recommend anyone follow any advice from Bill Gates.

      The best advice I can offer is to avoid vaccines and avoid getting sick by washing your hands very often and use precaution when using public places with high traffic. Eat plenty of fruits and vegetables and avoid eating uncooked foods at restaurants (Salads, raw fish, cold sandwiches, etc).

    62. Re:Wow by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hunger isn't because of overpopulation. There is hunger in some regions because of a lack of infrastructure to move the food around efficiently.

      Look at eastern Africa's famines of the 1980s, you had net exporters of food in Kenya, South Africa and Zimbabwe while only a couple thousand miles away millions starved to death in Ethiopia and Somalia. Those people didn't die because there weren't enough kilograms of food, they died because the surpluses couldn't be quickly and efficiently moved.

      Likewise in Somalia in 1992-94, there were famines in the countryside because aid food was stockpiling in the port and the limited road net was being controlled by militias which made distribution impossible. The entry of the UN and US peacekeeping forces led to the control of the road net and proper distribution of the food.

      North Korean famines wouldn't happen if the DPRK had more open borders with China and the Republic of Korea, as it stands now a famine in North Korea is hidden and denied until hundreds of thousands are dead and then the delivery of aid is delayed internally for political reasons like the rebagging of US Aid grain into DPRK labeled bags.

    63. Re:Wow by ivec · · Score: 2

      One of the anti-vaccine idiots even had the balls to say that it was up to the scientific community to disprove that vaccines are dangerous.

      As much as I hate the anti-vaccine FUD, constructive science cannot use the same tactics. Science and Pharma companies also make mistakes, and some vaccines have been withdrawn for very valid scientific reasons after years of use.

      When Bill Gates says "Because the mothers who heard that lie, many of them didn't have their kids take either pertussis or measles vaccine, and their children are dead today", it suggests that all mothers who refused that their child gets vaccinated by measles had their child die, which is total BS. His intentions may be good, but I reprove the tactic.

      When you look at a disease like Chicken Pox in childhood, in our developed countries, the complications are rare enough, that it is fair to demand hard proof of the benefit and safety of the vaccine - while I might send my 5 year old child to play with a neighbor who has Chicken Pox, knowing that at that age the disease will be mild (if at all, if he has not unknowingly been exposed in the past). A choice I make for myself or my family, and a solution that a company sells to our society, do require different levels of scrutiny.

      I was also skeptical of H1N1 vaccines last year, did not go for it. This year the current flu epidemic in Switzerland is predominantly H1N1, and guess what, we now handle it just as any other flu, and all is ... as with any other flu. Thinking of the billions that were spent on H1N1 flu vaccines last year, I remain certain that there could have been better uses for these funds (e.g. obesity prevention).

      So yes:
      Pharma companies must be held accountable, and ought to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the products that they sell. And when it comes to the scientific or pseudo-scientific communities, whether pro- or anti-vaccine, we must be equally weary of the financial or egotistic interests they may have. As a discerning society, we must carefully choose the solutions that we invest in.

    64. Re:Wow by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You mean the foreskins whose removal makes a male less likely to be effected by HIV and HPV?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Sexually_transmitted_diseases

    65. Re:Wow by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Your not real bright if you couldn't figure out that the people who argue against vaccines are saying that the mercury based preservatives are causing autism, and while MMR is the biggest culprit, one can also get the same results with less dangerous vaccines by taking a bunch of them.

      Unfortunately, this is total bullshit.

      Mercury-based preservatives do not lead to autism, MMR has no documented negative effect, and the number of vaccines taken together has no connection to a child's health.

      This has been proved in dozens of studies involving hundreds of thousands of children around the world.

    66. Re:Wow by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1
      The Daily Mail! The British equivalent of Weekly World News!

      That was sarcasm, wasn't it?

    67. Re:Wow by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

      Yes, the over zealous use of immunization has cost the United States Iron Lung Wards, Smallpox and has eliminated Rinderpest from the planet's cattle population.

    68. Re:Wow by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      It's too bad you don't believe in chiropractors. After a chiropractic adjustment, you might have been able to turn your head upwards and see the joke whizzing way above you.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    69. Re:Wow by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, the MMR vaccine has not contained mercury-based preservatives (thiomersal) for ten years now.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    70. Re:Wow by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      So, we should just think of all of those Windows license fees paid over all these years as a charitable contribution? I don't feel so bad about paying them now.

    71. Re:Wow by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Yes, the tradition in science is that things need to be proven, and that we should acknowledge what is not yet proven

      Not quite. The scientific tradition is that things need to be disproven. The more experiments return the same result, and the more attempts to falsify that result fail, the more reliable the theory is.

      This is why activists often have a field day twisting scientists' words, because scientists will almost never come out and say "this is proven to be true," because that's not the way it works. The activist then turns around and says, "See? He admits that it hasn't been proven to be true, just like he can't prove that what I say isn't true!"

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    72. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you know what else helps dramatically reduse the risk of STDs? Condoms. Condoms are a much better solution than amputating healthy, functional and errogoneous body parts.

    73. Re:Wow by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      they were passionate about the quality of life of future children.

      You could say the same about anybody who supports any practice with enough zeal -- from anti-vaccination, to foot binding, to female circumcision, to NAMBLA. They always say they're doing it for a reason.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    74. Re:Wow by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      And interestingly, McCarthy recanted her claim that vaccines caused her child's problems a little over a year ago.

      Not quite. Careful not to be called out on the hard facts, she now says she thinks "vaccines should be studied more carefully," and she still works as a speaker for the anti-vax movement. The current homepage for Jenny McCarthy's Generation Rescue organization includes the headline, "Recent Dr. Andrew Wakefield Media Circus: Much Ado About Nothing," where the organization flatly denies that Wakefield's study was a fraud.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    75. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's done a lot more good for the world than that narcissist Steve Jobs.

    76. Re:Wow by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      One of the anti-vaccine idiots even had the balls to say that it was up to the scientific community to disprove that vaccines are dangerous.

      How about one of the anti-vaccine idiots show not only what exactly autism is (they still don't know what the physical root of it is) but show a biochemical path from vaccine and/or preservatives and autism. Even a roughly defined possible path. They have absolutely NOTHING in that regard.

      They also need to define what exactly autism is since it has been adjusted over the decades plus more have been checked for it meaning the number of diagnoses goes up too. Measels and whooping cough (too name a few) all have very well defined causes and the vaccines that fight them are known how they work and they actually work. Maybe these people would rather see their kids possibly die than get autism? Hmmm

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    77. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, I don't approve of how he made his money, but I do approve of him using his money to help people rather than just hang out and be rich with Warren Buffett all day.

      I have to say I approve of both. There are some sadistic bastards at the top, and each rung of the ladder getting there. If you read about the people Bill Gates fucked over on the way up, you will find most were that type of person (yes, even Steve Jobs). Its the nature of the system we live in, and his target was charity from the start based upon the influences his parents had on his life. Not many people can climb that high and maintain any sense of decency - and in the end, who cares if he made sure some prick couldn't go wrecking havoc with millions of dollars while accomplishing nothing for society in the process - a couple hundred less, even better.

    78. Re:Wow by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You miss read my post. I didn't say that the anti-vaccine crowd was right. I said that their argument was consistent. There is a huge difference. The way to convince a person who has a consistent disagreement with you isn't to claim that they are inconsistent. That will only validate their belief that you don't know what you are talking about. The OP said that they kept changing their story. This is untrue. Their claims, right or wrong, are consistent.

    79. Re:Wow by martin-boundary · · Score: 1, Insightful

      just like you can't prove the non-existence of something.

      There's no positive integer x such that x * x = 2. The proof is left as an exercise for you.

    80. Re:Wow by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Or maybe you should think of them as a tax with the collected funds earmarked for a secret investment program that will be chosen decades afterwards.

    81. Re:Wow by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

      ...and you will always find that those promoting an 'anti-existing-cure' viewpoint are selling/being funded by an 'alternative product'.

      As much as I dislike MS, Bill Gates here is the voice of reason.

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    82. Re:Wow by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      No one claimed that chicken pox cannot kill. It is just extremely unlikely. As you say. 50 children a year would die in the US from chicken pox prior to the vaccine. Look at how many die since the vaccine has been introduced. Almost as many. As sad as it might be to those that it happens to, that is statistical noise. A kid allowed to play high school football has approximately a 5X greater chance of dying from it than they do from dying due to a lack of immunization for chickenpox. The claims that it is a deadly disease are simply blown out of proportion to the point of being out right lies. One thing we know is that 100% immunization with 100% effectiveness, you would at best be able to save 50 kids lives a year. Tops.

      Now, the down side of the vaccine. It is temporary. It simply does not offer life long immunity. Look at the numbers of chicken pox cases. 95% of them were in children, yet you had the same number of deaths in the 5% group of adults. That means that the disease is approximately 20X more dangerous for adults than it is for children. Since the protection offered by the chicken pox vaccine is not permanent, by mass vaccinating kids, you have just increased the risk of death by 20X for all of the children that you gave it to. Of course when they die from it, they won't be kids any more, so you can say you 'save children lives' even if that means you killed them as adults.

      Just to put it in perspective, approximately 480 people a year die do to cooking fires each year. That means that little Sebastian has more than 5 times the chance of dying due to his parents performing the negligent act of cooking at home than he does of dying because his parents decided not to get him vaccinated.

      I presume that with this new found knowledge, you will stop cooking in your home, and start warning parents to stop exposing their children to such dangers acts as well. Yes?

    83. Re:Wow by hitmark · · Score: 1

      What really makes me wonder is what it is that is so scary about autism that people will risk their child's life to known fatal diseases because of it.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    84. Re:Wow by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      "Just because you haven't found it yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist!"

      QED

    85. Re:Wow by meerling · · Score: 2

      Yes, but then again it kind of makes sense, an actors entire career is based on them doing and saying exactly what someones else tells them to and to do it convincingly. Guess they've trained to be professional sheep or something.

    86. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hunger isn't because of overpopulation".

      BULLSHIT!!!

      If there had been less people there (wherever "there" is), the food available might have been sufficient. Hunger happens because there is not enough food to feed the people who need to eat. If there were less people, there would be less hunger. Unless there is then less food - but you fix that with less people.

    87. Re:Wow by blincoln · · Score: 1

      You can't prove a negative, just like you can't prove the non-existence of something.

      You know, I keep hearing this statement, and something always bothered me about it. I think I just realized why: using the same logic, you "can't prove a positive", either. There is always another explanation. I'm pretty sure Thomas Aquinas covered this awhile ago with his whole "demons manipulating our perceptions" thought experiment, but maybe I only believe that because a demon has interfered with my perception of reality to convince me of that, or because I'm actually plugged into The Matrix, et cetera.

      I think it's fair to say that when most people use the term "prove" they implicitly mean "beyond a reasonable doubt", and consider anything else as nitpicking. Otherwise, we may as well retire the words "prove" and "proof" from the dictionary. Yes, even for mathematical/symbolic logic purposes. How do you know that a malicious demon isn't interfering with your perceptions of the symbols on the page when you read the so-called "proof"?

      Now, on the other hand, it is certainly possible to disprove a theory (which is not the same as "proving a negative"), as long as the theory contains elements which can be put to the test. For example, if the theory is that mercury in vaccines causes autism, and removing the mercury from vaccines (as well as any other environmental sources of mercury that might serve as a substitute and contaminate the results) results in no change in autism rates, then that theory has been factually disproven. Obviously extremely strict controls are required, and the people with the crazy theory are likely to retcon in a new reason, but it is possible.

      To go back to the GP's statement, trying to "prove" a ridiculously broad statement like "vaccines aren't dangerous" is a fool's errand. However, it is certainly possible to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.) statements such as "statistically, vaccination against deadly/crippling diseases is many times safer than the alternative".

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    88. Re:Wow by Cylix · · Score: 1, Funny

      So we take the malaria survivors and we feed them to the healthy.

      Everyone is a winner!

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    89. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you want the polio vaccine?

      The CDC and ACIP changed the polio schedule in 2000 because the only indigenously-acquired polio in the U.S. since 1980 had been due to the oral polio vaccine, while there had been no polio cases due to the wild poliovirus. The ACIP determined that the risk-benefit ratio associated with the exclusive use of the OPV for routine immunization had changed because of the rapid progress in global polio eradication efforts.

      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/polio/vac-faqs.htm

    90. Re:Wow by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>The reasonable conclusion based on that data is that mercury in vaccines does not cause autism, but it doesn't "prove" that vaccines do not cause autism.

      Right. Given that autism has spiked all around the world, and it's unlikely to be solely due to just increased detection, the logical question is to ask what caused it.

      It's a very interesting question, because there were sudden spikes in certain years around the world, and they were not always the same year. So there's a lot of possible causes, which the current autism megastudy is trying to narrow down to likely candidates. IIRC, vaccinations are one of the many factors they're looking at (because they are deployed worldwide), but so is fast food, plastics, and a number of other possible causes.

      It's irresponsible to suggest they cause autism without proof.

      That said, there's a possible bias against associating vaccinations with side effects, as I've said on here before, so possible adverse effects may be underreported... but if I had kids, I'd get them immunized to everything I could.

    91. Re:Wow by MacroMegaMan · · Score: 1

      "Just because you haven't found it yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist!"

      QED

      Ah, yes I remember this: What the Tortoise Said to Achilles. Or, more generally, the descent into logical madness...

      Unfortunately the only way out of that sort of tangled mess is Nature's Solution: Pain. Just because you refuse to believe that walking off a cliff will cause you pain does not mean that the laws of physics agree.

    92. Re:Wow by mju.cat · · Score: 2

      Guess they've trained to be professional sheep or something.

      What an apt description.

    93. Re:Wow by zephvark · · Score: 1

      Err... why the scare quotes? Are they, or are they not, polio vaccines? Assuming you meant real polio vaccinations, do they even give those out any more? The vaccine is certain to be more dangerous than the disease, which basically doesn't exist any more.

    94. Re:Wow by meerling · · Score: 1

      People seem to be forgetting that the vaccines already went through a safety testing system to get approved by the FDA. Then some yahoo comes out with a b.s. "study" of 8 kids, makes specious claims of them causing autism, (and has now been linked to a scam to get money from said claims) and people buy into it.

      One ex-doctor with one highly flawed study (possible scam) is suddenly revered more than the hundreds of doctors and safety inspectors that approved it in the first place much less the millions upon millions of recorded cases of everything being just hunky dory with it.
      The only thing I can think of is he somehow used a hypnoray to melt their brains, and just try to prove I'm wrong, even though scientist have been telling us for years that there's no such thing as hypnorays and melting someones brain would be fatal. Now it's up to you to prove me wrong.
        (Doesn't sound reasonable when I put it like that, now does it. Now find that on switch and start up your brains, you're going to need them in the real world.)

      Just a side note for people to think about: A century or so ago, diarrhea was a major killer. Now it is easily dealt with and prevented, yet a lot of the world doesn't have those means or knowledge. About 20 years ago the death rate of children world wide was around 5 million. Lots of people have been working hard to change this and now the rates are down to about 1.5 million children a year. Yet if someone were to convince a significant portion of these people to forgo the effective techniques for preventing and treating this issue, you would see the death rates skyrocket again. Is your life and the lives of the children in your community worth risking because of one crackpot? This is true with any disease.

    95. Re:Wow by russ1337 · · Score: 2

      I'm going to put forward this argument next time my mother uses famine in Africa as the reason I should eat my vegetables...

    96. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever the causes might end up being, writing off the massive increase in the incidence of autism to over-diagnosis is ignorant in the extreme. Over-diagnosis would result in a massive increase in people with high functioning (read: low-severity) autism and a static rate of those diagnosed with low functioning autism (as they were always severe enough to be diagnosed even with less sensitive tests and less community awareness of the condition). What has actually happened is an increase across the whole range of severity, which points to increases in the underlying causes of the condition(s) rather than an increased diagnostic sensitivity.

    97. Re:Wow by meerling · · Score: 1

      still not as terrible at the telegraph. I suspect their fact checkers (if they have any) are brain damaged monkeys incapable of telling the difference between a banana and cactus much less facts and fantasy.

    98. Re:Wow by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Doctor of Chiropractic? What's next, a Professor of Homeopathy? And while we're at it, I'm sure there are some magisters of faith healing waiting too, so please step aside and let the other quacks spread their crap as well.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    99. Re:Wow by meerling · · Score: 1

      I recall seeing an article a few years ago about some areas in the US where this anti-vaccine garbage has been rather popular for years now. Seems their infection rates are many times higher than ever before, and much nastier as well. They are even getting hit by stuff that had become so rare everywhere else as to have been almost forgotten as a possible risk. I guess the safe threshold is rather narrow, and their children are paying the price.

    100. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not quotes, they're asterisks. Traditionally used for emphasis back in the days when all you had was a terminal. Occasionally still are, because they're rather fast to type.

    101. Re:Wow by meerling · · Score: 1

      I kind of agree. Bill Gates has enough techie in him to understand that field. He's also got enough business savy to swim in that pond. What was unique is that he had both when pretty much all the competition didn't. It let him become a very big fish in that pond rather quickly. That pissed off a lot of people, rightly or otherwise.

      Yet Bill Gates does care about humanity (if not so much about individuals or corporations), and he even has a sense of humor. He can even take criticism. (Try that one on Jobs.) He's doing something the 'normal' rich guys would never have thought of doing in a million years. He's turned himself into one of those super rich philanthropists like they used to have in the old movies, tv shows, and comic books. A regular Bruce Wayne without the psychotic nocturnal vigilante in tights issues. On top of that he's even convinced, cajoled, or otherwise convinced a number of the rich crowd to help. You may love him or hate him, but he's doing more now and will have a greater legacy of compassion towards humanity than almost any person in modern memory.

      Of course I'd still like to have his weekly allowance. :-)

    102. Re:Wow by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Well, it is scary, let me tell you.

      I count myself blessed, my son's autism is as mild as it could be. The only real manifestation is a tendency to not be able to put faces to names, some temporal issues (what happened in what order, almost Yoda like) and auditory processing issues (loud noises,especially voices, disrupt his brain, you can see it in his brain waves)

      Other than that, he is bright, witty, and personable. Near total musical recall, but no interest in playing an instrument, he just hums or whistles. We Work hard to socialize him and he is very well behaved even compared to most "normal" kids. Parenting, it works wonders

      But some of the other tough cases? Total lack of perception of others, violent outbursts, lack of speech, and more than I care to recount here.

      What is so interesting is that most autistics a very smart, but it is limited to certain abilities. Almost as if nature has decided to specialize and not generalize brain functions.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    103. Re:Wow by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Even if it were true (vaccines cause autism), as Penn & Teller wisely argued: Vaccines SAVE more lives than they kill/damage.

      For me it had nothing to do with Penn & Teller, intuitively it makes sense. There's a 1 in 110 chance of each of my children being autistic. Even if the vaccines contribute to that, polio, measels, mumps and myriad other diseases that can be prevented through vaccination have much higher mortality rates than 1 in 110.

      You can't exist without taking some risks, so I think you should try to choose your risks intelligently. I vaccinated my children because far worse things could happen to them if I don't.

      There is something about the pro-vaccine lobby that bothers me. There's a trust fund setup to pay compensation to people who are injured by vaccines, that was some sort of compromise because big pharma wouldn't produce vaccines unless they got some sort of liability waiver. Well, if vaccines don't cause any harm, why is there a fund?

      I think they should be honest with people, vaccines can cause some problems, but you'll be worse off if you get Polio.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    104. Re:Wow by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that :) I'd never heard of that story until now, and I got quite a good laugh after looking it up.

      Unfortunately, pain only works on the individual. It's entirely possible for an entire society (or a subset) to carry on having delusional beliefs which cause pain and suffering for countless members, as long as that pain and suffering doesn't affect their ability to procreate and compete. Evolution doesn't necessarily weed out stupid beliefs.

    105. Re:Wow by Doviende · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's really nice that he's decided to do this awesome thing with his money, but the system that allows this is horrible. Instead of allocation of this helpful money by democracy, we've settled on a system that appears to be out of the middle ages. We have a set of wealthy lords who then decide what to do with all the money, with basically zero accountability.

      "Philanthropy" is an unethical way to allocate society's resources. When something good comes out of it, we praise that particular "lord", but we've ignored all the others who squandered their money on jewels and yachts while poor people starve and die of diseases.

      --
      "The value of a man resides in what he gives,
      and not in what he is capable of receiving."
      --Albert Einstein
    106. Re:Wow by narcc · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit on your copy/paste rant.

      I've been unable to validate any of the items on your list, though it's been spread around the internet, verbatim, to thousands of pseudo-science and "natural health" websites.

      I'm going to need either proper citations or direct links to your primary sources.,

      As it stands now, it looks like a bunch of nonsense designed to "look true" to the uneducated.

    107. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but the fact that the rates of autism in vaccinated and unvaccinated children are very similar goes a long way to "proving" that vaccines don't cause autism.

    108. Re:Wow by hitmark · · Score: 1

      but that vs dying? Not sure i see the tradeoff.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    109. Re:Wow by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      It's horrible to see that the marketing techniques that he used are used against his humanitarian efforts. Karma is a cruel bitch. (All joking and sarcasm aside.)

    110. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disclaimer: Bill has invested billions in Pharma companies.

    111. Re:Wow by Maritz · · Score: 1

      How about a widening of the diagnosis ?

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    112. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't prove that, you can only show it follows from, among other things, the axiom that the only positive integers are 1 and the things you get by repeatedly adding 1 to 1.

    113. Re:Wow by toriver · · Score: 1

      Keep the Borg motif, but use Steve Ballmer.

    114. Re:Wow by Alistair+Hutton · · Score: 1
      No, the argument changes - and you'd realise that if you actually paid attenotin to the bullshit they spew. There is a intertwining of American and British anti-vax bullshit.

      American anit-vaxxers believe it is the mercury in the vaccine that makes autism happen. Their problem is that there is no mercury in the vaccines that children are given.

      The British anti-vaxxers postion is that the measels strain used in the MMR jab cause autistic like symptoms from compacted bowel problems due to the measles virus making it's way to the gut. Their problem is that this is all based on Wakefield's work and Wakefield is a lying, duplicitous cunt who made it all up.

      The American and British antivax bullshit found each other and have used the existence of each other to justify their crazy beliefs despite the lack of evidence for either position.

      --
      Puzzle Daze is now my job
    115. Re:Wow by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Exactly, I love my foreskin and will never part with it willingly.
      Condoms FTW

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    116. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That not proving some concrete object doesn't exist. That's proving some abstract concept isn't logically consistent.

    117. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just like you
          can't prove the non-existence of something.

      There's no positive integer x such that x * x = 2. The proof is left as an exercise for you.

      Well... x = sqrt(2)

      So there is an answer

    118. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How is this insightful? It's idiotic. The parent was talking about the real world, not mathematics.

    119. Re:Wow by gmor · · Score: 1

      While we're on this topic, I recommend this recent hour-long interview with investigative journalist Brian Deer regarding his extraordinary effort to expose Andrew Wakefield's fraud.

    120. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know what they gave Carrey as a kid, but THAT stuff should definitely be illegal.

    121. Re:Wow by paulmac84 · · Score: 1

      I should note that I am a Doctor (Doctor of Chiropractic) so I'm an expert in human health.

      Best laugh I've had in a while. The only thing you're an expert in is removing money from the wallets of the gullible.

      Does that make you a surgeon too?

      --
      One of the universal rules of happiness is always be wary of any helpful item that weighs less than its operating manual
    122. Re:Wow by aurizon · · Score: 1

      So if the parents inflict their stupidity on their kids, then make the parents pay the medical bills if their children become ill as a result of not being vaccinated.(their medical plan should tell them in advance - any self inflicted medical costs - not being vaccinated, (smoking, fatboys etc could be added))
      Nothing is worse than kids being forced to suffer by these micro-minds

    123. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      solve for x, sqrt both sides, x= sqrt(2), sqrt(2) being 1.414... is not an integer so there is no positive integer that equals sqrt(2) and thus "There's no positive integer x such that x * x = 2".

    124. Re:Wow by giorgist · · Score: 1

      Its about proving the negative

      If you tell me
      "Prove to me that the house accross the road does not have gosts."

      This is impossible, because the gosts might have been out on trip on the day of the investigation.

      On the other hand, if you can prove to me
      "Prove to me that the house accross the road does have gosts."

      You win, so the proof is in your court

    125. Re:Wow by paulmac84 · · Score: 1

      There's no positive integer x such that x * x = 2.

      The sgrt(2) is irrational - it's not an integer. Try again.

      --
      One of the universal rules of happiness is always be wary of any helpful item that weighs less than its operating manual
    126. Re:Wow by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Even if I was 100% sure vaccines are perfectly safe, I would still think that as a matter of principle, nobody should be forced to ingest or basically put anything inside their body if they don't want to."

      The other kids can also no be forced to risk their life when going to school with such deniers.
      So if they don't want to, stay out of school.

    127. Re:Wow by horigath · · Score: 1

      Bill's charitable work is actually quite awesome. Among other things, his foundation is very good at making sure that their funding goes to projects that actually work (surprisingly unusual in the non-profit world).

      Are you sure?

      In November 2008, Bill and Melinda gathered about one hundred prominent figures in education at their home outside Seattle to announce that the small schools project hadn’t produced strong results. They didn’t mention that, instead, it had produced many gut-wrenching sagas of school disruption, conflict, students and teachers jumping ship en masse, and plummeting attendance, test scores, and graduation rates. No matter, the power couple had a new plan...

      From a good article about how the Gates foundation, as well as other billionaire-led philanthropy organisations, effectively controls school policy in the US and is dangerously directing private and government funding towards programs that research is proving do not work.

      http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=3781

      The Gates have the right idea regarding vaccines, and it's easy to support their international medical work (although there are some signs that having such a large single philanthropist supporting that is having some negative effects on the programs and research too). But they certainly don't have a perfect track record.

    128. Re:Wow by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Putting food on the commodities exchange also has an extreme bearing on the price of food, adding up to fifty percent to the price of food with the pretend buying and selling of whilst not adding one iota of value.

      The difference between the cost of producing food and forcing third world countries into violent revolution because they can no longer afford to eat, is largely driven by financial institutions, that neither grow, harvest, transport, store, process or distribute, who just add a parasitical burden to it, crippling farmers and starving the poor.

      Thousands literally starving billions because of their psychopathic greed, now wheres the vaccine for that.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    129. Re:Wow by burne · · Score: 1

      You do realize that removing the rest of the penis will effectively stop all transmission of any STD?

    130. Re:Wow by Prune · · Score: 1

      The article does NOT refer to Wakefield but independent research. Learn to read! Or maybe you have autism

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    131. Re:Wow by Prune · · Score: 1

      Re you dense? The article does NOT refer to Wakefield but independent research, for fuck's sakes!

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    132. Re:Wow by Prune · · Score: 1

      The paper is just a secondary source. It's refering to independent research and you're not addressing that at all, instead talking trash about irrelevant shit such as who is reporting it.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    133. Re:Wow by rpillala · · Score: 1

      Bill's charitable work is actually quite awesome. Among other things, his foundation is very good at making sure that their funding goes to projects that actually work (surprisingly unusual in the non-profit world).

      Now, I don't approve of how he made his money, but I do approve of him using his money to help people rather than just hang out and be rich with Warren Buffett all day.

      Mr. Gates has great intentions, and he should therefore beware of creating monocultures in his various avenues of venture philanthropy. The public health work is admirable, and the foundation's efforts in education are less so. Full disclosure: I'm a teacher union guy. But, my objection to the Gates-Broad-Walton education agenda is that there's no basis for it other than groupthink. That is, it fails your standard of money going to things that actually work. Without getting too far off topic, let me link this article from Dissent magazine:

      On February 16, 2008, the New York Times reported on a memo that it had obtained, written by Dr. Arata Kochi, head of the World Health Organization’s malaria programs, to WHO’s director general. Because the Gates Foundation was funding almost everyone studying malaria, Dr. Arata complained, the cornerstone of scientific research—independent review—was falling apart.

      There's more right after that that's also interesting. I admit that it's probably difficult for one person with a lot of money to encourage diversity of thinking when everyone is beholden to them for their research money. Or maybe it's just hard for me to think of ways.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    134. Re:Wow by bcmm · · Score: 1

      Tiny amounts of mercury. Less than is found in a typical tin of tuna.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    135. Re:Wow by DrXym · · Score: 1

      I'm glad he said it. Anti vaccination groups have blood on their hands. They've killed people. If a corporation killed people through some faulty product the board of directors would be up for corporate manslaughter. Why shouldn't the same hold for anti-vax advice?

    136. Re:Wow by DrXym · · Score: 1
      One minute it's the MMR vaccines that cause autism, then it's the mercury based preservatives, then it's the amount of shots kids get, blah blah blah. Basically all the reasons have been refuted by scientific studies (Denmark was used quite often as they keep medical records on all their citizens).

      That's because anti-vaxxers are like creationists, 9/11 truthers, holocaust deniers etc. They don't have any evidence so they make unfounded assertions and if one is pounded to dust they move onto the next and go through them in rotation. It's like whack a mole really.

    137. Re:Wow by DrXym · · Score: 1
      How I laugh at all the holier than thou idiots on Slashdot, who really don't want to look at things objectively at all. You lap up whatever the shills in the media tell you, then lambast anybody intelligent enough to question it...

      Wow you're paranoid and stupid. The benefits of vaccination are obvious. Whether your paranoia fuelled incredulity can accept it is neither here nor there.

    138. Re:Wow by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Also there are people who are immune compromised or have other contraindications and cannot be vaccinated, and young kids, and new strains of disease that vaccinated people are only partially resistant to. Vaccination should be considered a duty of care issue. By not vaccinating you put other people are risk. Anti-vax idiots should be done for assault or manslaughter if it can be reasonably proven that their neglect caused their kid or anyone person to contract a serious communicable disease.

    139. Re:Wow by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      I went to the US for a job (which I got cheated on btw - see if I ever trust American businessmen again) with my two kids. First off I was amazed at how awful the medical care was, and second off I was amazed at how much it cost. There's a documentary called "Sicko" that I watched after returning home - there is so much truth in it it's frightening. I'm not sure what America is the "leader" of anymore, but whatever it is it's certainly not medicine.

    140. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The key problem is Americans have lost their trust due to information overload.
      The media is too focused on listening to the comman man opinion. Which is full of half truths and a uneducated view on the particular problem.
      The average guy who has many problems in life would love to hear about some conspiracy that "The Man" is keeping him down. So when a con-man goes look at what the government is hiding from us people listen and take it for truth. However doesn't have the time, education or courage to verify the information.

    141. Re:Wow by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      You know the FDA has a backlog of cases for years, don't you? And you realize FDA studies on medicines are significantly more lax than other countries (Japan, Germany). If you are worried about a Vaccine chances are it's already been checked out thoroughly by Germany or Japan - look it up and see if it has been approved. Otherwise you can let your kid run the risk of dieing because you were waiting for a scientific study (that will never happen) to disprove a scam. Have fun watching your kid die of a preventable disease.

    142. Re:Wow by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      Bill Gates hasn't been in Microsoft marketing for a long time - he just has the misfortune of having his face associated with forced bundling of a few products people like us didn't like. The truth is he's one of the most genuine humanitarians out there, and any money you lost to him buying machines pre-packaged with windows he and his wife have been doing their best to help benefit just about everyone.

    143. Re:Wow by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      Look at what the foundation is actually doing and ask yourself weather or not Buffets donation would have been better placed. There are a lot of fraud charities out there but the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation doesn't look like one of them to me.

    144. Re:Wow by Sique · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please point out a single famine which was obviously caused by overpopulation. Hint: There is none.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    145. Re:Wow by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

      If McCarthy recanted, then she recently un-recanted:

      http://tinyurl.com/4lhzccc (NY Daily News)

      "Why does one journalist's accusations against Dr. Wakefield now mean the vaccine-autism debate is over?"
      "I know children regress after vaccination because it happened to my own son," she stated. "Why aren't there any tests out there on the safety of how vaccines are administered in the real world, six at a time? Why have only two of the 36 shots our kids receive been looked at for their relationship to autism?"

      Possibly more stupid is her belief that she cured her child's 'autism' with diet modification.

    146. Re:Wow by Sique · · Score: 1

      The cost of producing food is only one part of the equation. The other one is the cost of distributing the food. And the third one is the price someone is willing to pay to get his hand on the food. Someone with small buying power in a remote region with bad roads and political instability increasing the transportation prices might not be able to beat a large food company in the bid. And that's before speculation kicks in.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    147. Re:Wow by Sique · · Score: 1

      To use a car analogy: Because you buy insurance for your car though you got a proper driving license, and got your car checked regularly.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    148. Re:Wow by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Jim Carrey? Nooooo I used to like him until just now T_T

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    149. Re:Wow by commodore64_love · · Score: 0

      >>>two homosexual jews known as Penn & Teller

      This is why anonymous cowards should be banned from posting on slashdot. Either that, or demote their score to -1 by default since ACs have little to contribute. If the poster wants to be seen, let them register an account. It only takes 3 minutes.

      And also registered users should never be able to post as AC.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    150. Re:Wow by notnAP · · Score: 1

      I would not use the actions and decisions brought on by the actions and negotiations of lawyers as logical proof of anything in the "real world." The fund means only that our legal system makes it a logical thing to do within the legal system.

      But your point of risk taking is spot on. The choice is there, and either decision has risks. If you don't want to take any risk of dying tomorrow, your only choice if to kill yourself today.

    151. Re:Wow by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between testing a vaccine for general safety and proving it does no harm whatsoever. Vaccine like other medications are tested for two things in clinical trials: (1) Efficacy and (2) Safety. These are done before vaccines and medications are approved by the FDA for use. What the anti-vaccine crowd wants is some sort of assurance that they do no harm. In essence, they want to prove a negative. What they ask for is not only impossible but impractical. Every medication has side effects and will cause problems in some small portion of the population. Penicillin is a great antibiotic unless you are allergic which may cause you death.

      Like all medications, there are side effects which are not known when the drug was tested. In this case, Wakefield noted a possible link between MMR and autism. So scientists investigated and found no link. Now it appears that Wakefield's study was a fraud and there was no link. In the meantime, many chose not to vaccinate their children and a great deal of harm came out of that. The other harm is that instead of focusing on other avenues of autism research, scientists wasted resources and time chasing down this bogus link.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    152. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or members of any other religion.

    153. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure you can prove a negative. As long as you have a list of negatives to check against, what you're really doing is checking all "positives" are false. For example, the FDA first tests to make sure a drug does not cause immediate death. The FDA needs to check drugs against all common side effects that drugs can cause. Only after that is done can they be considered even reasonably safe. (Many drugs that are released are not very safe)

    154. Re:Wow by vlm · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the euthanasia aspect. If the environmentalist types are correct, we need to go all Pol Pot on the population and rather rapidly reduce it by lets say 9/10ths in order to "saaaveeee the urth!!!". I'm not a big fan of their idea, I'm merely trying to express it accurately. That means either the 9/10ths die young or have utterly miserable lives while the powers that be slowly starve them to death. From a purely euthanasia standpoint, a very rapid onset young death is much less painful to that individual than slow gradual starvation and resource wars and slow genocide. And the original poster has a point, in that if 9/10ths of the population has to die off, I'm guessing the powers that be will make certain the percentage toll is a bit higher in, for example, Somalia, than for example, Manhattan Island, so it is, most certainly, a 3rd world issue to deal with.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    155. Re:Wow by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you mean ghosts or goats, but hey, it works either way!

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    156. Re:Wow by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Your not real bright if you couldn't figure out that the people who argue against vaccines are saying that the mercury based preservatives are causing autism, and while MMR is the biggest culprit, one can also get the same results with less dangerous vaccines by taking a bunch of them.

      Really? That's what they're saying? Those are the actual words they're saying?

      So, because mercury hasn't been used to preserve vaccines for a decade in the US, what the fuck are they whining about, and why aren't kids getting vaccinated?

      Oh, that's right, they're a psuedo-science cult that is convinced that vaccines cause autism, so will constantly invent new reasons they do so.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    157. Re:Wow by vlm · · Score: 1

      The simple fact that autism becomes apparent at the time when kids get their vaccinations does not mean that the vaccinations cause autism.

      The problem you're facing is not understanding your opposition.

      1) As you say there is a chronological correlation with MMR vaccination and Autism symptoms appearing. That unfortunate coincidence is about as scientific as using zodiac symbols for psychotherapy.

      2) Autism is an almost purely symptomatic disease, there is no simple "look at a microscope slide" or "titrate this blood sample" to find out if someone has it. The unfortunate coincidence is the symptoms of some people whom have autism are vaguely similar to some people that got brain damage because of vaccination "adverse reactions" which is unfortunately about as scientific as noticing that brain damage due to gunshot and due to baseball bat can sometimes be similar, thus they must have identical sources and baseball bats must be the same as bullets.

      3) There seems to be a component of immune system malfunction in many/most autistic people and certainly vaccines mess with the immune system. The unfortunate coincidence is about as scientific as thinking being allergic to amoxicillin guarantees I must be allergic to peanuts, or my allergic reaction to amoxicillin guarantees my kids will be allergic (my pediatrician claims that allergy is 100% non genetic, I find that very hard to believe).

      There are other unfortunate coincidences to add to this short list.

      The point is that only concentrating on one of the many coincidences is not going to convince anyone.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    158. Re:Wow by makomk · · Score: 1

      The paper is just a secondary source. It's refering to independent research and you're not addressing that at all, instead talking trash about irrelevant shit such as who is reporting it.

      Why didn't you link to the actual research then, rather than a newspaper that's almost certainly misinterpreting and misrepresenting it? Oh, right, because you want to have your cake and eat it by getting both the sensationalism of the tabloid reporting and the credibility of "independent research".

    159. Re:Wow by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      Professional lairs is what they sometimes refer themselves as. Rather apropos.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    160. Re:Wow by khallow · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the euthanasia aspect.

      I thought I addressed that when I pointed out that disease doesn't actually kill that many people. Most diseases, due to the generally negative correlation between wealth and fertility, actually increase population growth rate. AIDS is the only large scale disease I know about that profoundly reduces population growth.

      Sure, I wouldn't expect the Pol Pot types to understand or care about that, but for most people with this sort of viewpoint about disease and population, it's simply misunderstanding not murderous psychopathy.

      And the original poster has a point, in that if 9/10ths of the population has to die off, I'm guessing the powers that be will make certain the percentage toll is a bit higher in, for example, Somalia, than for example, Manhattan Island, so it is, most certainly, a 3rd world issue to deal with.

      It doesn't depend on the "powers-that-be". The developed world has two important things going for it: 1) They have their acts together and have better infrastructure and organization for dealing with global die-offs, and 2) typically lower population density, so local farming can support them better.

    161. Re:Wow by Unkyjar · · Score: 2

      Hunger isn't caused by over population. It's caused by not eating.

    162. Re:Wow by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the virus itself doesn't offer permanent immunity either, despite everyone thinking it does and that you can't get the disease twice.

      However, the virus seems to offer much longer and stronger immunity than the vaccine, probably because the virus is stronger. The odds of ever getting it again are pretty low if you've actually had it, whereas after about a decade you need another booster vaccine, and after two decades you're essentially unvaccinated. (Two decades later...you know, right around when your kids get it if you got vaccinated as a kid.)

      So, on one hand, the virus probably kills twice as many kids as the vaccine. OTOH, that's statistical noise. And, perhaps more importantly, the amount of adults who die from chicken pox is much higher. (And is getting higher each year, possible because of more things that compromise the immune system.) 5% of chicken pox infections are in adults...and cause 55% of the deaths. If vaccines stops 100% of the kids from getting chicken pox, and just 5% of those get it later as adults, it will kill more people.

      So there are two options: Immunize everyone every 10 years or so and pretend they actually do that. (Adults have an abysmal record of getting immunization....who here has gotten a tetanus vaccine? It's every ten years...I know I've missed at least one, possible two.)

      So actually the first option is: Immunize people when they're children and have them skip all over immunizations and then have them die when their kids catch it.

      Or just give everyone chicken pox as a kid, and have them live off the immunity.

      Those are the _actual_ choices, until we have some sort of health care system that people are willing to participate in, which probably means having some sort of immunization notice service and providing them for free. Until then, adults go to the doctors only when sick, and do not get vaccines as adults.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    163. Re:Wow by Velex · · Score: 1

      just like you can't prove the non-existence of something.

      There's no positive integer x such that x * x = 2. The proof is left as an exercise for you.

      Pure mathematics is a completely different realm from the real world. Nobody even understands the mechanism of autism, so providing a mathematical or pure logic proof that a certain vaccination does or does not cause autism given certain circumstances is not possible.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    164. Re:Wow by rochberg · · Score: 1

      There is something about the pro-vaccine lobby that bothers me. There's a trust fund setup to pay compensation to people who are injured by vaccines, that was some sort of compromise because big pharma wouldn't produce vaccines unless they got some sort of liability waiver [emph. added].

      I would like some citation for this claim, please, because I think it's a load of crap. Without VICP, pharmaceutical companies would still produce the vaccine. They would just charge more per dose to offset the costs of compensation. Furthermore, the costs of compensation without VICP would be significantly higher for two reasons. First, you have to tack on lawyer fees. Second, sympathetic juries would give disproportionate awards that are based on emotion, rather than a rational evaluation of actual damage. They would see the companies and government as bullies that need punished. The government acknowledged this probability, and put VICP in place as a way to mitigate the financial risks for all.

      Well, if vaccines don't cause any harm, why is there a fund? I think they should be honest with people, vaccines can cause some problems, but you'll be worse off if you get Polio.

      They are. Have you (or one of your children) received a vaccine in the past 20 years? Every time I or my son have received one, we're given a piece of paper documenting all of the risks and side effects that are associated with that particular immunization. You are simply spreading anti-corporate, anti-government FUD. Why? There is only one side in this debate that has been dishonest, and it hasn't been the pro-vaccine groups.

      (Side note: I'm only talking about the controversy regarding long-approved vaccines, such as MMR and DTaP. The process to get new vaccines approved and/or mandated is a different issue. For instance, the makers of Gardasil pulled some pretty shady backdoor lobbying. And there are plenty of other reasons to dislike the pharmaceutical companies, such as how they disproportionately fund high-profit, low-urgency treatments (e.g., erectile dysfunction). But those are tangential to the current debate.)

      No, I do not work for a pharmaceutical company, and I have no financial stake in the matter. What really turned me against the anti-vaccine movement was attending a child birth class where the teacher gave this helpful advice: "If you just don't like vaccines, then tell them it's against your religion. You don't have to say anything else or name what your religion is, but they won't give your child a shot." The arrogance, ignorance and irrationality of the anti-vaccine movement is just astounding.

    165. Re:Wow by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      What 'you can't prove a negative' actually means is that 'you can't prove an absence'. Obviously, any statement can be stated as either a positive or negative assertions.

      What people mean by that is that you cannot prove that nothing in an infinitely wide, or even just very wide but measurable, search space does not have attribute X.

      Which is not, strictly speaking, correct. We manage to prove the four-color map theorem by trying every map via computer, and proving that none of them took five colors, that such a map did not exist. It took computers to get to the point we could do that.

      Likewise, it's easy to prove there are no even prime number between 3 and 10,000. That's proving an absence, but the search space is small enough to check enough.

      However, a lot of time the space is infinite, or so close to it makes no difference. Like how a human body can be 'harmed', which is not only hindered by the amount of ways to cause harm, but the fact we don't really know what it's supposed to look like exactly at any moment in time, and the fact we cannot disassemble a person to see if they were harmed.

      It is functionally impossible to prove that something did not harm someone, despite that search space being theoretically finite

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    166. Re:Wow by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      If you're saying philanthropy is unethical, you're essentially saying wealth is unethical. The system that doesn't allow people to become wealthy has been tried, and based on the results, you can keep it, thanks.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    167. Re:Wow by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The only thing consistent about their argument is 'vaccines bad'.

      The original post got it right. First it was mercury, when that was _disproved_ the cause changed to multi-vaccines single injection, when that is disproved it will change again.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    168. Re:Wow by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      That is exactly my point. And, yes, I will acknowledge that there is a statistically insignificant number. It is a shame that most people don't understand that the chicken pox vaccine is likely going to kill more people than it saves. I opted out of that vaccine for my child. When my pediatrician tried to convince me to give it to my son, he explained that it really does prevent most cases, and how the child "might" need a booster at about 20. I don't think he realized that he was actually giving me arguments against it. 3 years later, it's estimated longevity was reduced to 10 years or less.

      Unfortunately, everyone with a current monetary stake in the child makes money off of pushing for kids to get the chickenpox vaccine except the child. The parents, the doctors, the insurance companies, the schools, the pharma companies. They all have more money in their pocket if you convert that major childhood inconvenience into a life threatening adult disease.

    169. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you know, you could set your threshold to 1 rather than 0.

      Posted AC just to piss you off.

    170. Re:Wow by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Didn't you read his comment.

      He is a self described victim of Mercury poisoning via Tuna.

      Which explains his clear and reasonable thought process. That and the paint chips he ate.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    171. Re:Wow by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      50 years ago do you think your son would have gotten a diagnoses at all?

      How about 20 years ago?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    172. Re:Wow by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      A regular Bruce Wayne without the psychotic nocturnal vigilante in tights issues.

      Bill will be happy to hear his cover is still solid.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    173. Re:Wow by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      The system you advocate has it's own flaws. For reference see the 20th century.

      Government control of society's resources is a much less ethical system, despite the high sounding theory.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    174. Re:Wow by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      No, proof is proof. There is only one sense. It means that there can be no question, no remaining doubt, reasonable or otherwise. Once something is proved, it can never be questioned again, there is no point, it has been proven.

      The only exception is "legal proof" where, i.e. someone that is not me might "legally prove" that they are me while taking out a credit card. But the legal profession is pretty bad at language, so don't make too much fun of them.

    175. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying vaccines cause scientologists?

      Quick, everyone stop getting vaccines!

    176. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      his foundation is very good at making sure that their funding goes to projects that actually work (surprisingly unusual in the non-profit world).

      That's probably because he's mostly spending his own money, whereas many other non-profits spend the money of others.

    177. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anonymous comment keeps the stagnation at bay.

      there's good and bad in most decisions.

      also i can troll you effectively or speak my mind on unpopular issues without damaging my karma.

      i care not for my e-penis. my real penis gets enough.

    178. Re:Wow by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>How about a widening of the diagnosis ?

      They've looked at that, and while it might have a minor part, it doesn't match the data.

    179. Re:Wow by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      how about keeping your cock clean?

    180. Re:Wow by independent123 · · Score: 1

      If you want vaccines for your children go right ahead. You can stuff your "herd immunity" and allow other parents to decide what's best for their kids. The corrupt corporate science you worship is a plague on humanity. I'm 60 now and I never heard of anyone with autism when I was growing up, except maybe in the newspapers. Now it's about 1 in 100. My oldest son was already weak because of some other problem, got the MMR vaccine and was limp and sick for days. He had multiple problems growing up which he has largely overcome, but not entirely. Keep your beliefs and act on them. Allow others the same privilege.

    181. Re:Wow by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You do not understand the complaints well enough to be productive to the debate. Your statement encourages the anti-vaccine groups, as they correctly identify you as not being incapable of understanding their concerns, and dismissing them based on your lack of understanding. Your making a strawman fallacy argument. The sad part is that you don't seem to even realize that is what you are doing.

    182. Re:Wow by darnkitten · · Score: 1

      I never said all actors are cattle; what I said was all actors should be treated like cattle.

      --attributed to Alfred Hitchcock

    183. Re:Wow by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      The biggest issue is babies too young to be vaccinated, can die of these diseases when passed form their older siiblings. Herd immunity is the only way to protect the very young.

    184. Re:Wow by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Well of course they are a psuedo-science cult that is convinced that vaccines cause autism. Most of them believe that it is mercury in the vaccine that causes this. The fact that they are wrong does not change the fact that they are consistent in their concerns and beliefs. It also doesn't change the fact that there will always be a few oddballs that go way beyond the party line. Even in psuedo-science cults.

      The pro-vaccine groups don't do anyoone any favors by becoming a psuedo-science cult themselves. If the anti-vaccine people think mercury in vaccines is causing autism, which do you think will be better for bringing them over to be in favor of vaccines. Mocking their misinformation, and calling them a psuedo-science cult, or calmly pointing out that there is not mercury in vaccines with a suggestion on where they can verify it?

      Of course if they went to the CDC's website, they would find that you were wrong. They would find that it is only used in flue vaccines though.

      As for being a psuedo-science cult, go to the CDC's website. The CDC is considered a gold standard in health care, yet when it comes to vaccines, it is loaded with a bunch of appeals to emotion. Stories about kids dying and and getting seriously ill. All of the wording is slanted to imply numbers that sometimes just are not there. The chicken pox vaccine is the case that I tend to point to as an example. Primarily because that is the vaccine that I believe will kill more than it will save. If you look at the numbers presented by the CDC, the chicken pox vaccine will kill more than it will save. In fact even in a perfect world, where the vaccine prevents 100% of deaths from chicken pox, you would only save 50 children a year. Of course, this would change the fact that you would be increasing the risk of death to adults by 20 times. All of the numbers for this are right on the CDCs site, yet somehow they come to the conclusion that it is a good idea. They then proceed to take extremely rare occurrences and use them as scare tactics against parents to trick them into doing the wrong thing for their child.

      It is an unfortunate fact that everyone with a current financial stake in the decision for immunizing children for chicken pox makes money by pushing a childhood inconvenience into a deadly adult disease. This is the kind of behavior that encourages the anti-vaccine crowd.

    185. Re:Wow by darnkitten · · Score: 1

      Look at Andrew Carnegie and others of his ilk. Many of the Captains of Industry and the Robber Barons turned to philanthropy after making their fortunes. All they left in public memory were were their names on theaters, museums, libraries and charitable organizations. The public doesn't remember the devil, only the philanthropist.

    186. Re:Wow by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Anyone scared of H1N1 was scared because they weren't sociologists. Most scientists aren't sociologists. For a while, it had a massive fatality rate, higher in the healthy males than anything seen since words like "plague" were thrown about. So people got scared, real scared, and based on very real and valid science.

      So, what happened? The fatality numbers were from Mexico, from a relatively rural area. The people feared doctors, and couldn't afford them even if they didn't fear them. The children and old people would rest when they had it. However, the adult males saw two choices, work while sick, or take time off and lose jobs, houses, and starve later anyway. So, they worked through it. And they got pneumonia. And worked through that. Until they dropped dead in the fields. And the fatality rate shot up. It wasn't because of the flu itself, but because who got that strain first. Sometimes more soft science is needed to support the hard science.

    187. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just saw a documentary the other night on the "war against v" in the US. R6 is a real threat!!! Think of the children!

    188. Re:Wow by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      You can prove a negative when the list of possibilities is small.

      But when the question is 'causes harm to humans', there are so many possible ways to do that, with many of them nearly undetectable for years, and frankly we don't know how humans work very well anyway...

      So it's essentially impossible to prove something does 'no harm'. About all that is left is statistical methods, where we say 'groups of people who have this done to them appear to have no added medical problems'.

      Which is, of course, true of vaccines...statistically, there's no difference in autism with people who've had them and haven't.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    189. Re:Wow by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      If the anti-vaccine people think mercury in vaccines is causing autism, which do you think will be better for bringing them over to be in favor of vaccines. Mocking their misinformation, and calling them a psuedo-science cult, or calmly pointing out that there is not mercury in vaccines with a suggestion on where they can verify it?

      It is not my job to point out obvious flaws in other people's arguments.

      It is the job of the goddamn media. It is the job of goddamn Oprah. It is the job of the goddamn idiots who give them air time in the first place.

      Moreover, this shit has been pointed out, over and over.

      GODDAMN FUCKING IMBECILES ARE WASTING SO MUCH OF SOCIETY'S TIME AND EFFORT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT DO THE SLIGHTEST BIT OF RESEARCH.

      That is not 'my' job to do their fucking research. It is the job of the shitheads who give them airtime or newspaper columns.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    190. Re:Wow by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      *forehead-slap* Thank you! Yes, that's the REALLY BIG one. First six months they'll have some residual immunity courtesy their mother (if the mother's vaccines are up to date), after that there's that terrible gap.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    191. Re:Wow by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Many of the great philanthropists made their money rudely. Look at the robber barrens of the late 1800s and their actions later in life. Or Nobel who made lots of money from TNT and took actions for philanthropy after he didn't like how it was used.

    192. Re:Wow by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      The fact that one vaccine, by doing exactly what it's stated to do, is harmful because adults won't get boosters and thus actually get the disease when it's much worse for them...

      ...is utterly unrelated to the morons who assert that vaccines have random effects and that kids shouldn't get them at all, which medical science utterly disagrees with.

      Objecting to one vaccine for actual logical reasons does not place you in the anti-vaccine camp.

      The fact that kooks are 99% wrong doesn't mean you need to feel you've been attacked when you mention the 1% where they happen, via sheer unrelated chance, to be correct. Don't fall for that. If someone claims you are in that camp, disagree with them.

      It's like 9/11 truthers. I'd actually like a investigation of the rather surreal response the Federal government had to the attacks...why the hell did the secret service leave Bush where he was for so long, utterly undefended from, oh, planes crashing through the roof, for example? Who made that stupid call? And other stuff, like who let the members of the Saudi royal family leave? (I'd just like that stated openly, I doubt it will actually tell us anything, I'd just like that blatant fact out there.)

      I have actual real questions...but I'm not a goddamn Truther. The actual planes did actually crash into the actual WTC and Pentagon and whatnot, and, no one in the government knew it would happen. The fact that Truthers sometime happen to mention the same things I ask is just a stopped clock being right twice a day.

      Don't think you have to extend the anti-vax crowd to include you, and then defend your aspect of it. You're not anti-vax. People who are anti-vaccine think the vaccines themselves cause some random secret harm (How they cause that harm constantly changes.)

      Whereas you just think one particular vaccine is stupid, because it doing what it's supposed to do is exactly unhelpful.

      Penn and Teller are the same way about the swine flu vaccine. They're actually wrong, they don't really understand how the flu affects people, but they are wrong a well-reasoned (from bad facts) non-pseudo-science way, and aren't 'anti-vaccine'. They're wrong in the 'taking the surface streets will be faster' way, not the 'automobiles are a government conspiracy and everyone can really teleport' way, which is where the anti-vaccine people are.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    193. Re:Wow by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      If you can prove that two positive integers, when multiplied together, cannot be end up smaller than the largest starting integer, you can simply test by squaring all positive integers from 1 to 2 to see if they fit. Which is obviously a pretty quick test. 1^2!=2, and 2^2!=2. ;)

      So I suspect the person who posted the original problem meant 'no rational number', because it's pretty easy to prove there are no integer roots of a number...it's basically the same as proving that a number is prime. You just test all integers less than it, and tada. (Obviously, there are faster ways, but the brute force is the 'proof', although for primes you just have to test all lower primes.)

      But you obviously can't test all 'rational' numbers less than it. There are infinite rational numbers between any two numbers, but a finite amount of integers.

      Now, if you can prove that all numbers only have two real roots, you can just magically 'find' them both and test them and discover they're not a integer. (And one of them isn't even positive, obviously, so is doubly out.) But I don't know that's actually been proven or is accepted as an axiom.

      A better example is the four-color map theorem. This basically states that you can take a map, aka, a bunch of random shapes that touch each other, and color them using four colors such that no shapes that touch each other are the same color. No one's ever figured out how to mathematically prove that.

      However, they did manage to 'prove a negative' simply by testing every possible combination of shapes, which obviously had to wait until computers got invented. So now it's proven, in the sense that no such map can exist, although we still don't know 'why'.

      But you can only do that when the search space is finite. (And even then you might not be able to do it.)

      The search space for 'ways this might harm humans', which finite in theory, is infinite, and even unknown, in practice. No one can prove something does not harm someone.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    194. Re:Wow by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You obviously feel it is. That is what you thought you were doing with the previous post. Unfortunately, you failed at it because you don't understand the issues. You obviously just like to call people names, and think that this is a way you can do it AND feel good about yourself.

      You can count yourself as part of the anti-vaccine movement, as you public comments are can do nothing but confirm their beliefs.

    195. Re:Wow by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Plus, forget herd immunity...vaccines are the only way to get rid of diseases so we don't have to vaccinate for them anymore.

      We can't stop that while 2% of morons keeps passing diseases around between each other.

      Right now, we're almost eliminated polio...except there are religious wackjobs in Nigeria who apparently don't like vaccines.

      So, every few years, polio outbreaks spread from there to neighboring countries.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    196. Re:Wow by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I would never say I was in the 'anti-vaccine' group. It is important to understand that the 'pro-vaccine' group is just as bad. In fact there are MORE people who believe that all vaccines are good because you are either for or against vaccines as a whole than there are people who are against them for the same reason. That fact is, the crazy 'pro-vaccine' people do lump anyone that dares question even one vaccine into the crazy 'anti-vaccine' group. These people can frequently get vicious, as they believe that anyone who chooses not to get even one vaccine is a child abusing murderer. Acting just like the 'pro-vaccine crazies' doesn't help the situation. It also doesn't help rational people take you seriously. In this thread, you discuss it rationally, but in other threads, you just resort to name calling if someone doesn't just support vaccines as a group.

    197. Re:Wow by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      As Penn and Teller pointed out, even if vaccines cause autism, which they don't, but if they did...autism is still better than dying of measles.

      Statistically, 1.5% of the population has autism, so, statistically, even if vaccines caused two-thirds of all autism, (which is just pure craziness) that's a 1% chance of autism after all vaccines. (The amount of the population non-vaccinated is statistically insignificant.)

      Even if 'dying' and 'catching autism' are rated the same, that make it fifteen times better to get vaccinated, as measles has a 15% morality rate.

      But, wait, the MMR is three vaccines. Mumps is not very fatal, only 1.6%, although that stil manages to have a higher mortality rate than a theoretically possible autism rate. And rubella has an incredibly high mortality rate, like 50%, in young children who get it, or in the unborn whose mother got it while pregnant. (Although the average mortality is obviously much lower, as most people are not young children and do fine.)

      But, wait. Presumably those 1% of autism are caused by all vaccines. I mean, the population isn't just getting MMRs vaccines. They're getting stuff like tetanus vaccines, which has a 45% mortality rate.

      So, you can either be vaccinated, and pretending these idiots are 100% correct, have a 1% chance of getting autism...or you can face a dozen different diseases which have probably, on average, a 20% mortality rate.

      Now, to be fair, people might never get each of those diseases. But, statistically, if they aren't vaccinated at all, they'll probably get one of them, at which point that single disease has a much higher risk of death than a vaccine could even hypothetically cause autism. Or at least have a 10% chance of getting one them, which is still twice likely to cause death, vs. getting autism from vaccines, in under this hypothetical.

      Anti-vaccine people are asserting that almost everyone who dies in a car accident becomes trapped in their car and that's why they end up dead...so they're going to hurtle down the road sitting on top of vehicles instead. Even if they were right about the first thing (Which they are not.), um, their idea of 'safety' is demonstrable much much much less safer.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    198. Re:Wow by quenda · · Score: 1

      Once something is proved, it can never be questioned again,

      No. Simple example: all those "rock solid" geometry rules you learn in primary school were proven in ancient Greece.
      Now it turns out that space is not Euclidean, so Pythagoras' rule is not quite true. See, there is no such thing as complete proof in the real world, only in a defined formal system. Even if your proof is based on solid maths and holds for a few thousand years, it can still come undone.

    199. Re:Wow by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>two homosexual jews known as Penn & Teller

      This is why anonymous cowards should be banned from posting on slashdot. Either that, or demote their score to -1 by default since ACs have little to contribute. If the poster wants to be seen, let them register an account. It only takes 3 minutes.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    200. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I'm not the grandparent posters.)

      I agree with the parent about not making it mandatory. People should have choice. I'll just leave it at that.

    201. Re:Wow by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      Jim Carey and that other bitch both need to be hurt with hot pokers.

       

      Pseudo-science will always win because the media outlets can get "passionate" famous people behind the campaigns.

      Hey, leave Jim out of this, he was just doing what any guy
      that looks like him would do if he was smashin a hot porn
      star.

      What ever she asks him to.

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    202. Re:Wow by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      Even if it were true (vaccines cause autism), as Penn & Teller wisely argued: Vaccines SAVE more lives than they kill/damage.

      You don't understand the mindset of those parents. Even if it saves lives, they won't voluntarily put their children into the death-lottery because if they end up dead from it (or autistic or whatever), it is directly their fault. If they don't get the vaccine and nature decides to kill the kid with measles or something, then it's Nature's (or God's, Allah's, whoever's) doing and not theirs. You can tell them only 1 in 1000, or 1 in 1000000, or howevermany kids are messed up from the vaccines, but they are not prepared to take that chance. Remember these are the same people who will forfeit their own, and others', human rights to protect children. The same people who incarcerate pot smokers because they are scared that somehow pot will hurt their children. Replace "pot smokers" with "ZZZ Harmless Thing". To them, children are the entire reason for their existence, literally. Adults are here to create and protect children, period. And if they fail at that, they have failed at their entire purpose of life -- their entire identity is meaningless, and their mind will not allow that to happen.

    203. Re:Wow by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference there. You can't prove a negative

      Yes, actually you can.

      The problem is your understanding of the word "prove". In the scientific and mathematical sense, yes, you're correct.

      However, most people don't use the word in that way. They probably mean it in the legal definition, which is "prove beyond a reasonable doubt", or something like that.

      When someone is "proven" guilty in a court of law, this does not mean they are absolutely guilty, and that it can never be found that they were not. Guilty people are exonerated all the time. However, they were "proven" guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, by a jury of people.

      There's a difference between the word "prove" as used by laypeople, and as used by scientists.

      What this person most likely meant is that want the scientific community to prove to them, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the vaccines are safe.

    204. Re:Wow by Josh04 · · Score: 1

      Aquinas? I think you mean Descartes.

    205. Re:Wow by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      One of the anti-vaccine idiots even had the balls to say that it was up to the scientific community to disprove that vaccines are dangerous.

      Heh....except

      • The scientific community already has disproven that vaccines are dangerous (at the 99.99% certainty level or higher)
      • It's not actually up to the scientific community, because vaccination is already the law (or as close as it can be to the law). The guy has it completely backwards. He can rant all he wants about whose responsibility it is, but at the end of the day if he wants his kid to go to school, he'll have to get him vaccinated. If he wants to change that, it's up to him. That's why he's an activist in the first place.
      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    206. Re:Wow by Lord+Kano · · Score: 0

      Every time I or my son have received one, we're given a piece of paper documenting all of the risks and side effects that are associated with that particular immunization. You are simply spreading anti-corporate, anti-government FUD. Why?

      I'm certainly spreading U. Why? Because I question authority, just because the government says that something is good isn't good enough for me. My feelings about vaccinations are very similar to AGW. I want to see the proof for myself and I do not trust the word of so called experts.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    207. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you list the studies you refer to? Although, in general, respectful people like me shouldn't even waste the time with someone who wants to harm people with hot pokers and call them obscenities. I don't vaccinate my children. It is my right. My children have been vaccine injured and 4 doctors agree they should not be vaccinated. They can be made more safe and more logical, as in given when necessary. My 4 educated physicians, all with multiple specialties, carry some weight. Read package inserts. Even the Pulmicort insert for my daughter's asthma medication says she shouldn't be vaccinated, particularly with MMR. There may be just a tad bit more information out there than you realize. The reality is that some children are very poor candidates for vaccination. Failure to recognize that does cause harm.

      Haven't much been on slashdot before, mostly my husband. I can see why. Your rant was not intelligent, but got a score of 5.

    208. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People obviously get very emotional about vaccines, but some FACTS should be stated.

      The vaccine that I have always had the most issue with is the Whooping Cough vax (Pertussis).
      Fact 1 : The vaccine WILL NOT stop you getting the disease. (I know from experience)
      Fact 2 : The vaccine only lasts a few years, the VAST majority of the population are no longer "immunised"
      Fact 3 : The disease is MORE fatal in older people, NOT kids.

      If you have a healthy child, watch them get vaccinated and then watch them, almost immediately, deteriorate and die, then you WILL have an issue with the vaccination. I know MANY in this boat and feel their pain. Calling them morons will not bring their child back, but they DO have the right to withdraw their subsequent children from that program.

      My biggest problem with many vaccines is that they are almost ALL made or initiated from cancerous cells that NEVER die. (HeLa cells).
      While having cells that never die may have been great for research, I do question their role in being made a part of every human since the 50's.
      I believe that the increase in CANCER has resulted from the use of "cancer cells that never die" in EVERY lab in the world - ALL from the one diseased US woman.

    209. Re:Wow by Hucko · · Score: 1

      While I'm not given to using language that causes others to squirm, the only thing irrational about 'foul language' is that it makes people squirm. We made the words to describe our world, why should they now affect our mental state? They are just words. Or is it the situation or objects they describe that makes people uncomfortable?

      It is rational to use a tactic that will force the other side of the argument to not only deal with the complexity of the arguments details, but to also look past issues not related to the argument. Only rational thinking can separate the two matters and deal with the one that counts.

      Of course, if the whole argument relies on offending the opposition entirely, they don't have an argument and are just enjoying the contention. GP did not demonstrate that.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    210. Re:Wow by lindseyp · · Score: 1

      Yes, they do give those out anymore.

      Quoted from: http://www.vaccineinformation.org/polio/qandavax.asp

      Who should get this vaccine?
      All infants should get this vaccine unless they have a medical reason not to.

      >The vaccine is certain to be more dangerous than the disease

      Really? I wonder why they still use it then?

      How safe is this vaccine?
      The IPV vaccine is very safe; no serious adverse reactions to IPV have been documented.

      --
      j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
    211. Re:Wow by Hucko · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of different products being lumped under one homologous category? Swine flu is a variant strain of flu. Previous flu vaccines didn't work against it. Surprise.

      I'm not surprised to find out that 100 years ago they made a vaccine against smallpox and had an outbreak of smallpox. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened 1 year ago. (I believe it did with the flu.) Most vaccine technologies (all to my knowledge) are based on key and lock principles. The particular strain inoculated against fits the vaccine like a lock, if the strain evolves, more than likely it doesn't 'fit' the vaccine lock any more and renders the vaccine ineffective (sorry, the metaphor breaks down now.) Point is, unless you can show that the strain(s) a vaccine was supposedly effective against were completely ineffective despite 'scientific' backing, your argument is a key without a lock. Useless.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    212. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm certainly spreading U. Why? Because I question authority, just because the government says that something is good isn't good enough for me. My feelings about vaccinations are very similar to AGW. I want to see the proof for myself and I do not trust the word of so called experts.

      So, you're basically an idiot. "So called experts" indeed.

      The people who have, y'know, studied years to get doctorates on the topics in question are the experts. You're calling them "so-called" because you're politically opposed to what they say, not because you have any real reason to doubt them.

      Both topics have been the subject of well-heeled unscientific propaganda against the mainstream scientific point of view. Especially AGW. You're being used. Ironically, you're being used by the authoritarian wing of American politics, and yet you smugly believe you're a special person because you "question authority".

    213. Re:Wow by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      The people who have, y'know, studied years to get doctorates on the topics in question are the experts.

      Have you ever taken a class taught by someone with a doctorate? They are fallible human beings, just like the rest of us.

      You're calling them "so-called" because you're politically opposed to what they say, not because you have any real reason to doubt them.

      Comprehension must not be among your strong suits. If you were paying attention, I vaccinated my children. It was a calculated risk and an informed decisions, not just because "the doctor told me to".

      Both topics have been the subject of well-heeled unscientific propaganda against the mainstream scientific point of view. Especially AGW.

      If that were true, they'd show all of their evidence instead of hiding it.

      I'm not a climate scientist, I'm not an epidemiologist but I know when someone is trying to bullshit me.

      Ironically, you're being used by the authoritarian wing of American politics, and yet you smugly believe you're a special person because you "question authority".

      A shame isn't it? Conformist sheeple like you have made free thinking into something special.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    214. Re:Wow by Meski · · Score: 1

      One of the anti-vaccine idiots even had the balls to say that it was up to the scientific community to disprove that vaccines are dangerous.

      And the precautionary principle strikes again.

    215. Re:Wow by tokul · · Score: 1

      Even if it were true (vaccines cause autism), as Penn & Teller wisely argued: Vaccines SAVE more lives than they kill/damage.

      Tell that to others when vaccination kills your child.

      Rephrasing some person. Millions saved by vaccination is statistics. One child killed by vaccination is a tragedy.

    216. Re:Wow by vertinox · · Score: 1

      There's a trust fund setup to pay compensation to people who are injured by vaccines, that was some sort of compromise because big pharma wouldn't produce vaccines unless they got some sort of liability waiver. Well, if vaccines don't cause any harm, why is there a fund?

      Because jury's can still award damages even in cases where scientific data that was provided was sound.

      Even if it was obviously not the vaccine that harmed the person.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    217. Re:Wow by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Possibly more stupid is her belief that she cured her child's 'autism' with diet modification.

      Possibly more stupid than that is the labelling of children as "autistic" or "on the autistic spectrum" when they're just anti-social, lazy little fucks. The rate of real autism is far lower than people seem to think, slashdot readers moaning that they must be autistic because nobody likes them and they can't get laid is just ridiculous.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    218. Re:Wow by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      When Bill Gates says "Because the mothers who heard that lie, many of them didn't have their kids take either pertussis or measles vaccine, and their children are dead today", it suggests that all mothers who refused that their child gets vaccinated by measles had their child die, which is total BS. His intentions may be good, but I reprove the tactic.

      No it doesn't, You fail at reading comprehension.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    219. Re:Wow by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So, we should just think of all of those Windows license fees paid over all these years as a charitable contribution? I don't feel so bad about paying them now.

      Yes, it was really terrible of Microsoft to force everyone to buy their products at gunpoint.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    220. Re:Wow by hairyfish · · Score: 1

      It's funny, Bill has become quite an international hero after being seen as the devil of IT.

      Speak for yourself. I work in IT consider Bill's contribution to our industry as net gain. There might've been a lot of crud that came out of Redmond over the years, but the core Windows/Office/Exchange/SQL family filled a necessary gap to bring IT from nerd-hobby to mainstream technology.

    221. Re:Wow by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The problem is that everyone on slashdot is autistic because they were vaccinated as kids, so obviously they're going to hate the pro-vaccination Bill Gates.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    222. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it strange that parents in the USA seem happy to dose up their children with antibiotics and painkillers seemingly whenever the child shows the slightest sign of illness, yet argue over vaccination which has provably reduced the risk of children having serious illnesses in life

      Preventing Polio, as just one example, has been a massive success. If people started suggesting that preventing polio was bad, they should be instantly sterilised (or their children) to prevent their mental infirmity propagating to future generations!

    223. Re:Wow by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Medicine is a science, and as such would use the formal scientific definition of the word proof.

    224. Re:Wow by quenda · · Score: 1

      Medicine is a science, and as such would use the formal scientific definition of the word proof.

      Which is different from a mathematical proof. Anyway, since when was medicine a science? They have no idea how half the drugs work, and educated guesses about the others.

    225. Re:Wow by deadmantalking · · Score: 1

      Interesting - the person you requoted is none other than good ol' Comrade Stalin

      --
      A crank is a little thing that makes revolutions
    226. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Bill Gates says "Because the mothers who heard that lie, many of them didn't have their kids take either pertussis or measles vaccine, and their children are dead today", it suggests that all mothers who refused that their child gets vaccinated by measles had their child die, which is total BS. His intentions may be good, but I reprove the tactic.

      No it doesn't, You fail at reading comprehension.

      Because native speakers are overconfident, many of them fail to think or post lame comments, and they prove themselves to be idiots.

    227. Re:Wow by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      who here has gotten a tetanus vaccine? It's every ten years...I know I've missed at least one, possible two.)

      How did you manage that? Every time I go to a clinic for anything, they ask me when my last tetanus booster was, and if I can't tell them exactly how many years it has been, they assume I'm due and give me one. I'm 33 and I've had the booster at least 8 times.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    228. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and/or politicians.

    229. Re:Wow by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Because I, like many Americans, don't go to 'the clinic' for anything, as I do not have health insurance that would cover that.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    230. Re:Wow by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      That fact is, the crazy 'pro-vaccine' people do lump anyone that dares question even one vaccine into the crazy 'anti-vaccine' group. These people can frequently get vicious, as they believe that anyone who chooses not to get even one vaccine is a child abusing murderer.

      Really? You've been posting on this discussion for days? Why don't you show where such people have said something like that?

      Oh, that's right, you've decided to take an idiotic 'middle road' and pretend you're persecuted by both sides, despite the fact that 99% of the people are there, with a wackjob 1% staking out the anti-vaccine side and no one staking out the ground you like to imagine is standing there making you a fucking martyr b because you don't want to get a single vaccine.

      Get over yourself.

      In this thread, you discuss it rationally, but in other threads, you just resort to name calling if someone doesn't just support vaccines as a group.

      No, I act exactly how everyone here acts....that people who oppose 'vaccines' a anti-science fools who result in dead people are crazy lunatics, whereas people who oppose a specific vaccine for well-reasoned and scientific reasons is sane and either right or wrong.

      That's called 'rational'.

      This is basically how everyone here thinks (Except the anti-vaccine idiots), and yet you have to hallucinate that somehow there's a group of people who say 'Everyone should get all vaccines for their kids or they're horrible evil people', just so you can be lone voice of reason.

      Like I said, put up or shut up. This story was posted 2 days ago. Why don't you find some of those people calling people who are opposed to a single vaccine evil people.

      Hell, Penn and Teller are wrongly opposed to swine flu vaccine, and yet when they were lumped in with anti-vaccine people posters here leaped to their defense, pointing out that being wrong about one vaccine doesn't make one anti-vaccine.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    231. Re:Wow by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

      "slashdot readers moaning that they must be autistic because nobody likes them and they can't get laid"

      Are there many (any?) examples of a /. reader actually saying that?

    232. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be silly. You can prove lots of negatives.

      Prove that this water bottle has no water in it. Just open it and check inside.

      You're confusing this with a 'prove that bigfoot doesn't exist' kind of problem. In the current context this is the difference:

      1) Bigfoot style: Prove that a vaccine cannot under any circumstance harm any person in any situation ever. This cannot be done.
      2) Real life: Prove that when taken normally under appropriate circumstances it is safe, with acceptable side effects. This can be done, IS done (or supposed to be done) for medicine in general.

      The general gist of it is that if you're a normal healthy person and you're not allergic to something in the needle, the most that happens to you when you get a vaccine is that you might feel like crap for a day or two. Plenty of people have that sort of reaction.

      It's proven, the problem is that people don't know who to believe. All the time we keep hearing "this is good for you" or "this is bad for you" and both sides of the table sound reputable. For example, I'm still undecided on the water fluoridation issue. I've done some digging, and there seems to be some evidence for both sides, and both sides claim their evidence is credible. I simply don't know who to believe.

    233. Re:Wow by EdIII · · Score: 1

      My point is that those celebrities genuinely cared about the children. Ultimately, they may have been proven wrong. That's ok.

      Big Pharma on the other hand has been caught deliberately pushing out their products when they absolutely knew it was going to be harmful. For the money.

      It's about intent. One set of intentions was noble and admirable, while the other set of intentions belongs to people destined for Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison.

    234. Re:Wow by EdIII · · Score: 1

      That article says specifically that the toxicity of ethyl mercury is not well studied, and that the EPA concluded that it would be not be equivalent to methyl mercury. This I already knew.

      In any case, my point is that mercury is generally considered to be universally harmful to humans, and this is a reasonable position to take on it, based on the data. They should find another preservative to use, one much less controversial *and with well studied toxicity*. Expecting the average person to understand the difference is a bit much. All they will hear is mercury with a bunch of other names they don't understand.

      You want to be sarcastic about it, but mercury is dangerous. Instead of showing me something from wikipedia, how about a published study showing ethyl mercury is non-toxic in humans?

    235. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well seems like the anti-vaccine ain't the only ones changing the story about the vaccines. Seems Bill can't make up his mind about the reason for the vaccines either.

      "The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent!" -Bill Gates at TED2010, February 2010 in Long Beach, California

      One day he talks about the problems of overpopulation and how new vaccines, health care and reproductive health services are gonna fix this. The next day he's angry at the anti-vaccine movement because to many children are dieing due to not being given vaccines....

      St. Mytr keeper of the fallen pyramid.

    236. Re:Wow by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Aside from you being an asshole, you missed my point entirely.

      Specifically about trust. When the FDA is shown to be corrupt about something as dead simple as mercury in Tuna fish, their credibility is tarnished. So when they ask me to believe that ethyl mercury is just fine to inject into small children, my skepticism is not unwarranted. Additionally, the toxicity of ethyl mercury is poorly understood.

      I have had this conversation with sanctimonious assholes like you before. I am guilty because I trusted the FDA to not allow excessive amounts of mercury in Tuna fish. Uh huh. I am retarded and clearly intellectually deficient (in addition to my love of paint chips) because the FDA set the guidelines and procedures for testing for mercury in Tuna fish. I am retarded for not reading the warnings on the Tuna cans that said that consumption above X amount in Y period can lead to unsafe levels of mercury in your body.... oh wait... *THAT IS NOT ON THE LABEL*.

      So instead of being a sarcastic asshole blaming the victims, why don't you make an intelligent comment to add to the proceedings? Why don't you attempt to prove that the FDA and Big Pharma are paragons of virtue dedicated to the safety and well being of all people and that they have *NEVER* been caught putting people at risk?

      Ohhhh, and P.S - The FDA ignored the recommendations of scientists and the EPA to set the mercury limits over twice as high. Why? The Tuna industry whined like little bitches about lost profits.

      P.P.S - California fought for years to get labels on the cans warning people about mercury consumption. They lost. Corrupt companies 1, People 0.

    237. Re:Wow by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Mathematical proofs start with assumptions and then have conclusions. If they are correct, they are always right. If you want to do non-Euclidean geometry, then you violated the assumption. The proof has no comment.

    238. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>>two homosexual jews known as Penn & Teller

      Question, why do you feel the need to make up fake quotes and attribute them to people you disagree with? Because the parent post of your original post said no such thing.

      Maybe that's why it got downmodded in the first place? Who am I kidding, that's exactly why I downmodded it in the first place, and if I still had any mod points, I'd downmod this copypasta too.

    239. Re:Wow by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Well, it would take weeks to log all of the people who think all vaccines are inherently good, so I just scrolled up a bit, and found some idiot suggesting that they are so good, the should be required by law.

      http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1982308&cid=35118588

    240. Re:Wow by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      And of course, the very first word of that post is 'Indeed', where I'm agreeing with the previous post that flu shots are not needed, and that people shouldn't get them.

      So clearly I meant that it shouldn't be legal to skip just some vaccines. Quite obviously there are ones I not only think it should be legal to skip, but that people should.

      This is exactly the sort of shit you misinterpret, someone who says 'vaccines (meaning required ones that actually work and are functionally required by law for children already, at least if they wish to attend school, which is required by law) should not be legal to skip', even for adults, and you think that means 'everyone should have to take whatever vaccine is offered'.

      You've decided that all mentions of 'vaccines' in this discussion and how important they are means all vaccines ever offered, and everyone is utterly opposed to not getting any of them, despite the fact you know for a fact that I, for example, don't think people should get swine flu or chicken pox vaccine.

      This is exactly what happens when you've decided that both sides are crazy fanatics and you're the only sane person.

      There are two sides to this issue: People who think vaccines are basically as safe as any medical procedure, and are overall a good idea and that 99% of the population should be vaccinated (With only, obviously, the vaccines that are useful, and skipping the people who this would make ill, but that's implied when talking about anything)...and goddamn lunatics who think they aren't safe.

      There is no group of people who think that all vaccines are magical and everyone should have them all, and is unwilling to discuss specific vaccinations...or, if there is, they certainly aren't posting here, and I've never run across them. In fact, the article itself has two different discussions of whether or not specific vaccines are useful, including the one you just linked to.

      I suspect you've only 'run across' people like that because you leap in swinging talking about you aren't pro-vaccine and how all pro-vaccine people are stupid, and they start defending 'vaccines', which in their head means 'vaccination in general', but you've now decided they're defending chicken pox vaccines also.

      Which is bit like leaping into a discussion and asserting you aren't 'pro-roads' (because you don't want a certain bypass built near your house, but heaven forbid you mention that first), and when people point out that, without roads, we'll all starved to death in a matter or weeks, you assume they're shills of the construction industry or something.

      You have the special sort of 'centrist fanaticism, where you essentially believe that most people are crazy, when you in actuality have demonstratively have near identical beliefs as most of them and have just chosen to interpret whatever they say as fanaticism one way or the other, where everyone a millimeter in either direction is crazy.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    241. Re:Wow by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      there are plenty of other reasons to dislike the pharmaceutical companies, such as how they disproportionately fund high-profit, low-urgency treatments

      The reason that they fund high-profit, low-urgency treatments is hidden (not very deeply) in your description of them as "pharmaceutical companies". They're not charities, not-for-profit organisations, or anything else. They're profit-making companies, and they describe themselves as such. Do you also dislike oil companies because they drill holes in the ground and produce toxic, polluting, high-chemical energy hydrophobic chemicals, then go on to sell them to people at the highest price that they can get for them?

      the teacher gave this helpful advice: "If you just don't like vaccines, then tell them it's against your religion. You don't have to say anything else or name what your religion is, but they won't give your child a shot." The arrogance, ignorance and irrationality of the anti-vaccine movement is just astounding.

      Well, since the teacher in question seems to be promoting religion as a valid reason for doing something more significant than rubbing woad into one's belly button (widdershins of course, not turnwise. Heavens forfend!) ... then arrogance, ignorance and irrationality would seem to be the order of the day.

      Depressing certainly, but not surprising.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    242. Re:Wow by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      Aside from you being an asshole, you missed my point entirely.

      You need to realize that nobody is paying attention to your point because you come across as nuttier than squirrel shit. Personally, I didn't make it past the 2nd paragraph of your diatribe. I'd be quite surprised if a significant number of readers had gotten even that far.

    243. Re:Wow by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I was not aware of the texture of squirrel shit. Thanks.

      My point was clear, and it was about trust. I did not mention anything remotely close to conspiracy theory type arguments.

      Try refuting my statement about the lack of credibility for the FDA or Big Pharma. Further refute that the lack of credibility does not affect the average person's ability to believe statements by either that something is or is not safe.

      Personal attacks and blaming the victim is easy isn't it? Actually picking apart the arguments is a little harder....

    244. Re:Wow by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I was not aware of the texture of squirrel shit. Thanks.

      "nutty" isn't a texture.

      My point was clear, and it was about trust.

      That's nice. You must have missed the part where I said "nobody is paying attention to your point because you come across as nuttier than squirrel shit".

      Personal attacks and blaming the victim is easy isn't it? Actually picking apart the arguments is a little harder....

      Nah, it's quite easy. From what little I actually read of your diatribe, your objection is one giant emotionally-fueled ad-hominem argument. "I don't trust X because they're Y therefore Z is wrong". It tells us nothing about the science behind the subject being discussed; it only tells us about your personal shortcomings. Personally, I don't give a shit who you trust; if you're willing to risk your life and the lives of your spawn because you're upset with the FDA, that's your problem.

  2. Hell has, indeed, frozen over. by the+saltydog · · Score: 5, Funny

    I actually *agree* with Bill Gates on something.

    I'm scared - hold me...

    1. Re:Hell has, indeed, frozen over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually *agree* with Bill Gates on something.

      I'm scared - hold me...

      me too, he is right

    2. Re:Hell has, indeed, frozen over. by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      > I'm scared - hold me...

      I might, but only if you've had all your shots...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Hell has, indeed, frozen over. by billgates · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is an historic day. It is the first time I ever agreed with Bill Gates about anything.

    4. Re:Hell has, indeed, frozen over. by tg123 · · Score: 2

      Bill Gates as turned from Evil Nasty dude into money giving Saviour. Bill gates , if he has an account needs to be changed very KARMA :EVIL to KARMA: EXCELLENT for this one. (Ducks) hey this a good deed.

    5. Re:Hell has, indeed, frozen over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've been vaccinated, right?

      ~Sticky

    6. Re:Hell has, indeed, frozen over. by Myu · · Score: 1

      I might, but only if you've had all your shots...

      If you've had yours, what's the problem?

      --
      Myu: ... The map's upside down...
    7. Re:Hell has, indeed, frozen over. by grub · · Score: 1


      I'm scared - hold me...

      You should go into your hugbox. Ironic that it if weren't for vaccines, you wouldn't need one.

      (I joke, I'm pro-vaccine all the way)

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    8. Re:Hell has, indeed, frozen over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but if I had all my shots then I'd have autism then you wouldn't want to hold me because you might get infected.

      I figured if I was going to go with pseudoscience I'd go whole hog.

      --
      This post brought to you by ion power chi fixing power bands. They're expensive!

    9. Re:Hell has, indeed, frozen over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had all yours, then what are you worrying about? You need to learn something about how vaccines work...

    10. Re:Hell has, indeed, frozen over. by outsider007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I dunno, does saving a few million kids really make up for what he did to poor netscape navigator?

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    11. Re:Hell has, indeed, frozen over. by Nf1nk · · Score: 1

      To be fair, this is a post retirement Bill Gates.

      --
      I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
    12. Re:Hell has, indeed, frozen over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HILARIOUS.

    13. Re:Hell has, indeed, frozen over. by lederhosen · · Score: 1

      If he did not it would matter, would it not? Everyone should get a vaccination except me, then I would risk nothing!!!

    14. Re:Hell has, indeed, frozen over. by caldodge · · Score: 1

      Me, too! Truly, this is "The Year of the Jackpot".

  3. He's right by quixote9 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's good that most children escaped the consequences of Wakefield's BS because enough were vaccinated to make it pretty hard for disease to spread. But the numbers are there showing that there were hundreds of excess deaths and life-changing disabilities, such as blindness or retardation, from kids not getting measles vaccines.

    1. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These damaged children should be able to hold their parents criminally liable.

    2. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the numbers are there showing that there were hundreds of excess deaths and life-changing disabilities, such as blindness or retardation, from kids not getting measles vaccines.

      If that's the case, then there should be at least one set of parents that will publicly stand up to Wakefield, et al. and state that "we trusted you".

      I'll suggest that this group is ever growing and that this scenario is inevitable.

    3. Re:He's right by mibe · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full

      http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/pdfs/S0140673610601754.pdf

      Wakefield has been widely discredited for quite some time. His results have never been duplicated, studies have failed to demonstrate a link between vaccines and autism, and the scapegoat additive thiomersal (or thimerosal) was taken out of vaccines in 2001 to no effect.

    4. Re:He's right by goodmanj · · Score: 2

      They probably could sue their parents, I'd rule in their favor if I was on the jury. But one of the things about parenthood is it gives you a unique power to brainwash your kid. Anti-vacc parents will have anti-vacc children, for the most part, making a lawsuit unlikely.

    5. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For what? Following scientific advice? It's not their fault the "scientist" in question was a fraudster. The kids should sue him but I don't suppose spreading all his wealth across all the people he's harmed would make much difference to anyone.

    6. Re:He's right by goodmanj · · Score: 2

      I'd love to see definite proof of Wakefield being yet another pseudo-scientist

      It's not that he's a pseudoscientist: many pseudoscientists are sincere but misguided. Wakefield FABRICATED EVIDENCE to MAKE MONEY. But here's your proof: it's long, but as you say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

      http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full
      http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5258.full

    7. Re:He's right by ChrisMP1 · · Score: 2

      Oh come on. How do you go from "criminally liable for not vaccinating kids" to "death penalty for allowing cross-racial dating"? It's a slippery slope, but it's not frictionless...

      I can go the other way, too. You spanked your child? 5 years jail. You decided your child was bad, and beat him harshly? How dare you! What do you mean you sexually abused your child?

      Oh wait. Those things are already illegal. And I doubt you're upset with that, either. Last I checked, it's the parents' job to protect the child too. Obviously there's a limit to that, but vaccines? How can you not hold the parent liable when the child dies due to the parents' gullibility?

      --
      <sig>&nbsp;</sig>
    8. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You spanked your child? 5 years jail.

      Child abuse is already illegal, so there's no need for such a law. If you don't believe that it's abuse (or at least sexual harassment), try spanking or hitting some random person (perhaps a women for greater effect) when they do something that you do not approve of and claim that you were helping them by punishing them. There are much more effective means of parenting than abuse, and parents who resort to it are nothing but bad.

      Oh, and: if a parents' actions hurt the well being of the child (I don't even know how any of your examples are related besides the spanking example) they should be punished. That includes purposefully depriving children of much needed medicine or vaccines. It simply isn't the same as proposing artificial and/or racist restrictions upon parents.

    9. Re:He's right by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      Or at least sexual harassment? Are you nuts? There's nothing sexual about spanking a child. It is abuse that a lot of people grew up with and don't know better than to do in certain situations. People doing it should be corrected the first time and punished the second.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    10. Re:He's right by DarkTempes · · Score: 2

      There are people who don't realize that their parents are fallible by the time they have become adults?

      Not that I support kids being able to sue their parents for this nonsense. Parents have to filter through a lot of information and make best guesses as to factuality and hope for the best when raising kids. If they were liable for all of their shortcomings then I don't think you could find a single perfect "innocent" parent.

    11. Re:He's right by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Here let me make it easy for you that Scumbag Wakefield makes no claims, he was the only, among numerous Authors in a paper that did not retract his Authorship and was subsequently found to have endangered children and had his license to practice medicine revoked. That Paper was retracted by the publication "The Lancet", an action that is almost unprecedented. Therefore Wakefield has made no claims because his research paper was retracted by the publisher and disavowed by all but one of its authors and the research methods resulted in charges of “dishonest”, “irresponsible”, “contrary to the clinical interests of this child” "Other proven charges included nine of mistreating developmentally challenged children: causing invasive “high-risk” research to be carried out without ethical approval and against their best clinical interests.", "Wakefield caused three children to undergo lumbar punctures without clinical reason." and " "callous disregard” for the “distress and pain” of children"> Wakefield is a fucking whore, he was on the payroll of an attorney prior to, during and after his "research" that was engaged in litigation against the vaccine manufacturer that Wakefield found to be "harming" the GI tracts of the children in the study, the vast majority were referred to his by the attorney paying him for the research.

      The whole time this was going on Wakefield was patenting a "safe" vaccine, that didn't cause chronic measles infections of the intestines or "Autistic Enteritis" as he called it, which would be pretty easy because there is no correlation between Autism and chronic measles infections of the intestines.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    12. Re:He's right by Gonoff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anti-vacc parents will have anti-vacc children

      Anti-vacc parents are more likely than me to have dead children. Who will sue them now?

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    13. Re:He's right by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I have seen it happen before. A parent let's the kid see nude photos, and the local law enforcement throws them in jail. Or drink beer (which is common in my area - lots of German families), and goes to jail. In the musical "Riverboat" the local sheriff tried to jail a man for being letting his son date to a black girl. That wasn't just fiction - it was based on actual law.

      If the parents murders or sexually abuses a kid, yeah send them to jail, but not for trivial stuff. Let parents BE parents and make their own choices on how to raise a kid.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    14. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you have peer reviewed articles to back this up? Because I have seen the exact opposite.

    15. Re:He's right by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>musical [Show]boat
      Fixed.

      Another example is a family that was FORCED to send their daughter to public school (from 7th grade onward), because the judge decided schooling by the local Catholic school wasn't good enough.

      And then there was the nudist family (multiple cases) that was arrested for letting their teen son (or daughter) run-around naked in the Nudist club they belong to. And on and on and on. It isn't a "slippery slope" when the events have already occurred in reality, and the parents already jailed.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    16. Re:He's right by commodore64_love · · Score: 0

      It isn't a "slippery slope" when the events have already occurred in reality, and the parents already jailed. Every item I listed in my original post HAS happened. Nudists arrested because they let sons/daughters be nudist too. Christians (or muslims or jews) barred from sending kids to home or private school. Parents arrested because they let their kids do inter-racial dating.

      No government should have the power to arrest parents simply because Said government disagrees with their parenting practices. If the parent is killing or abusing children, then yeah intervene, but not for matters which are purely a matter of Opinion for child-raising.

      BTW modding me flamebait won't shut me up.
      I will continue flapping my mouth & exercising my
      right to hold an opinion, even if I am in the minority.
      i.e. I won't be like Galileo.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    17. Re:He's right by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>If you don't believe that it's abuse (or at least sexual harassment), try spanking or hitting some random person (perhaps a women for greater effect)
      >>>

      Thank you for demonstrating why government should not interfere with parental decisions. YOU would have half of America's parents arrested because that's how many have spanked their children.

      BTW you need to watch the South Park episode about spanking to keep children under control. I can't find the video, but maybe this will jog your memory:
        - The teacher can't control his class, so a psychiatrist comes to visit and demonstrate a new method of making the kids keep quiet and learn - "(whack) Shut up and pay attention in class!" Kids go silent. Learning gets done.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    18. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But. But. But...

      The ebil Gubbermint is forcing us to inject ebil vaccines in our kids!

      And our drinking water has floride!

      Why is freedom dead in America???!!!111

    19. Re:He's right by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      These damaged children should be able to hold their parents criminally liable.

      ... for trusting research that was just recently, conclusively shown to be falsified? Yes, great plan, throw blame at the parents for not being qualified to debunk the research, or for being subject to the (all too human) flaw of trusting information ("X causes Y") more than dis-information ("the old research was flawed").

    20. Re:He's right by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Because then you open-up parents to all kinds of liabilities:

      They already are. Do you favor repealing laws against incest and child abuse? If not, then you already agree that there should be laws against what parents are allowed to do with their children, as long as they are reasonable. You can pull out all the unreasonable examples you want (and I highly agree the whole nudist and interracial things are ridiculous), but that's not in any way an argument against perfectly reasonable requirements and restrictions on parents, just an argument against bad/silly ones.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    21. Re:He's right by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, then try going up to the next woman, and forcing her to sit in a chair in your house until you tell her she can get up. You are likely to get an even stiffer sentence. The worst abuses you can do to a child, do not have to leave bruises. The modern mentality that if it doesn't leave bruises, it isn't abuse is down right scary. Punishment is about associating bad behavior with discomfort. Whether that is mental discomfort of physical. Some children respond well to one, other children respond well to the other. A good parent can tell which is appropriate for their child. A bad parent will just blindly punish their child without effect.

      You claim that causing physical discomfort for a long term benefit is bad, and then argue for vaccination. Clearly, you don't even understand your own arguments. So, you go ahead and keep feeling good about the mental abuse you put your children through. Without bruises, there will no doubt be a whole army of people ready to pay you on the back about how good of a parent you are for keeping your abuse hidden.

    22. Re:He's right by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Yeah, anti-vacs are tards, but don't you find it a little curious that things like Gaurdisil keep moving what they're aiming at? They eventually decide it's a vaccination against cervical cancer and should be given to all little girls as early as possible and when that doesn't work out so well and there are reports questioning the real risks versus advantages of administering it (especially to girls at the youngest range of the spectrum in which it is reasonable to give it), they say "oh, wait - we change our minds! now it's a vaccination for ANAL cancer in little boys!". I mean, come on. It's a clear fucking money-grab and I doubt it's the only vaccination to be such. You have to reap a profit on the outcome of all that R&D, after all. Why would we think that vaccinations are any different than other forms of pharmaceuticals and are somehow unwaveringly altruistic from creation to administration?

    23. Re:He's right by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      The simpler solution is to simply make it unlawful for unvaccinated children to attend public schools.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    24. Re:He's right by MadCat221 · · Score: 1

      Why do we have to show and you don't? Let's see yours.

    25. Re:He's right by moortak · · Score: 1

      The rights of parents to raise their children their own are not, and never should be absolute. If someone decides the proper punishment for a messy room is violent rape we all agree the law should get involved. If you choose to not vaccinate your child and they get sick your actions caused them physical harm. In that situation the parents damn well should be responsible.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    26. Re:He's right by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      If anybody, I blame the clowns who edit the Lancet, for publishing Wakefield's lies without proper fact checking.

    27. Re:He's right by Altizar · · Score: 1

      No, that out cry was because it was a vaccination against a virus that caused cervical cancer.
      Oh, wait, the virus is also classified as a STD.
      So it was a vaccine against a common STD with deadly consequences. Somehow this meant giving it to little girls (not effective for folks 25+ i recall) was the same as giving them the OK to have sex.
      The same argument that is used to prevent sex-ed in schools.
      There was a risk from the vaccine, but then all vaccine have risks, but the real fight was not against those risks, it was all about the mortality of saying its ok for little girls (who they wanted to vaccinate) to have sex.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervical_cancer_vaccine

      associated with the development of cervical cancer, genital warts, and some less common cancers

      Those people would have probably fought just as hard if it was a vaccine against AIDS.

    28. Re:He's right by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      In many countries in the EU. It is.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    29. Re:He's right by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      It isn't a "slippery slope" when the events have already occurred in reality, and the parents already jailed. Every item I listed in my original post HAS happened. Nudists arrested because they let sons/daughters be nudist too. Christians (or muslims or jews) barred from sending kids to home or private school. Parents arrested because they let their kids do inter-racial dating.

      No government should have the power to arrest parents simply because Said government disagrees with their parenting practices. If the parent is killing or abusing children, then yes intervene, but not for matters which are purely a matter of Opinion for child-raising.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    30. Re:He's right by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Nobody can predict the future.

      You say if a child has no vaccine, and gets sick, punish the parents..... but how do you know the vaccine would have prevented the illness? You do not. I had all my vaccines and still had a sickly childhood.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    31. Re:He's right by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>hold their parents criminally liable.

      Disagree.
      Why?
      Because then you open-up parents to all kinds of liabilities: You spanked your child? 5 years jail. You decided Government schools were crap, and homeschooled instead? How dare you! 10 years jail.

      "What do you mean you let your kid run-around naked, because your family believes nudism is healthy? OMG the trauma you filthy hippy heathen!!!" 20 years. "You LET your daughter date a black boy? You've ruined her." More jail time.

      And if I want to go really extreme, we could have a situation like the novel 1984, where kids simply tattle on their parents ("They made me go to bed without supper"), so the parents live in constant fear of being arrested. This is not the kind of society we want to create.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    32. Re:He's right by gtall · · Score: 1

      Lancet could hardly go about repeating experiments for every author(s) they publish. At some point, a publisher must simply trust that they aren't dealing with charlatans. It is like this for all sciences, and even pure areas like mathematics.

    33. Re:He's right by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      I thought this was the case already. At least, it seemed to be the case when I went to school.

      --
      SSC
    34. Re:He's right by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The facts were checked. The problem was they were falsified. The Lancet like any other paper are not detective agencies.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    35. Re:He's right by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      On the other hand, you're creating the perfect breeding ground for closed-minded homeschooled latch-key children, leaving the next generation to deal with an even more batshit-insane bunch of loonies.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    36. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You heavily misinterpreted me. I did not say that spanking a child was sexual harassment. That statement was meant to put into light the fact that spanking others (such as a women) is often interpreted to be sexual harassment.

    37. Re:He's right by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Thank you for demonstrating why government should not interfere with parental decisions. YOU would have half of America's parents arrested because that's how many have spanked their children.

      Ah, I see. So if a large majority of the population did something like, say, murdered people, they shouldn't be locked away (or at least punished) simply because a lot of people are doing it?

      Kids go silent. Learning gets done.

      How incredibly naive. When I was a child, I was hit, and the only thing I learned from it was "hitting someone is okay if they do something that you do not like." I also felt hatred and anger and at one time even resorted to hitting someone else purely because of this. No, this is merely the action of a bad parent. If you feel you must resort to this, try another method.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    38. Re:He's right by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Yeah, then try going up to the next woman, and forcing her to sit in a chair in your house until you tell her she can get up.

      Children are under no obligation to do this, either. You have no choice in the matter after you get hit.

      Punishment is about associating bad behavior with discomfort.

      What a terrible method, then. I remember being hit as a child. All it did was instill within me the sense that people who do something that I dislike should be harmed, as well as extreme amounts of anger and hatred.

      You claim that causing physical discomfort for a long term benefit is bad, and then argue for vaccination.

      The difference being that one is a (terrible and ineffective) method for bad parents to control their children, and the other one is an effective method of preventing disease, not a method of control. Oh, and explaining things logically can also help a great deal.

      If you aren't patient, then you really shouldn't be a parent.

      So, you go ahead and keep feeling good about the mental abuse you put your children through.

      What?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    39. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wakefield suggested there may be a link and that it needed to be investigated further.

      One of the things that Wakefield said that made sense was that those who are not in favor of vaccine safety are themselves anti-vaccine. He is indeed correct in that statement. The MMR vaccine in question in the UK at the time had been removed from the market in Canada and Japan for adverse side effects. If safety isn't the utmost concern and vaccination isn't carefully evaluated for each child, taking into consideration the unique risks to a particular child, then it opens the door to the current discussion. One huge problem with vaccination is that it is done in storefronts, in high school gymnasiums (health fairs) and a variety of other places by people who are not doctors, who know nothing about the patient, their medical history, their family medical history, their current stress level and so on. Open, honest discussion needs to occur between doctor and patient. The doctors should be very knowledgeable in statistics, VAERS reporting, the kinds of patients that are at greater risk of adverse side effects, the actual ingredients in every vaccine given and the potential issues a patient may have. All doctors administering vaccines should always file reports of adverse effects. Discussions out in the open without emotions flying should be what is happening. The fact that there is no openness in the discussion and people like Gates come out and say anti-vaxxers are killing children is one factor that determines my lack of willingness to vaccinate my children. They are in my care and no one elses. I am the one who makes the decision. I must be able to trust the integrity of those wanting to vaccinate my children. They must respect my position as their parent and my solemn responsibility in decisions regarding their medical care. I do not see such respect, honesty and openness in the debate regarding vaccination. I see defensiveness, not intelligent discussion. THAT IS cause for alarm. Since I cannot unvaccinate, I choose not to until I can ensure my children's wellbeing and can trust not only their medical providers, but the government, the CDC and the pharmacuetical companies producing the vaccines.

    40. Re:He's right by tibit · · Score: 1

      LOL, Wakefield's paper was pretty much a lot of hot air without any solid conclusions, a paper that would have never gathered lots of attention if it weren't for the brainless division of the "think of teh children" club. Wakefield never said "teh vaccines cause autism, teh vaccines bad". It was blown out of proportion by media idiots.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    41. Re:He's right by tibit · · Score: 1

      Isn't homeschooling somewhat at odds with what is meant by latch-key, at least in the U.S.? Latch-key here refers to pre- and after-school childcare programs for parents who are at work and have to drop kids off at school before the start of regular school day, or who have to pick kids up late.

      I'm no fan of homeschooling, but admittedly we have to fix plenty of misconceptions and plain lies taught to our 1st grader daughter. If you didn't know, human body is a solid, as taught by a major city school district in Ohio, and then by a highfalutin' taxed-through-the-roof smaller district.

      Upon realizing that she learned this "fact", we just couldn't but had to demonstrate to her how to make a water-oil emulsion, followed by making a flour-in-water suspension, and sand-in-water one, too, followed by running a bunch of veggies through a blender and letting the mixture separate. Cell walls here, cell innards there. She even saw some shattered cell walls alright under a microscope. Solid body, my ass. Maybe frozen.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    42. Re:He's right by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      They probably could sue their parents, I'd rule in their favor if I was on the jury

      And maybe children should be able to sue their parents for not being rich enough to give them the best private education, or for being ugly and passing on their genes, too?

      Clown.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    43. Re:He's right by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Isn't homeschooling somewhat at odds with what is meant by latch-key, at least in the U.S.? Latch-key here refers to pre- and after-school childcare programs for parents who are at work and have to drop kids off at school before the start of regular school day, or who have to pick kids up late.

      Oh by latch-key I meant "kept at home as much as possible."

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    44. Re:He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wasn't just fiction - it was based on actual law.

      Yes, a law that applied to everyone, not just minors.

      If you're going to argue that parents should be allowed to be parents without repercussions, you should try sticking with acts that, if an adult of the time had also done it, would be legal.

      Another example is a family that was FORCED to send their daughter to public school (from 7th grade onward), because the judge decided schooling by the local Catholic school wasn't good enough.

      Still waiting for a citation on that one, as it does more than just violate a parent's rights on raising their children, it violates the parents' and child's 1st amendment rights. And without a citation, I just cannot believe it.

    45. Re:He's right by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Are you really going to equate bad parental decisions to genetic and economic disadvantage? Really? So in your view a well-off parent who chooses to feed their child nothing but sand and thumbtacks is morally the same as a starving mother who gives her last spoonful to her kid?

      Parents who oppose vaccination are not innocent victims of social disadvantage or genetics. They have MADE A CHOICE to take medical advice from a Playboy bunny in contrast to every competent doctor and medical service on the planet, even when the Playboy bunny's advice proves to be the fruit of deliberate fraud.

      We do not live in a world where a parent can choose their child's social class or attractiveness. We do live in a world where almost every parent can choose whether or not to allow their child to be injured or killed by measles.

    46. Re:He's right by plasmarules · · Score: 1

      It's good that most children escaped the consequences of Wakefield's BS because enough were vaccinated to make it pretty hard for disease to spread. But the numbers are there showing that there were hundreds of excess deaths and life-changing disabilities, such as blindness or retardation, from kids not getting measles vaccines.

      Where are the numbers showing hundreds of excess deaths and life-changing disabilities? From all the studies I've looked at there were "few deaths" as a result of non-vaccination, usually in children with pre-existing immunodeficiencies such as leukemia.

  4. Naturally. by Kingrames · · Score: 2

    This just in: people who make knee-jerk reactions out of fear make horrible mistakes.

    Everyone, let's take note of that so we don't make that mistake a ridiculous number of times every day for like ten years. Because that would totally suck.
    Now, let's all mod me up +1 Funny, for a little while, then really really sad.

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    1. Re:Naturally. by Eskarel · · Score: 2

      The problem with this is that it's not a knee jerk response. What it is is something worse, it's bullshit science which has been deliberately prepared to generate a particular result, a result which has caused deaths. I always thought it was bullshit, but it's totally understandable for parents to believe it. There was "scientific" proof. Personally I think Wakefield ought to be charged with murder for every one of those. Junk science is a huge threat in this world.

    2. Re:Naturally. by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Garbage in, garbage out, right, even in realms other than science. How many thousands have died needlessly because of the knee jerk reactions to falsified claims of Iraq's connection to the 9/11 attacks, acquisition of yellow cake uranium and the existence of other WMD (e.g. chemical weapons)?

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    3. Re:Naturally. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many thousands have died needlessly because of the knee jerk reactions to falsified claims of Iraq's connection to the 9/11 attacks, acquisition of yellow cake uranium and the existence of other WMD (e.g. chemical weapons)?

      None. That war would have happened anyway. If anything, that falsified intelligence brought more countries into the coalition, resulting in a swifter and more successful campaign and so probably saved lives.

    4. Re:Naturally. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "None. That war would have happened anyway. If anything, that falsified intelligence brought more countries into the coalition, resulting in a swifter and more successful campaign and so probably saved lives."

      Just when you thought the Slashdot idiots couldn't get any more stupid... just unbelievable...

      So many logical fallacies in one paragraph.

      How about not invading other people's countries in the first place? How about not killing people just because JEWS tell you to?

      You haven't got a clue, you bloody idiot.

      Dr Hadwen has already refuted the lie of 'vaccination', and nobody has rebutted him yet. They've had over 100 years to do so!

    5. Re:Naturally. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The problem with this is that it's not a knee jerk response. What it is is something worse, it's bullshit science which has been deliberately prepared to generate a particular result, a result which has caused deaths.

      Wakefield's paper may have been "bullshit science", but it's not science that motivates the anti-vax lunatics. The opposition to vaccines existed long before he published, and continued to exist after he was discredited. He just gave the crazies that little-bit of extra publicity which they needed in order to attract a larger portion of the population. And if people had understood a damn thing about science -or even just plain-ol' statistics - they would have continued to get their children vaccinated even if there were good reason to suspect a link between MMR vaccines and autism. So no, "bullshit science" isn't the root cause here - anti-science attitudes within the public, the lack of scientific awareness, and the poor science-reporting and over-the-top sensationalism within the media are far bigger issues.

    6. Re:Naturally. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      How many thousands have died needlessly because of the knee jerk reactions to falsified claims of Iraq's connection to the 9/11 attacks, acquisition of yellow cake uranium and the existence of other WMD (e.g. chemical weapons)?

      I know you're just trolling and I probably shouldn't respond, but the answer to your "question" is "zero". I mean, even ignoring the fact that 550 tons of yellowcake were found in Iraq, you have no basis for implying that the invasion of Iraq would have been averted if the things you listed had not been believed by the general public.

    7. Re:Naturally. by narcc · · Score: 1

      "Dr" Hadwen has done nothing of the sort.

      I'm willing to bet that you haven't bothered to read any of the nonsense he's spouted on the subject. Not that you're capable of evaluating his "work", or even of understanding it.

      The data on vaccination has been in for a very long time. It works, and works incredibly well.

      Take a look around you and ask yourself: "where are all the polio victims?" Oh, that's right -- vaccines have almost completely eliminated the disease! Infections world-wide are lower than deaths from the disease in the US in 1950.

      Reality rebuts Hadwen -- even the data of his day refutes his claims.

    8. Re:Naturally. by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      I can tell you, as a parent, seemingly legitimate studies are a lot more worrying than some nut. Yes other nuts already believed the nut, but while most parents, particularly of younger children are at least slightly irrational if only from lack of sleep, most of them are not stupid. If all the science points one way, it's reasonably easy to quell your fears and make the right decision. If we've got junk science confusing things it makes it really hard for parents. When you have a kid, especially your first kid, you haven't a damned clue what to do, and this sort of shit make life harder.

    9. Re:Naturally. by Hucko · · Score: 1

      Ah... while I agree that GPs post was ignorant, where does the assertion that "JEWS" told the members of the coalition to invade Iraq come from? should you be saying "USA CITIZENS"? or British or Australian (or Israeli)* or whoever else joined the coalition to fight terrorism by inflicting terrorism on their own respective citizens and visitors.

      * I can't be bothered to find out if and when Israel joined the coalition of the obnoxious.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    10. Re:Naturally. by Hucko · · Score: 1

      Why would the invasion at that time take place if no one believed that particular state had anything to do with or were preparing for attacks on other states? I don't know anyone that goes around attacking cupboards because it is possible despite being unlikely that they are hiding bogey men. I'd hazard you have no evidence that the invasion would have occurred had the list not been believed. Am I wrong?

      We have evidence that heads of states (ours) kept trumpeting lies after they had been made aware of were lies to their citizens to eventually invade a state that had nothing to do with the initial cause of fear. That isn't even bringing in the argument that the story changed as their lies were exposed to give new reasons why we of the coalition 'should' attack a state that had no evidence for external maliciousness except to be uncooperative. Other states similarly uncooperative have not been invaded despite showing a greater propensity to external aggression.

      Was Iraq failing to meet its international requirements wrt weapons? Yes. Was that sufficient provocation to invade? I don't believe so, but I'm willing to listen to arguments for it. So far I've only seen irrational myopic xenophobic arguments, but I'll listen for an actual argument.

      Regardless, I believe the topic is about vaccines and differences of opinions of their effectiveness? I haven't seen a rational argument against vaccines either, but I'm glad to be proven wrong.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    11. Re:Naturally. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Why would the invasion at that time take place if no one believed that particular state had anything to do with or were preparing for attacks on other states?

      See, now that's a strawman argument. You don't get to change the original claim and pretend I was objecting to your modified version.

      I'd hazard you have no evidence that the invasion would have occurred had the list not been believed. Am I wrong?

      I'm guessing you don't have any evidence that Einstein wouldn't have come up with Relativity if he had been born retarded. Am I wrong?

      Asking me to provide evidence in a what-if scenario is asinine. You can ask me to explain my reasoning, if you like, but if you're asking for evidence then either you don't understand what that word means, or you're being a dick and intentionally asking for the impossible.

      We have evidence that heads of states (ours) kept trumpeting lies after they had been made aware of were lies to their citizens to eventually invade a state that had nothing to do with the initial cause of fear.

      No, you don't, but it's irrelevant to what I said. I'm not sure why the "OMG DA BUSH IS EEEVIL!" crowd feel it necessary to go off on a long-winded diatribe at the slightest provocation. All I said is that he had no basis for implying that the invasion of Iraq would have been averted if the things he listed had not been believed by the general public. 90% of your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I don't give a damn what you think you have evidence of; if you disagree with the singular claim that I made, then explain your reasoning and let's discuss it. Don't pull out your laundry-list of talking points and start doing your version of the Gish Gallop.

    12. Re:Naturally. by Hucko · · Score: 1

      You are right; I added my own spin on what you said. Thanks for the correction.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    13. Re:Naturally. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      How many thousands have died needlessly because of the knee jerk reactions to falsified claims of Iraq's connection to the 9/11 attacks, acquisition of yellow cake uranium and the existence of other WMD (e.g. chemical weapons)?

      I know you're just trolling and I probably shouldn't respond, but the answer to your "question" is "zero". I mean, even ignoring the fact that 550 tons of yellowcake were found in Iraq, you have no basis for implying that the invasion of Iraq would have been averted if the things you listed had not been believed by the general public.

      Bullshit. At least in the UK the government would not have been able to justify invading Iraq to the British public without the wildly exaggerated WMD claims.

      If America had carried on regardless, they would have been totally without allies.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:Naturally. by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      How many thousands have died needlessly because of the knee jerk reactions to falsified claims of Iraq's connection to the 9/11 attacks, acquisition of yellow cake uranium and the existence of other WMD (e.g. chemical weapons)?

      I know you're just trolling and I probably shouldn't respond, but the answer to your "question" is "zero". I mean, even ignoring the fact that 550 tons of yellowcake were found in Iraq, you have no basis for implying that the invasion of Iraq would have been averted if the things you listed had not been believed by the general public.

      Bullshit. At least in the UK the government would not have been able to justify invading Iraq to the British public without the wildly exaggerated WMD claims.

      If America had carried on regardless, they would have been totally without allies.

      Thank you. Like I said, people dying--anywhere between 100,000 and several hundred thousand, depending on who you believe--as a direct result of people believing in and supporting lies.

      Zero indeed. Pshaw.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
  5. Smoking seriously harms you and others around you by tuxish · · Score: 2

    Not having your children vaccinated not only leaves your child open to disease, but then they can pass the disease onto others. Not vaccinating seriously harms you and others around you. Therefore, not vaccinating is equivalent to giving your child ciggarettes. QED.

    --
    Death and taxes are both inevitable, however, death doesn't get worse year after year.
  6. Microsoft and vaccines by jbeaupre · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you think about it, the way you develop a vaccine is to:
    Embrace : copy the original
    Extend : modify that version
    Extinguish : wipe out the original

    Bill Gates is right at home.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    1. Re:Microsoft and vaccines by AndrewNeo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey, go with what you know. Getting to use it to save lives, all the better.

    2. Re:Microsoft and vaccines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The similarity goes way further: on the "extend" stage, the whole point is to make the vaccine significantly lamer than the original!

    3. Re:Microsoft and vaccines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Getting to use it to save lives, all the better.

      And what happens when each of these 4.5 million "saved" children has three children of their own, and each of them has three of their own? Will Mr Gates return in 50 years to resolve untold starvation and misery caused by overpopulation in relation to food availability?

  7. obligatory Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:obligatory Bullshit by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      That is awesome. That link needs to be up in the article.

    2. Re:obligatory Bullshit by revxul · · Score: 1

      P&T never fail to brighten my day.

      --
      Truth, Just Us, And Hatred For All Mankind!
  8. So... by Skidborg · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but if everybody get a chance to get vaccines, then the only people who are at risk because of not wanting vaccines are the people who have chosen it for themselves, correct? And if there aren't enough vaccines to go around, then just skip over the people who don't want them and give them to the people who do.

    People still have the right to smoke and drink, even though those things are dangerous to their personal health and sometimes to the health of those around them. If you're going to enforce your positive world view on one subject on the people are around you, then you need to be consistent and protect them from all of the misinformed decisions they might make in their life.

    --
    Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're wrong. Vaccination relies on masses of people being vaccinated. Vaccines do not provide 100% protection. So even if you are vaccinated, if the guy sitting next to you in class is a bag of germs, you can still be infected. Vaccination greatly reduces the *probability* that you will be infected, but it does not *eliminate* it.

      The anti-vaccine people have harmed many thousands of people, directly and indirectly.

    2. Re:So... by artor3 · · Score: 2

      The difference is that people aren't choosing not to be vaccinated themselves, they're choosing not to vaccinate their children. The state can't force you to eat healthy, but if you malnourish your children, they can be taken away. Put another way, you have the right to stupidly harm yourself. You do not have the right to stupidly harm others.

    3. Re:So... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but if everybody get a chance to get vaccines, then the only people who are at risk because of not wanting vaccines are the people who have chosen it for themselves, correct?

      Kids don't generally get to make that choice to be at risk.

    4. Re:So... by imthesponge · · Score: 2

      Choosing not to vaccinate your child endangers other people's infants who are too young to receive the vaccine, along with people who have been vaccinated but for whom the protection has diminished over time.

    5. Re:So... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Not exactly correct. Vaccines do not give you 100% immunity, usually. Unvaccinated people increase the risk for everyone, because they are 100% not immune. Google the whole "herd immunity" concept.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    6. Re:So... by uglyduckling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's one thing for people to choose not to have vaccines, that is a right and it would be an assault on their person to force it upon them. It's another thing entirely for groups with an agenda to promote misinformation and falsified, unethically conducted research in order to try to influence people into refusing vaccines. The lives of the children that die from diseases that can be prevented by vaccination should be on their consciences.

    7. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This would be true if the vaccines were 100% effective. The only 100% effective way of not catching measles is to never be exposed in the first place. Putting out Petri dishes (unvaccinated children) for measles to grow in and spread places those who have been vaccinated at risk, just less risk than if they'd not had the vaccine.

    8. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two and a half reasons why we vaccinated people should care:
          1) Herd Immunity -- some people can't get vaccinated at any particular time, but if most everyone else does then the disease can't get to them. Plus for a lot of us who got vaccinations a long time ago, we don't know for sure how good the immunity still is. This counts for a reason and a half.
            2) When some kid gets sick and goes to the hospital there is a good chance that the rest of us will be paying part of the bill, directly or indirectly.

    9. Re:So... by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but if everybody get a chance to get vaccines, then the only people who are at risk because of not wanting vaccines are the people who have chosen it for themselves, correct? And if there aren't enough vaccines to go around, then just skip over the people who don't want them and give them to the people who do.

      Two problems with your logic:

      • 1. The dead kids didn't make a choice. Their parents made a choice.
      • 2. herd immunity

      So the anti-vaccine parents aren't just making choices that hurt themselves, they're making choices that kill children, including other people's children.

    10. Re:So... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are wrong. Vaccine immunity is a statistical thing rather than an absolute. A typical vaccine might fully immunize about 80% of the recipients of the vaccine. Others might have weaker immunity or none at all. This means by not immunizing you not only endanger yourself but the people who have had the vaccine and not obtained full immunity.

      The immunity of the population is cumulative as function of the total number of people immunized and the efficacy of the vaccine.

      This is why laws requiring everyone that doesn't have a compelling medical reason for getting the vaccination are justified.

    11. Re:So... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong,

      You are wrong. Vaccines don't give 100% immunity. Even vaccinated people can contract the disease. The major benefit of vaccines is "herd immunity", where enough people are vaccinated that the disease cannot spread through the population. If enough people skip the vaccine, then the herd immunity breaks down and the disease spreads. It will disproportionately infect non-vaccinated people, but everyone is at some risk.

    12. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly why GB does not vaccinate against chicken pox. Google it.

    13. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The baby has no understanding of these things. She has the right to live but not enough resources to make that decision for herself. Big difference compared to smokers and alcoholics. Most are adult and responsible for themselves and for people around them.

    14. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. This is particularly true with regard to mumps. It hasn't really made the news because the outbreaks have all been very regional (mostly New York and South Florida), but over the past year or two, there have been *record* numbers of adults vaccinated against mumps as children who've nevertheless come down with it. The reason is that MMR vacine is about 95% effective in recently-vaccinated kids, and less than 60% effective in adults who had it more than 10 years ago -- if that. The only thing that keeps mumps under control is the fact that kids were traditionally its biggest vector. A kid would get infected, infect others at school, it would spread like wildfire, and those kids would go home and infect their entire families. Stir, rinse, and repeat. By eliminating its main vector (kids in school), the benefits cascade outward to everyone who comes into contact with them.

    15. Re:So... by Draek · · Score: 1

      People still have the right to smoke and drink, while the rest of us still have the right to tell them they're absolute morons for doing so. Bill Gates is essentially doing the same here, he's not asking for government intervention in dealing with these idiots, he's merely reminding them of their idiot status to the rest of the world.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    16. Re:So... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Look up the term "herd immunity".

    17. Re:So... by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      Certain vaccines can only be given to people at certain ages as they can be dangerous to give to babies. So no they are not just placing themselves at risk, they are risking the lives of every infant their child comes anywhere near (you don't even need physical contact to pass on measles). This is the real problem, people who don't immunise their children can for want of a better word become unwitting murderers to other peoples infants. I would be fine with people choosing not to immunise as long as they are also happy to be charged with murder if their child inadvertantly kills a someone elses child through spreading one of these highly contagious diseases.

    18. Re:So... by kaiidth · · Score: 1

      I wish your analysis were accurate, because it would be the simplest possible solution to the whole problem if it could be boiled down to personal responsibility. However, some people are allergic - not "OMG autism!" allergic, but simply allergic - to components like egg protein or gelatin. Those who were perfectly able to take the vaccine and decided not to because "OMG autism!" are increasing the risk for those who can't, and have to depend on others to do the responsible thing.

      To compare with the examples you give - people have the right to drink, but not to undertake activities that might harm others while they are intoxicated (ie. driving, etc). Similarly, they are free to smoke, but there are increasingly strict limits on where and when - I'm in Britain and my personal opinion on the nanny state is unprintable, but I see that New York just banned smoking on beaches and in parks, so I guess Britain is not alone.

    19. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops:

      vaccination against smallpox has now reached 100% efficiency.

      MB

    20. Re:So... by Graff · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but if everybody get a chance to get vaccines, then the only people who are at risk because of not wanting vaccines are the people who have chosen it for themselves, correct? And if there aren't enough vaccines to go around, then just skip over the people who don't want them and give them to the people who do.

      It's possible for a newborn, a person with a weakened immune system, or a person for whom the vaccination didn't "take" to get the disease because what a vaccine does is it triggers your immune system to build up defenses against the disease. For most people that's enough but for the very young and the immune-compromised they don't have enough of an immune response to handle a serious assault by the pathogens. By having a mostly-immunized population you minimize the chance that these individuals will encounter the pathogen in the first place.

      Another major factor lies within the numbers of the pathogen in the wild. Genetic drift and mutation rates are related to population size, in general the more individuals the higher rate of mutations for the entire population. By virtually eliminating an infectious disease you reduce the generation of new strains of the pathogen, which reduces the chance that the current treatments will stop working on the people who do get infected. Through vaccination we have been able to virtually eliminate polio and the rate of mutation of the remaining amount of polio is far below what it would be if it were still widespread.

    21. Re:So... by sjames · · Score: 2

      Actually, given the choice, most kids of immunization age will skip a shot. Of course they'd also eat nothing but cake and ice cream, so perhaps it's best their parents make the choices.

    22. Re:So... by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      No doubt some nutbag will read that and come to the conclusion that the issue is not vaccines for kids but school.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    23. Re:So... by PCM2 · · Score: 2

      Vaccines also don't last forever. You should all be getting a tetanus booster once every ten years. Tetanus is something you don't need to catch from another person; you can assume it's pretty much everywhere in the environment.

      Another one that doesn't last is whooping cough (pertussis). In my region of California there have been a number of outbreaks of whooping cough in the last couple of years, mostly in affluent Marin County where parents think they know better than doctors and have stopped having their kids vaccinated. As a result, doctors now recommend that everyone get a one-time pertussis booster at some point in their adult life. The way to do it, coincidentally, is to ask for it with your next tetanus booster. The idea here is that an adult who contracts whooping cough will probably feel pretty bad, but it won't be life-threatening; still, that adult carrier doesn't want to risk passing the disease on to a child who may not have been vaccinated.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    24. Re:So... by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but if everybody get a chance to get vaccines, then the only people who are at risk because of not wanting vaccines are the people who have chosen it for themselves, correct?

      Incorrect. Vaccination doesn't work 100%, only say 95%. So if everyone gets a vaccination, then 95% are actually immune, and that should be enough to stop an outbreak. If 5% don't get vaccination, then we have 5% not vaccinated, 5% failed vaccination, 90% immune. If the disease breaks out, then both those that were not vaccinated, and those where vaccination failed without any fault of their own, will suffer.

      One way to reduce the risk of an outbreak is to ask everyone who got vaccinated to come back in the next year. If the vaccination worked, then another vaccination has no effect at all; if it didn't work then there is a good chance that the second vaccination worked. So these five percent who decided against vaccination doubled the cost of preventing an outbreak. And since money is limited, the money for this doubled cost is missing somewhere else, causing death and suffering in completely unrelated areas.

    25. Re:So... by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Putting out Petri dishes (unvaccinated children) for measles to grow in and spread places those who have been vaccinated at risk, just less risk than if they'd not had the vaccine.

      Yeah, but it's much less risk. The way my Infectious Diseases professor explained it was if she had measles, and if she walked to the front of the classroom to begin a lecture, and she broke into a coughing fit, in two weeks' time virtually every student in the class who had not been vaccinated would have measles. It's that infectious, but the vaccine provides considerable immunity.

      The other side of it, of course, is that it's hard to get measles this way in 2011 because very few people are "walking Petri dishes" of measles -- because virtually nobody catches it in the first place (because of herd immunity). This may be the most important aspect of mass vaccination programs.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    26. Re:So... by beadfulthings · · Score: 1

      You're right, but only up to a point. Children's immunizations are given on a schedule that depends on a lot of factors such as age and weight. So the DPT shots can begin before the baby is three months old, but they require a series. Polio is started up in the last half of the first year. Measles/Mumps/Rubella isn't given until the child is at least eighteen months old. Ideally, children would be protected by the mother's immunity, but that's not reliable, especially when breast-feeding isn't taking place. Pertussis (whooping cough) in particular is still a death warrant for most infants who contract it.

      I immunized my children rigorously throughout their childhoods, and there were still problems. My older son contracted pertussis when he was sixteen years old, and it took at least two weeks to get a diagnosis because most doctors had never seen a case. He and a whole group of teenagers caught it at the same time because they'd received a dose of vaccine from a batch that had something wrong with it. Within six months, I received a letter from the doctor's office urging me to bring the younger boy in to be re-vaccinated against measles/mumps/rubella. Same deal--bad batch of vaccine. (Coincidentally, and around that same time, we got a letter from our veterinarian telling us our dog's immunity to rabies was compromised by--yes--a bad batch of rabies vaccine.) It gives you a lot to think about.

      I've encountered whole nests of younger mothers who are violently opposed to immunizing their children. They point to questionable studies by people with questionable credentials. They emotionally cite every case of vaccine allergy they can find. They rant perpetually about Big Pharma and the bazillions they are raking in from these vaccines. They have clearly never lost a childhood friend to polio, had a neighbor give birth to a deformed child who died within hours due to rubella, or encountered anyone whose vision, hearing, or ability to father children has been compromised due to measles or mumps. I'm not sure how, precisely, they intend to protect their children from all these dreadful consequences. And sadly, they're not sure either--or they aren't articulate enough to tell anyone. It's pretty alarming.

      I believe Bill Gates is a couple of years younger than I am, but we definitely went through grammar school in the same era. I suspect he has a lot of the same memories I do of childhood epidemics, children who were injured by disease, maybe even a death or two. I support everything he has to say on this subject.

      --
      "Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
    27. Re:So... by Lehk228 · · Score: 0

      it should not be "forced" but in the interest of public health is should be required to participate in society. your own paranoia and foolishness does not give you the right to endanger others who may have gotten their shots but not had it take fully.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    28. Re:So... by winwar · · Score: 1

      "It will disproportionately infect non-vaccinated people, but everyone is at some risk."

      But it is likely that the largest number of people who contract the disease will have been vaccinated. A small percentage of a large group is a large number. This is a very important point to remember. It is used to deceive people about the effectiveness of vaccines.

    29. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two issues:
      1) Children who haven't been vaccinated yet.
      2) People who are allergic to the vaccines.

      Provided enough people have the vaccine, these two groups are protected by the fact that disease can't get a hold in the population.

      Look into whooping cough in Australia for an example.

    30. Re:So... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Another point is not everyone can be vaccinated due to age and or allergies so they have to skip vaccination involuntarily. When others skip the vaccinations due to personal superstitions and increases the likely hood that the involuntarily unvaccination will come into contact with the pathogen

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    31. Re:So... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Unvaccinated people increase the risk for everyone, because they are 100% not immune

      Please don't counter mis-information from the anti-shot people with more misinformation. If a (in most cases very large) portion of the population didn't already have natural immunity, everyone would already be dead.

      A good example - the last flu scare. Nobody born before the Asian Flue epidemic of 1957-58 needed to get vaccinated - they had already been exposed to a flu that was "close enough", and were already immune. And yet there was this push to "get the older people vaccinated".

      For the rest, getting people to wash their hands and stop picking their noses was a pretty good protective measure.

      The 1918 pandemic was caused by trench war conditions, with tens of millions of people who were cold, malnourished, and basically ripe for any opportunistic infection. And yet, many people lived - because many people have a natural immunity, and when exposed, will not become ill and die.

      Communities that banned ALL contact with outsiders didn't have a single case.

      Part of the problem is that, with the large, more mobile human population, there's always going to be reservoirs of disease. Vaccines can help, but even without them, we're not all going to die. Many of us ARE immune to various diseases. We've been exposed to them, developed an immune response, and move on. If you're able to mount an immune response without a vaccination, you are zero risk for those around you.

      Of course, if you mount a defective immune response (such as being a carrier of typhoid), that's another story - and vaccination won't make a difference in such a case anyway.

      So it's more complicated than "just get a shot or you put everyone at risk."

    32. Re:So... by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

      The human immune system is capable of producing billions of different immunoglobulins, most of which are unknown or undocumented, therefore your statement that anyone could be 100% not immune is based on a false premise. The capabilities of the human immune system are still not fully known, and any doctor will tell you that they don't heal people, they help them heal.

      I've also noticed that few are willing to discuss the evolution of viruses in response to vaccines. While it is true that I have been vaccinated and have probably benefited from it, I have to wonder if we have fully thought out the consequences of vaccines in the same way that we have seen what happens with antibiotics. There is considerable risk that vaccines, like antibiotics could give rise to "superbugs".

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    33. Re:So... by drerwk · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
      Protects un-vaccinated, and those for whom the vaccine did not provide 100% protection.

    34. Re:So... by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Right, but we're not talking about "mass numbers of people" refusing vaccinations.

      Personally, I have a tough time with this topic. Common good of society versus right of the individual. I can't think of anything much more valuable than the right to determine whether or not someone is allowed to inject your body full of something. Even if it's for a more general good.

    35. Re:So... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Right, and what's worse is that there's a small portion of the population that can't have the vaccination for one reason or another, and the parents that choose not to vaccinate their children make it that much worse for those who would be risking serious illness.

      My brother was unable to finish out the MMR series because of a reaction. The year before last I had a reaction to the Flu vaccine they were using. Supposedly if they had insisted on giving out small pox vaccinations a few years ago like they wanted to originally, I would've had to opt out due to the risk of complications.

    36. Re:So... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Not quite. It's included in the tetanus booster. It's called DTAP for Diptheria, Tetanus, Acellular Pertussis. It has long been known that childhood pertussis vaccination loses efficacy over time, however the old 'whole cell' pertussis vaccine caused bad local reactions in adults and really wasn't tolerated. The newer vaccine is much 'cleaner' - less extraneous proteins for your immune system to have hissy fits about.

      This becomes important since we've found out that adults are the biggest reservoir of the disease - it causes an annoying and irritating cough / upper respiratory infection but won't kill a healthy adult. Giving it to a 6 month old child just might kill them. So it's important that we immunize the general adult population. Probably more important that immunizing for tetanus since 3 vaccinations over a lifetime is probably enough to confer lasting immunity.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    37. Re:So... by tboulay · · Score: 1

      See this is my thinking. People who are stupid enough to take medical advice from Ace Ventura and and Miss October can only be helping humanity by increasing the odds that their offspring don't get the opportunity to have offspring of their own.

    38. Re:So... by PCM2 · · Score: 2

      Not quite. It's included in the tetanus booster. It's called DTAP [medscape.com] for Diptheria, Tetanus, Acellular Pertussis.

      Yes, but like I said, in the U.S. you generally have to ask for that specific version. Otherwise they may just assume you want the tetanus-diptheria version, because it's cheaper (and it's believed adults only need the pertussis component once). Your experience might be different, for example if you live in a country with universal healthcare.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    39. Re:So... by rubberbay · · Score: 1

      Herd immunity reduces the spread of an contagious disease and provide a level of protection to vulnerable, unvaccinated subgroup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

    40. Re:So... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      You basically would have four kinds of people that would be susceptible when people don't vaccinate their kids. The first are, of course, the kids of the parents who don't vaccinate. Next are people who can't vaccinate due to a valid medical reason (weak immune system, allergic, etc). Then there are the very young who aren't old enough yet for the vaccine. (See: Dana McCaffery) Finally, there are also the very old who might not have gotten the vaccine when they were young as it wasn't available. If the parents who don't vaccinate were only risking their kids' lives that would be bad enough. But they are also risking the lives of other kids, babies and the elderly.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    41. Re:So... by wk633 · · Score: 1

      Also, some people CAN'T be vaccinated (e.g. genetic disease, allergy, too young), and depend on the protection of 'the herd'.

    42. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone can get vaccinated. Children younger than a certain age, the elderly and people with certain health problems do not get vaccinated because in their cases, it is more dangerous than not getting it.

      Go Google on "herd immunity" and learn.

    43. Re:So... by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      Bad batches of vaccines not only fail to cause immunity, but in vaccines based on the actual organism have the risk of giving you the very disease you are trying to prevent! For example, some vaccines are based on killed copies of the virus in question. If somebody screwed up, and one batch was not killed, then you are injecting the live virus into people.

      Thankfully in practice bad batches usually do not involve such issues but rather involve things like insufficient vaccination material included in the suspension, or the live organism used had mutated slightly resulting in the antibodies generated by the vaccine not being as effective against the wild organism as they should have been.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    44. Re:So... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Then explain how parents can be allowed to put their child in a car and drive them for non-emergency purposes. Parents do things that put their children at risk all the time. Children are regularly killed and maimed by their parents doing things that are dangerous to their children. The difference is that if you do something different, and your child gets hurt, you are called a monster. Getting most vaccines is the best bet for kids, but your claim is simply ridiculous.

    45. Re:So... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      And having your child sit in a child proofed livingroom is not 100% protection against them getting run over by a car. Your argument isn't valid.

    46. Re:So... by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      There is considerable risk that vaccines, like antibiotics could give rise to "superbugs".

      The way i see it:

      Vaccination (antibiotics):
      +:more people survive, hopefully the disease is eliminated completely
      -:there is a chance that in the future the vaccine will become ineffective. Hopefully the science will have advanced by then and a new vaccine or drug will be developed.

      No vacciantion:
      +: there is a chance that it won't get any worse in the future (but the bug could still become more dangerous).
      -: more people die now, and continue dying in the future at least at the same rate

      Seems like a pretty easy choice for me.

    47. Re:So... by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

      As is so often the case, we can't always see the long-term implications of our actions. For now, it's working out and benefiting most of the people who have accepted vaccines.

      It just seems to me that vaccines are a band-aid for a much bigger problem: the environment. As we pollute the environment and live in densities that humans are not really accustomed to, we're weakening our immune systems to the point where we need vaccines.

      You're welcome to your choice, but I prefer to reserve judgement on the question.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    48. Re:So... by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Well, I once talked with an older person about this, he said that in the past people were healthier. I agree with it, however it seems more likely that it was mainly do to these reasons:

      1. Natural selection. A lot of people dies from diseases we can cure today, for example, tuberculosis and whatever heart conditions that require a pacemaker. After all, when my grandmother was young (before WW2), it was perfectly normal that some of your children die before reaching adulthood. Now we are shocked if a child dies. Like the kid with an artificial heart - in the past he would have just died and nobody (except his family/relatives/friends) would have known about it.
      2. Less information. If someone has some strange disease, the whole country might find out about it (because it will probably be broadcast at least nationally), in the past, the newspapers and radio had other things to talk about rather than how some kid in the US has some strange disease.

      As is so often the case, we can't always see the long-term implications of our actions. For now, it's working out and benefiting most of the people who have accepted vaccines.

      Which is useful now. The fact that we do not know the long-term effects should not stop us from doing this. After all, if vaccines were banned we would not even find out if they were good or bad in the long term and a lot more people would be dead right now.

    49. Re:So... by Tom · · Score: 1

      It's one thing for people to choose not to have vaccines, that is a right and it would be an assault on their person to force it upon them.

      It gets a bit trickier when people decide not for themselves, but for others - namely their children.

      People can also beat themselves up all they want, or have others beat them up. We accept that and call it SM. But beating up your child we call child abuse. And rightly so, for it's not the same thing.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    50. Re:So... by narcc · · Score: 1

      Choosing not to vaccinate your child endangers other people's infants who are too young to receive the vaccine

      To put it another way: Idiots who don't vaccinate their children are killing babies.

      That's right, anti-vaccers, you're a disgusting bunch of murderous child-abusers; still feel self-righteous and morally superior?

    51. Re:So... by Spad · · Score: 1

      There are a sizeable group of people who can't be vaccinated, either due to allergies to ingredients in the vaccines or because they are immuno-compromised as a result of illness or cancer treatments. *Those* are the people who need everyone else to be vaccinated, not some moron who is incapable of logical thought.

    52. Re:So... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      The Smallpox vaccine was invented in 1796. What d'you think the environment was like then? So should we just stop making rubbish, stop burning fossil fuels and stop putting nasty chemicals in the environment, then we won't have any diseases any more?

      People have been getting killed by disease ever since there have been people, and for the vast majority of that time the environment was the very definition of pristine.

      Sounds suspiciously like the Naturalistic Fallacy to me.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    53. Re:So... by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

      I agree with everything you said except for the last clause in the last sentence. As you pointed out, natural selection was a much greater factor in the mortality rate in the past and that people died of many diseases we cure now. The use of medicine subverts the process of natural selection, so there is no way of knowing if humans would die or naturally adapt to viruses except for the fact that we are all here now and that the human genome is rife viral DNA inserted into it over the eons. Your statement that "a lot more people would be dead right now" is an assumption that at the moment can't be proved either way as we have no way of knowing how humans would evolve.

      A good case in point to show that animals in general can adapt and even coexist with what would otherwise be a deadly virus is the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus. I suggest that we might be missing the benefit of natural selection by using medicine rather than letting our bodies figure it out. if that were feasible without a giant die-off, it's something to consider. However, given the possibility that viruses can evolve faster than we can treat them, the odds of a giant die-off will increase with our increasing population and the steady decline of our ecosystem.

      So unless we clean up our mess, it's only a matter of time before natural selection resumes it's natural course.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    54. Re:So... by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Your statement that "a lot more people would be dead right now" is an assumption that at the moment can't be proved either way as we have no way of knowing how humans would evolve.

      Without vaccination a lot more people would die from the diseases from which the vaccine currently protects us. Take the original vaccine for example - smallpox. Before the vaccine was developed, a lot more people died from smallpox than are dying now (wikipedia says that the disease was completely eradicated). If the vaccine was not developed, logic dictates that the disease would not be eradicated and people would be dying from it even now. Other diseases are similar.

      if that were feasible without a giant die-off, it's something to consider.

      Sure, but since it is not feasible without a lof of people dying (after all, natural selection usually means deaths of those who have the undesired properties).

    55. Re:So... by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

      Whether a "property" is desired is irrelevant to natural selection. The only properties that matter are those that support survival in the face of adversity. The rest is dressing.

      My point is that given current trends, natural selection will eventually resume its course as before, no matter how good the vaccines get because we're simply not going to be able to keep up with virus evolution in the design of vaccines.

      Besides, the human immune system, given proper conditions will be far more capable of keeping up with virus evolution than science will, and we've got about 2 million years of evolution to prove it. By proper conditions, I mean clean land, air, water and food. We aren't anywhere close to that in the air and water department, but our food is much better than it was in times past (assuming that the source of food is whole food).

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    56. Re:So... by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      The only properties that matter are those that support survival in the face of adversity.

      I wanted to say that, but did not manage to make a correct sentence - English is not my native language.

      Besides, the human immune system, given proper conditions will be far more capable of keeping up with virus evolution than science will, and we've got about 2 million years of evolution to prove it.

      Could be, but still, since we value the life of an individual, letting people die from a disease that is possible to prevent (now) seems horrible. This is what happened during those 2 million years - the weak died and the strong survived.

      By proper conditions, I mean clean land, air, water and food.

      Which may not be that possible, given the current population. However, since we value life, we use whatever means necessary to extend life and prevent diseases without resorting to "kill a bunch of people to free up some space" option.

      We aren't anywhere close to that in the air and water department, but our food is much better than it was in times past (assuming that the source of food is whole food).

      Air - yes, water can be filtered. The people in the ISS manage to extract safe water from urine, I'm sure it would be possible to extract clean water from muddy water.

    57. Re:So... by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

      If you had said nothing, I never would have guessed that English is not your native language. I only surmised that your grammar needed just a little bit of work. I'd say you're quite fluent in your writing. Good show!

      As to the other points, I agree with you on most of what you said. I prefer ethics to brutality. But the point remains that it's not completely within our conscious power to control or contain viruses. I suppose I really just meant to offer a warning that vaccines are not the final answer. Eventually, we'll come back to cleaning up the environment if we're still around to do it.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    58. Re:So... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Nope, I live in Alaska and, Sarah Palin notwithstanding, it's still part of the US. Although the formal recommendation is for a single dose of DTAP followed by plain ol DT, nobody does that because we can't be sure that the vaccine the person had 10 years ago was DTAP (or really anything else for that matter, thank you US Healthcare system for the scattered, inconsistent database you've created). We see lots more pertussis than tetanus so the impetus is on strongly immunizing people against the former. The data for acellular pertussis longevity in adults is weak (as always) and it's very well tolerated.

      So roll up your sleeves and bend over.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    59. Re:So... by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Vaccines and medicine are not the final answer, at least not yet. Maybe some day humans will be able to cure any disease, but for now, we should at least be happy that we can cure many diseases that in the past were almost certain death.

    60. Re:So... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      This is why laws requiring everyone that doesn't have a compelling medical reason for getting the vaccination are justified.

      No it's *how* such laws are justified. You're begging the question.

      It's odd to me that there's not more of an effort to ban peanuts. Eating peanuts and using peanut oil is so minor. Nobody depends on it. Nobody has a fear of something bad happening if they *don't* eat peanuts. Yet all we say is manufacturers have to have a warning. That doesn't stop people from making homemade products and taking them to the office where someone may eat it and die, or having something be mislabeled, or the many other situations where things aren't labeled.

      And with vaccination you have this huge movement going around saying "You MUST get your kids vaccinated even if you are genuinely afraid it will make them autistic. WE don't care how you feel, just do it."

      How is that possible? Not eating nuts vs. fearing for your child's entire future.

      Why do you think that is?

    61. Re:So... by cdwiegand · · Score: 1

      Yay! If people like you had your way, my son would be dead today. We didn't know he was allergic to eggs until he was 20 months old, but if we had followed the standard recommendations, we would have injected him with egg proteins in the flu shot at 6 months and then again at 18 months (assuming he was still alive). His egg allergy is moderate, but strong enough that the allergist told us to never give him anything made with egg, including the flu vaccine. Had we done so, he would either be seriously disabled or dead today.

      While I'm not always anti-vax (like chicken pox, which is usually safe enough, and polio, which hasn't spread in the US since 1983 even with all of our international airports..), I'm glad that we decided to wait until he's older and we can probably test him. We will likely be starting him on a modified regiment, with our doctor's approval, later this year so he can have at least some protection when he starts to go to school.

      --
      . Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
    62. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unvaccinated people increase the risk for everyone, because they are 100% not immune

      Please don't counter mis-information from the anti-shot people with more misinformation. If a (in most cases very large) portion of the population didn't already have natural immunity, everyone would already be dead.

      What the fuck? You're full of shit.

      It's absolutely true that a substantial population of un-immunized people increases risk for everyone, including those who are vaccinated. As the OP said, vaccination is not a silver bullet, it isn't 100% effective. What makes it work really well is when ~100% of the population is vaccinated... this means that the number of vulnerable people walking around is small enough that it's really hard for a disease to spread.

      The analysis can be done with graph theory. People are nodes and the arcs are relationships between people which could spread disease (i.e. you're in the same room if it's airborne, you swap bodily fluids if the disease depends on that, etc.). Arcs where one or both ends connect to immunized people cannot spread the disease. IIRC, if 100% of the people are vaccinated leading to 90% immunity, that's generally enough to be very effective at stopping disease propagation... there simply aren't enough live arcs in the graph.

      If, on the other hand, enough people decide to not vaccinate, that creates enough connections in the graph to allow breakouts. Which in turn dramatically raises the probability of vaccinated-but-not-immunized people being exposed to the disease.

      So yes, you ignorant ass, they are at greater risk. It's been proven mathematically and observed in the real world.

      A good example - the last flu scare. Nobody born before the Asian Flue epidemic of 1957-58 needed to get vaccinated - they had already been exposed to a flu that was "close enough", and were already immune. And yet there was this push to "get the older people vaccinated".

      Moron. The immune system does not remember a disease forever. Furthermore, flu viruses mutate rapidly. There is next to no chance that having been exposed to a ~50 year old strain would be adequate protection against a modern strain.

      The 1918 pandemic was caused by trench war conditions, with tens of millions of people who were cold, malnourished, and basically ripe for any opportunistic infection. And yet, many people lived - because many people have a natural immunity, and when exposed, will not become ill and die.

      So the fuck what? There are also plenty of people who don't have natural immunity. You keep waving natural immunity around as if it's a magic wand. That doesn't work, the pre-vaccination era fucking proves it, including 1918.

      Speaking of which, the 1918 flu killed lots of strong, healthy people. Including perfectly healthy ~20 year old soldiers in training camps in the US who hadn't been shipped overseas to the dank horrible trenches yet -- one of the first outbreaks was in such a camp. Disease propagation isn't so much about whether you're cold and wet as it is about proximity. The camps were very densely populated and thus were good places for the flu to spread. This is also why it's easy to get sick on airplanes, one sick person with an airborne virus can expose more or less the whole cabin to it (mmm, recirculated cabin air).

      So it's more complicated than "just get a shot or you put everyone at risk."

      Well, duh. But being more complicated than that doesn't diminish the truth of "get a shot or you put everyone at risk".

    63. Re:So... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      People still have the right to smoke and drink

      Not an absolute right, though. There are limitations on places where you can smoke and how you can drink (e.g.not while driving). These rights are abridged in order to promote the greater overall good.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    64. Re:So... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      That is a fucking bizarre argument, motor vehicle accidents involving adults and children are, well, accidents. If an adult causes death by dangerous/reckless driving they will be punished for it under criminal law, you don't have a get out of jail free card because you've only killed your own kids.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    65. Re:So... by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I'm not a doctor, but I don't think that's actually true. In fact, there's a not-insignificant chance that had your son gotten vaccinated at six months he might not have developed an allergy to eggs*, in either case, it would likely have been his first exposure to eggs, so most likely he would have been fine. It's the second exposure you have to watch out for, and at 18 months, assuming he was still allergic, his leg would have swollen up large and red, but I have serious doubts that he would be either disabled or dead.

      * based on some promising research that the development of allergies may be related to extremely low initial exposure levels.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    66. Re:So... by tbannist · · Score: 1

      A small percentage of a large group may or may not be a large number. It depends on how small the percentage is and how large the group is. Of course, I doubt your claim about it being "used to deceive people about the effectiveness of vaccines". After all, suppose the infection rate of a disease were 33% for the unvaccinated and 3% for the vaccinated, then the vaccine is at least preventing 30% of the vaccinated from getting it. It's actually larger than that because preventing primary infections may eliminate entire trees of infection thus preventing some of the unvaccinated and vaccinated from ever being exposed to the disease.

      For instance pick your favorite disease based or zombie movie, now imagine what happens if patient 0 is immune to the disease. No outbreak, no zombie apocalypse, no movie because nothing happens, that's one of the frequently unrealized benefits of vaccinations.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    67. Re:So... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Your wording was as follows: "Unvaccinated people increase the risk for everyone, because they are 100% not immune".

      This is verifiably false. Most people have partial immunity, some people have 100% immunity - it is RARE that someone is "100% not immune" to any pathogen.

      that doesn't diminish the truth of "get a shot or you put everyone at risk".

      People who are naturally immune to a pathogen do not put anyone at risk if they remain unvaccinated. For example, people without compromised immune systems who were exposed to the Asian flu back in the 1950s were immune to the H1N1 variantt.

      It's one reason why people get fewer colds as they get older - there are only a couple hundred variants of the common cold - your odds of encountering any particular one diminish as you get older. (yes, there are benefits to getting older - especially when you consider the alternative :-)

    68. Re:So... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Putting a kid in a machine known to kill thousands every year is not an accident. When you put your kid in your car and pull out into the road, you are fully aware that someone is going to die that day in a car 'accident'. You just make a judgement that the reward of going to the park, or getting your fancy drink at Starbucks, outweighs the risk of it being your kid that gets smeared across the road. The same applies to vaccines. Approximatly 100 people died each year from chicken pox prior to the vaccine. Approximately 40,000 people die each year from auto accidents. 99.9% of all auto related deaths are preventable. No one tries to die in a car crash, but they know that if they drive/ride in a car, that it very well may happen. The same goes for getting the chicken pox. No one plans to die from it, but they know it could happen. The difference is that taking that trip to the movie theater is 400 TIMES more likely to kill your child than skipping the chicken pox vaccine.

      Claiming that choosing to put your kid in a car and them dying from that action is and 'Accident', but choosing to skip the chicken pox vaccine and them dying from it is 'abuse' is ridiculous.

  9. Re:The planet does not need more humans, Bill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    fuck you sir.

  10. Why should we care what Bill Gates says on Autism? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 0, Troll

    The problem is why does anyone care that Bill Gates says it? That's what got us into this mess in the first place, with soccer moms listening to jenny mccarthy, over, you know, actual experts. Sure, Bill Gates has apparently listened to experts, and is saying something sensible, but that's not a reason to give him a bunch of press over people who actually study and understand these things.

    If he's giving money to eradicate polio then sure, he can have press over eradicating polio, and as part of that saying vaccines don't actually cause autism is fine. But the MSM jumping up and down like this is some great revelation because Bill Gates says it is the cause of all this in the first place. 'Your Kid has Autism so yu must be an expert on what causes autism! Your kid doesn't have autism and you gave them vaccines, vaccines must not cause autism!' The people who aren't taking polio vaccines (which is admittedly drops not injections but whatever), aren't doing it because they think vaccines cause autism; that group are yuppies in north America. The people not taking polio vaccines are doing it because they either think the government is out to sterilize them, are too poor to afford it, or believe the government has some other, random evil scheme to use vaccines against them.

    Bill Gates is not an expert in vaccines. His correctly knowing that vaccines do not cause autism deserves no more press than my room-mate who makes 15k/year saying the same thing. The whole question asked by Gupta is a lead in for Bill Gates to make this statement, as though he is an authority on vaccines. . Except Dr. Gupta should be an expert, and should be behaving like one on medicine 'Mr Gates, we know that there was a discredited study linking autism to vaccines. How does that sort of fraud impact your work distributing polio vaccines' , not 'in 1998 they linked autism to vaccines, what do you make of it'.

  11. sometimes the truth hurts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If not for 25 years of Microsoft's anti-competitive (and often outright illegal) behavior against Apple, Netscape, Sybase, Sun, Lotus, Borland, Digital Research, IBM, Adobe/Macromedia, and just about everyone else in the software business, the investment in research and vaccines against Malaria and HIV might never have been funded.

  12. Yeah Yeah, I'll Say It by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    I agree with Bill Gates. Apparently the winter has been so cold even hell has frozen over. We should hold the instigators of this movement accountable for the lives their lies have cost, and we should make such a harsh example of them that it's remembered for generations to come.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Yeah Yeah, I'll Say It by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Though I've always admired Gates in the same sort of way I've admired Jobs, I was never a big fan, either. Especially since some of his shady and illegal practices directly affected my career once upon a time. However, you absolutely can't deny the amount of good someone with ridiculous funding and knowledge and no use for ulterior motives can do. While politicians and celebrities spin their wheels on things that are sexy and politically correct, Gates and the friends who have gathered their funds together focus on things like clean water and simple infectious diseases in places that politicians and celebrities don't even know exist.

      It is quite possible that, by the end of his life, Gates could be responsible for almost as many saved lives as my favorite hero, Dr. Norman Borlaug. It makes me feel the slashdot "borg-gates" icon is a little less applicable every passing year.

  13. Re:Why would some people think that ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Countries with high child mortality rates have a greater problem with overpopulation. That is, if you know half your kids will die of pertussis, you will have more kids. It is paradoxical, but preventing child mortality actually decreases overpopulation.

  14. Re:Reason for the hullabaloo wasn't as stated by uglyduckling · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wakefield was not "pursued to extremes". He did research on children without ethical approval in the UK, which is an offence that leads to losing your medical license, and possibly criminal action too. He published research in a field for which he was not qualified, with falsified results. He was also running a company selling single vaccines (his research 'proved' problems for the combined vaccine) and was on the payroll of anti-vaccine lawyers whilst claiming to carry out independent research.

  15. Family ethics by AbrasiveCat · · Score: 1

    Bill was raised by ethical parents and learned to compete very well. He is a smart man and made his money (mostly?) honestly. I may not agree with all his decisions but I agree with him on this one. Dr. Andrew Wakefield has cause many people to die, and the Dr Wakefield made money from it.

  16. Re:Why would some people think that ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The thing is, most anything that improves the quality of life tends to lower the birth rate. Correlation doesn't equal causation, whatever. But as people get richer, healthier, happier, they are less likely to have a dozen kids in the hopes that some survive.

  17. Re:Why would some people think that ? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, how in the hell could better vaccines and better health care help lower the world population? They can't.

    Yes they can, and they do. As parents become more confident that their children will survive, they have fewer of them, and invest more resources in each child. Vaccines, good healthcare, good nutrition, and good education, all reduce population growth.

  18. Re:The planet does not need more humans, Bill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since you are so concerned about it, you can help. Don't get yourself or your children vaccinated or treated for any illnesses. That could kill off at least a few wastes of life.

  19. Where Bill should be taking this by thogard · · Score: 1

    I think he should get a few movies made about Typhoid Mary targeting different demographics and then start running ads along the lines of "Don't let your kid be the next Typhoid Mary". I would even try to get Jenny McCarthy as one of the actors to dilute her message.

    1. Re:Where Bill should be taking this by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

      I'd watch Jenny McCarthy as Topless Typhoid Mary.

  20. Re:Why should we care what Bill Gates says on Auti by Super+Dave+Osbourne · · Score: 0

    Sadly Bill Gates is... Bill Gates. I agree, we should be looking at research that is actually sound, A/B blind studies, and real unbiased/sponsored statistics. Bill Gates Foundation is in competition for the media and minds of anyone out there, and they have billions a year to spend on it. Gates Foundation has a Board, and that board has an agenda (whatever it is). Find out where the money flows, to and from DC and to and from the Foundation, then you will find out the Foundation is getting big bucks from donors like Big Pharm and Gov. Just follow the money, its all written down as part of the docs filed and public record. Its a huge scam, selling crap to people that don't need it.

  21. Ethical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only objection I have with the MMR vaccines is an ethical one -- the Rubella vaccine was originally harvested from an aborted child back in the 60s...

    http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/a-look-at-each-vaccine/mmr-measles-mumps-and-rubella-vaccine.html#MMR_rubella

    1. Re:Ethical? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      You're right. It would be much more ethical to have just tossed the aborted fetus (children are young people) in the biological waste bin. Good thinking.

  22. Re:Why should we care what Bill Gates says on Auti by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

    Well, he listens to experts and spends his cash accordingly, while Jenny McCarthy talks out of her arse. See the difference?

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  23. The numbers, like Sales of Windows, don't add up. by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I am all for Mr. Gates philanthropy. However, the World Health Organization reports 164,000 deaths per year from measles (which is the leading cause of death among children), not the millions claimed by Mr. Gates. In addition, WHO reports that 83% of all children are vaccinated against the measles and that those who aren't are mainly poor countries without access.

  24. Re:Why would some people think that ? by marked23 · · Score: 3, Informative

    >how in the hell could better vaccines and better health care help lower the world population?

    Populations who have lower rates of disease, and better access to health care, tend to have smaller families because they don't have to have more kids as a hedge against their own death rate.

    Smaller families becomes a snowball effect to more wealth, and even better access to healthcare.

    Oh, and what's so bad about population control?

  25. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 0, Troll

    Not having your children vaccinated not only leaves your child open to disease, but then they can pass the disease onto others. Not vaccinating seriously harms you and others around you. Therefore, not vaccinating is equivalent to giving your child ciggarettes. QED.

    Except smoking doesn't seriously harm others around you and the people that came up with that crock are no better than Dr Wakefield.

  26. Re:I still think it should be to parents to decide by mibe · · Score: 1

    What research, exactly?

  27. Re:Why would some people think that ? by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry to interrupt your "Evil Bill's got a needle" rant but better health means people don't have ten kids in the hope that two will survive past the age of five. A "vaccine" substitute for the pill means you only need one shot a year rather than paying for pills once a month (assuming you can find a reliable source for the pills).

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  28. Re:Why should we care what Bill Gates says on Auti by Relayman · · Score: 1

    Why does anyone care about Bill Gates' position on vaccines? Because he and his foundation are trying to help children around the world, partly by using vaccines to eradicate childhood diseases. Your anger is misplaced.

    --
    If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
  29. In short, no by Cyberax · · Score: 1

    No, that's not correct. Quite a lot of vaccines have efficiencies less than 90%, so even vaccinated people can contract a disease.

    However, it's not a problem if everyone is vaccinated because of "herd immunity". I.e. even if someone is infected, the disease won't be able to spread through the population.

    The level of vaccinations required to achieve the herd immunity greatly varies by disease. For polio it's about 85%. And for influenza it's not even possible (required level of vaccination is >100%) with the current vaccines.

    1. Re:In short, no by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      It could be largely possible for influenza if we vaccinated for all known strains. Unfortunately there are far, far t many known strains fr that to be viable.

      Instead we vaccinate with strains similar to (but usually not identical to) the strains we expect to see in great numbers the wild that season. Any vaccine that is not an exact match has higher likelihood of failing to prevent catching the strain in the wild (relative to an exact match), because of the randomized process used to create antibodies. Furthermore we don't always guess what strains will be in the wild correctly, and in those years with respect to those strains not guessed the people with the vaccine don't have much advantage over the people without without.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    2. Re:In short, no by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Well, if a better influenza vaccine comes along, then maybe achieving herd immunity will be possible. Right now it isn't even if we vaccinate everyone.

    3. Re:In short, no by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      I will agree with that. The current method of creating each year's vaccine does not provide overall herd immunity, even if 100% of the population received it. I'm just arguing that this is due to how we make the vaccine, rather than anything special about Influenza itself.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
  30. Or in other words... by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

    Hi I'm Bill Gates and I never want to get elected to public office in the United States.

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    1. Re:Or in other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? He could buy the presidency, congress, and 2/3 of the state legislatures with his money.

    2. Re:Or in other words... by wk633 · · Score: 2

      Never happen. He's an atheist.

      (Yes, I know about Peter Stark)

    3. Re:Or in other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least he didn't have to spend 150+ million dollars to do it.

      Makes him smarter than what's her name out in California.

  31. Gates @ TED... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    youtube.com/watch?v=cQJAPcPnrzg

    Start @ 2:28: "Now the world today has 6.8 billion people; that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

  32. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except smoking doesn't seriously harm others around you and the people that came up with that crock are no better than Dr Wakefield.

    Citation needed.
    Oh, right - you don't have one. Because we all know that second hand smoke is indeed bad. Heck, back when smoking in places like bowling alleys and bars (California) was legal I had to stop going to those places (and I liked Casino bowling on Saturday nights) because of the smoke. See, I have allergies and would lose my voice and get really red and itchy eyes. You can call that "not serious" but I would disagree. There is, of course, lots of evidence FOR second hand smoke being a problem. Where's your evidence against it?

  33. Re:Why should we care what Bill Gates says on Auti by Quarters · · Score: 2

    You totally discount (well, outright ignore) the fact that Bill Gates is the head of the largest foundation on earth that has an aim of vaccinating every child on the planet. He has hundreds, if not thousands, of expert physicians working for him around the globe. When he says something public related to vaccinations he probably knows what he is talking about. Yes, I agree that listening to Jenny McCarthy, et. al about vaccinations was stupid. But that was because they didn't have any knowledge of the problem, just hearsay. But, dismissing Bill Gates for the same reason is exhibiting the same ignorance as the people who listened to the celebrities.

  34. drugs' freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if we were to make drug manufacturing knowledge and procedures "open-source", he would be pro-anti-vaccine?

  35. sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes, and Bill Gates worrying about this kind of shit kills Microsoft... little by little

    1. Re:sure by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      yes, and Bill Gates worrying about this kind of shit kills Microsoft... little by little

      lolwut? Why would anything he does have any impact on Microsoft? Do your actions have much impact on your former employer years after you've left the company?

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  36. Topical by benjfowler · · Score: 5, Informative

    Topical, especially since the US suffers from torrents of anti-vax stupidity, which they're exporting by the ton.

    Like that rather horrible, stupid, overweight and unattractive woman, Meryl Dorey, an American who is now living in the Northern Rivers of NSW, Australia, and spreading vile antivax propaganda and lies. Immunisation rates have plummeted in the Northern Rivers, and now, diseases thought gone for 50 years are making a big comeback.

    And don't get me started about the stupid Muslims in Nigeria, who won't immunize their kids against polio, because some unwashed imam somewhere claimed in a sermon that the polio vaccine is a plot by teh evil jooooos to sterilize Muslims.

    Normally, I wouldn't care about antivaxxers, but their evil, vile lies and willful stupidity -- all done in the name of self-aggrandisment -- is threatening the lives of innocent people who can't make informed decisions of their own.

    1. Re:Topical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Topical, especially since the US suffers from torrents of anti-vax stupidity, which they're exporting by the ton.

      Hey, if Americans can't blame Canada for Anne Murray and Alex Trebek, you can't blame us for Jenny McCarthy.

    2. Re:Topical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, if I ever really wanted to commit genocide of a people, it's much easier to simply do things like this, hire people that can pass as cultural, religious, and other popular speakers, and convince people to do a few innoculous things that significantly increases the death rate of children, the elderly, while preserving the middle aged tax layers the most as their lives are destroyed by their own doing... Aids denialism with cures of olive oil and herbs,, anti-vaccination, etc.
      Why it would be marvelously effective, and unlike a government children limiting act, or war, it wouldn't get as much international political flak...

    3. Re:Topical by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      Sooo your basing your evidence on research that was faked in order to further the anti-vax stupidity? feel free to search yourself, he was later shown to have "doctored" his results. There really is very little on the side of anti-vax crowd apart from ignorance, is vaccination risk free, absolutely not, but it is many times more risky not to vacinate.

    4. Re:Topical by physicsphairy · · Score: 2

      I think you need to buy a subscription to slightly more prestigious journal of science than The Daily Mail.

    5. Re:Topical by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Polio is a particularly nasty case. We're close to eradicating it, but probably won't without forcing people to get the shots. I personally was opposed to the chicken pox vaccinations at first, but when I started to do a bit of digging, it became pretty clear that the disease is more dangerous than usually assumed and a shot with a booster later on if needed is really a small price to pay.

    6. Re:Topical by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      Are you really that fantastically stupid? Or just trolling? First of all, that's the Daily Mail. Second of all, the "other side" has veritable mountains of evidence that vaccines do not, in fact, cause autism. Hardly "religious certainty", more like "verified with hard data many times over certainty"

      How sad.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    7. Re:Topical by dbIII · · Score: 5, Informative

      Meryl Dorey ...spreading vile antivax propaganda and lies

      I've heard her on the radio where she managed to convince people that a vaccine with no mercury in it would give their children autism via mercury poisoning. That's not logic, that's fucking sympathetic magic. That nasty sociopath manipulates people for fun as her hobby and speaks like an accomplished and well practised confidence trickster.
      One of her arguments can basically be summed up as this: nobody with any sort of education or experience can be trusted because that will cloud their judgement.
      That viewpoint holds everyone reading this in contempt. She is not on the side of anybodies children, she only wants to play games.

    8. Re:Topical by Ed+Peepers · · Score: 1

      I just read it and it said most (90%) of the autistic kids they tested also had the MMR vaccination. But haven't most kids had the vaccination? Isn't that like saying, "most of the autistic kids we tested ate cake on their 1st birthday, so eating cake at 1 year of age is correlated with autism". What am I missing here?

    9. Re:Topical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, misogyny in Slashdot. Is your point so weak that you have to make those kinds of attacks against someone who you already have plenty of ammo against?

      This place will never change, will it? No wonder no one takes it seriously. It's like 4chan for grownups.

    10. Re:Topical by Prune · · Score: 1

      You obviously didn't RTFA, as it's not talking about Wakefield but separate researchers.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    11. Re:Topical by Prune · · Score: 1

      You've addressed absolutely nothing regarding the independent research discussed in the article I linked to. These researchers are not affiliated with Wakefield and do not have any conflict of interest. And they're normal scientists with other publications. But as expected, you didn't RTFA.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    12. Re:Topical by Prune · · Score: 1

      Well, of course I don't _really_ believe there is a link between the vaccine and autism, but I'm a petty misanthrope and so will continue telling people there is, since it increases the chance that I cause more kids to get sick.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    13. Re:Topical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what, I think we've found the perfect counterargument to the anti-vax crowd. We just need to spin anti-vax campaign so we convince the masses that it is a terrorist plot to make us more susceptible to disease. Then they can use biological attacks! NO YOUR CHILDREN!

    14. Re:Topical by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Normally, I wouldn't care about antivaxxers, but their evil, vile lies and willful stupidity -- all done in the name of self-aggrandisment -- is threatening the lives of innocent people who can't make informed decisions of their own.

      It's worse than that, they're threatening the lives and health of people who can and did make informed decisions because they're helping to destroy herd immunity. No vaccine is 100% effective, and the more people there are who are not vaccinated, the more prevalent a disease can be, the more chance there is that even people who have been vaccinated will catch it.

    15. Re:Topical by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      I lived in the Northern Rivers area for about 7 years. Honestly, idiots up there, especially in Nimbin, Bellingen, Byron Bay or other such towns will believe anything if said with enough conviction, apart from pot causing lung cancer. Substance abuse and mental illness are facts of life there, in Coffs Harbour, the largest town in the region, the Jordan Center, the largest mental health center in the region is a household name. Idiotic beliefs go with the territory, even amongst the mentally healthy, people want to be alternative and against the grain, even when the grain is supported with concrete evidence. The point of my disparaging rant is that if this pathogen of a woman can go infect this region all she wants, but that whole region is pretty much a quarantine zone for idiots beforehand, given the low population it's probably a suitable place for her to be confined.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  37. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

    A recent study shows that Second-hand smoke, when trapped in the same room, does indeed cause harm due to the polluted air.

    Rather than types three pages of cites, I'll just link to wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-hand_smoke#Evidence

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  38. Wakefield's not even a doctor anymore... by adam · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm sorry to hear your child has autism — I can only imagine the difficulty of coping with something so generalized and poorly understood by modern science. You are also right: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof; Wakefield has none. He's been stripped of his license. His paper has been retracted. And now it's come out that it was more than lacking in proof, it was a "deliberate fraud," to quote to editor of the BMJ (Dr. Godlee).

    Of the 12 children in his study, children who supposedly developed entercolitis and then regressive autism after the MMR vaccination, only one of the 12 had regressive autism. Three didn't have autism at all. Five had developmental problems noted in their records before their MMR vaccine. The development of problems wasn't nearly as sudden as claimed (often months elapsed). Nine of the children's bowel tests were reported as "non-specific colitis" despite testing normal. Many of the children were recruited from lawyers who were hoping to sue the vaccine makers (can we say 'confirmation bias'?).

    Most of these latter revelations have just come to light. I can only imagine how hard it must be to be in your position, to want to find an answer for causation. Especially if your child did have entercolitis and then regressive autism. But you should be aware that there isn't a shred of evidence to support this claim. Not a shred.

    Also, Dr. Gupta is bordering on irresponsibility (imo) when he says to Gates, "There has been a lot of news about is there a connection with autism, for example. What do you make of all that? Dr. [Andrew] Wakefield wrote a paper about this [in The Lancet in 1998] saying he thought there was a connection." He may be a journalist, but he is a doctor first, and he could have formed his question in a way that more clearly stated what he surely knows to be facts (that Wakefield isn't licensed anymore, that the paper has been retracted and proven to be fraudulent). It's this sort of undue politeness in dancing around the truth that leave doubts in the minds of parents like yourself.

    I've seen children dying of measles (in Kaduna State, northern Nigeria), and it's a terrible thing to have to see. In the case of Nigeria, it's a rumor about infertility drugs concealed in vaccines that led to a lot of resistance-to-consent amongst certain communities, and there too the damage of such a provably fraudulent statement has been a long time in undoing. I know it's tempting, maybe even easier to just believe whatever some conspiracy theorist says, but it's important to trust in the thousands of scientists who are advancing the science of saving lives, rather than the few psuedo-scientists who are trying to advance their own notoriety and financial positions.

    --
    I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
  39. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    I didn't have any of those problems, and I still stopped going, especially the bowling, which I was really good at (205 average when I quit). The debate over actual health issues don't even enter into it for me. Coming home smelling like a factory was enough. It's a fucking filthy habit. I always wanted to go over to the smokers and take a pee in their area. If they complained, I'd say, "But it's sterile! It's no threat to you!"

    Never did Casino bowling. Is that the one with the randomly placed colored pins?

  40. Re:Why should we care what Bill Gates says on Auti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would be more interesting is if Bill admits he's actually on the Autism spectrum. Don't believe he's ever said it but it has been proposed that he has asburgers.

  41. Have a very personal grip with anti-vac nutjobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a family member who is blind and disabled from birth due to her mother contracting Rubella (known as German Measles) while she was pregnant. This was around the time the MMR vaccine was being introduced.

    Naturally she has to fight an urge to strangle anyone who is anti-vaccine.

  42. It's really amazing . . . by sfarber53 · · Score: 0

    how even Bill Gates gets to be right once in a while. After all, a stopped clock will always be right twice a day.

    --
    Like the inimitable Groucho Marx, I would never join a club that would have me as a member.
  43. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Smoking is disgusting and yes smoke can cause irritation when you're exposed to heavily-polluted air, but you're not going to get cancer from inhaling it.

  44. Re:The numbers, like Sales of Windows, don't add u by Relayman · · Score: 1

    Exactly. When I saw that claim, I wanted to say [citation needed].

    --
    If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
  45. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Second hand smoke in the form of someone you live with and are around constantly, yes, I can see that causing problems. Second hand smoke from being around people at a club, bar, party, bowling alley, no. I live in California and the daily pollution caused by industry and cars are far worse than catching a whiff of someones's smoke a couple hours a week at the bar.

    Allergies are a completely different thing because you could be allergic to basically anything. That's your own flaw.

  46. Re:Reason for the hullabaloo wasn't as stated by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    "Wakefield was pursued to extremes because big pharma stood to lose their new cash cow."

    Wakefield was pursued by ordinary scientists because his bullshit was dangerous, his fraudulent claims were motivated by money. If there were any justice in the world his dishonesty, greed and disregard for the health of others would land him behind bars.

    "There is no legal cash limit for drug liability but there are caps on vaccines. This from way back to promote acceptance."

    WTF, how does limiting liability "promote acceptance"? Do you routinely shun products with a guarantee in favour of a pig in a poke?

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  47. Re:Hey Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably when you stop being a butthurt freetard.

  48. A seemingly minor quibble by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    Hurray for Gates, saying what needs to be said. However...

    It's not just mothers making these decision, but fathers too. Both parents make these decisions.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  49. Back in the 70's . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    My primary school required a vaccination certificate from your family doctor. No vaccination, no school. Period. Recently, I busted up my nose in an accident on the balcony of my apartment. Nothing serious, but when my doctor heard that I work with some folks from India, he shot me with with a cocktail against Tetanus, Diphtheria and Polio. He told me that Polio is eradicated in Europe (where I live), but not in India.

    I don't have any children, but if I did, I'd ask my doctor to give them the whole shebang.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Back in the 70's . . . by cdwiegand · · Score: 1

      Umm... polio has not spread within the US since 1983. Look it up, it's easily googled. Even with all of the immigrants, and the international travel, we, as a country, still do not have to worry about polio. Yet we will continue to immunize against it... And they say it's not for the money..

      --
      . Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
    2. Re:Back in the 70's . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Schools still require this. I don't know what anti-vaccination parents do. I guess private schools might not, and there's always homeschooling (the thought of those parents teaching... ugh).

  50. The kids pay the price for ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sad thing is that the kids don't even get a say in the matter. The parents who listen to this garbage about vaccines were ironically most likely vaccinated as kids, and now they are making choices for their children based on nonsense and sensationalism.

    Their kids will unfortunately pay the price in the future. Kudos to Bill G for such a strong statement!

    1. Re:The kids pay the price for ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sad thing is that the kids don't even get a say in the matter. The parents who listen to this garbage about vaccines were ironically most likely vaccinated as kids, and now they are making choices for their children based on nonsense and sensationalism.

      Their kids will unfortunately pay the price in the future. Kudos to Bill G for such a strong statement!

      My children paid the price dearly for having had the shots. Fortunately, they didn't have all of them. We stopped completely when my youngest had seizures with the only vaccines she got, DTaP and HIB at 4 months. Since then, two pediatricians, an allergist, and a pediatric immunologist have all said they should never be vaccinated again. Also, if people, doctors, were less emotional about the subject, it would be easier to sort out which children are poor candidates for vaccination. Looking at the information out there, it might have been easier to sort out that they were poor candidates for vaccination. We do not live in a one size fits all world and our children are individuals. My children PAID dearly for the vaccines they got.

  51. How about B&M Gates foundation 42% money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And how about Bill Gates 42% of the money what goes to anti-B&M gates foundation goals? Like oil companies what causes on specific areas a polio to kill people and then B&M Gates foundation goes to sell polio vaccines there.

    Why Bill Gates is so worried about anti-vaccine thing, when 42% of the B&M gates foundation money causes more death and suffering than what is publicity made know about?

  52. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 2

    I hate to say it, because I HATE cigarette smoke, but most of the evidence for second hand smoke causing cancer, etc. is tremendously trumped up and in some cases just as falsified as the wakefield BS.

    of course second hand smoke:
    A. aggravates allergies and people with conditions like asthma
    B. smells like absolute shit and sticks to clothing, wood, plastic, damn near everything
    C. annoys even healthy people

    but the evidence that it causes the big C in other people, which is what the big deal was really truly all about, is pretty slim unfortunately. I'm the first to say that I'd rather the hysteria be true because then we'd be rid of secondhand smoke, but just because I want something to be true doesn't mean it is.

  53. I'm responsible too. by whoda · · Score: 1

    How many children will die since I pirated windows for 15 years?

    1. Re:I'm responsible too. by toriver · · Score: 1

      None: Since increase in software piracy and reduction in infant mortality has happened at roughly the same time, my pseudo-scientific mind concludes there is a correlation. So your act of piracy might have saved a life!

  54. Re:Reason for the hullabaloo wasn't as stated by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    Vaccines aren't an especially lucrative field. Many of them are old enough to be off patent, some others require re-formulation every year(flu, sometimes more than once..), and the whole point of their use is to reduce the morbidity and mortality of the population. A single dose can ruin one or more potential customers for life!

    A few of the newer ones are still kind of pricey(a shot of Guardasil will set you back a bit); but your basic childhood-diseases battery is unexciting. Never mind the R&D for ones that largely affect only dirt-poor people in the tropics, like malaria and yellow fever. Working on those is not exactly a cash cow, compared to cutting edge problems like hair loss, obesity, or limp-dick syndrome...

    Drugs do have higher potential liability; but there is so much more cash to be had there...

  55. Evolution at work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scary to see Bill Gates as the hero here, but I can't help but wonder: should we care about parents who don't want their kids to be vaccinated? Yes it's bad if kids die b/c of the stupidity of their parents, but isn't this an evolutionary pressure at work? Over time, won't the number of people with the gullibility gene start to drop off as their kids die from diseases they otherwise wouldn't have if they had been vaccinated? Of course, I'm guessing these are probably the same people that have more than enough kids to not have to worry about that.

  56. Re:Why should we care what Bill Gates says on Auti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only problem is, he is also invested in these companies and there is a conflict of interest, when he promotes them.

  57. H1N1 vaccine + Narcolepsy by Apotekaren · · Score: 1

    So what about the suspected link here? An illness that kills less people than the regular flu gets global attention (and HUGE vaccine demand), and a vaccine is then hastily brought to market without proper testing and studies. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/flu-shot-narcolepsy-_n_816868.html So let's all just adopt a healthy dose of skepticism, and take a chill pill with those "big scare" illnesses. But I do agree that vaccination against measles and the likes is insanely important.

    --
    She: Hey, are you a traitor? Me: No, I'm atheist.
    1. Re:H1N1 vaccine + Narcolepsy by SQL+Error · · Score: 1

      The reason for the concern over H1N1 was the 1918 flu pandemic which was also an H1N1 strain and killed 5% of the world's population. The whole point of having organisations like the CDC is to prevent a repeat of that.

      As for that narcolepsy link: If it's on the Huffington Post, it's automatically wrong. They are setting themselves up as the internet epicentre of pseudoscientific crap.

    2. Re:H1N1 vaccine + Narcolepsy by TheP4st · · Score: 2

      As for that narcolepsy link: If it's on the Huffington Post, it's automatically wrong. They are setting themselves up as the internet epicentre of pseudoscientific crap.

      How about a link from the Finnish National Institute For Health And Welfare? Link is to the English version of their pressrelease.
      Or...World Health Organisation?

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    3. Re:H1N1 vaccine + Narcolepsy by Iskender · · Score: 2

      So what about the suspected link here? An illness that kills less people than the regular flu gets global attention (and HUGE vaccine demand),

      Normal seasonal flu kills hundreds of thousands of people each year.

      As such, "less people than the regular flu" doesn't say a lot. Your link also says that they still think it's a net positive, meaning more people would have died without than contracted narcolepsy with.

      A lot more than "better than normal flu" is required to make something harmless.

    4. Re:H1N1 vaccine + Narcolepsy by SQL+Error · · Score: 1

      Well, now that it's been reported on the Huffington Post, the original research is retroactively flawed.

    5. Re:H1N1 vaccine + Narcolepsy by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      I agree. We shouldn't take vaccines for diseases our immune systems have the ability to defeat on their own. I'm all for vaccines that protect against horrific diseases like measles, but I'll never take a flu shot. I eat healthy food and I exercise. Occasionally I get the flu, but it never lasts as long as it does with friends/co-workers who have poor diets and never exercise.

      I think the problem with this debate is that it's being framed as pro-vaccine/anti-vaccine. I'm somewhere in the middle. We can't expect to abolish all diseases through vaccines and attempting to do so may have its own dangers. Vaccines should be used when no other medical solution exists. Just like anti-bacterial soap/hand sanitizer. Using it excessively lessens its effectiveness. But some people think that b/c they wash their hands 10x a day they're protecting themselves from disease. At the same time, I'm glad my doctor washes his hands 10x a day because I don't want him touching some other patient (who is likely ill) in strange places and then doing the same to me. The flu vaccine is the same way: some people have medical conditions that prevent them from living a lifestyle as healthy as my own. They may need the flu vaccine. But it shouldn't be given to healthy individuals or those whose health problems are a result of bad dieting and lack of exercise.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    6. Re:H1N1 vaccine + Narcolepsy by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      The reason for the concern over H1N1 was the 1918 flu pandemic which was also an H1N1 strain and killed 5% of the world's population. The whole point of having organisations like the CDC is to prevent a repeat of that.

      All flu outbreaks killed in much greater numbers a hundred years ago than flu outbreaks today. There was no evidence to suggest that H1N1 would be just as deadly, and it wasn't. When the big H1N1 scare was out, myself and several people I know got horribly sick. I don't know if it was H1N1 b/c I didn't go to a doctor about it, but had it gotten bad enough that I had to seek medical attention, I'm sure the medical aid I would have received would be much better than I would have gotten in 1918. Lots of things killed people in 1918 that are of no concern today.

      As for that narcolepsy link: If it's on the Huffington Post, it's automatically wrong. They are setting themselves up as the internet epicentre of pseudoscientific crap.

      Nice fallacy. Good thing I know everything in your post was wrong, because it was written by you.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    7. Re:H1N1 vaccine + Narcolepsy by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Setting your argument aside for a moment - it's interesting - I can't believe you linked to the HuffPo on a vaccine topic. It's like linking to Answers in Genesis on evolution. It's a cauldron of cranks on that topic.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  58. Natural Selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's better if he would stay quiet and let natural selection take its course. Stupid parents beget stupid children. If they die because they get these diseases then it helps the human race as a whole.

  59. Make with this as you will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This might be an interesting read, whether or not you believe it. (New slashdot comment system is awful. This is lagging as I type.)
    http://divinecosmos.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1291.html

    1. Re:Make with this as you will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cleaner water is great for stopping diseases that you get from eating each others' shit.

      For everything else, say... everything airborne, it doesn't do a damn thing.

    2. Re:Make with this as you will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the whole thing, or the first couple pages?

  60. Re:Why should we care what Bill Gates says on Auti by brentrad · · Score: 1

    We should listen to Bill Gates because in this instance he's right. And believe it or not, because of his recent philanthropy, Bill is highly admired in non-tech circles. In a recent 2010 Gallup survey, Bill Gates tied for America's "fifth-most admired man."

    http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/233324.asp

    So the reason we should care and publicize Bill saying this, is because his is a voice that is respected by many that might not take the time to research and be knowledgeable about the topic of vaccines as the readers of Slashdot have.

    I agree with your larger philosophical argument, and I'd be much happier if teachers, scientists, and doctors were people's heroes. But in the real world, people listen to celebrities, so let's use them to do good.

  61. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  62. Alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wikipedia says "AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria are three of the world’s largest killers" in Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations article. It is sad that the statics are actually shown by that way. As if we drop away the countries of Africa, we could get totally different statics, where Alcohol is #1 and then comes pneumonia and other similar reasons to die. If western countries could deny two things in western world, like alcohol and handguns.... there would not die millions in vain....

    1. Re:Alcohol by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      At least in the US, when pneumonia is listed as the cause of death, it is usually bogus. A feeble oldster has a heart attack or stroke, is admitted to a hospital in terrible condition, gets a lung infection and dies. The cause of death is pneumonia?

      Most deaths in old age are the result of cumulative damage, and even if the physician puts 6 causes on the death certificate (not uncommon), how many are considered in the statistics?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  63. Fucking broken Slashdot ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish someone would fix this utterly fucking broken new interface Slashdot has ... that stupid slider for the comments doesn't work

    Whatever web-monkeys made a Slashdot that can't work properly in a Mozilla running NoScript are a batch of fucking morons. Your web design sucks, and is broken.

  64. I raise my glass to you Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't like everything you've ever done. But I do like that. Cheers.

  65. Re:Reason for the hullabaloo wasn't as stated by budgenator · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wakefield was doing everything the conspiracy theorists usually ascribe to the immoral, illicit and illegal activities of "Big Pharma". Actually breaking up the MMR into 3 separate individual immunizations would do nothing but increase the profits of big pharma and the administering physicians.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  66. Re:The planet does not need more humans, Bill. by PCM2 · · Score: 2

    I hope you enjoy your old age, then, because it's gonna suck for you when you break a hip and there's nobody around young enough to lift you off the bathroom floor.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  67. Re:Why should we care what Bill Gates says on Auti by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 2

    To be fair, it is a nice ass.

    I think someone should fund an international campaign with a ticker that shows a running count of the number of children who have suffered and died as a result of Jenny McCarthy's anti-vaccine campaign. Get it up on billboards in major cities and run some sort of "how many kids did you kill today?" campaign on TV. Shame Jenny and celebrities like her into using their influence to spread the truth to even even wider than they spread their initial lies. Saying "Oops, my bad" and walking away doesn't make up for the carnage.

  68. Re:The numbers, like Sales of Windows, don't add u by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

    "It is an affront to our common humanity, five years after the the Millennium Summit, that 30,000 children die each day from easily preventable diseases, or that 100 million people go to bed hungry, or that 100 million children are not receiving a basic education." Bertie Ahern, Taoiseach, speaking to the United Nations General Assembly in September 2005.

  69. Re:Please Show Me Evidence. Seriously. Please. by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 4, Informative

    But the numbers are there showing that there were hundreds of excess deaths and life-changing disabilities, such as blindness or retardation, from kids not getting measles vaccines.

    Link please?

    I'm all for vaccination--let's just get that out of the way up front. Wakefield has been up to no good. But Bill Gates is now on record saying that thousands of children have died as a result of Wakefield's work. I have yet to see any empirical evidence of this. Indeed, the only evidence I've seen at all (that Wakefield has had real impact) is anecdotal and often turns out to be attributable to other forces (e.g. illegal immigrants who don't know they can get free vaccinations, religious parents who refuse vaccinations anyway, that sort of thing).

    It bothers me that in an argument about the unempirical, biased work of one scientist, we are trotting out in opposition not truth but different lies. This is a very big problem! And yet we are all so angry at Wakefield that no one appears willing to call Gates on the carpet to explain what he is talking about and where his data is coming from. So have we decided that lies and invented statistics are okay so long as they support something we like? Come on, people. We're better than that.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=measles+outbreak

    --
    a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
  70. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by Gonoff · · Score: 1

    Yes you can. A quick google pulls up plenty links. Try http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  71. And.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My wife still won't let me vaccinate the kids against mercury poisoning.....

    (it's a joke)

  72. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by tuxish · · Score: 1

    I'm completely uncertain of the whether or not any of the following is true but: I was once told that Apple technicians would not fix your Apple product if they smelt ciggarette smoke as they did not want to expose the technicians to "third hand" smoke. To smoke around the product would void the warranty. IMO, I believe that Apple would void the warranty under those conditions quite willingly, whether or not they actually do, I'm not sure, and I'm pretty certain "third hand" smoke can't really be that bad, if it even has any effect at all.

    --
    Death and taxes are both inevitable, however, death doesn't get worse year after year.
  73. Re:The numbers, like Sales of Windows, don't add u by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

    Where did you get the idea that measles is the leading cause? and when did it change from being Malaria which kills almost a million every year in africa alone.

  74. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by tragedy · · Score: 1

    It doesn't seriously harm others around you on light exposure. Having to walk through a cloud of foul, cloying smoke when entering and exiting buildings just isn't enough to make much of a difference over a lifetime. It's the continuously smoke-filled rooms that are the problem. Especially parents who smoke constantly around infants and young children with developing lungs and laugh off the health dangers as just some crock that some nuts came up with. Standard smokers persecution complex. Everyone is picking on the smokers for no reason. They're not the ones being obnoxious by subjecting everyone else to the side-effects of their addiction, everyone else is being obnoxious by asking them to please smoke somewhere else. My sister was a smoker for years and is currently in her most successful quitting phase yet, I've spent nearly two decades as a first hand witness to the logical convolutions and ridiculous self-deceptions practiced by smokers. Like when she was a teenager and thought that stuffing a towel under her bedroom door could hide the fact that she was smoking in there. I can't imagine what it must have been doing to her sense of smell for her to believe that could possibly work. I also know at least one person with bad asthma and bronchitis. She never smoked, but her father was a heavy smoker. That's anecdotal, of course. But studies have been done pretty firmly establishing this link. Even if you dismiss the studies out of hand, I don't understand how you could possibly conclude that it's a good thing for children's lungs to develop in a constant toxic haze.

  75. Add Bill Maher to your list by DesScorp · · Score: 3

    I think a lot of people would be surprised to know that he's been on something of an anti-vaccination crusade, especially when it comes to flu shots. He basically is of the position that the whole campaign to inoculate people against H1N1 is in and of itself a conspiracy. He's adamant that you don't need vaccines if you eat right.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by catmistake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think a lot of people would be surprised to know that he's been on something of an anti-vaccination crusade, especially when it comes to flu shots. He basically is of the position that the whole campaign to inoculate people against H1N1 is in and of itself a conspiracy. He's adamant that you don't need vaccines if you eat right.

      I believe you are overstating his position. If your immune system is weakened, get a flu shot. If you're a hypochondriac munchausens case, we'll, if it will shut you up, go ahead, get a shot. But I believe his point (speculating) is the vast majority of the healthy population doesn't need a flu vaccine. He certainly isn't boasting he's found the cause of autism.

      snipped:

      And it's precisely because I am a Darwinist that I fear the overuse of antibiotics, since that is what has allowed nasty killer bugs like MRSA to adapt so effectively that they are often resistant to any antibiotic we can throw at it. There are consequences to vaccines and antibiotics. Some people want to study that, and some, it seems, want to call off the debate.

      I wouldn't stick Bill in with the pseudoscientists... he's a comedian and a talk show host... he wants a debate, not a paradigm shift.

    2. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He basically is of the position that the whole campaign to inoculate people against H1N1 is in and of itself a conspiracy.

      No he isn't:

      Also, I have never said there was a medical conspiracy. In fact, when Howard Dean asked me that, my response was "I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. But no, I don't think the A.M.A. and Big Pharma and Aetna and Dr. Frist's hospital chain all meet in a board room and cackle about keeping us sick. They meet on the golf course. (Just kidding.) Do pharmaceutical companies want to cure diabetes or do they want to sell diabetes drugs and equipment? Well, they sure do sell a lot these days, and the food companies are what make that possible. Read David Kessler's book about the deliberate way food companies use salt, fat and sugar as foodcrack to get people literally addicted to eating bad food and too much of it. Is that a conspiracy? Only if you define corporations putting profit ahead of human health as conspiracy. The fact that Americans will do anything to each other for money is not a conspiracy, it's a scandal.

      I'd call it a scandal, too, as diabetes was cured over 4 years ago in a Toronto lab. I wonder what the profits on insulin are in the US.

    3. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1, Informative

      I think a lot of people would be surprised to know that he's been on something of an anti-vaccination crusade, especially when it comes to flu shots.

      The threat from influenza is overstated,and according to the available evidence flu vacccines are not useful for the general population or for the elderly. (There may be a benefit for the immune-compromised.) That makes widespread flu vaccination at best a waste of resources, at worst an exposure to risk of various side-effects without gain.

      Understanding this is not not the same as being opposed to vaccinations against more deadly diseases. I never get a flu shot; but I got my Tdap booster a few months ago. And even though it made me feel like crap for a day or two, for serious diseases like tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis it's worth the risk of a reaction.

      He basically is of the position that the whole campaign to inoculate people against H1N1 is in and of itself a conspiracy.

      The WHO actually changed the definition of a pandemic in May 2009 so that H1N1 would qualify, removing the qualification that an outbreak must cause "enormous numbers of deaths and illness". And it estimated that 2 billion H1N1 cases were likely -- 1 out of 3 human beings on the whole planet -- even after the winter season in Australia and New Zealand showed that only about one to two out of 1000 people were infected.

      It did this while taking advice from people with financial and research ties with Big Pharma companies that produced antivirals and vaccines; one researcher who wrote key guidelines had been paid by Roche and GlaxoSmithKline.

      There is definitely questionable behavior, conflict of interest, and lack of transparency here. Business as usual for Big Pharma.

      You certainly ought to get kids vaccinated again polio, MMR, and other real threats for which effective vaccines are available. Influenza, however does not appear to fit into that category.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    4. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      Flu shots are over administered due to media scare tactics. The worst is the way Tamiflu is promoted as if it were a vaccine also capable of protecting against infection when all it will do is reduce the duration of illness by a single day.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    5. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by 246o1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If your immune system is weakened, get a flu shot. If you're a hypochondriac munchausens case, we'll, if it will shut you up, go ahead, get a shot. But I believe his point (speculating) is the vast majority of the healthy population doesn't need a flu vaccine. He certainly isn't boasting he's found the cause of autism

      Not a smart point. If you are healthy, you should get a vaccine, because you could carry it to your old granny or your 3-week-old infant niece, and kill them. The vast majority DOES need a vaccine, that's how we get "herd immunity."

      --
      Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
    6. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My god, what an appalling piece of writing. If one wanted to claim to state a position and then not make it, I don't know if they could waste so many words as Mr. Maher. Any little information on what he believes or not is made moot by his apparent lack of understanding of the differences between vaccines and antibiotics. There are clear reasons why we should lessen the use of antibiotics, but whether that is so or not, is completely irrelevant to the use of vaccines. So, I for one will put him down as a dangerous fruitcase. One who doesn't understand the limitations of his own knowledge.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by 246o1 · · Score: 2

      Mr. Slippery, I love how you use links to your blog as references in your arguments against vaccination. You, like many anti-vax folks (even though I commend your endorsement of at least some modern medicine used to fight "real threats," as you call them) completely ignore the benefits of herd immunity.

      I clicked through to your blog, just to see if you were bringing up something new or relevant, and found your logic further undermined by the quotes you tried to use there. If seasonal flu generally doesn't hospitalize healthy folks under 65, perhaps you should ask how narrow that definition of healthy is (doesn't include asthmatics, which might surprise some) and whether there are benefits to vaccinating people who would survive an infection (hint - if you're vaccinated properly, you won't act a a disease vector and kill your immuno-compromised, old, or young acquaintances and family members).

      Sure, influence of industry is always something to worry about - but we shouldn't be stupid just to spite for-profit companies, which is what your attitude might lead to.

      Influenza is a real threat, has killed tens of millions over the last century, and the likelihood of suffering from it or giving it to someone can be significantly lowered by getting the shot. Period.

      --
      Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
    8. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't understand vaccines.

    9. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Got HIV? Got a cold you can't shake? These are things to definitely consider. But knee-jerk blanket vaccinations without understanding the future consequences in the universal application is not the correct view to hold... unless you hold the patent.

      If you've got HIV it's too late to get a vaccine, because your immune system doesn't work right. At that point, you're praying that as many of the general population have been vaccinated as possible, so you won't get it from them.

      The more important point here is that the influenza virus, in specific, already mutates very rapidly. When scientists prepare a vaccine, they do it by making the vaccine tailored to the strain of the virus that they think is most likely to become a pandemic. They can be wrong, and if you get the wrong vaccine you will still come down with the flu. Because of this, I'm still not convinced that mass influenza vaccination campaigns are really all that effective at preventing the spread of the disease.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    10. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to have a significant amount of respect for him - but while I think he's still a good comedian, he is very solidly in the pseudo-science camp.

      http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/bill-maher-vs-the-flu-vaccine/
      * people who get flu shots are idiots
      * He said he did not believe that healthy people were vulnerable to dying from the new H1N1 virus (WHO disagrees - healthy people are often did die with H1N1, but the normal flu is less risky for healthy people)
      * "(H1N1) is not a very serious flu. Let’s be honest. There must be something more to this. I cannot believe that a perfectly healthy person died of this swine flu. That person was not perfectly healthy. Western medicine misses a lot."

      He's publically and solidly anti-vax, and has a couple *very* pseudo-science ideas - e.g. that dietary changes protect most people better than a vaccine. I still enjoy his comedy but just like some doctors promote homeopathic nonsense, this fairly intelligent comedian is strongly wooed by pseudo-science. He might occasionally sound like a moderate and he wants debate, but one moderate statement doesn't make him a moderate when he follows it with "healthy people cannot die from H1N1" and his "vaccine conspiracy".

    11. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't surprise me at all. He's wrong about almost everything else.

    12. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your immune system is weakened, get a flu shot. [...] But I believe his point (speculating) is the vast majority of the healthy population doesn't need a flu vaccine.

      Bzzt. Wrong answer. The correct answer is that the healthy population that will never come into contact with anyone with a weakened immune system (infants, elderly, someone already sick, someone who just had a stressful day at work, etc.) doesn't need a flu vaccine to avoid risking lives/health by spreading the virus/contagion. In reality, this amounts to just about no one.

    13. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by meerling · · Score: 5, Informative

      Vaccines are not antibiotics, period. (yes, big emphasis on that) Microbes can NOT become immune to vaccines because vaccines never effect the microbe.

      Guess you fell asleep in grade school health class, so here's a refresher with as little medical/science junk as possible.
      Antibiotics attack and kill the microbes. If they don't kill all of them, the survivors might reproduce into an infection resistant to that antibiotic.
      Vaccines hype up your immune system so it can identify and kill the target microbe when/if you get infected, it's like giving your friends the heads up and phone number of that total creepazoid so you can hit ignore when he/she calls.

      There, did that make sense to you? If you want to know more, pick up any pamphlet on vaccinations at any accredited medical facility, like a licensed physicians office, licensed pharmacy, the hospital, urgent care (if you have that), etc, just not the dippy new age stuff that got you into stupid in the first place.

      There's a lot more to immunology, but this isn't the place to discuss it. You can find it if you want, but please stop listening to bubblegum pundits, they'll get you killed with their "medical opinions".

    14. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by meerling · · Score: 1

      It's very difficult to predict which which variations of the flu will be the big pain each flu season, and it takes a relatively long time to make the vaccines. Of course, if the vaccinations are effective and shut down one strain, that doesn't mean another strain doesn't take up the slack. Kind of a damned of you do, damned worse if you don't proposition. Good news though, there is a group working on a universal flu vaccine. Seems they found one part of the influenza viral shell that doesn't mutate and are trying to develop an effective vaccine that targets it. I sure hope they succeed, and freaking soon.

    15. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      That's going to be darn tricky. There are two ways to combat influenza right now: one involves preventing the virus from entering cells to infect them, and the other involves preventing viruses from leaving cells (so they can't go on to infect other cells). Coincidentally, those are the two mechanisms that shift very often (and they are the source of the "H1N1" type nomenclature -- H for hemagglutinin, N for neuraminidase). Even if another part of the virus didn't change, if it doesn't have any role in transmitting the disease, it might be hard to construct a vaccine against it that's effective.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    16. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a completely scientific and reasonable concern that the overprescription of antibiotics is allowing those bacteria that survive the antibiotic course to evolve into resistant strains. In the absence of antibiotics, the mutation rate (and hence the rate of evolution of resistant strains) would be slower, as the resistant strains wouldn't get an evolutionary advantage.
      Vaccines against viruses, however, work in a completely different manner: they arm the body's immune system against the bug, and you don't end up with a frequent situation where the course of the drugs is finished but there are significant amounts of almost-but-not-yet-quite-dead bugs left to form a resistant strain. Plus, the mutation rate for viruses is usually pretty fast; in any case, in the absence of vaccines, the rate of evolution of resistant strains would be just as fast.
      Now, I don't know Bill's position, and he doesn't directly say that the consequences of vaccines would be resistant strains of viruses, but the quote above does make it look like that's what he thinks. Whatever the consequences of vaccines might be (and yes, there are some... e.g., side effects, which can include death in a very minute proportion of people), nurturing resistant strains of viruses isn't one of them.

    17. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Bluntly, the whole H1N1 thing was a huge hype, to be honest.

      As much as I'm pro-vac (seriously, herd immunity is a big issue, I am from a country where a few very horrible diseases are still well in the memory of the older people, something we younger kids never had to witness or even suffer from), sometimes I wonder whether some "threats" are simply blown out of proportion so some big pharma corps can make a quick buck. Every year a new "horrible" flu gets detected where 3 people already died in $country_somewhere_in_Asia.

      People? The ORDINARY flu, that crap that flies around once a year, kills a multiple thereof. Do you see people rush to their doc to get a shot against it? If you want to get a vac shot, get one against the "normal" flu! Something I'd really recommend, since that IS actually a killer.

      Don't buy the hype around the flavor-of-the-month killer disease.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

      Well, using antibiotics will make the diseases stronger and more difficult to cure, while vaccines will enable you to be healthy with a weaker immune system, lowering your defenses against unvaccined diseases. So, the reasons for not using antibiotics and the ones for not using vaccines are kind of the same: improving the chance of fighting a generic disease that you didn't expect.

      --
      ics
    19. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      I have a lot of good things to say about vaccines in general. But really, the data suggests you are at best wasting your time with flu vaccines. I was at a conference just last month about this, basically the flu mutates too fast and is really mostly harmless.

      The H1N1 debacle was laughable. Even WHO has and ongoing investigation about the released info, its legitimacy and the fact that a few companies made a enormous amount of money where also involved in the "recommendations".

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    20. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      This does not work for influenza. Each virus behaves differently. Herd immunity does not apply to them all. The current recommendations are don't bother if you are health with a flu shot. However the data is even less encouraging. It doesn't really matter no matter who you are. You are just as likely to get the flu anyway.

      There are many reasons for this. Most importantly is that influenza mutates too fast, and there is almost never a single strain per season.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    21. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      To dismiss dietary changes as being nonsense is as bad as dismissing all vaccines as ineffective.
      Perhaps the cardiac team who helped me are wrong in telling me that some foods are better for me than others.

      I'm diabetic so high sugar content and carbohydrate content in my food causes elevated levels of blood sugar which damages my body .in the short term heart disease and stroke are most likely in later stages blindness and amputations.

      So it is pretty obvious that eating a cake is going to adversely effect my blood sugar while a carrot is mostly harmless. Ok so I am diabetic and most people are not but a constant onslaught of high sugar, high carb high fat high alcohol diets is going to be straining your bodies resources.Most of us eat to much and most of it is junk.

      Another problem area is cholesterol and many processed foods are made with crappy ingredients that are high in fat which fur up my arteries and raise the chances of another heart attack.

      Making better choices in the food I eat is a no brainer and how well I make these choices will effect my health. Physical exercise on a daily basis lowers my blood sugar to healthy levels and my body adjusts itself to cope with the workload.

      I am certainly better in my own health for the changes that i've made in my "lifestyle" and I think happier too. Thou year one ater my heart attack was difficult you struggle with the thoughts of your impending demise and your statistically shortened life span. However the risk of death diminishes greatly if you get through year one. so i am quietly confident i can beat the odds if i take care of myself.

      Health wise I'm doing well I haven't been sick from anything for a long time. While others around me have been getting sick.

      Some diseases are worth getting vaccinated against but i am not going to go for a flu jab I don't see a benefit from it at this moment in time. I think i am healthy enough to cope with the flu if I get it.

      Technically I'm in a high risk group but I don't think flu is going to kill me.

    22. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Regardless of GP links or sources. It is largely correct. The medical community is divided about flu shots. The data is decidedly no effect at best. Seriously, why would you expect all diseases and virus to behave the same? Smallpox has been eradicated, while almost no other disease has.

      I was at a conference about this not so long ago. Basically flu shots don't really work. The data just says they don't. There are some new vaccine that have gone through phase II trials and should start phase III some time at the end of this year. But there is no evidence that they work (phase I & II are to determine that the side effects are acceptable).

      WHO are investigating the H1N1 debacle and other governments have been pretty sharp about the issues (WHO have lost credibility). Its not just a few conspiracy theories. Hell in NZ they didn't even test you. If you had flu symptoms then they reported that you had H1N1 "cus its all H1N1 this year".

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    23. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a lot of people would be surprised to know that he's been on something of an anti-vaccination crusade, especially when it comes to flu shots. He basically is of the position that the whole campaign to inoculate people against H1N1 is in and of itself a conspiracy.

      it must be, simply becuase both fox and cnn have a few articals about how most of america is already immune to the h1n1 because of the chems in out food/water

      so why would you need more shots?

    24. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to say bacteria is subject to evolution, but viruses are not? Either way, there's a world of difference between vaccinating children (or anyone) against potentially life-threatening illnesses and normal, healthy adults going every year to get a flu shot.

      Not actually being familiar with Bill Maher's stance on this, I'd be willing to bet he supports the former but not the latter.

    25. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Ost99 · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is simply not true.
      You cannot "train" you immune system. Letting the immune system fight the flu does not make it better at fighting anything else.
      The end result for the immune system after fighting a virus infection is the same as you get by taking a vaccine; anti-bodies.

      The historical "strengthening" of the immune system by letting it fight it's own battles only works on a population level. Those with a weak immune system dies; the ones who survive doesn't get stronger (but the % of the population with a strong immune system increases). Some ant-vaccination wackos base their argument on this (we serve evolution by letting the weak die).

      --
      ---- Sig. gone.
    26. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by doug141 · · Score: 1

      An interesting position, since some flus are best at killing the healthy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic

    27. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 2

      If your immune system is weakened, get a flu shot. If you're a hypochondriac munchausens case, we'll, if it will shut you up, go ahead, get a shot. But I believe his point (speculating) is the vast majority of the healthy population doesn't need a flu vaccine.

      Then he's an idiot. My immune system IS weakened, but due to the reason it's weakened (severe chronic allergies), I CAN'T take most flu vaccines. People like me depend on "the vast majority of the healthy population" to get vaccinated and protect me by proxy. Yes, it is MOST important for the very young and very old to get vaccinated, but everyone else SHOULD make an effort.

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    28. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck the herd. let the unhealthy people get the flu shot.

    29. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you got your medical degree, but my wife's Rheumatologist wants me to get a flu shot every year because of her compromised immune system (due to the drugs to treat her arthritis.)

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    30. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I'm an anti-anti-vax as possible, and I don't even think skipping vaccines should be legal.

      But Maher's mildly retarded position is that a specific vaccine is unneeded.

      Not that it's harmful, not that it causes autism, but simply that it's not needed.

      Now, he's wrong, and doesn't understand what's going on or how the flu works. People with healthy immune systems are more likely to spread it.

      But whatever. His stupid claim isn't breaking herd immunity to already 'cured' diseases....very few people get flu shots anyway.

      And, incidentally, the H1N1 vaccine was pretty stupid. People should be told to get normal flu shots first, not that.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    31. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The science says maybe if you got seasonal Flu three years out of 10 before, you'd get it one year in ten with the vaccine.

      Given that the vaccine just involves taking like an hour off work and a very brief sharp pain in the arm, once per year, it seems like it's worth it for those two weeks of your life you'll get back per decade. That's two weeks when you don't feel like shit, laying in bed with every muscle aching, plus all the pain killers and other remedies you won't need. Where do I sign up?

      Actually turns out I don't have to sign up. I had cancer years ago so I get my flu jab for free. Never had the flu since. But it really works, I'm surprised every year that there aren't queues for it.

    32. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Off topic.

      Endotoxic bacterial infections are known to boost the immune system. I'm not sure they have figured out the mechanism. T-cell population is an obvious candidate.

      There is talk of deliberately giving people weak salmonella once a decade. I just eat off roach coaches. ;-)

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    33. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like, putting an antivirus on your Linux system, because "everybody else" around you uses Bill Gates' products.

    34. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Well, honestly, I've never been laid up for two weeks for any kind of cold or flu. I don't think even the chicken pox knocked me out for that long (more like nine days). Also, I can't say for sure that I've caught the flu in 20 years. Colds, sure -- but that debilitating sickness that has you stuck in bed with a pounding headache (characteristic of the flu vs. colds) -- I don't remember catching that since I was a child. If I lost as much time to the flu as you claim to have, I guess I would see it the same way as you, but I kinda suspect you're an outlier.

      Then again, who's to say I haven't been a carrier of the flu without having symptoms? I'd love to see some research on that.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    35. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by rbayer · · Score: 1

      But he, and you, are missing the entire point of flu vaccines. Yes, a healthy person does not personally need a flu vaccine to prevent them from dying; however, there are many people--mostly the very young and very old--who cannot get flu vaccines due to other health concerns and for whom the flu could be fatal. The reason to get a flu vaccine is not to protect yourself, it's to protect your grandparents & your newborn nephew.

    36. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not what the UK government thinks. Or they don't have any money. Hmm---coincidence, I think not!

    37. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antibiotics and vaccines are completely different things, and you are foolish to confuse them. Antibiotic resistance is a real problem, and yes, overuse of antibiotics should be discouraged. Vaccines, on the other hand, does not and cannot produce resistance.

      The anti-vaccine campaigners should be exposed to diseases to which they have not been immunised - something like smallpox would be fun, don't you think?

    38. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      I did not bother with the vaccine and a co-worker infected me just over a year ago. A couple of bad days and it was over. I have had hangovers which were worse (30-35 years ago!).

      I am surprised no-one has prosecuted Mr Andrew Wakefield for murder.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    39. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by NoSig · · Score: 1

      There is direct connection between vaccines and antibiotics: the more people are vaccinated, the less will get sick and so less antibiotics will be used. That's even true for diseases for which antibiotics don't even work, as people take them anyway.

    40. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'The vast majority DOES need a vaccine, that's how we get "herd immunity."'

      The primary help of any vaccine is still the vaccine's effect, not the secondary benefit of herd immunity. The medical community only recommends the flu vaccine to certain groups. Not all people.

      Whether this is a cost issue, determined by policy, the effectiveness of the vaccine, or because, unlike you, the medical community rules are 'do no harm' versus 'herd immunity!', I do not know and in my mind that's immaterial; the flu vaccine is not working necessarily with herd immunity at the vaccine rates the current medical community recommends. Herd immunity, while always in effect, is only really effective when something over 90% of the population is vaccinated. Flu vaccines are no where near that, nor are we trying to achieve that.

      btw, I've never had a flu vaccine the last 8 years. I've also never had the flu for 8 years. Your proposition that someone who hasn't been vaccinated for the flu is negligent in the spread to at risk groups is ridiculous and dangerous. To me, a person who gets the flu AND GOES OUT is much more to blame. We also don't wear masks in the US, and most places don't seem to either, and we don't have facilties for hand washing in public areas. I could just as easily put blame on the parent of the child who gets the cold for bringing the child to the supermarket where they picked it up.

      'If you are healthy, you should get a vaccine, because you could carry it to your old granny or your 3-week-old infant niece, and kill them."

      Yeah, and a plane could crash down on their house and kill them as well. Mind telling me why you have flu or cold symptoms and went to your visit your granny or infant relative?

      Why blame the healthy, unvaccinized, when you can just as easily blame the at risk for their risky behavior in going out and picking a well-known disease that threatens them?

      Put another way, I doubt you've had the BCG vaccine. BCG largely has little effect against typical TB, depending on the preparation, but in some cases, it did seem to help. Does the AIDS patient get to blame you when they get TB? After all, by your stupid standard, herd immunity!

    41. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by speedingant · · Score: 1

      I thought people on Slashdot didn't have to worry about this anyway? Just make sure you don't leave the basement, and all is well.

    42. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      To reduce allergies, please look into eating more vegetables and fruits (Dr. Fuhrman) and getting the right amount of vitamin D (Vitamin D Council) -- worked for me.
          http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
          http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml

      There are lots of ways to promote wellness; I guess it should be no suprise the slashdot crowd is mostly interested in the magic bullet approach to health (vaccines) instead of holistic basics -- vegetable and fruit heavy diet, exercise, sleep, community, meditation, laughter, sunlight, fasting, two+ years nursing for infants, avoiding crowds, avoiding compulsory group labor in small (class) rooms, avoiding most junk food and most animal products, etc..

      Anyway, given the logic you are using to encourage peopel to get vaccinated, it seems you might want to encourage people to move towards wellness in all these other areas, too?

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    43. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Ost99 · · Score: 1

      Cool! I didn't know that. But I think what I said still holds true for viruses.

      --
      ---- Sig. gone.
    44. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

      The Flu Vaccine doesn't stop you from being a Carrier, it helps your body fight the virus more effectively. So getting the flu vaccine doesn't help those around you (except you may not be infectious for as long).

    45. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you carry the disease to your old granny or 3-week-old niece, you'll only kill them if they haven't been inoculated. (Or, in the case of the niece, assuming she's breast-fed, her mother.)

      Which is easier: to inoculate those of the vulnerable minority who want it, or to inoculate enough of the general population to create 'herd immunity'?

      One of these options is about one-tenth of the cost of the other, and incidentally also avoids the need to force injections on people who don't want them.

    46. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      What if you don't have a living grandmother, or any infants in your family? In fact, what if you don't have any family at all, except maybe an adult spouse/significant other, and have zero contact with non-adults or elderly?

      Personally, I don't believe in taking vaccines that have mercury in them. Would you knowingly ingest a vial of mercury, or any quantity of lead? It's common knowledge that these materials are harmful to our bodies, in a very bad way. So what kind of moron would put it, in any quantity at all, into an injection? It's not like you can't have a vaccine without it.

    47. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      To reduce allergies, please look into eating more vegetables and fruits (Dr. Fuhrman) and getting the right amount of vitamin D (Vitamin D Council) -- worked for me.

      Glad it worked for you. Trust me when I say it won't work for me.

      There are lots of ways to promote wellness; I guess it should be no suprise the slashdot crowd is mostly interested in the magic bullet approach to health (vaccines) instead of holistic basics

      I'm sorry, where in my comment did I seem to imply that just taking a vaccine by itself is all that's necessary for health? Oh that's right, I didn't! Address what I said in my comment, not what you imagine I said.

      Anyway, given the logic you are using to encourage peopel to get vaccinated, it seems you might want to encourage people to move towards wellness in all these other areas, too?

      Yep, it'd be great it everyone is healthy. But barring that, get your damn shots.

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    48. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I don't believe in taking vaccines that have mercury in them. Would you knowingly ingest a vial of mercury, or any quantity of lead? It's common knowledge that these materials are harmful to our bodies, in a very bad way. So what kind of moron would put it, in any quantity at all, into an injection? It's not like you can't have a vaccine without it.

      Hint 1: the dose makes the poison.

      Hint 2: the dose in vaccines is vanishingly small.

      Hint 3: what you get in a vaccine isn't elemental mercury, it's an organic compound.

      Hint 4: the organic mercury compound chosen, thimerosal, is a relatively easy one for your body to metabolize and get rid of.

      Hint 5: it's a REALLY REALLY SMALL DOSE. You probably ingest more mercury from eating a single meal containing fish.

      Hint 6: The reason it's used at all is to prevent bacterial growth in vaccines where that would be a problem... it's a very effective preservative. If you get rid of thimerosal, and you don't want to inject bacteria along with the vaccine, you have to substitute some other preservative which is probably just as toxic, only less well understood because it hasn't been used as a vaccine preservative for decades like thimerosal.

      Do you need any more hints so you can stop being an idiot who believes antivaxxer propaganda?

      (Also, what does lead have to do with anything? It isn't used as a vaccine preservative.)

    49. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      As i said in other posts this is one area where the field is divided. One thing we do know. The flu shot has a very low risk (I would say more than below acceptable risk) that taking it is not going to be a bad thing. But honestly, the data doesn't show its a good thing either.

      Newer forms of vaccines for flu are being developed that should give a wider range of "strain" resistance, and hence be better at protecting people. It should also be noted that some of the effectiveness is related to the way the next seasons flu shot "strain" is decided.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    50. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by tbannist · · Score: 1

      To reduce allergies, please look into eating more vegetables and fruits

      I think it's pretty safe to say that if eating more fruits and vegetables and taking more vitamin D cured your "allergies" they weren't allergies. Many people confuse allergies and intolerances, they're not the same thing. Allergies just don't work that way. The only way diet can improve your allergies is if you stop eating things you're allergic to.

      The rest of the stuff you mentioned are good ideas for general health but none of them are actually a replacement for vaccination or a cure for allergies.

      Of course, I might be a little biased on this topic since morons spouting the same bullshit have literally try to kill my wife by sneaking things she's allergic to into her meals because they're convinced that allergies aren't real or that a few drops of vitamin D will protect her from the effects.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    51. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by sribe · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of people would be surprised to know that he's been on something of an anti-vaccination crusade, especially when it comes to flu shots. He basically is of the position that the whole campaign to inoculate people against H1N1 is in and of itself a conspiracy. He's adamant that you don't need vaccines if you eat right.

      Well, I'm not surprised. Bill Maher is a fucking moron. A semi-funny comedian, gone talk show host, who now thinks he's an expert on every subject under the sun, spewing his misinformed opinions as facts, without bothering with any fact checking.

    52. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      "Glad it worked for you. Trust me when I say it won't work for me."

      Have you seriously looked at and tried Dr. Fuhrman's approach?
          http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/Other.aspx
      "We routinely hear that asthma, acne, allergies, arthritis, herpes, reflux esophagitis, irritable bowel syndrome and many more have nothing to do with diet. This is simply not true. Doctors are trained as experts in prescribing and monitoring the risks and effectiveness of medications. They typically have little or no expertise in using nutrition as their primary modality of treatment. They are biased in favor of their own method of treatment (drugs) and do not have broad experience or training in motivating patients and utilizing nutritional and lifestyle interventions. ... I have been utilizing a high antioxidant, acrlyamide-free diet for many years with marked success. Acrylamides are toxic substances produced by baking and frying carbohydrates. The diet-style I recommend for fibromylagia patients is rich in natural plant foods especially organic berries and green vegetables and restricted in animal products and baked grains. Vegetable soups and steamed vegetables are encouraged. Fibromyalgia patients routinely get well, and they get well quickly. Studies in the medical literature support this method of treatment.[ii] Though the researchers do not seem to have the experience and understanding of why what they are doing works, the effects are dramatic. ... A significant number of medical investigations have uncovered that, just like other diseases, people develop asthma and allergies for reasons. Asthma and allergies have been linked to nutritional factors:

                      * Low levels of fresh fruits and flavonoids[iii]
                      * Fried foods, protein-rich and fat-rich foods of animal origin[iv]
                      * Low blood levels of fruit and vegetable derived antioxidants[v]
                      * Dietary fatty acid imbalance—an excess of omega-6 over omega-3 fats[vi]
                      * Increased intake of high saturated fat foods (meat, cheese and butter)[vii]
                      * Bread and butter consumption, lower vegetable intake [viii]
      My experience in working with hundreds of patients attempting to resolve asthma and allergies has been rewarding. The asthmatics gradually improve, and the allergic patients slowly reduce the severity of their allergies and many become entirely non-allergic. Many patients who had strong allergies to cats, dust mites and pollen, no longer have these sensitivities. From a combination of dietary advice and a limited amount of nutritional supplements, most people start to improve their condition in a few months. I have even had patients who surprisingly continued to be allergic a year late,r and then after about 20 months following my recommendations, their allergies faded away. Recoveries are the rule and not the exception. "

      If you have not tried this, or at least reviewed the research, how would you know it does not work?

      Now, if you are not following these dietary guidelines, should I get angry with you for putting my own family's health at risk by the same logic you are using in regard to vaccinations?

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    53. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      Please see (the page has references to the scientific literature):
          http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/Other.aspx
      "We routinely hear that asthma, acne, allergies, arthritis, herpes, reflux esophagitis, irritable bowel syndrome and many more have nothing to do with diet. This is simply not true. Doctors are trained as experts in prescribing and monitoring the risks and effectiveness of medications. They typically have little or no expertise in using nutrition as their primary modality of treatment. They are biased in favor of their own method of treatment (drugs) and do not have broad experience or training in motivating patients and utilizing nutritional and lifestyle interventions. ....
          A significant number of medical investigations have uncovered that, just like other diseases, people develop asthma and allergies for reasons. Asthma and allergies have been linked to nutritional factors:
                      * Low levels of fresh fruits and flavonoids[iii]
                      * Fried foods, protein-rich and fat-rich foods of animal origin[iv]
                      * Low blood levels of fruit and vegetable derived antioxidants[v]
                      * Dietary fatty acid imbalance—an excess of omega-6 over omega-3 fats[vi]
                      * Increased intake of high saturated fat foods (meat, cheese and butter)[vii]
                      * Bread and butter consumption, lower vegetable intake [viii]
      My experience in working with hundreds of patients attempting to resolve asthma and allergies has been rewarding. The asthmatics gradually improve, and the allergic patients slowly reduce the severity of their allergies and many become entirely non-allergic. Many patients who had strong allergies to cats, dust mites and pollen, no longer have these sensitivities. From a combination of dietary advice and a limited amount of nutritional supplements, most people start to improve their condition in a few months. I have even had patients who surprisingly continued to be allergic a year late,r and then after about 20 months following my recommendations, their allergies faded away. Recoveries are the rule and not the exception. ... Working with patients with autoimmune diseases such as connective tissue disease, myositis, rheumatoid arthritis and lupus is very rewarding. These patients were convinced that they could never get well and are eternally grateful to be healthy again requiring no medication. I regularly get notes and letters, such as these unsolicited comments: ..."

      Your mileage may vary, but if you have not looked into this, you might want to.

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    54. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I strongly suspect that the Dr. Fuhrman you're quoting is just another con artist. I mean, really, if you eat only fruit and vegetables it will cure herpes, diabetes and lupus?

      If his results were real and not fraudulent he should be one of the great heroes of medicine. But it doesn't look like any of his results have been verified in clinical studies.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    55. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      Type 2 diabates in most cases is curable within a week by superior diet. You don't have to look far to find lots of evidence for that.

      Here are two videos by Dr. Fuhrman on that:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46_GInjBeQU
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPiR9VcuVWw

      But you can find many peopel who say similar things about type 2 diabete. Type 1 also benefits from such a diet, but you'd still need some insulin, but with less complications.

      The other two I don't know much about. But I can believe diet effects them.

      Dr. Fuhrman is involved with a non-profit to do clinical research on nutrition:
          https://www.nutritionalresearch.org/

      Here is a study he was involved with that suggests his dietary approach is more effective than gastric bypass surgey for weight loss:
          http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/high_nutrient_diet_and_weight_loss.aspx

      Dr. Fuhrman is a great hero of medicine. There just is not much money in preventing or curing disease. And, sadly, most people just say the same things you do. It's hard to get people to change their diet, and our society offers little support for that. Here is part of why that is true:
          http://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

      Anyway, I'd readily agree the field of alternative medicine has frauds in it, but I'd say the same thing of areas of mainstream medicine too. The Flexner Report from 100 years ago was part of what made US medicine become so messed up:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report

      I collected lots of links here about how and why mainstream medical research has gone wrong:
          http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html

      Just one example for there, from Marcia Angell:
              http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/
              "The problems I've discussed are not limited to psychiatry, although they reach their most florid form there. Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    56. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I for one will put him down as a dangerous fruitcase

      I read it. Maher doesn't say anything. He's saying he wants to talk about it, he wants a discussion presumably to help himself and others understand. But I understand your position: when you think you're right there's no point in discussion... a completely predictable fruitcake viewpoint. I'm not all that important, so I, for one, have plenty of time to listen to and discuss or not discuss anything under the sun with all manner of fruitcake, even the exquisite arrogant kind such as yourself.

    57. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your immune system is weakened, get a flu shot. If you're a hypochondriac munchausens case, we'll, if it will shut you up, go ahead, get a shot. But I believe his point (speculating) is the vast majority of the healthy population doesn't need a flu vaccine.

      Then he's an idiot. My immune system IS weakened, but due to the reason it's weakened (severe chronic allergies), I CAN'T take most flu vaccines. People like me depend on "the vast majority of the healthy population" to get vaccinated and protect me by proxy. Yes, it is MOST important for the very young and very old to get vaccinated, but everyone else SHOULD make an effort.

      So... anyone that fails to get a flu shot is potentially your murderer. Take a look at Thompson's The Violinist to see why your logic is quite off (thought experiment concerning abortion, yet applicable to your logic fail). Try to avoid psychological egoism. What's best for you is not necessarily best for all.

    58. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Hint 6: The reason it's used at all is to prevent bacterial growth in vaccines where that would be a problem... it's a very effective preservative. If you get rid of thimerosal, and you don't want to inject bacteria along with the vaccine, you have to substitute some other preservative which is probably just as toxic, only less well understood because it hasn't been used as a vaccine preservative for decades like thimerosal.

      That's not what I've read at all. Instead, what I've read is that other preservatives are available, and less toxic, but they (surprise surprise) cost more. So as usual, it's all about the money.

      <i>(Also, what does lead have to do with anything? It isn't used as a vaccine preservative.)</i>

      What if it were? Would you still be telling people "it's safe! it's not a large amount!"?

      Why is it that we want to get rid of ALL lead, even the smallest quantities, in our electronics, because it might hurt someone, even though we don't eat or ingest electronics? (RoHS) Or asbestos, which we're also comparatively paranoid about, even though it's only dangerous if it's airborne, and is still useful in solid form? However, with mercury, which is at least as toxic as lead, we're ok with injecting it into our bodies?

      <i>Hint 5: it's a REALLY REALLY SMALL DOSE. You probably ingest more mercury from eating a single meal containing fish.</i>

      But even so, we tell pregnant women not to eat fish! But giving a whole pile of fish's worth of mercury to an infant is somehow OK? Which is it, is the mercury dangerous or not?

      As for "decades" of experience, I don't think that's all that useful in the medical field. After all, it wasn't very long ago that our doctors thought it was a great idea to cut out lymph nodes (tonsils and adenoids) "just in case", even though they're an important part of our immune system. (Of course, this means more money for them, in the form of unnecessary surgeries.) Not only that, our doctors still routinely cut off the foreskins of infant males, even though there is absolutely NO medical need for this, and in fact can cause infection, and sometimes results in disaster.

      I'm sorry, but at this point, I'm not really inclined to believe anything our medical "professionals" tell us, because like everything else in this Ferengi-like country, it's all about the money, not about improving people's health. I'm much more inclined to believe things from medical professionals in other, more advanced countries like the UK, where the medical field is not a for-profit enterprise, although even there you have to watch out because they're too infected by influence from the American pharmaceutical comparies, whose only motivation is profit.

    59. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by plasmarules · · Score: 1

      Actually it is a smart point, if you value the available scientific studies. The Cochrane Library study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20614424) shows that the flu vaccine has zero effectiveness against transmission whether in adults, infants or seniors. It also shows that in best-case scenarios it has 4% effectiveness against catching the flu, but more likely scenarios would be 1% effective. The herd immunity argument fails miserably when it comes to the seasonal flu vaccine.

    60. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to get into my individual health history, as that's frankly no one's business but my own, but suffice to say my problem is NOT environmental allergies and no amount of diet modification short of being fed basic nutrients intravenously would probably free me of my allergies.

      Now, if you are not following these dietary guidelines, should I get angry with you for putting my own family's health at risk by the same logic you are using in regard to vaccinations?

      You can get angry at me for whatever the hell you want, chief. No skin off my nose. But there's a big difference between being unhappy about how someone lives their life and being unhappy about how a public figure ENCOURAGES people to live their life. Telling people that they don't need vaccinations goes beyond just being stupid to being dangerous. Going unvaccinated puts EVERYONE at risk.

      On the other hand, not eating your veggies just affects your own health.

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    61. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? I think you're having a logic fail of your own. My logic may be flawed, but this has nothing to do with the argument found in The Violinist--which has flaws of its own anyway.

      If you're looking for a useful analogy, I'd point more towards (even though it involves cars, sadly...) things like speed limit laws. You're not allowed to drive 180mph on a public road because society has agreed the risk it places on others is too great. Whether this is a valid decision or not can be debated, but it's what's currently believed.

      Likewise, deciding NOT to vaccinate yourself increases the risk to you significantly while slightly increasing the overall risk for everyone else. This is, I'd argue, even WORSE than the vaccination example, however, as there are people who cannot make use of the safety system being provided themselves and are only protected by the majority of the population using it. Not vaccinating yourself doesn't make you my murderer, but it does make you irresponsible.

      And besides that, my point was Maher is a moron for publicly discouraging vaccination! I don't care if he vaccinates himself or not, just don't go around and make use of your status as a public figure to encourage other people to be irresponsible!

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    62. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      Type 2 diabates in most cases is curable within a week by superior diet. You don't have to look far to find lots of evidence for that.

      "You don't have to go far..." and yet you still go back to the same questionable source.

      The other two I don't know much about. But I can believe diet effects them.

      Herpes is a virus. Eating fruits and veggies and thinking happy thoughts will not in any way shape or form cure it.

      Lupus meanwhile is a soul-crushingly terrible disease, of which there is no cure and only very little in the way of treatment. If ONE Lupus patient was actually cured (or even effectively treated) by changing their diet, I have to imagine they would have dedicated the rest of their lives to making sure everyone knew about it. The lack of existence of such a person seems to make it unlikely that such a thing is true... Kind of reminds me of Fermi's Paradox... :)

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    63. Re:Add Bill Maher to your list by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      "On the other hand, not eating your veggies just affects your own health."

      Well, are you saying being vegetable deficient (or eating too much sugar and refined starch etc.) does not put everyone else's health at risk as well, by the same argument you use for promoting vaccination, if such an eating style compromises someone's immune system?

      Example:
          http://www.google.com/search?q=immune+system+vegetables
          http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/587037/best_fruits_and_vegetables_to_help.html
      "Regularly eating fresh fruits and vegetables is the natural way to boost your immune system."

      I'm not saying whether that applies to you. That is just a general fact about health. And even the most casual glance at US Americans shows almost all are vegetable deficient.

      I personally am not angry with you whatever you eat or why; you just sounded angry about the vaccination issue. I'm just asking you, if that anger exists and is justified, is it legitimate to consider such anger applicable for other contexts?

      It's OK to be angry, even healthy; it's what we do with the anger that matters.
          http://pbskids.org/rogers/songLyricsWhatDoYouDo.html

      Should I get angry when I see someone drive up to a fast food restaurant?

      It would seem to me that if a person is not eating well, and then that person's immune system can't fight off infection well because that person is vegetable deficient by a lifestyle choice or unwillingness to break out of a "pleasure trap", then that person is creating a health hazard for other people?

      Of course, not many people know about pleasure traps or how to break out of them, so the issue of willfullness is questionable, and in this society, the whole society essentially makes it hard to eat well:
          http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html
          http://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx
          http://paulgraham.com/addiction.html
      "These two senses are already quite far apart. Already someone trying to live well would seem eccentrically abstemious in most of the US. That phenomenon is only going to become more pronounced. You can probably take it as a rule of thumb from now on that if people don't think you're weird, you're living badly."

      With that said, I can see your point about the issue of what public figures say as opposed to what private individuals do, which is indeed a very good point I can agree with.

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  76. This is bullshit, and you know it. by adam · · Score: 5, Informative

    Show us figures on what percentage of children in outbreaks of measles, for example, have been 'vaccinated'. Strangely enough, we never get to see those figures.

    Let's look at your CDC link, since it has the exact info you want. In that case, all of the persons who developed measles had been vaccinated. So you win a point. Or do you? About fifteen percent of children vaccinated against measles won't develop immunity with the first jab, which is why a second is recommended. (Also, just for reference, the vaccine is most effective after 12 months of age, and not effective at all before six months.) So it's possible, maybe even likely that these students hadn't had their second jab (which would make 85% of the students immune, and 15% vulnerable — "The highest attack rate was 12% (9/74) for the 11th grade students (p 0.02)"). Furthermore, as I am sure you know, your immune system's memory (B-cells) 'forgets' threats over time, which is what creates the need for booster shots. The CDC indirectly notes this, "The attack rate was four times greater for students vaccinated 10 or more years before the outbreak than for students vaccinated more recently (p 0.05)". Lastly, the measles vaccine is very temperamental in its cold storage, with an acceptable range of 8 degrees, and any variance outside this range reduces its efficacy.

    You lap up whatever the shills in the media tell you, then lambast anybody intelligent enough to question it...

    The real reason I'm replying is that I want to address this comment above. I don't just lap up whatever I'm handed. Do you? When was the last time you were doing epidemiological field work? I just came back from northern Nigeria, where I was observing UNICEF and government health teams vaccinate kids, and independently surveilling measles outbreaks occurring now. Before that I was in Ghana, also working with government health teams to observe the vaccination of children, but I wasn't able to see any outbreaks. Why not? Because Ghana doesn't have outbreaks, because they maintain herd immunity amongst their under-five population. The region (like a state) I was living in for this period has a prevalence of higher than 90% for MMR vaccination, and Ghana hasn't had a measles death since 2003. In Nigeria the prevalence for vaccination in Kaduna State is around 13% for coverage of recommended vaccines, and it gets as low as 0% if you go to Jigawa State. So I'm not just lapping up whatever the "media" tells me (in fact the media is woefully silent on these sorts of matters, because most Westerners care more about Tiger Woods' indiscretions than dying kids in Nigeria), I've been in the thick of it and I've seen kids dying from measles. When was the last time (if ever?) you actually looked into this besides just lapping up what a few outcast theorists have told you to believe?

    the real reason for the great reductions in some of the diseases they 'vaccinated' against - huge improvements in SANITATION.

    Look, this is just bullshit, too. I've lived in Ghana, where there is sporadic running water (that you cannot drink without boiling) and no electricity and people defecate in the bush. And I've lived in Nigeria where the exact same is true. Yet in Ghana measles isn't a problem, and in Nigeria it is. This is just my anecdote, but if you look at where kids are dying from measles (or whatever disease) and you control for sanitation, you'll see that it isn't a factor. Polio (hep A, tyhpoid, cholera, etc) are spread by feces, so handwashing helps immensly there, and standing water breeds malaria (well, Anopheles mosquitoes that carry it), but there's about the extent of your sanitation argument. Once we get away from diarrheaol diseases and look at measles, sanitation isn't a factor at all (compared to rates of vaccination).

    --
    I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
    1. Re:This is bullshit, and you know it. by pandaman9000 · · Score: 1

      Guillaine Barre' syndrome. Spelling may be off. I got it from vaccinations. 1 in 10,000 WILL get it from vaccinations. More vaccinations is more rolls of the dice. Some ailments aren't worth injecting potentially impure or bacteria laden substances DIRECTLY into the bloodstream for.

      There are absolutely two sides to this. If you want to lock me up for not vaccinating my own kids, or otherwise penalize me, I can and will go elsewhere. I don't need a government to decide what rights I have with my/my kids' bodies outside of what is constitutional.

      In short: don't tell other people how to live. Also, since when is trusting Bill Gates wise?

    2. Re:This is bullshit, and you know it. by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't worry - we won't lock you up. Punishment arising from failing to vaccinate your children will occur in the form of you having to explain to them why they got sick with a preventable disease.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    3. Re:This is bullshit, and you know it. by narcc · · Score: 2

      If you want to lock me up for not vaccinating my own kids, or otherwise penalize me, I can and will go elsewhere

      PLEASE go elsewhere! We don't need any more potential disease carriers around here.

      Having one less crazy in the general population is an added bonus.

      Vaccinate or GTFO.

    4. Re:This is bullshit, and you know it. by bonch · · Score: 1

      I think this is warranted:

      "Pwned."

    5. Re:This is bullshit, and you know it. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      It's 1 in 100,000 naturally and associated with vaccinations at 1 in 1 million. So yea, with those odds vaccinations should remain mandatory.

      In my mind not having children vaccinated is child abuse just like not having medical treatment is.

    6. Re:This is bullshit, and you know it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some places will not enroll unvaccinated children into school.

    7. Re:This is bullshit, and you know it. by techsoldaten · · Score: 1

      You are going to love life in Somalia.

      http://tinyurl.com/4s3yb6j

    8. Re:This is bullshit, and you know it. by chooks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A serious question for you: from what you have written it appears that you have set a threshold for chance of injury for your child to be 1:10,000. If this is the case, then do you allow your children to be in cars? What about other risky behavior where the chance of injury is high (contact sports for example)? With respect to Guillain-Barre, this can also be caused by food poisoning from campylobacter jejuni. C. jejuni poisoning most commonly occurs with chicken (which carry the bug). Do you forbid your children from eating chicken?

      It would seem that to be logically consistent you would need to curtail these activities. However, in the talk about risk to children from vaccination, there are other much more prevalent (and immediately deadly) risks to which parents seem to have no problem exposing their children. As someone who apparently has made the choice about acceptable risk for your children, how do you logically reconcile foregoing one (extremely debatable) "risk" versus allowing many other well documented and serious challenges to your children's life and limb?

      Again, I am not attacking your beliefs (although I do not agree with them). I am wondering at the thought process behind your beliefs in the context of other risks that you willingly put your children through.

      --
      -- The Genesis project? What's that?
    9. Re:This is bullshit, and you know it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "injecting potentially impure or bacteria laden substances DIRECTLY into the bloodstream"

      Vaccines aren't injected into the bloodstream.

      That's worth pointing out because a lot of rational people assume the anti-vaccination people, and the vaccine denalists are well informed. But they're not, what they are is _certain_ without really knowing what it is they're certain about. This makes them a powerful political force, because they won't listen to counter-arguments, you can send them off to campaign for whatever you want. Most importantly they will generate publicity for you, which if you're a not very bright ex-model who needs lots of media exposure is perfect. Or if you're an unethical MD who wants to attract "patients" to his new private hospital to receive a treatment that doesn't work...

    10. Re:This is bullshit, and you know it. by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      here are absolutely two sides to this. If you want to lock me up for not vaccinating my own kids, or otherwise penalize me, I can and will go elsewhere.

      Problem is you aren't going anywhere, are you? You are in the community, your kids are going to school and increasing everyone's risk of dying from a preventable disease because you believe someone you saw on Oprah instead of actual doctors.

    11. Re:This is bullshit, and you know it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "explain" you mean "answer to a court" as in being sued by a parent of a child too young to get vaccinated (and died)?

  77. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by tragedy · · Score: 1

    Inhaling a bunch of carcinogens seems like a pretty good way to increase chances of getting cancer to me.

  78. Where are that times... by toxygen01 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... when slashdot used to be news for nerds and not just yet another flamewar breeding news website

  79. Re:The planet does not need more humans, Bill. by Caesar+Tjalbo · · Score: 0

    He gave us MS-DOS and Windows, more suffering is unimaginable.

    --
    "I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
  80. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

    I'd like to add to my above comment that I am not a smoker. I think smoking is disgusting and don't like being around it, and if I didn't value freedom more than I value my personal sense of comfort, I would definitely be in favor of an outright ban of cigarettes.

    But the alleged health risks of exposure to second-hand smoke are blown way out of proportion by the media and the anti-smoking groups that fund studies designed to find such nonsense. You're not going to get cancer by inhaling a little environmental cigarette smoke. The people that get cancer from smoking are people who inhale heavy amounts of smoke from tens of cigarettes day every day for decades.

  81. but... by alienzed · · Score: 1

    what's so wrong with being dead?

    --
    Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
  82. On surviving the first five years of life. by westlake · · Score: 4, Informative

    However, the World Health Organization reports 164,000 deaths per year from measles (which is the leading cause of death among children), not the millions claimed by Mr. Gates.

    Gates was speaking about all preventable diseases in children - and from here it looks like he got his numbers right.

    Major Causes of Death in Children Under Five in Developing Countries and the Contribution of Malnutrition [source: WHO and The Lancet, 2005]

    Pneumonia 19%
    Diarrhea 17%
    Malaria 8%
    Measles 4%
    HIV/AIDS 3%

    Although approximately 10.5 million children under 5 years of age still die every year in the world, progress has been made since 1970, when the figure was more than 17 million. ...
    Today nearly all child deaths occur in developing countries, almost half of them in Africa. While some African countries have made considerable strides in reducing child mortality, the majority of African children live in countries where the survival gains of the past have been wiped out, largely as a result of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

    Surviving the first five years of life [2003]

    1. Re:On surviving the first five years of life. by MartinSchou · · Score: 2

      I realise we all do this pretty much, but this guy seriously changed my view of "developing countries":

      Ted Talk: Hans Rosling, debunking third-world myths with the best stats you've ever seen

      The this one:

      Ted Talk: Hans Rosling, new insights on poverty and life around the world

      Now - these two talks are 41 minutes total, they are on statistics, and while that is often a very boring subject ... whoa. That guy has pretty much blown my mind on how to read statistics.

    2. Re:On surviving the first five years of life. by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      First, the report you show is five years old. The WHO's latest numbers are for 2008. In 2008, according to the WHO, 164,000 children died from measles. I am not disputing that (or the 2005) numbers. What I am disputing is that withholding the MMR vaccine is killing millions of children each year. While millions of children under the age of 5 may die each year, 54% of them are from malnutrition, not lack of vaccines. Of the causes listed, only measles and malaria have vaccines. That accounts for about 12% of the deaths or roughly 480,000. Still a lot, but far short of millions.

      Then to complicate it further, most of those children are not inoculated, not because of fear of vaccines, but because there are no vaccines available, either for political reasons or financial ones.

      Finally, elsewhere on the WHO site you will find reports that it is not actually the measles that kill the children but the complications of being in such a weakened state from malnutrition and then contracting the measles.

      As I stated previously, I fully support Mr. Gates and his philanthropy, but it is important to get the numbers right, if he wants to have real credibility. The real cause of all of this is not vaccines or virus' but the real scourge of poverty that exists in most of the world.

      I believe that, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil. ~ Robert Kennedy

  83. Re:Why should we care what Bill Gates says on Auti by Opyros · · Score: 2
  84. Possibly Related by splerdu · · Score: 1

    Yes this is a repost, and it's not quite the same as a pre-infection vaccine, but Dr. Goldacre has had to deal with the same BS from Mathias Rath attacking the use of antiretroviral drugs and instead proposing to treat HIV/AIDS with vitamins. There is a lot of crazy going on in the world.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/12/23/some-bad-science-can-make-you-laugh-and-some-kills/

  85. Re:Why should we care what Bill Gates says on Auti by russotto · · Score: 1

    Bill Gates is not an expert in vaccines.

    True. But he IS an expert on lying to create Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Which makes him eminently qualified to judge Wakefield.

  86. Re:Why should we care what Bill Gates says on Auti by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

    That doesn't make his information wrong. The fact that he's pledged to give away the bulk of his fortune (and is actually in the process doing it) goes a long way towards alleviating concerns that he's saying these things to increase profits.

  87. Re:Why would some people think that ? by jcombel · · Score: 1

    he was clearly speaking of the fairly strong correlations between low income, poor healthcare, and high rates of reproduction

    treat the environment, treat the problem

  88. Re:Please Show Me Evidence. Seriously. Please. by nanoflower · · Score: 1

    I agree with you about questioning what Bill Gates has said about the deaths. There's good reason to question those statements even while we can all agree that what his foundation is doing is an overall good thing for the world. Having said that let me also say that I'm not sure I agree with many of the statements being made here. I have heard scientists on both sides of the issue make statements about what causes autism and whether Wakefield is right or not, whether he did anything wrong or not. Enough to know that without actually looking at the reports myself I can't judge the accuracy of any of the complaints. What does seem to come through from Wakefield and other doctors that think vaccines may play a part in causing autism is that you don't have to stay away from vaccines. As I understand it by taking single shot vaccines made without mercury it should be possible to avoid the potential issues (if there really are any) while still getting the advantages of vaccination at the cost of some additional expense, time and perhaps a bit more pain and trepidation for the child who would need more shots. I'm surprised that more of the people who strongly support Wakefield aren't pushing this solution since it seems to address the complaints of both sides of the vaccination/autism issue. It's going to be very hard for anyone to argue that vaccinations don't help prevent disease so it would seem in the best interest of any parent to find a way to safely treat their children if they are worried about autism.

  89. War on vaccines by stevediver · · Score: 1

    Actually, the "war on vaccines" is really just a battle line in the anti-intellectualism movement. Sadly there is no cure for stupid.

    1. Re:War on vaccines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order to shut up those of us that don't vaccinate, it would make more sense not to give us reasons to question the necessity of vaccines. Here is one example.
      Here is an intellectual argument I posted earlier in regards to the necessity (or lack thereof) to injecting tetanus into babies.

      Here are some of the reasons a tetanus shot is unnecessary in an infant or toddler:
      Tetanus is a strict anaerobe. It cannot survive in an environment with any oxygen whatsoever. 2 month olds are not running through fields with rust nails. Even if it takes time for an infant to develop immunity against tetanus through the vaccine at what point is tetanus a real risk to a child? One must always bear in mind the disease. The fact that it is a strict anaerobe is extremely significant. Tetanus will not survive in oxygenated tissue. This is why stepping on a rusty nail is of concern. Puncture wounds on the feet that are not easily cleaned are of concern as the tissue is poorly oxygenated in the bottom of the feet, particularly where well calloused. Where tetanus is NOT a problem in young children is in that they are undergoing rapid growth and even their feet are well oxygenated, particularly compared to that of an adult or older adult. Furthermore, tetanus is a bacterium. Tetanus is treatable with antibiotics. If that doesn't work, there are still other methods of treating tetanus. The BEST treatment for tetanus is hyperbaric oxygen therapy, HBOT. HBOT hyperoxygenates the tissues, all the tissues. It infuses oxygen under pressure into deep tissues, into plasma and so on. In one study, they removed the blood from pigs, replaced it with saline, leaving them with no oxygen carrying red blood cells and they survived in a chamber as the saline/plasma was thoroughly infused with oxygen. Oxygen KILLS tetanus, period, end of story. IF by some odd chance it were not to work there is tetanus immunoglobulin therapy as well.

      As Bill Gates makes his argument for vaccines, he must be logical. I, as a parent and patient, myself, must trust I am being honestly told my children need something. Furthermore, tetanus is NOT a communicable disease. It survives in the soil as a spore. Entering the body in tissue without oxygen, it can leave the spore stage and reproduce. Tetanus CANNOT in any way be eradicated, nor can anyone CATCH tetanus from someone else. It is NOT communicable. My children cannot get tetanus from a bite of another child as the mouth is highly oxygenated. This is an argument being made by pro-vaxxers as to why tetanus vaccines are necessary in infants.

      So, I am asked to inject my children with something that is not an issue, if it were, can be treated and has a risk associated with it. Furthermore, injecting my children with a tetanus vaccine will NOT in any way shape or form prevent someone else from getting tetanus. When it comes to my children, it is my job to ensure that medical interventions are safe and necessary and that the benefit outweighs the risk. When I cannot trust the logic, it becomes difficult to trust the intervention. This is ONE example of an unnecessary intervention that does have a real risk associated with it.

      If AAP, the CDC, and Bill Gates want me to trust my children with vaccines, they must be safe and necessary.

  90. "Flu Shot" by McGuirk · · Score: 1

    I understand most vaccinations, but I've always been skeptical about the "flu shot". It just seems a bit shady, it doesn't always work, and it makes people ever so slightly sniffly for a few months. Does it even really help?

    1. Re:"Flu Shot" by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2

      Astonishing. Some people get a bit sniffy in the winter? And the vaccine for a rapidly-mutating virus doesn't always work? Except the people who don't get it - what if they weren't going to get it anyway?

      I think we've just discovered a massive fraud.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    2. Re:"Flu Shot" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only have anecdotal evidence, but my girlfriend once had the flu shot and went to visit her family who were all sick. She did not get sick. I've gotten the flu shot every year for the past 3 years. I also got the swine flu vaccine. Without the flu shot, I don't recall actually getting the flu (fever and naseau) since I was kid (20 some years ago). I may have had the flu or altitude sickness a few years ago when I went to Peru (after I got the shot).

      I think overall it's probably the best defense we have against a pandemic. It seems to be working so well at that that some people almost felt the CDC was overreacting about swine flu. I think that's a sign that we're getting pretty good at the flu vaccine. The danger is that if enough people decide not to take the flu vaccine, we could see some of the horrible flu outbreaks that most of us can't even remember.

      I'm a big proponent of vaccines, unless you're allergic to them. Most of drugs have a lot of ramifications that even FDA scrutiny can't weed out all the time. But vaccines are basically the way your body knows how to evolve. You could wait for the flu and take theraflu, but that stuff is basically just making yourself comfortable until your body figures out how to defeat the flu virus. That's exactly what the vaccine would have accomplished for you while you were healthy. Yeah, it's not 100%, but even if you get the flu, you're probably less likely to die from it (since your body is somewhat more prepared for it).

    3. Re:"Flu Shot" by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      "I think overall it's probably the best defense we have against a pandemic."

      For some strains of the flu, ensuring the right amount of vitamin D may work better.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_and_influenza
      "A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study published in the March 2010 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reported that children taking 1,200 international units of vitamin D3 supplements daily in winter were 42% less likely to get infected with seasonal flu than those who were given a placebo.[6][7]"

      Add better nutrition to that (like eating more vegetables and fruits and cutting out the junk food and processed food and most animal products) and a pandemic of the flu is not so big a worry.
      http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/cold-flu-flu-and-nutrition-dr-fuhrman-responds-to-comments.html
      "The idea that a person eating a nutrient-rich diet is just as likely to develop and suffer the dangerous consequences from an influenza virus as a cheese burgers and soda eating American is simply wrong. Moe importantly such opinions are dangerous as they may lead to tragic outcomes for those mistaking authority for knowledge. Let's review just a few articles from the scientific literature that further support this concept that nutritional.excellence can offer protection from viral attacks. I will show the reference and post some explanatory comments below each reference. ...
      The touted concept that the pandemic flu of 1918 target the "young and healthy" is not quite accurate. First of all, like today the diet in Western Europe in those days was largely meat, bread, potato, lard, butter and cheese with minimal fresh produce. The so-called, "young and healthy" back then, like today could not be used as an example of those eating a diet to assure nutritional adequacy. The diets of yore were grossly deficient. Today most industrialized nations eat less than five percent of total calories from fresh produce: fruit, vegetables, seeds, nuts and beans. In spite of the fact that we have new science pointing to the impressive disease protection against heart disease, strokes, dementia, cancer and yes, serous infections, our society still consumes a diet assuring nutritional compromise and tragic medical outcomes.. Those of you naysayers who would like to stay on your chicken and pasta "low fat diet" or your cheeseburger and cokes with your heads buried deeply in the French fries, I say that is your prerogative. As for me, I will use and apply the science of today that shows the protection offered by cruciferous vegetables, raw vegetables and fruits, nuts and seeds and beans to give myself, my family and my patients the greatest potential to live a live a long, healthy life. This is not alternative medicine, it is good medicine. ..."

      Bill Gates means well, but just like he never really addressed the roots causes of problems (including computer viruses) with Windows for decades, an emphasis on vaccination is a way to ignore the roots causes of human health issues globally (which include income disparities and a culture that celebrates financial obesity). How about seeing Bill Gates call for a gift economy or a global basic income as a way to fight for global wellness?

      Is an antivirus program useful on Windows? Sure. But people who use Mac or Linux or FreeBSD, or who use Windows and practice safer computing practices (including not having their main login have administrator/superuser rights, running FireFox instead of IE, having a hardware firewall, and not opening attachments willy-nilly), tend not to need them quite as much. So too for nutritional excellence, which offers better general protection against all disease, includign cancer and heart disease and diabates and dementia and arthritis, which are the

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  91. If there are that many unvaccinated kids... by doug141 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it should be simple to see if those kids ALSO have the 1% autism rate of the larger population. If they do, vaccines don't cause autism.

    1. Re:If there are that many unvaccinated kids... by russotto · · Score: 0

      it should be simple to see if those kids ALSO have the 1% autism rate of the larger population. If they do, vaccines don't cause autism.

      The complication is that it's hard to distinguish a high level of inherited stupidity from mild autism.

    2. Re:If there are that many unvaccinated kids... by whoop · · Score: 1

      That's not how hysteria works. It's based more on feelings.

      "I don't want my child to have autism. Vaccines could cause autism. Therefore, I don't want my child to get vaccines."

      Of course, of these kids Bill says died because of no vaccinations, at least they didn't have autism when they went. Their parents must be so proud.

    3. Re:If there are that many unvaccinated kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was done in Denmark and the rates of autism were exactly the same. Of course this was completely ignored by the anti-vaxxers.

    4. Re:If there are that many unvaccinated kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The study has been done already - there is no link between vaccines and autism.

    5. Re:If there are that many unvaccinated kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing is "simple", but here's study for you to digest

      http://14studies.org/pdf/MMR_5.pdf

    6. Re:If there are that many unvaccinated kids... by Viperpete · · Score: 1

      But at least they caught autism naturally.

      --
      loose: not fitting closely or tightly != lose: to suffer the deprivation of
    7. Re:If there are that many unvaccinated kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it should be simple to see if those kids ALSO have the 1% autism rate of the larger population. If they do, vaccines don't cause autism.

      not so easy beacuse of differences in health care seeking behaviors of undervaccinated children

    8. Re:If there are that many unvaccinated kids... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Or the vaccines do cause autism, but a secondary effect of not being vaccinated causes autism at the same rate as being vaccinated.

      (Unlikely I know)

    9. Re:If there are that many unvaccinated kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already did this, the rates were the same. its coincidence rather than causation since most kids are diagnosed with autism at the same age range as we normally give the vaccines.

      However just like anything people put blinders on (teaparty, scientology, extreme religion fanatics) when they go to the extreme.

  92. If only it was that simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only governments like the U.S. didn't actively experiment on people with so called vaccines in the past then this wouldn't be a problem. You do know of course that the U.S. government has on more than one occassion given people diseases such as Syphillis stating that they were vaccines correct? You do know in many third world nations the governments use sterilization to limit populations of indigenous people in order to control their growth in areas where corporations covet the land, correct?

    Maybe it isn't a bad thing that people desire that vaccines be properly tested to ensure that they are safe - and that some demand more thorough testing of foreign substances that we put into our bodies. Its just a shame we don't demand similar tests on the food we consume.

  93. Also by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    If you do a good enough job with vaccinations, you actually can eliminate a disease. Happened with smallpox. However for that to happen, you have to have more or less 100% vaccine coverage. You have to truly eliminate all cases out there so the virus will simply die off.

    1. Re:Also by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      This is not always enough. Since only smallpox is eliminated, while the others have not. Consider the "spore" stage some diseases have for example. Or latent storage of viruses.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  94. Re:Please Show Me Evidence. Seriously. Please. by Nemyst · · Score: 2
  95. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by Nemyst · · Score: 1

    Then not vaccinating your child is WORSE than giving him cigarettes. That's reinforcing the point of the GP!

  96. Fine, have it your way! by Joe+U · · Score: 1

    If people don't want to vaccinate, then leave them the fuck alone

    Fine, but your kid doesn't get to go to public school or daycare, and no public healthcare either.

    First, I don't want to deal with your kid dying, because it's going to seriously fuck up nursery school for my kid.
    Second, I don't want you infecting any other idiots who didn't get vaccinated and causing a local epidemic.
    Third, I don't want any secondary diseases your un-vaccinated kid may wind up with while they're dying of something that could have been prevented. Because those might get my kids sick, and fuck you for subjecting someone to that.

    House said it best:

    You know another really good business? Teeny tiny baby coffins. You can get them in frog green or fire engine red. Really. The antibodies in yummy mummy only protect the kid for six months, which is why these companies think they can gouge you. They think that you'll spend whatever they ask to keep your kid alive. Want to change things? Prove them wrong. A few hundred parents like you decide they'd rather let their kid die than cough up forty bucks for a vaccination, believe me, prices will drop really fast.

  97. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spending money doesn't prevent babies, it causes more and more women to open their legs. This in turn causes more babies.

  98. Look at all costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree completely with the comments here about the damage these anti-vax morons are doing to their own children and others, but I think it's still worth considering the broader issue of costs. Even if not one other person was harmed by some kids not getting vaccinated, there would still be a sizable cost to society: Long term medical care to take care of those kids who wind up with serious handicaps and then become a financial burden because their parents don't happen to be wealthy.

    In other words, the anti-vax crowd is saying, "I don't want to give my kids proper medical care because I believe the lies of a bunch of wackjobs. But if my kids wind up handicapped, I want society to help pay for their care for the rest of their lives."

    This is why the only group of anti-science denier idiots I hate more than the anti-vax people are the climate change deniers.

  99. Re:Why would some people think that ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poorer people who live lower quality of life have more children.

    People living higher quality of life have less. China's population has been having a significantly increasing quality of life since their one child per family rule. I'm not saying that's the cause but it's true.

  100. Re:Bullshit. by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

    There are valid reasons not to want to get vaccinated, and people have the right to decide for themselves and their children. Am I saying it's the right decision not to vaccinate yourself or kids? No, not generally - but there are times where it may be, and people need to make that decision for themselves.

    Vaccines have also been used to spread disease. Is it common - I doubt it, but it has been done and who knows.

    Corporations lie, they do things to make money, not to save lives. They skimp on safety, they falsify data (the antivax people aren't the only ones), some of the vaccines given to soldiers may be the cause of or play a part in Gulf War sickness.

    If people don't want to vaccinate, then leave them the fuck alone - this talk of laws and forcing people is ridiculous.

    Bullshit,

    Kids aren't property, and if you're tinfoil hat ignorance gets in the way of their health care, then someone needs to step in.

  101. Re:Reason for the hullabaloo wasn't as stated by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He was a liar and a scam artist. He fabricated a scientific study. Does it matter who pursued him?

    I don't understand you people who want to beatify the guy. What the fuck is wrong with you?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  102. Re:The numbers, like Sales of Windows, don't add u by quenda · · Score: 1

    The numbers were audited by the same professional accountants and actuarys who calculated Microsoft's losses from software piracy.

    (BTW, the "millions" is from _all_ diseases, most of which are preventable.)

  103. Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's good that most children escaped the consequences of Wakefield's BS because enough were vaccinated to make it pretty hard for disease to spread. But the numbers are there showing that there were hundreds of excess deaths and life-changing disabilities, such as blindness or retardation, from kids not getting measles vaccines.

    Actually, there is no support for your statement about hundreds of excess deaths and "life-changing disabilities." While it may be true, the data does not support it. There is data to support deaths from measles and the other complications you list, but most of them are from third world countries that the vaccine was not even available and had nothing to do with Wakefield.

    The World Health Organization keeps stats on all of this. 83% of all children are vaccinated against measles. That includes those few third world countries were vaccines are not available, so for most places, the rate is much, much, higher. There are 164,000 deaths annually from measles, mainly in the third world and mainly in those same countries.

    MMR vaccine has been in use for ages, so if there truly were bad consequences as Wakefield falsified, it would be seen in the population as a whole. MMR is relatively inexpensive and other than certain regimes keeping it out of their country, there is no reason why the West could not produce enough vaccine to ensure everyone gets it.

  104. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    Also, I love to just throw my coffee cup on the ground when I'm done with it, just so I can show smokers how disgusting it is to leave cigarette butts all over the place.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  105. Re:Bullshit. by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2

    I disagree. You don't have the right to harm your child. Medical decisions are a bit of a gray area, but not so much with vaccines. There are medical reasons to avoid vaccinations - immunological disorders and so on - but unless the kid has one, they should be vaccinated. Regardless of what the parent thinks.

    Your unvaccinated kid won't get anywhere near my kid, particularly if he's immunocompromised for some reason. Even if he's not, he's a lot more likely to get measles - even if he's vaccinated. It's a no-brainer to keep unvaccinated kids out of public schools.

    But I say we should go further. While nobody's going to force you to eat food that has the nutrients you need, we'll force you to do it for your kid. Malnourished kids are removed because their parents are actually hurting them. So it is with vaccines. If somebody's proven themselves too stupid to make medical decisions for their kid, they shouldn't be allowed to - and not vaccinating your kids because some Playboy bimbo said it was bad on Oprah is as about as stupid a medical decision as they come.

    (note: in the above post, 'you' means 'one' or 'somebody', nothing personal)

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  106. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    Yeah. That link says 3000 people die each year from second hand smoke. So it kills about 0.001 % of the population, to put it another way, it accounts for 0.15 % of deaths that occur in the united states. While I really can't stand the smell of smoke, and am happy that people can no longer smoke in any public building anymore, I think we have bigger fish to fry. I never realized how bad the smell was until they banned it in most places. Now I can smell it when a smoker has been standing in an elevator on some trip previous to when I was on the elevator.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  107. whatever. by kelemvor4 · · Score: 0

    Screw Bill Gates. He got the billions by being one of the most notorious evils in silicon valley and now he's a hero for giving some of the money he stole back to the world? Better than him not doing it but it certainly doesn't elevate him to good guy status. If only hitler had given some money away sheeple would probably love him too.

  108. Anti-vaccination is a rigged game for sociopaths by dbIII · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Or if not prove, at least demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt.

    It's been done and didn't convince them. It was depressing hearing a radio program where a vaccination expert and a person in charge of a anti-vaccination group put there points to some parents with young babies who then voted on it. The doctor talked about the outcomes of a trial involving two million children in the UK while the other person indulged in character assassination and piles of emotional bullshit. She was playing a manipulative game where truth did not remotely matter while the doctor had to be professional and stick to facts. An unemployed high school dropout with a hobby was putting doubt into everyone's heads about the qualifications of somebody that has been working on infectious diseases for forty years.
    Of course lies and emotional bullshit won because parents with a newborn baby were being told they would be bad parents if they exposed their babies to the mercury that isn't even in the vaccine that the program was about. It was depressing and to an extent was a glimpse into how evil some of the people involved are. They should get a different hobby that manipulates people in a more harmless way instead of this dangerous hobby that is convincing parents to put their children in danger.

  109. troll by 1800maxim · · Score: 1

    Don't get baited by the parent, it's a troll post.

    1. Re:troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually there are a lot of people that agree. Just because you don't does not make it a troll post.

      There are too many people in the world and we are doing nothing to control the population. You just have to look around at what we have done to the planet to see that the way we live is not able to be supported for ever. Helping to grow the population is not answer. Just like anyone I don't want to see little kids suffer and die however I would love to see solutions to population control as well as eliminating disease, not just one or the other.

        Agent Smith got it right when he said " I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet."

      Population control as well as eliminating disease to me is a good equilibrium that we should be aiming for.

    2. Re:troll by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      Please see my point earlier in this thread, suggesting how there is room for quadrillions of humans in the solar system in space habitats.

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  110. Rarely seen by betso.net · · Score: 1

    Gates citing objective data is a rare event. The problem is not that (this time) he said the truth. The problem is that it should be not him propagating something that makes sense. Because the thinking part of the population would start looking suspicious on something which might have been previously widely accepted. He should just keep his mouth shut! Even if he has the truth in his mind!

    --
    xoda.org
    1. Re:Rarely seen by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Because the thinking part of the population would start looking suspicious on something which might have been previously widely accepted.

      The "thinking part" is supposed to be thinking enough to judge the message on its merits, regardless of the messenger.

  111. Enjoy your DNA damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sincerely,
    Big Pharma

  112. The legal system in two countries calls it fraud by dbIII · · Score: 1

    definite proof of Wakefield being yet another pseudo-scientist

    He was a real medical practitioner but a very dishonest one that wished to promote one preservative (and make a lot of money) by discrediting another. Among other things he did that by shipping in several know autistic children from many parts of the UK into a small local vaccination clinic to skew the test results in favour of his preservative. Because of that fraud and some cruel and unethical treatment of autistic children he is no longer licensed to practice medicine in the UK and the USA.
    He's no pseudo-scientist, merely an outright fraud who among other things failed to disclose a payment of 400,000 pounds sterling (US $644,000) by the lawyers bringing the lawsuit against the vaccine. That sort of bribe buys a lot of time preparing a very convincing argument.
    In short, he's untrustworthy slime for sale.

  113. Bill Gates, the pope and... by Terrasque · · Score: 5, Funny

    Once, Bill Gates, the Pope, and the Anti-Vaccine Man was on a plane together. As things always goes in jokes, while in-flight the pilot died of heart attack, while at the same time the engines caught on fire.

    This lead to the three men having to jump out of the plane, and of course there are only two parachutes. Bill Gates declares that as the smartest man Earth, he must be saved, grabs one of the parachutes, and jumps. The Pope looks at the Anti-Vaccine Man, and says "here, young man, take mine. You still have years in front of you" to which the Anti-Vaccine Man replies "No, it is a known fact that those contraptions can fail at times, so it is better to jump without one" and jumped out of the plane. The Pope shakes his head, jump with the remaining parachute, and after landing safely holds a speech declaring that while God is good, even He can not help retards.

    The End.

    --
    It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    1. Re:Bill Gates, the pope and... by Nehmo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Once, Bill Gates, the Pope, and the Anti-Vaccine Man was on a plane together. As things always goes in jokes, while in-flight the pilot died of heart attack, while at the same time the engines caught on fire.

      This lead to the three men having to jump out of the plane, and of course there are only two parachutes. Bill Gates declares that as the smartest man Earth, he must be saved, grabs one of the parachutes, and jumps. The Pope looks at the Anti-Vaccine Man, and says "here, young man, take mine. You still have years in front of you" to which the Anti-Vaccine Man replies "No, it is a known fact that those contraptions can fail at times, so it is better to jump without one" and jumped out of the plane. The Pope shakes his head, jump with the remaining parachute, and after landing safely holds a speech declaring that while God is good, even He can not help retards.

      The End.

      That doesn't sound like something Bill would do. He wouldn't bother justifying his move to those idiots.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    2. Re:Bill Gates, the pope and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original version of that joke involved a plane, a pilot, Bush Sr., Gorbachev, the Pope, a Boy Scout, and Dan Quayle.

      The pilot is the first to jump out with a parachute, telling the others that the plane is going to crash. Bush Sr., Gorbachev, and Quayle each proclaim themselves too important to die, and take one of the (N-1) parachutes. This leaves the Pope and the Boy Scout. After the Pope's speech on why the Boy Scout should take the last parachute, the Boy Scout replies, "Thank you, but there's no need. Quayle jumped out with my knapsack ..."

      Another joke more in line with the way the parent post modified this one was set in a flooded area. Rising floodwaters forced a pastor onto the roof of his church. A boat came by and the occupants of the boat offered to take the pastor to safety. He refused, saying "God will save me." This happened twice more as the floodwaters continued to rise. Finally they rose too high and the pastor drowned. Upon his appearance at the Pearly Gates, he said, "What happened? I thought God would save me.", to which Saint Peter replied, "Didn't you notice? We sent three boats..."

    3. Re:Bill Gates, the pope and... by Cruciform · · Score: 1, Funny

      You left out the part where the Pope celebrated his survival by sodomizing two nine-year-olds.

    4. Re:Bill Gates, the pope and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, you win, that was way to funny. End of the thread. No, really

    5. Re:Bill Gates, the pope and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You left out the part where the Pope celebrated his survival by sodomizing two nine-year-olds.

      You know the best part about twenty-nine year olds?

      There's twenty of 'em.

    6. Re:Bill Gates, the pope and... by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      Ugh, now, reading this the day after.. I must apologize for that complete botchery of the English language.

      Let me fix it up a bit:

      Once, Bill Gates, the Pope, and the Anti-Vaccine Man was on a plane together. As things always goes in jokes, while in-flight the pilot died of a heart attack, and at the same time the engines caught on fire.

      This leads to the three men having to jump out of the plane, and of course there are only two parachutes. Bill Gates declares that as the smartest man on Earth, he must be saved, grabs one of the parachutes, and jumps. The Pope looks at the Anti-Vaccine Man, and says "Here, young man, take the last one. You still have years in front of you" to which the Anti-Vaccine Man replies "No, it is a known fact that those contraptions can fail at times, so it is better to jump without one" and jumped out of the plane. The Pope shakes his head, jump with the remaining parachute, and after landing safely holds a speech declaring that while God is good, even He can not help retards.

      The End.

      There, a bit better, at least. I hope no grammar nazi's were killed by the earlier language accident.

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    7. Re:Bill Gates, the pope and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, to be more accurate, there should be 3 parachutes and 4 participants: Bill Gates, the Pope, Anti-Vaccine Man and his child.

      Everything plays out as you describe, except that in the end anti-vaccine man throws his child out of the airplane without a parachute and then jumps after him, even though there was a 3rd parachute available.

      Unfortunately the joke isn't funny at all, so I like yours better.

    8. Re:Bill Gates, the pope and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your joke would work much better if you said "Jenny McCarthy" instead of "Anti-Vaccine Man".

  114. Re:Why would some people think that ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually it's not really paradoxical. All living organisms do exactly the same thing. The easier it is for them to survive, the less babies they make (and I'm not just talking about the evolutionary pressure from resource scarcity; many species make adjustments on the fly in "real-time" as it were).

  115. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by DreadPiratePizz · · Score: 1

    Have you been watching too Much Penn & Teller bullshit again? You know, the one they did about second hand smoke saying it didn't cause cancer, when later they said "We fucked up on that one"? I'd suggest watching The Awful Truth by Michael more. Say what you will about him, but in one episode he brings out the voicebox choir to sing for the tobacco companies on christmas. One of the men had throat cancer and had his larynx removed. And guess what? He never smoked a day in his life. But his wife did.

  116. Croak the buggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are 3 billion too many people on this planet as it is. Let 'em die.

  117. Re:How about... by Myopic · · Score: 1

    Economic growth is population control. He also invests in that. In the meantime, children are fucking dying. Only a sociopath would imply that they don't matter.

  118. Re:Please Show Me Evidence. Seriously. Please. by quixote9 · · Score: 1

    (bwahaha. I'm not as nerdy as I thought I was. I hadn't even heard of lmgtfy before.)

    If "Link, Please" would rather have a personal story of what happens when herd immunity is lost, here's a writer for The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/01/measles-mmr-vaccination.

    Epidemiologically, about 1 in 500 measles cases result in death, 1 in 500 result in major brain damage, and so on. Young kids are the most susceptible. The rates of complications from the vaccine are on the order of one in millions, and do NOT include death, retardation, blindness. The math isn't that hard to do if you want to see what that means for unnecessary suffering due to reduced vaccination.

  119. Re:The numbers, like Sales of Windows, don't add u by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    "It is an affront to our common humanity, five years after the the Millennium Summit, that 30,000 children die each day from easily preventable diseases, or that 100 million people go to bed hungry, or that 100 million children are not receiving a basic education." Bertie Ahern, Taoiseach, speaking to the United Nations General Assembly in September 2005.

    I agree whole heartedly. However, their deaths are not caused by the lack of the MMR vaccine. To quote Robert Kennedy "I believe that, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil."

  120. Re:The numbers, like Sales of Windows, don't add u by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    The article references the measles vaccine and the WHO claims it is the leading cause of death among children.

  121. Vaccines by hackus · · Score: 0

    I don't think I trust the pharma industrial complex to make safe vaccines.

    Too many examples have been cited that they rush the vaccines they _say_ we need, for billion dollar contracts.

    Secondly, I have never got a flu vaccination shot, yet why is it from general observation, I read about people who die from it, my friends who get it have more colds and miss more days of work, yet I eat right, exercise and wash my hands and never get sick? Two of my friends got sick from that bird flu shot they got as it caused a reaction including nausea and rapid heart rate.

    The other issue I have with Gates is he uses his Foundation for all sorts of sordid business deals under the table with third world countries. This includes getting his software used in poor schools.

    He tried several times to use his foundation to sabotage the OLPC project.

    He has also publicly spoken about how we could control population for the "worthless eaters" and inject people with birth control to decrease birth rates in the third world. He is in favour of not informing the public about such actions.

    I also don't trust Gates because he advocates bills that _require_ people to get shots in Medical fields to get shots when there is no evidence that some of these animal models are completely transferable to humans, and that they are safe to use.

    In closing, I do not believe many here are fully informed about what exactly the Gates foundation is doing in my cases. I do not believe a person who has broken so many laws to obtain a 80%+ market share is all of a sudden a philanthapist.

    After investigating some of these "humanitarian" actions by the Gates foundation I find they are usually nothing of the sort.

    Just business deals and a way to hide about 3 billion in capital from taxes, which I think is the real aim of the Gates Foundation.

    -Hackus

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    1. Re:Vaccines by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Just business deals and a way to hide about 3 billion in capital from taxes, which I think is the real aim of the Gates Foundation.

      Don't forget that you can't get vaccinations unless you provide assurances to big pharma that you won't make these medications yourself later even if your people will die in droves otherwise. This enables a scenario where you either produce vaccines to save your people affordably or receive economic sanctions for violating IP treaties you've signed on to in order to get these vaccinations. The real goal is to make the third world beholden to big pharma.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Vaccines by Tack · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why researchers waste all that time with properly controlled and blinded vaccine trials when we have your wonderful personal anecdotes, which obviously supersede the mountains of objective data that clearly establishes the value-risk proposition of vaccines. I also really appreciated your poisoning the well of Bill Gates, as if it invalidates his position on vaccines.

      So here's to you, Mr. Youtube-quality-slashdot-commenter.

    3. Re:Vaccines by n6kuy · · Score: 1

      That's debatable.

      --
      If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
  122. Herd immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vaccines (almost?) never have 100% coverage. This means that some of the children that got all their shots will not be protected. In order to actually avoid contamination of those for which the vaccine failed, and to be able to actually eradicate something like Polio, you MUST have herd immunity. This means a very large part of the population (more than 95% sometimes) has to be vaccinated.

    Herd immunity works because when enough individuals are protected, the illness cannot easily spread and the chances of those who are not protected getting ill are much much lower.

    So, any idiotic imbecile that is fighting against vaccination is actually putting a lot more kids in mortal danger than just those whose parents are uneducated or stupid enough to fall for their crap. Such people are not harmless even to those who ignore their deadly message, quite the opposite. You cannot just ignore them. No matter how much effort you put into protecting yourself and your family, they will be undermining it.

    Think about it.

  123. Re:Why would some people think that ? by bonekeeper · · Score: 0

    In an ideal logical world, perhaps, but on this one parent's don't have 4 kids because they are preoccupied that one of them might die. They have that many kids simply because of accidents - not using the pill, no condoms, etc and can't abort for n reasons. Just think of every family you know that has 3 or 4 kids and ask yourself whether they had the possibility of one of the kids dying in mind. Chances are, it was never planned, just accident, or they just like to have lots of kids.

  124. Re:Why would some people think that ? by bonekeeper · · Score: 0

    As I said, nothing bad about population control - unless it is pushed into people with the guise of mandatory vaccinations. Education is a much better option, at least in theory. As for your theory, I commented on http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1982308&cid=35116128 . People rarely think like this or plan this far - if a couple is capable of thinking like this, they would also be capable of postponing having kids altogether until their overall condition improves.

  125. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    Yes, anything you breath into your lungs that isn't air is bad for you.

    That being said, the crap that pours out of the back of your car is 10 times worse than any second hand smoke you would be exposed to. Anyone that drives, or uses services made possible by driving is being a hypocrite complaining about second hand smoke.

    Yes, technically second hand smoke is bad for you, but in practice, it's ill effects are just noise compared to all the other crap we all breath in every day. Thus, claims like the TV ad that says you will kill a baby three doors down if you smoke a cigarette in your apartment, are a crock.

  126. article about gates work in education by Paradigma11 · · Score: 1

    Lengthy critical opinion on gates work in education that i don't agree with on most parts but that i found nonetheless interesting: http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=3781

  127. Great! I always believe what the doctors tell me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just turn off my mind, and believe whatever the doctors say to me. This means I at times have to accept multiple contradictory statements as being all true if they are said by a doctor. Drinking used to be good for you. Then it became bad for you sometime last century. Now it is once again good for you. It used to be that smoking promoted lung health, and cleared up the T-zone. Sometimes in the 60's though this all changed, and smoking became bad for us. At one time Steroids were proven by doctors to have no affect on athletic performance. All those stupid meat head body builders used them because they did not have the benefit of a medical degree to tell them how stupid they were. Then reality changed once again, and steroids are now effective. Masturbation used to cause blindness. Now it is a healthy part of everyones sexual development.

    I don't have a problem with science of medicine per say, I just have a problem with people who take the word of 'doctors' or some study as if it came from on high. Seriously people should start taking the millions of studies that come out every year with a grain of salt. Do the study results actually make sense or is it equally likely that the study was in fact funded by some industry / pharma group. All too often the studies throw out the inconvenient data, and the people on /. trumpet it because it has the word 'science' in it.

    I would accept the anecdotal evidence of the families involved before I accept the word of some insider who claims a 'scientific' truth that contradicts the evidence of my own eyeballs. I don't have a problem with vaccinations. I would however, question why the hell everyone needs to get vaccinated every year, and this is now considered normal. I would also wonder why everyone at my work who got vaccinated came down with the flu, and I who refused vaccinations remained perfectly healthy. I wonder also why there are people who have 5 -6 different prescription medicines that they 'need' to be taking all the time. Me thinks there is something seriously wrong with a society were soo many people are on prozak or whatever the drug of the week happens to be. Personally I think that diet and exercise could eliminated most of the problems that are currently being solved by the neighborhood pharmacist. But then again, I am not a doctor, and I am sure there is a study coming out next week that will tell me how stupid I am and if only stay inside 18 hours a day and live in a house with a grand piano (because some study somewhere found there is a correlation between intelligence and houses with musical instruments) I can increase my intelligence by 12 points.

    There used to be something in the USA call 'horse sense'. Not so much anymore.

  128. Re:Bullshit. by davidgay · · Score: 1

    There are valid reasons not to want to get vaccinated, and people have the right to decide for themselves and their children. Am I saying it's the right decision not to vaccinate yourself or kids? No, not generally - but there are times where it may be, and people need to make that decision for themselves.

    I'm sorry, but no. Vaccination is not effective if it's not sufficiently widely used. So arguing for arbitrary opt-out is arguing to be allowed to let other people die. You may think that that makes you a worthy person, but the rest of us will disrespectfully disagree.

    David Gay

  129. Re:Why should we care what Bill Gates says on Auti by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

    I am neither ignoring nor disagreeing with that fact. My criticism isn't of Bill Gates, it's of the press he's getting on vaccines and autism (as compared to say, giving the headline to something actually about eradicating polio), and the way the (CNN in TFA) present it. If they want a headline about the (lack of a) link between autism and vaccines, have an interview with someone who actually did the research. If they want a headline about what the Gates foundation is doing to fight polio (or HIV, or family planning etc.)... interview Bill Gates.

    They've intentionally presented it as though there is some valid point about vaccines and autism, and then throw him a softball question, which is fine... but then his answer to this softball question doesn't justify the press it's getting. Everything he says on the topic is perfectly correct, and I have the utmost respect for the fact that he is both employing and listening to experts in this field. But even the /. story is about "Bill Gates says anti vaccine effort kills children" presents it as though this is some revelation from Bill Gates, it is no more, or no less investigated by the journalists than the claims by Jenny McCarthy, which is my problem with it, credibility for celebrity doesn't make sense. The same principle applied to Steve Jobs is why Apple gets away with having a basically draconian app store policy, but Steve says it's good, so it must be good!

    What Bill Gates says specifically on the issue
    "Well, Dr. Wakefield has been shown to have used absolutely fraudulent data. He had a financial interest in some lawsuits, he created a fake paper, the journal allowed it to run. All the other studies were done, showed no connection whatsoever again and again and again. So it's an absolute lie that has killed thousands of kids. Because the mothers who heard that lie, many of them didn't have their kids take either pertussis or measles vaccine, and their children are dead today. And so the people who go and engage in those anti-vaccine efforts -- you know, they, they kill children. It's a very sad thing, because these vaccines are important."

    He doesn't actually say it's hampering efforts against polio, in fact nothing in that blurb seems to be based on work his foundation actually does. Again, not that it isn't correct, Bill Gates is (for all of the MS related criticism of him) a smart guy who seems to actually listen to evidence. But he says some very interesting stuff about how health impacts security, about rich helping poor and how much time there is between vaccines for the rich and vaccines for the poor.

    The part that offends me is the lead in question (from Dr Gupta) is intentionally soft, and the fact that this part gets a headline and not... you know, his solutions to problems he's actually trying to (and succeeding at) solving.
    "There has been a lot of scrutiny of vaccines recently -- specifically childhood vaccines. There has been a lot of news about is there a connection with autism, for example. What do you make of all that? Dr. [Andrew] Wakefield wrote a paper about this [in The Lancet in 1998] saying he thought there was a connection. And there were lower vaccination rates over a period of time as a result in Britain, then the United States. What are your thoughts?"

  130. Go Bill Gates! by Nehmo · · Score: 1

    Bill Gates is absolutely correct. I applaud him for the public statement. I was hoping somebody influential would say something about this Wakefield kook/crook. (All the same, I'll keep using my questionable copy of Office.)

    --
    (||) Nehmo (||)
  131. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  132. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  133. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

    Well, the insides computers that are in the homes of heavy smokers (who smoke inside) can be covered by a layer of whatever stuff there is in the smoke. At least dust can be cleaned easily and does not stink. The particles from smoke stick and stink. Here is a picture of a computer from a smoker. I am quite sure that if the dust is disturbed, the resulting smell would stay in the room quite long.

    Second hand smoke does not have much of an effect when the exposure is short (at a bar or wherever, unlike, say, working 8 hours every day with someone who constantly smokes inside the office, or the bartender who works at a bar that is foggy from smoke), however, the particles inside the computer result from years of smoking, so the dose is fairly high, not just a couple of cigarettes.

  134. For all the flak he's got over the years... by achyuta · · Score: 1

    .. this is one time we've got to stand up and salute this guy, here on Slashdot.

  135. The motives of Gates is supsect by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 0

    This article documents Bill Gates and his associations as well as his foundations holdings rather well and given that information, I find good reason to question his motives. I simply don't believe he is as charitable as he wants us to believe. The article is quoted in relevant part as follows:

    "According to the Wall Street Journal(1), among others, the Gates Foundation has holdings in:

    - Walmart (9.2 million shares)
    - McDonald's (9.4 million shares)
    - ExxonMobil (6.3 million shares)
    - Berkshire Hathaway (76.4 million Class B shares)
    - Monsanto (500,000 shares)"

    Some might find him to be accurate in his assessment of the vaccine situation, but they might at least consider the source. I'm not so sure myself.

    --
    The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
  136. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  137. hypocritical crap by pizzach · · Score: 1

    Parents have the right to subject their children to the risks they want for the payoffs they want. If you have something difference voices trying to inform/misinform them, things like fast-food advertisements for McDonalds should be taken off the air. Who knows, maybe they want their child to be [low blow hit warning] an Autistic Sumo Wrestler?

    --
    Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
    1. Re:hypocritical crap by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's not like that since nothing has actually shown these vaccines caused autism.
      It's confidence tricksters that either want to make money out of suffering or get a personal thrill out of it with a few of their marks along for the ride. For example the lawyers that paid Dr Wakefield 400,000 pounds because they thought they could manufacture a huge payout and get a huge percentage in fees, plus he had a patent applied for on his own rival vaccination method before he started his tests.
      It's not about informed consent. It's about fraud, trickery and people that pretend they've got some magical inbuilt wisdom from birth that is superior to what anyone with decades of experience has. I'm curious as to how they reconcile this "wisdom" with what any lucid 70 year old that grew up knowing people with polio would tell them about vaccination.
      It's a very nasty trick that won't stop until after a major epidemic.

    2. Re:hypocritical crap by meerling · · Score: 2

      Do you have the right to let your child poor gasoline on themselves, light a match, and then run into a school full of other children and burn down the school killing how many other children who's parents would let play with gasoline and matches?

      When you don't vaccinate your child, it's not just your child that's at risk, it also includes all the others they are in contact with. Why the bloody hell do you think they send sick children home when parents ignore the standard "don't send sick children to school" policies?

      Maybe you have the right to subject your child to additional unnecessary risks, which in a legal stance I suspect is rather questionable due to all the cases I've heard of where parents were over-ridden to obtain necessary medical aid for minors.
      But even if you are, you do NOT have any right to subject other peoples children to those same avoidable risks.

      Here's an idea, if you really insist on ignoring the countless millions of case studies and instead go with one discredited quack and don't mind risking your childrens health, then keep your kids out of the schools and parks and other places where children congregate. Your disregard for their safety isn't fair to them or their parents.

    3. Re:hypocritical crap by toriver · · Score: 2

      No, parents are the CARETAKERS of children, not their OWNERS. You do not "own" other humans. Children are not toys.

    4. Re:hypocritical crap by stdarg · · Score: 1

      When you don't vaccinate your child, it's not just your child that's at risk, it also includes all the others they are in contact with. Why the bloody hell do you think they send sick children home when parents ignore the standard "don't send sick children to school" policies?

      Why is it their responsibility and not the at-risk child's parents' responsibility? Why not have a "don't send at-risk children to school" policy?

      Here's an idea, if you really insist on ignoring the countless millions of case studies and instead go with one discredited quack and don't mind risking your childrens health, then keep your kids out of the schools and parks and other places where children congregate. Your disregard for their safety isn't fair to them or their parents.

      Exactly, it's a question of which rights are more important. Do you want the right to go where you like, or do you want the right to stop other people from going where they like? One is personal freedom, one is fascism.

    5. Re:hypocritical crap by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Your freedom to swing your arms stops at the tip of my nose.

    6. Re:hypocritical crap by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Parents have the right to subject their children to the risks they want for the payoffs they want

      Parents don't "own" children. They have a duty of care towards the children they care for.

      I am a parent myself.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    7. Re:hypocritical crap by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Parents have the right to subject their children to the risks they want for the payoffs they want.

      Actually legally-speaking we do not, at least outside of certain common-sense bounds.

      For example I may want to train my child to become an Olympic-class sprinter, but if I tried to do that by forcing them to outrun attack dogs that I set on them I'd find myself in an enormous amount of trouble if caught.

      Legally-speaking refusing to get her vaccinated would not have been a problem, but morally-speaking it's rather more of a grey area.

  138. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by Pentium100 · · Score: 2

    You're not going to get cancer by inhaling a little environmental cigarette smoke.

    If I go to a bar once in a while, I won't get cancer from the smoke, even if the smoke is so thick it's more like a fog.
    I don't envy the bartender who has to be there the whole day.

    What if I am sharing an office with a coworker who does likes to smoke inside? What if I am allergic to some chemical inside the smoke?

    Outside (and in your home, provided you live alone or everyone is OK with it and you do not have children living with you), sure, smoke as much as you want, it won't affect me.

  139. Re:Please Show Me Evidence. Seriously. Please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Herd immunity in the UL dropped significantly (below 90%) after Wakefield's fabricated study, where he was paid by lawyers to prove a link between Autism and MMR.

    http://news.scotsman.com/health/Measles-UK-named-and-shamed.4849387.jp
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article701459.ece

    You're right though, thousands seems to be an exaggeration - thousands more developed measles after MMR uptake declined, and deaths did rise but not by thousands.

  140. Bill is a Eugenicist by droidsURlooking4 · · Score: 1

    At Ted he made his argument that improving vaccines will help 'reduce' the population. ?? Nobody winced. Of course this was with the assumption that we need to reduce population. Sure. Volunteers go line up against that wall.

    1. Re:Bill is a Eugenicist by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      Jesus you're dumb. If you actually watched the talk, or listened to him talk about vaccines at any point, it's pretty clear what he meant. Basically, if people (or entire nations) are pretty sure that half of their kids aren't going to die before they're 10, they won't need to have so many kids to make sure that some of them survive - thus bringing down the population growth rate. They already don't have enough food.

      Eugenics? Only if you're a natalist and believe that God wants us to have as many kids as possible.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    2. Re:Bill is a Eugenicist by droidsURlooking4 · · Score: 1

      Your an idiot. If half of them died before they were ten (and he's going to fix this) then how would it even be a factor in over population? That's fucking ass backwards thinking. Not to mention that you, like Gates, seem to view people as rabbits or cockroaches or something. I find that perspective completely disgusting.

    3. Re:Bill is a Eugenicist by meerling · · Score: 1

      It's because there is a huge tendency in third world nations to have more children when mortality rates increase. It's a often counterproductive attempt at trying to ensure that a few survive by having even more kids.

      In times of drought or famine, among others, it only increases the strain on the already insufficient resource in a vain attempt to ensure a new generation. On the other hand, when conditions and survival rates are good, birth rates naturally go down as there is less instinctive drive have more children. This is well documented in humans, feel free to go look up any of the numerous studies, papers, articles, or what have you on this subject.

      Only someone who is unfamiliar with this principle of human nature would have mistaken that statement as something sinister. Since you say that nobody in the audience at that speech reacted, I would have to surmise that they were already familiar with it, or had completely spaced out and weren't listening in the first place.

    4. Re:Bill is a Eugenicist by paulmac84 · · Score: 1

      You live in Elbonia. Elbonia has no social welfare system to take care of you when you become too old or too sick to work. The only way for you to survive is to depend on your children.

      Elbonia doesn't have a great health system either. So the chances of your children dying in infancy is quite high. To offset that risk, you increase your odds of having at least one or two children living to adulthood by having lots of kids.

      Everyone else in Elbonia has the same idea, large families are the norm, the population grows and grows.

      In an agrarian population, land is at a premium as your holding will either be divided among your rather large family, or your children will be forced to move to an urban centre to survive. Large numbers of poor people, living in a small area, (rural or urban, doesn't matter), is not the ideal foundation for stability or economic progress.

      Then in comes Bill Gates with his Vaccination & Health Programs, and suddenly the infant mortality rate drops significantly. People still have large families, but less children die in childhood - the population explodes.

      But here's the kicker: your kids don't need to have large families to support them in their old age, so the birth rate drops, as does the total population.

      Vaccination doesn't lower population immediately, but it will help to do so within a generation or two.

      --
      One of the universal rules of happiness is always be wary of any helpful item that weighs less than its operating manual
    5. Re:Bill is a Eugenicist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your an idiot.

      The irony.

  141. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    The higher incidence of asthma of children with smoking parents is well known, except by you apparently.

  142. Re:The numbers, like Sales of Windows, don't add u by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

    WHO most definitely does not state that, WHO lists measles well below Malaria, TB, pneumonia and Diarrhea just to name a few.

  143. Re:The numbers, like Sales of Windows, don't add u by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1
  144. Re:Anti-vaccination is a rigged game for sociopath by Belial6 · · Score: 0
    The pro vaccine groups play the same game. The CDC has on there site Varicella: Unprotected Story. It is a a tear jerking tail of how your child might come close to dying if they don't get the vaccine.

    A particularly poignant quote from it was

    In total, Amy missed more than 2 weeks of work due to Zoe’s illness.

    Oh poor Amy... How I feel for you.

    The fact is that the CDC itself puts the number of yearly deaths due to the chicken pox prior to the vaccine at only about 100. 50% of those being in the 5% of adult cases. 50 deaths a year is statistical noise. Compare this to the 480 deaths a year caused by cooking at home. It is absurd to be worried about it. Even worse, as the CDC's own numbers show, it is approximately 20X more dangerous for an adult to catch the disease than it is a child. Since the vaccine is not permanent, it can actually increase the risk 20X.

    Even though the data on the CDC's site contradicts their recommendation, they appeal to the emotions of parents, and play on their fears.

  145. Re:Lie in summary by spongman · · Score: 5, Informative

    The BMJ, the Lancet, Neurotoxicology, The American Journal of Gastroenterology, The UK General Medical Council. How many peers do you need?

  146. Re:The numbers, like Sales of Windows, don't add u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However, the World Health Organization reports 164,000 deaths per year from measles (which is the leading cause of death among children), not the millions claimed by Mr. Gates.

    Re-read the article. Gates was claiming 9 million deaths per year (half of them preventable) for all childhood diseases, not specifically measles.

  147. Bill Gates vs other media figures. by derdesh · · Score: 1

    I don't know how the algebra of media exposition to human awareness works, but in my personal estimation, in regards to aspects of reality and science, Bill Gates is at least 10 times the worth of Jenny McCarthy; let's hope that magnification propagates to all parents and re-assures them that vaccinating their children is the right thing to do.

    For so many reasons.

  148. Patents probably kill people too by Casandro · · Score: 1, Informative

    Now there is another problem. In poorer countries people are unable to afford medication because of patents. Gates is and has always been a strong proponent of patents.

    1. Re:Patents probably kill people too by giorgist · · Score: 2

      Give it a break

    2. Re:Patents probably kill people too by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      Why? Without an estimation of deaths caused by patents vs lives saved by Gates' work on vaccines, how would it be possible to say whether his contribution is positive or negative? What if without Bill Gates Warren Buffet would have decided to spend money on generic drug research, for example?

      Quite apart from where Bill Gates comes from, saying that Bill Gates is wrong to support patents because they kill is a valid statement. I for one, won't give anyone a break on that.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
  149. Re:Lie in summary by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    I've seen where editors of those have thrown in their opinion, not a peer review note as aside, I don't believe there is any link to autism, all my children are vaccinated. I suspect other factors in growing number of immune system disorders and autism than vaccinations.

  150. Picking the weak strawman - why? by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You've picked the weak one out of the mix instead of tuberculosis, polio, tetanus, rubella or even measles - why is that? Even if you rig the game that way chicken pox is worse than you think and the chance of catching it is obviously reduced as less people around you are susceptable (which renders your 20x risk statement above a bad guess or deliberately misleading).
    Is it just the first example you can think of or have you been conned into rigging the game as well?
    I'll take your word for it that the linked above example is over the top emotional bullshit because advertisers and PR people are paid to do such manipulative shit. You and I are not paid to do so and have no such excuse. We should not assume that all vaccination has problems because of an anecdote about advertising hype.

    1. Re:Picking the weak strawman - why? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I picked chicken pox because I think the polio vaccine is a good vaccine and the chicken pox is beyond weak, and actively harmful. The "pro-vaccine" group has one of the same problems as the "anti-vaccine" group. They seem to think that if one vaccine is good the all must be, or if one is bad, they all must be. This is an absurd idea whichever side you are on.

      You make the claim that the anti-vaccine group lies and plays to emotion, and the pro-vaccine group must stick to the facts, but that is verifiable false. When I point to what is pretty universally considered a legitimate pro-vaccine site, and it shows them doing exactly what you are complaining about, you accuse me of being "conned into rigging the game". That makes you just one more example of the "pro-vaccine" group who will sacrificed your ethics to push your agenda.

  151. The only skeptic in the house speaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only person here that harbors just an ounce of skepticism against chemical cocktails cooked up by big pharma corporations who, believe or not, always will put profit interests first?

    Watch this clip where Dr. Suzanne Humphries discusses vaccines if you dare.

  152. Bollocks, as per usual. by mjwx · · Score: 1

    I know you're just trolling and I probably shouldn't respond, but the answer to your "question" is "zero". I mean, even ignoring the fact that 550 tons of yellowcake were found in Iraq,

    What yellowcake did they find?

    Do you mean the yellowcake that was on a UN weapons inspectors manifest since 2001 (so we knew exactly where it was, not like it was lost or anything).

    Also worth noting that the natural uranium (yellowcake) in question was nowhere near suitable for nuclear weapons production or even use in a dirty bomb. In fact it wasn't even fissile enough to be used in a reactor. What your post doesn't say is that no centrifuges that could have been used to enrich the inert material were found.

    So to correct your post, in 2008 the US completed removal of a known source of natural uranium. So no weapons of mass destruction found.

    Please review this material before posting this again. In fact I strongly recommend you fact check before posting again, Thank you.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    1. Re:Bollocks, as per usual. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      So, in other words, you agree that yellowcake uranium was found in, and removed from, Iraq. Good to see that I'm not the only one around here who knows wtf is going on. Not sure why you had to write 4 paragraphs in order to agree with me, but thanks, anyway.

  153. Malaria has already been successfully eradicated by OneThousandOneWebs · · Score: 1

    Malaria has already been successfully eradicated following a test on Moheli Island off the east coast of Africa, where the disease was endemic, by a Chinese team who used nothing but artemisinin combined with another drug as a mass treatment to 40,000 people.

    --
    -- Next Generation Web Hosting
    http://1001webs.info
  154. This might get me modded down by Bayoudegradeable · · Score: 1

    I know this will cost me, but hell, just throwing it out.

    For all the people we save with vaccines (I believe; my kids are full of em) are we setting ourselves up as a planet for creating a bigger dinner party in the future? Of course we have to save as many of people as we can and sort out the issues in the future. But where is the follow up after we save millions of lives? Are those lives sustained? Are the means to support them sustainable? Just hope we can conjure arable land and water as easily as we have conjured magic potions.

    --
    Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
  155. 23:47 Video Interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=608256A446123276E4E72A5351322186

  156. Do some research! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For chrissake do a little research before you all start shooting off your mouths. The history of vaccines has been riddled with fuckups and scams. Edward Jenner, the so-called "father of immunization" wasn't even a doctor. He was a quack. The doctors of his time tried to speak up but they were shouted down as soon as the money started to flow from government mandates. The smallpox vaccine killed more people than the disease by 10 to 1. And no, vaccines didn't eradicate polio or anything else. The disease died out also in areas that weren't widely vaccinated. The biggest improvements came from sanitation.

    Haven't any of you dummies figured out yet why people like Bill Gates are filthy rich and you're not?

    Smallpox and Edward Jenner
    http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/smallpoxbringingdeadbacktolife21nov02.shtml

    "My data indicates that the studies used to support immunization are so flawed that it is impossible to say if immunization provides a net benefit to anyone or to society in general." - John B.Classen, M.D.

    "It is apparent that critical medical decisions for an entire generation of American children are being made by small committees whose members have incestuous ties with agencies that stand to gain power, or manufacturers that stand to gain enormous profits, from the policy that is made." - Jane Orient, M.D. Testimony given to the U.S. House of Representatives

    "Most infants have been receiving up to 15 doses of mercury-containing vaccines by the time they are 6 months old. It is almost inconceivable that these heavy burdens of foreign immunologic materials, introduced into the immature systems of children, could fail to bring about disruptions and adverse reactions in these in these systems." - Harold Buttram, MD

    "The first step is to give up the illusion that the primary purpose of modern medical research is to improve people's health most effectively and efficiently. The primary purpose of commercially-funded clinical research is to maximize financial return on investment, not health." - John Abramson, Harvard Medical School

  157. Doctor huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this fraud still being addressed as a doctor?

  158. Re:The numbers, like Sales of Windows, don't add u by mr100percent · · Score: 1

    The "9 million saved lives" figure he is touting is the prediction of how many future lives will be saved once the malaria vaccines etc. complete their development, pass their clinical trials, and become widespread.

    "Over this decade, we believe unbelievable progress can be made, in both inventing new vaccines and making sure they get out to all the children who need them. We could cut the number of children who die every year from about 9 million to half of that, if we have success on it"

  159. Re:Please Show Me Evidence. Seriously. Please. by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

    religious parents who refuse vaccinations anyway

    Well, with that "doctor" being vocally anti-vaccine they can defend their stupid position with "But that doctor said so! And he is a doctor"

  160. Present the facts, then let the parents decide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Natural selection will determine who should survive. If someone's parents are credulous enough to take the risk of denying their children immunizations, then it's likely that those parents will raise their children to be idiots, anyway.

  161. Re:Please Show Me Evidence. Seriously. Please. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

    That you were modded informative (while no one has modded me at all) suggests that I'm right about this.

    Do explain how that works.

    You're just continuing to act as though certain things were patently obvious even when, on actual reflection, they''re not.

    The impact of measles is life-changing. As is that of rubella, whooping cough and polio. Furthermore, people do die from these diseases. Those are patently obvious. The only thing that remains is how many people have suffered from these diseases because their parents refused to vaccinate them. Since vaccination is a % game, there is no guarantee - but you can still derive expected values from statistics. And the links in the lmgtfy site will tell you more about that. So even that is patently obvious.

    Participate in the discussion, or don't.

    It's difficult to have a discussion if one side refuses to listen.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  162. Re:The numbers, like Sales of Windows, don't add u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Positing that your numbers are correct:

    UNICEF gives a number of 2.2 billion for the world population of children.

    So, we vaccinate 1.8 billion children out of 2.2 billion. Out of the remaining 400 million, 164,000 die from measles. An unknown number suffer lifelong consequences of catching measles.

    On the other hand, we vaccination 1.8 billion children, and there isn't an epidemic of autism breaking out around the world...

    Not only that, according to Wikipedia (yes, I know, but...) the fatality rate for measles is 3 deaths per 1,000 cases in otherwise health populations. If we *didn't* vaccinate those 1.8 billion children, then we could expect about five and a half million deaths due to measles each year. Except, the wiki article notes that in developing countries with poorer nutrition, the death rate can be more than 1 in 4, which would be 500 million deaths. Assuming they didn't die of some other disease they could be vaccinated against.

    So, if some nutter says they're not going to get their child vaccinated, you can tell them that you think they're being very brave, and that you sincerely hope their child isn't one of the 3 in 1,000 that dies from a completely preventable disease.

    Because I can tell you from personal experience - burying a child sucks.

    (not disease-related, I think vaccines are a good thing)

  163. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by narcc · · Score: 1

    Then not vaccinating your child is WORSE than giving him cigarettes.

    I'll agree to that.

    If the "worst parent award" came down to one guy who doesn't vaccinate his kids and another guy who gives his children booze and cigarettes, the anti-vaccine guy wins hands-down.

    Not getting vaccinated harms not only your children, but the whole community. Anti-vaccine "people" are a real and serious threat to civilization.

  164. not individually rational to use vaccines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If everyone else takes the vaccine chances are you are better off by refusing to get the vaccination (as the negative side-effects of a vaccination will probably outweigh the negligible benefit).

    Of course everyone else thinks the same way.

    This leads to lots of unvaccinated people, increased spreading of the disease vaccination helps to prevent and the benefits of vaccination outweighing the side-effects.

    People will continue to use vaccination until a large part of the society is vaccinated and side-effects outweigh benefits again.

    So it would be rational to expect a society to oscillate between periods of very poor and very good degrees of vaccination.

  165. to be honest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill is an authority on the spreading of viruses.

  166. Sunjectivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its funny, while you may get say 1-2 children in a 100 000 that may have adverse reaction to a vaccine, resulting in death, the thing is if the vaccine wasn't around you may have as much as 25-50% of children having reactions and possibly resulting in death for that given strain. If the vaccine was made using a 'dead' culture, and those children that had an adverse reaction to this dead culture, makes you wonder what would of happened if that child received the real virus. Most probably death.

  167. Re:Please Show Me Evidence. Seriously. Please. by kumanopuusan · · Score: 1

    You're arguing against childhood vaccinations and you'd like to see evidence of retardation?

    I can help you. First, find a mirror...

    --
    Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
  168. Re:I still think it should be to parents to decide by narcc · · Score: 1

    I am a father and don't know who Dr Wakefield is and still decided not to vaccinate my son for pertussis and rota virus. I just don't think

    FTFY.

    Only complete and total morons don't vaccinate their children.

    I find it disgusting that someone as idiotic as you is raising a child. I can only hope that you don't completely destroy his potential by filling his mind full of pseudo-scientific and superstitious nonsense. He may end up and incompetent as you.

  169. Re:Penn & Teller are COMEDIANS, not Advisors. by paulmac84 · · Score: 1

    Putting Penn & Teller in the same category as Oprah and Rush Limbaugh just shows how badly broken your bullshit detector is. (I don't know enough about David Rockefeller to say whether he falls into the "Penn & Teller truth camp" or the "Oprah full of shit camp".)

    Considering that Oprah has hosted Jenny McCarthy and her anti-vax views, I'd say that Oprah is just as responsible as Andrew Wakefield for the death of any child that died as a result of the drop in the use of vaccines.

    For kids that are too young to be vaccinated, herd immunity is an important factor in NOT being infected with whooping cough (pertussis), measles, or any of the other childhood diseases which vaccines prevent. The deaths of this children could have been prevented.

    Andrew Wakefield, Jenny McCarthy et al, have blood on their hands.

    --
    One of the universal rules of happiness is always be wary of any helpful item that weighs less than its operating manual
  170. Re:Please Show Me Evidence. Seriously. Please. by Maritz · · Score: 1

    What does seem to come through from Wakefield and other doctors

    Wakefield was struck off. He was payrolled to create FUD about the MMR vaccine and stood to profit from a single shot alternative. He's a complete fraud. The only ones who disagree with this are the anti-vax movement, and they're ideologically opposed to vaccines and have shown that they couldn't give a damn about what the data says if it contradicts them.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  171. Narcolepsy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I completely agree on the importance of vaccination in general.

    But, as usual, bastards are on both sides, contra and pro vaccination. Especially when it comes to profits for the pharma industry.

    With H1N1 they induced a out-of-proportion hysteria. The vaccine they delivered in some countries was cheap and delicious: mercury and squalen.

    Finland and Sweden observed a strong peak in narcolepsy cases after that: http://www.swedishwire.com/science/8317-swine-flu-vaccine-causes-child-narcolepsy

  172. Don't marginalize inoculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A vaccine does represent a risk- both of an immediate reaction and long term immune system effects. We have marginalized that risk by, for example, encouraging flu shots that may or may not even contain the flu variant that spreads that year. There is no debating that a vaccination affects your immune system, and little evidence that flu shots have been more effective than good hygiene. But there is little research going into the long term effects of a heightened immune system through repeated purposeful infections with foreign material. The body sees a killed virus as a protein... What happens when normal proteins are attacked by the immune system? It's called auto immune disease and the cause isn't understood, but the effects include numerous diseases.

    So let's not pretend that vaccines are as safe as a stroll in the park, and that's been the common mindset. They are needed but we can't pretend that we understand the full potential for life long debilitating effects. Repeated exposure to a virus, alive or dead, is not necessarily the best thing for our immune systems. We're not improving it by teaching it to attack more things in our bodies. The more it attacks, the more likely it is to attack similar proteins we need to survive. Biology is not digital, it's squishy and logic errors are common.

  173. Re:The numbers, like Sales of Windows, don't add u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notice that that isn't even suggested in the summary.

    Bill says the anti-vaccine bollocks is a lie that has claimed thousands of lives.
    Bill also says that vaccinations (in general, not just measles) could cut down child deaths from 9 million to half.

    According to UNICEF Bill's numbers are accurate, though measles is one of the leading causes of child deaths, it is by no means the biggest.

  174. Re:I still think it should be to parents to decide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a father and don't know who Dr Wakefield is and still decided not to vaccinate my son for pertussis and rota virus. I just don't think

    FTFY.

    Only complete and total morons don't vaccinate their children.

    I find it disgusting that someone as idiotic as you is raising a child. I can only hope that you don't completely destroy his potential by filling his mind full of pseudo-scientific and superstitious nonsense. He may end up and incompetent as you.

    Hm...you're talking about feelings on a tech forum (while at it at least you could have corrected my grammar mistakes), eh, that's slashdot 2.0... Anyway:

    -Instead of vaccinating your child against pertussis vaccinate yourself as they make adult version now.
    -RotaShield® vaccine was withdrawn from the market due to the risk of intussusception
    -Flu vaccines have proven problems with potency, are administered after they expired and have more preservatives than specified. Bottom line, quality control seems lacking. For example some batches of H1N1 were discovered to have little potency and were pulled from the market and customers who received the weak doses were advised to either re-do it or forget about, depending on risk group.

  175. OK, so it's only chicken pox you're writing about by dbIII · · Score: 1
    It is quite interesting that you wrote the following:

    You make the claim that the anti-vaccine group lies and plays to emotion, and the pro-vaccine group must stick to the facts, but that is verifiable false

    As a response to a post that contained this:

    I'll take your word for it that the linked above example is over the top emotional bullshit because advertisers and PR people are paid to do such manipulative shit

    A metaphor for what I'm saying in the previous post is really just "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" and that vaccines have value even if there is some propaganda about one vaccine I really know nothing about. It looks like we are agreed with that and I understand now that you chose chicken pox vaccine as an example of itself and not vaccination in general. I misunderstood earlier so asked the question - why chicken pox as an example? Thank you for your answer and I'm sorry I accused you of "rigging the game". I was under the mistaken impression that chicken pox was being used as the strawman to question all vaccines.

  176. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You first.

  177. Is this the same Bill Gates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this the same Bill Gates who spends millions of his own money helping Monsanto invade and pollute the third world with its patented seeds - all in the name of the children?

    Is this the same Bill Gates who helped the US Government and Monsanto put Mexican corn farming out of business by flooding Mexico with cheap US corn, sold for less than the cost of production due to government subsidies?

    Is this the same Bill Gates who helps tyrannical dictators and murders like Robert Mugabe retain power so Monsanto can be the "seed police," kidnapping and murdering poor African farmers who cannot pay their protection money?

    Just checking...

  178. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You're as bad as Hitler"
    "Actually, new studies have shown that Hitler's evil twin did all the bad stuff, while Hitler was a great guy working at a hospital!"
    "Ok, so you're WORSE than Hitler!!"

  179. Re:The numbers, like Sales of Windows, don't add u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if his philanthropy included helping a murdering dictator and a huge multinational corporation take over all agriculture in a country, and sponsoring the kidnapping, torture, and murder of any farmer who refused to pay "protection" money (patent licensing) to the multinational corporation who infected that country with its encumbered seeds?

    Most hunger in Africa is caused by Bill Gates and Monsanto polluting the entire continent with their patented seed, then propping up murdering dictators like Robert Mugabe and using them to 'collect' the royalties...

  180. I agree by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    I agree fully with your argument. You are not part of a sustainable future, please kill yourself. The world will be grateful.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  181. in and of themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the vaccine itself isn't bad. what i cant figure out is why there's mercury in it. does not make any sense. its highly toxic, even in itty bitty doses. teeny tiny amounts is deadly. but we inject kids with it, 3 times. mercury and brain matter don't exactly get along. there's vids on youtube if you want to see what happens. its clear that that mercury alone causes it. why do we keep using it? i personally think its because 'they' want to control how you think. 'they' already control what you see and hear, if they can control the way your brain developed, then you are more or less under their control.

    another argument for those that wont bother reading the first.
    mercury is highly toxic. anti vaccine groups lobbied long and hard against mercury content for a long time, and the govt finally increased the amount of mercury 5 fold. at that point autism spiked. simply take the mercury out. its not a LAW to give these vaccines to the kids. you can go to a doc and get each vaccine individually. 1 at a time.
    i do agree that some things need a vaccine, small pox is said to be a dead disease. polio also. i knew a kid with measles, couldn't go over and play for like, 2 weeks. chicken pox does not need a vaccine, yes, there's kids that die from it, only cause the bible thumping parents wont go to a doc, ever.

    take the toxic heavy metals out of the vaccines and everyone will be happy. if ya wanna get technical, that would make the govt more 'green'. there would be longer living (pay more taxes) people who do not need special care, a drain on resources.

    i see it as a risk. there's a 5% chance of the kid dieing if you don't get the vaccine. there's a 15-25% chance of the kid becoming autistic if you do.

    also, the arguement the govt has, a kid without vaccines endangers other kids is completely false. the other kids are vaccinated (and autistic)

    also, have you ever heard of an autistic kid that di not get a vaccine? i would like information on that if anyone has some

    1. Re:in and of themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are some children who do get autism despite not being vaccinated. I know of one child who has Aspergers who was not vaccinated. However, his mother has fibromyalgia and has had a considerable amount of toxic exposure. Autism tends to be recoverable much more quickly and less severe cases where there are fewer vaccines. The question of autism and vaccines is more one of toxic overload. The problem is injecting known neurotoxins directly into the body of an infant with a rapidly growing and developing nervous systems. Any body under stress would be a candidate to be more adversely affected by vaccination than one that isn't. In reality, it is easy to draw a conclusion that all babies have a greater degree of physiological stress than most adults just based on the period of rapid growth and development. Furthermore, if the mother's vitamin D levels are low, the risk is greater to the baby and if she has any autoimmune diseases. If the baby's glutathione levels are low, then the risk is much, much higher. I don't believe any vaccines are safe, but the way it is done now is downright stupid. The thunder would be stolen from us antivaxxers if intelligent application of vaccination were more widespread.

  182. Bill:1, Jenny:0, Human Race:-1 by cherokee158 · · Score: 1

    I used to filled with moral outrage about the stupidity of people like McCarthy, but over time I've come to accept their stupidity as both inevitable and self-limiting. After all, if they and their minions are dumb enough to let their kids die of a preventable illness, their dimwitted bloodlines come to a screeching halt, which is a good thing for the species in the long run.

    I think one thing that gets overlooked in the race to "think of the children" is that the children are simply little bundles of more of the same DNA that started the mess in the first place.

    Natural selection is not a gentle process, but it beats a planet overpopulated with idiots.

  183. OMG!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vaccines cause scientology?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    This is now FACT!!!

  184. Re:Anti-vaccination is a rigged game for sociopath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a sense it's evolution at work: a selective force killing offspring of the gullible ...

  185. Microsoft is still kinda evil and all by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    But one has to admit Bill Gates has enormous moral backbone in all areas not related to open source and IP law.

    Unlike, say, Rupert Murdoch, who combines his paywall and copyright evil with standard everyday evil.

  186. Uhmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is nobody asking why vaccine manufacturers are immune from lawsuits if these vaccines are so fail proof? It just stinks a bit of deception on their part. I don't know... with all their good track record of wanting nothing but the best for their patients. ughh, I mean share holders.

    And the fact that on TED, Bill Gates specifically said modern medicine and "vaccines" can help decrease the world's population.. ahh nevermind, he's just a conspiracy theorist... or am I? I'm so confused with all these contradictions he makes!

  187. Is it so hard to consider v. are just "less harm"? by Herve5 · · Score: 1

    What I wish to underline is, of course the contents of a vaccine is somehow a shock to your organism. Indeed, that's even the purpose. And yes, among the various additives in it, some may bring additional wrongs as side-effects.
    Now, all the purpose of the physician decision, like for ALL medicine, is that the good this vaccination will do is obviously, vastly larger than the side-effect harm.
    My worry is that by painting a vaccine as full perfect -which it is not, we give an argument to the anti-vaccine guys. Of course anyone can find some guy catching a fever because of an injection of vaccine X. So what? Again, like for all medicine, the issue is a balance between strong good cure PLUS minor side effects.
    (of course, the lie on this autism thing is to present autism as an unexpected 'not-side' effect)

    --
    Herve S.
  188. Re:The numbers, like Sales of Windows, don't add u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am all for Mr. Gates philanthropy. However, the World Health Organization reports 164,000 deaths per year from measles (which is the leading cause of death among children), not the millions claimed by Mr. Gates. In addition, WHO reports that 83% of all children are vaccinated against the measles and that those who aren't are mainly poor countries without access.

    FYI the article isn't just talking about measles specifically. If you read the quote in context he is talking about 'preventable' deaths in general, not just measles.

  189. Re:The numbers, like Sales of Windows, don't add u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because the numbers have been plummeting outside the US due to a massive vaccination campaign. Measles deaths were 750,000+ less than a decade ago. In the US and parts of Europe, however, the numbers are rising due to the vaccine scare.

  190. Re:The numbers, like Sales of Windows, don't add u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    164,000 cases per year for oh, say 9 years is a million. The numbers don't add up for a single year, but they do for the total number of DEAD CHILDREN lost because their parents were convinced not give those children medicine that would saved their lives.

  191. Finally using his powers for good by IBitOBear · · Score: 0

    instead of windows.

    Someday "windows" will be synonymous with "waste" and "evil"... Just saying... Not to troll or anything...

    Friends don't let friends open .doc files... .doc files aren't windows, but they have been touched by it...

    is this a troll yet... or just a truth...?

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
  192. STOP RIGHT THERE by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    You can't prove a negative

    http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html

    1 year Geek membership suspension + 6 months probation!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  193. is Bill a Doctor by rodneylee · · Score: 1

    No matter what Bill says, you should have choice, forced Vaccines are not right now matter what, Bills not a Doc nor am I, but if there are harmful chemicals in Vaccines, that needs to be addressed, having a nation "Dumbed Down" with Mercury is not really a good solution to the flew, there are also alternatives like bumping up th immune system so the body can fight these diseases naturally. The Choices should be made known and the right to Choose given to all.

  194. only if you have zero desire to read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gates didn't claim that number for measles. " We could cut the number of children who die every year from about 9 million to half of that, if we have success on it."

    That number is directly from the WHO: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs178/en/index.html

    "Key facts

    . Nearly 9 million children under the age of five die every year, according to 2007 figures.
    . Around 70% of these early child deaths are due to conditions that could be prevented or treated with access to simple, affordable interventions."

  195. Re:The numbers, like Sales of Windows, don't add u by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    The "9 million saved lives" figure he is touting is the prediction of how many future lives will be saved once the malaria vaccines etc. complete their development, pass their clinical trials, and become widespread.

    "Over this decade, we believe unbelievable progress can be made, in both inventing new vaccines and making sure they get out to all the children who need them. We could cut the number of children who die every year from about 9 million to half of that, if we have success on it"

    Actually, he makes the statement, as you quoted, that there are 9 million deaths a year and that we could cut that in half. Unfortunately, those 9 million are not all from infectious diseases that could be eradicated with a vaccine. For children under 5, the most vulnerable, according to the WHO, the top two would be malaria and measles. Together, these comprise 450,000 deaths. Also according to the WHO, the largest killer is malnutrition. This amounts to approximately 1 million deaths in that age group and can not be cured with a vaccine.

    Mr.Gates should be commended for his work, but the numbers he uses are not realistic. I imagine what he has done is mixed figures for children and adults, but then why refer to saving children, alone?

    And none of what he is doing/saying addresses the issue of corrupt regimes who receive the funding to purchase the vaccinations but use it for other things.

  196. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  197. typo by LiteralKa · · Score: 1

    Hugh Pickens writes writes

    --
    nonconformity at work
  198. Bad Rap.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Despite the common flaws with the company, Bill Gates is actually a great guy. He donates loads of money to research and education. This is just a prime example of his generosity. When I was 13, I was in the whole "Hate Microsoft, Bill Gates Must Die" trend, but today at the age of 28, I stand here saying "GO BILL GO!" ...

  199. adaptation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it true that some kids might, because of their genetics, be more likely to survive a disease than other kids (or adults, for that matter)?

    Yes.

    Is it true that using vaccines could save the lives of many of the kids (and adults) who aren't so likely to survive?

    Yes.

    Is it true that genetics, including a genetic predisposition to an immune system that is insufficient to protect one against a disease, are passed on when one breeds?

    Yes.

    So......is it true that the widespread use of vaccines could create a genetic dependency upon the vaccines within the population?

    Seems so.

    I can't put words in Maher's mouth, but I can see why there is room for a debate.

    1. Re:adaptation by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Is the cost to our society smaller to let the "weak and frail" die so that only "the strong" breed? We would get even a "better" result to close down the whole medical industry with that type of logic.

      And don't get me started with prescription glasses....

  200. Why would Gates make this comment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To answer the question, take a look at his investment portfolio. The man is a businessman, and a very influential one. So what does his investment portfolio look like?

    Is he invested in drug manufacturers? Insurance companies? Hospital corporations? Drugstores, such as CVS, Walgreen, etc.? In any of these cases, his comments are self-serving: he wants people and insurance companies (or government-funded health-care providers) to buy more vaccines. And drugs. And doctor visits.

    I know my own experiences with flu and other vaccines, and to say the least, every single time I have succumbed to the pressure to get a vaccine, beyond the ones for tetanus, tuberculosis and polio I got when I was very small, I have ended up having to pay for further doctor care as a result.

  201. Population control by duanes1967 · · Score: 1

    So, what part of saving kids from disease causes population control? Gates specifically says that "Population Control" is a primary goal - does that mean that birth control will be a component of vaccinations? I am still quite skeptical that there is not a vaccine or pesticide link to ADHD and other issues. Case in point, there are NO occurrences of ADHD among strict Mennonite and Amish populations. Aside from eating primarily organics foods, they do not vaccinate. There should be some studies into this very localized aberration as it should help find the real cause. For most of the populations suffering from disease and famine, the real problem is government corruption and war. Example, Somalia used to be one of the leading civilizations in the Egyptian era (2500 years ago). The weather hasn't changed, nor the soil - only the government and war lords. Afghanistan had virtually eradicated poppy production until the Afghan war. Now, after only 8 years they produce 95% of the world's opium. Score one for the US. I am reminded of the scene in Fifth Element where Zorg explains how the world works. All of the possessions do nothing. Chaos and destruction create jobs and a means for all of the workers to make more little workers to keep the process going. Very insightful.

    1. Re:Population control by wilson_c · · Score: 2

      Reducing childhood mortality lowers fertility rates within a generation or so. This is because parents in developing nations won't have large numbers of children if they know that their chances of survival are good.

  202. Gates FRAMEs well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, nice framing the "Straw man".
    This is why I never trust Gates.

    Russian, much of the EU and Japan have BANNED Thimerosal from flu shots.
    So, it's not an Anti-Vacine crowd, it's an Anti-Thimerosal crowd.
    These countries found sufficient SCIENTIFIC REASON to Ban Thimerosal from All Shots.

    Get Rid if the Thimerosal from flu shots, and you don't have a issue?
    Big Pharma is using Risk Management, to protect themselves from Law Suits, instead of using Risk Management to Protect their Customers, CHILDREN.

  203. Re:Anti-vaccination is a rigged game for sociopath by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

    I disagree about it being depressing... It's things like this that keep me sane as a member of the species. Every day I witness untold acts of utter stupidity and I long for the days when natural selection would take care of people to dumb to manage basic tasks. Fortunately natural selection isn't gone, just changed. These parents who are too stupid to care for their children will end up with dead children (don't let emotion get in the way here, yes dead children are horrible but it's the way evolution works). Things like the anti-vaccine crap are keeping the level of stupidity in our species in check. As terrible as it is that these children die through no fault of their own; be glad that the parents' genes are now (indirectly) out of the gene pool. That's a cold hearted sentiment, but sometimes you have to let idiots remove themselves from the gene pool for the good of mankind. That's what the Darwin Awards is all about.

  204. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if the others around you dont want to get "harmed" maybe they should take the vaccine

  205. Re:How about... by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

    I agree, but unfortunately it's an opinion that can't be expressed without being construed as inflammatory. Parents don't like to hear that having children contributes to the world's demise. But money can be spent to encourage population control: promote adoption, condoms, birth control, and (gasp) abortion. Some people refuse to acknowledge that there are no population controls in our current society --- wars don't take out the percentages they used to, reproduction is outpacing the effectiveness of disease, and to top it all off people are living longer -- maybe this is because it conflicts with their "life is sacred" beliefs, maybe because it won't be a problem until after their dead, but very few people care. Regardless, lowering the population is much more important than keeping everyone alive. The issue just presents a moral dilemma most are uncomfortable addressing.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  206. Credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Famous lies:
    - No one will ever need more than 640k of RAM
    - Microsoft is not a monopoly
    - The entire SCO vs Novell suit
    - Bing isn't copying Google's search results

    Even if he's right, he should have the sense to use a credible messenger.

    Or perhaps, as Paula Jones of Groklaw explained the, "I wouldn't call it a squabble, personally. I'd call it an ethical issue. And that's why Microsoft can't understand why people care, I suspect."

  207. sounds like... by airdrummer · · Score: 1

    "...playing a manipulative game where truth did not remotely matter..."

    politics as usual:-(

  208. put ur existance where ur mouth is... by airdrummer · · Score: 1

    & off urself;-\

  209. Re:OK, so it's only chicken pox you're writing abo by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    I made the quoted statement because of the previous post where you claimed that the pro-vaccine groups had to stick to the fact, which isn't true. They are just as guilty as the anti-vaccine group.

    A big problem with the debate is that people are grouping everything into vaccination in general. It makes the discussion non-productive. It would be like a debate on whether eating is good for you. One side will show how not eating will kill you, and the other side will show how eating will kill you by pointing out how deadly arsenic is, or point to reports on heart disease.

    As a concept, vaccines are very very good, but just like eating, that doesn't mean that you want to just start throwing just anything into your body. It also means that you should not just look at what this is going to do to you today, but what it is going to do to you in 20 years, as well as what your options are.

    If the pro-vaccine group would stop calling the anti-vaccine group murders, and calling for imprisonment, and start discussing each vaccine as a separate medical procedure, they would gain a lot more traction. The Autism scare was over a 'study' on the MMR vaccine. How many parents didn't get the polio vaccine because when they heard the debate on Autism and and avoided ALL vaccines because nobody made it clear to them that it was only the MMR vaccine in question, and then it was only the combo version at that?

  210. Mercury by matria · · Score: 1

    Funny you should mention the mercury based preservative business. I've been waiting to hear the conspiracy theories blossom over this one http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101203-homosexual-birds-mercury-science/

  211. Fixed that for you (happy ending) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "....but there was only one parachute. Bill Gates sizes up the situation and hands the parachute to the other 2 guys, saying "It will be fine after we take off again".

    I now return you to your joke.

  212. Key differentator by Plugh · · Score: 1
    There are two very very different points of view at play here:
    1. 1. Vaccines are good/bad, and therefore people should/should not vaccinate
    2. 2. Vaccines are good/bad, and therefore people shall/shall not be compelled to vaccinate

    The root issue is not whether vaccines are, on balance, "good" or "bad".
    The root issue is whether physical force will be applied to those who disagree with your assessment of vaccines.

    1. Re:Key differentator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen. It was very nice to read that someone still believes in America's principles.

    2. Re:Key differentator by Plugh · · Score: 1

      Quoth AC:
      It was very nice to read that someone still believes in America's principles

      There are hundreds of us, all converged on New Hampshire. See my sig; you can join the fun!

  213. Bill Gates is a scientist now? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 0

    Since when is Bill Gates a scientist? I don't give a SCO share what he thinks on the subject.

    I'd like to point out also that this entire story has been misreported. The researcher in question lost his medical license over things he never claimed and didn't say in his research.

    I've heard him speak repeatedly, and he has never claimed that there is a link, but that there seems to be a correlation which deserves more research.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  214. Vaccines by LordStormes · · Score: 1

    First effective anti-virus product Microsoft's made.

  215. And Bill Gates is an expert in this field, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because he's rich?

  216. Re:He's right - WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Again Dr. Wakefield's research and analysis is completely misrepresented. Dr. Wakefield was NOT against vaccinations. What he was against was giving multiple vaccines at one time to young children when it was more likely to result in complications for children, especially those with compromised immune systems. In Dr. Wakefield's studies he found evidence of MMR in the guts of children he examined. So, all he was asking is that further study be done to find out why this was the case - and he was crucified for it by the medical establishment. He also was for single dose vaccines rather than multi-dose vaccines, where preservatives are needed.

    Other issues:
    1. Mercury was being used (as thimerasol) as a preservative for multi-dose vaccines for YEARS past the date it was supposedly taken off the shelf. I know this because I had my physician, who claimed they didn't use it any more, actually read the label on the box of vaccine that she was about to administer to my children. OH MY GOD - IT WAS STILL THERE!
    2. Two of my kids managed to take all their vaccine shots with no apparent issues at the time, though one is now allergic to yeast, wheat and dairy. The third child was a beautiful, responsive boy of a little more than a year of age - we have this on video tape - until 2 weeks after his shots. It was like night and day. He no longer could put two words together, would rarely engage with anyone at play, would stare at sticks and other objects. He had turned autistic.
    Skip ahead 2.5 years. He could still not say anything more than one or two words, even with intensive therapy. However, with the observation of another parent who noticed that my child acted much like her child, and after some tests by another non-mainstream doctor, we switched his diet to completely gluten-free, casein-free, and soy-free. After less than one week my child spoke his first sentence "Mommy, there's a man on that roof". Since then, by staying on his diet, he is about 90% normal socially though many of the physical issues associated with autism still apply.
    3. Why are baby girls being given vaccines for a disease that is either sexually transmitted or blood-borne and the immunity wears off by the time they are 10 or 11 years old?
    4. Why are babies given vaccines for chicken pox when the disease itself rarely has any complications? The incidence of shingles in young adults (my oldest son included - and he had the vaccine when was a child) and where the occurrence is far more serious has since skyrocketed.
    5. Why are many vaccines these days using peanut and other oils? Injecting those oils into the bloodstream are considered to be a leading cause of allergies to peanuts and other nuts.

    Yes, vaccines can be very useful tools in the fight against disease if they are properly prepared and administered. Unfortunately, big pharma, the CDC and the FDA are not interested in making them as safe as they should be made, nor considering their possible detrimental effects. As with many things these days, follow the money. Dr. Wakefield did not stand to benefit substantially from anything he said or wrote, but pretty much all of his detractors did.

  217. Don't villainize anti-vacciners, fix the problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that I am no longer vaccinating my children in no way endangers other children. If vaccines work so well, then only my children should be at risk. There are real side effects to vaccines and we have, unfortunately, seen them. It is ludicrous to think that someone should ask me to sacrifice my children for some perceived greater good. It is unethical for any doctor to consider other children when dealing with my children. The doctor is required to consider the patient in front of them at the moment.

    If Bill Gates really wants to stop the anti-vaccine movement, then perhaps he should investigate further how to make vaccines safer and more logical. For example, there is no adequate argument that a 2 month old needs a tetanus shot. IF the other components of DTaP are necessary, then logic would prevail not to include something that is unnecessary and very unlikely to occur in even a toddler and is treatable. No point in subjecting anyone to unnecessary medical procedures is in line with medical ethics.

  218. Re:Don't villainize anti-vacciners, fix the proble by n6kuy · · Score: 1

    No newborn needs a HepB shot either, since newborns are usually not sexually active nor needle abusers.

    --
    If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
  219. Re:Don't villainize anti-vacciners, fix the proble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here are some of the reasons a tetanus shot is unnecessary in an infant or toddler:
    Tetanus is a strict anaerobe. It cannot survive in an environment with any oxygen whatsoever. 2 month olds are not running through fields with rust nails. Even if it takes time for an infant to develop immunity against tetanus through the vaccine at what point is tetanus a real risk to a child? One must always bear in mind the disease. The fact that it is a strict anaerobe is extremely significant. Tetanus will not survive in oxygenated tissue. This is why stepping on a rusty nail is of concern. Puncture wounds on the feet that are not easily cleaned are of concern as the tissue is poorly oxygenated in the bottom of the feet, particularly where well calloused. Where tetanus is NOT a problem in young children is in that they are undergoing rapid growth and even their feet are well oxygenated, particularly compared to that of an adult or older adult. Furthermore, tetanus is a bacterium. Tetanus is treatable with antibiotics. If that doesn't work, there are still other methods of treating tetanus. The BEST treatment for tetanus is hyperbaric oxygen therapy, HBOT. HBOT hyperoxygenates the tissues, all the tissues. It infuses oxygen under pressure into deep tissues, into plasma and so on. In one study, they removed the blood from pigs, replaced it with saline, leaving them with no oxygen carrying red blood cells and they survived in a chamber as the saline/plasma was thoroughly infused with oxygen. Oxygen KILLS tetanus, period, end of story. IF by some odd chance it were not to work there is tetanus immunoglobulin therapy as well.

    As Bill Gates makes his argument for vaccines, he must be logical. I, as a parent and patient, myself, must trust I am being honestly told my children need something. Furthermore, tetanus is NOT a communicable disease. It survives in the soil as a spore. Entering the body in tissue without oxygen, it can leave the spore stage and reproduce. Tetanus CANNOT in any way be eradicated, nor can anyone CATCH tetanus from someone else. It is NOT communicable. My children cannot get tetanus from a bite of another child as the mouth is highly oxygenated. This is an argument being made by pro-vaxxers as to why tetanus vaccines are necessary in infants.

    So, I am asked to inject my children with something that is not an issue, if it were, can be treated and has a risk associated with it. Furthermore, injecting my children with a tetanus vaccine will NOT in any way shape or form prevent someone else from getting tetanus. When it comes to my children, it is my job to ensure that medical interventions are safe and necessary and that the benefit outweighs the risk. When I cannot trust the logic, it becomes difficult to trust the intervention. This is ONE example of an unnecessary intervention that does have a real risk associated with it.

    If AAP, the CDC, and Bill Gates want me to trust my children with vaccines, they must be safe and necessary.

  220. Woah there! by Wolfling1 · · Score: 1

    OK. So, we can safely rule out Autism, but keep some perspective people. There ARE some risks associated with vaccines. Some people have alergic reactions to them. Some people die from taking the vaccine.

    These risks were communicated to us when our son was vaccinated a few years back.

    Ironically, in a world where 99% of the population is vaccinated, the risk of a vaccine-related-complication is higher than the risk of the disease. In a world where 50% of the population is NOT vaccinated, the risk of the disease is far worse. I'd like to see a study that demonstrates where the cross-over point is.

    In the meantime, we had our son vaccinated because we did not want him to suffer vaccine-related-discrimination at school.

  221. What really causes most autism? by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    "Given that autism has spiked all around the world, and it's unlikely to be solely due to just increased detection, the logical question is to ask what caused it."

    Vitamin D defiency as well as some broader metabolic problems related to the modern diet and environmental exposure to toxins?
        http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/vit-D-theory-autism.shtml
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    1. Re:What really causes most autism? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Vitamin D defiency

      In more recent news, the author of one of the big studies which suggested massive Vitamin D deficiencies recently said that he was wrong, and that there's no worldwide Vitamin D deficiency crisis.

      >>environmental exposure to toxins

      Toxins is one of those great words that doesn't mean anything. Which "toxin"?

    2. Re:What really causes most autism? by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      "In more recent news, the author of one of the big studies which suggested massive Vitamin D deficiencies recently said that he was wrong, and that there's no worldwide Vitamin D deficiency crisis."

      Citation?

      Toxins include heavy metals (including lead in paint and gasoline, and mercury from burning coal), synthetic pesticides, estrogen mimics, arsenic, food additives, dioxin and other pollutants, and more. Now, people have always been exposed to some toxins. What is different for humans in the last century is the amount of human-produced toxins we are not well adapted to deal with going up and the amount of vegetables, fruits, and vitamin D, and so on we need to deal with toxins going down in our diet and from less sun exposure.

      I'll hope to see your handwaving citation :-) and raise you Harvard med school people (not that Harvard doesn't have problems) ; see also:
          "Environmental risk factors for autism: do they help cause de novo genetic mutations that contribute to the disorder?"
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19699591
      And comments:
          http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/new-harvard-paper-on-autism.shtml
      "Last month, Dr. Dennis Kinney and four of his colleagues at Harvard University accepted the Vitamin D theory of autism and then expanded it by adding five usual suspects. While I was thrilled to see the Vitamin D theory accepted, appreciate them crediting the theory to me, and loved seeing their paper in the same journal that published the original theory, Medical Hypotheses, their five additions are all toxins, the usual suspects. The authors imply these toxins are delivered to our genome by air or water pollution, such as mercury-contaminated seafood, where these toxins selectively damage the genome of those silly enough to be Vitamin D deficient. My problem with the paper is the same problem I have with any of the air and water pollution autism theories, why now? Certainly, if a toxin was causing autism, evidence exists that exposure to that toxin has increased part and parcel with the epidemic of autism. ..."

      It probably is a combination of both factors, IMHO. But, if I had to emphasize one, I think dietary changes to eat less vegetables and lack of vitamin D duet to fears about the sun might be more important.

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    3. Re:What really causes most autism? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Citation?

      That's the trouble with listening to ReachMD - you don't get to collect references. Essentially, he said that a bit of Vitamin D supplementation is good for you, as long as you don't oversupplement, but that the claims of a deficiency epidemic are overstated. I immediately thought of you, since it appears to be an issue for you on /.

      According to PubMed, Vitamin D levels have decreased slightly in men in the last 10 years, and have been unchanged in women (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19064511?dopt=Abstract). So it's perhaps unlikely to be causing the spike in autism.

      As far as your toxins go, I don't believe any of them have been shown to have a strong correlation with autism. And it also doesn't explain the worldwide staggered spikes in cases being reported. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it had something to do with chicken mcnuggets or something like that causing it, but there's no conclusive evidence so far (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17367287).

    4. Re:What really causes most autism? by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      That study started with data from 1988, and avoiding the sun through spending more time indoors and travelling by car instead of foot has been going on for almost a century. So, even if correct, one may not be able to draw such a broad conclusion from that study. Also, they presumably did not look at the blood level of pregnant women or young children (who are kept out of the sun much more now than in the past).

      Also, from the summary, they start out finding a big differnece and then proceed to invent ways to show it does not exists. Which reminds me of this: :-)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Latour
      "In the laboratory, Latour and Woolgar observed that a typical experiment produces only inconclusive data that is attributed to failure of the apparatus or experimental method, and that a large part of scientific training involves learning how to make the subjective decision of what data to keep and what data to throw out. To an untrained outsider, Latour and Woolgar argued the entire process resembles not an unbiased search for truth and accuracy but a mechanism for ignoring data that contradicts scientific orthodoxy."

      I'm not saying that means they were wrong to do adjustmented, just what it reminds me of. :-)

      As far as deficiency, when studies can show things like a huge reduction in breast cancer risk within a year or two of some vitamin D supplementation, I'd say people were deficient.
      http://www.dkfz.de/en/presse/pressemitteilungen/2008/dkfz_pm_08_22.php

      When studies show kids have a huge reduction in influenza risk with some supplementation, I'd say kids were deficient.

      Also, I'd suggest these studies showing some effect are still using too little vitamin D, or they woudl see a bgger effect. But, as I've said elsewhere, a good diet rich in vegetables and fruits is part of the problem too, and that can also help prevent cancer and infectious diseases by improving the immune system.

      Anyway, the reason I harp on this is I can almost guarantee you that the kind of indoor-oriented person who reads and posts on slashdot (like me) is almost certainly vitamin D deficient unless they are supplementing, and will have multipel health issues from that. Just trying to help others not go through what I've gone through.

      The problem is, some wacky computer guy saying get your vitamin D and eat your vegetables if you want to be an effective programmer (rather than just spend more time hacking indoors drinking diet soda), sure, it sounds kinda crazy, beyond sounding impossibly hard. :-) But I can point to several hackers going down early from cancer or depression or obesity/diabetes or heart disease. Another one I learned about today, co-author of the Wiki Way, dead after cancer at around age 57:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Leuf
      http://web.archive.org/web/20080506125118/http://www.leuf.com/
      What a loss.

      By the way, on breakthroughs, if someone invented a cheap pill in their basement that prevented most autism and cancer, how many years would it take before anyone believed them? What would the medical industry want to do to that person to preserve their profits?

      Whan answering, consider that this guy was essentially beaten to death for suggesting handwashing prevented doctors spreading disease:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

      So how long is it going to be before people admit dermatologists caused autism by telling women and children to avoid the sun? Or that junk food caused some of it too?

      From:
      h

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    5. Re:What really causes most autism? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I actually get a lot of sun (I'm darker than my Asian wife) and supplement occasionally, but you've piqued my curiosity, so I'll ask for my levels to be checked the next time I get a physical.

      I'm not saying that Vitamin D is bad, or anything closely resembling it - in digging through the PubMed archives on Vitamin D I came across a lot of interesting studies, all positive about it - but rather that there hasn't been a significant short term change capable of explaining the autism spikes.

    6. Re:What really causes most autism? by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      After you get your level checked, you'll have to then decide what level is a good thing.

      Here are four different recommendations for optimal levels in increasing order

      IOM:
      http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2010/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Calcium-and-Vitamin-D/DRI-Values.aspx
      >20 ng/mL (but their recommendations sort of imply not much more than that is important)

      Dr. Fuhrman:
      http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/vitamin_D_recommendations.aspx
      35–55 ng/mL

      Grassroots Health:
      http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation
      40–60 ng/mL

      Vitamin D Council:
      http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
      50–80 ng/mL (or higher for some specific conditions)

      So, it's great to have a level. But even then there are disagreements about what is best.

      Remember, parents have been warned heavily over the last decade or two to keep their kids out of the sun.

      The vitamin D hpothesis easily explains stuff like the high rate (5X) of autism among Somali children or the high rate (9X) of schizophrenia among second generation Afro-Caribbeans in the UK.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/minneapolis-and-the-somal_b_143967.html
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2418996/
      http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/3/362

      No doubt there are socieconomic issues at play in the disparity, but 5X and 9X?

      Note that in the link you provide, the units were different (nmol/L which requires a higher level to be in the right range).

      I'm still not following their logic to dismiss what they found: "Age-standardized means based on observed serum 25(OH)D concentrations were significantly (P http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/07/22/pregnant-women-advised-to-get-more-vitamin-d.aspx
      "Please do not assume your levels are fine, as Drs. Hollis and Wagner found that over 87 percent of all newborns and over 67 percent of all mothers had vitamin D levels lower than 20 ng/ml, which is a severe deficiency state. As a result, the researchers recommended that all mothers optimize their vitamin D levels during pregnancy, especially in the winter months, to safeguard their babies' health. This finding could easily help to explain the disproportionately high numbers of poor outcomes among African American births, as deficiency is extremely common among people with darker skin colors."

      However, another variable is how much vitamin D do people with different ethnicities or skin color need? So, even the general ranges above, are they appropriate for all ethnicities? Maybe people with darker skin have other adaptations to function well on less? So, there remains more to research about all this. But with that said, just look at how much sun people got 1000 years ago, and look at how much people get now, and considering how melanoma is one of the easiest to detect and treat cancers, how much sun or vitamin D supplements seems "conservative" considering the conditions human are adapted for? Pretty much no humans in the past spent all their lives in caves that I'm aware of (except maybe rich ones, but they probably got diseases of affluence like diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and so on).

      We got hit by this ourselves with health issues with our kid (as well as a C-section, which turns out to also be at increased risk with vitamin D deficiency). We just naively followed all the advice to stay out of the sun, etc.. I actually asked our pediatrician if we should be giving vitamin D sup

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  222. bottom line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wonder if Gates has Pharma shares

  223. Re:How about... by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    You wrote:

    "Gates spends the money on the root of the problem, population control, then you won't have so many babies to die from disease, seriously there are 7 billion people on the planet and we aren't addressing population control but rather keeping more of them alive. We are in need of a 4 or 5 billion deaths from a super virus."

    One can make arguments for an "occupancy limit" for the Earth based on aesthetics or some other issues, but the carrying capacity of the solar system is easily in the quadrillions of humans living in space habitats, and we have the general technology to do that (see Gerry O'Neill's work, for a start).
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O'Neill#Space_colonization

    See also this Wikipedia page to see how the sun shines more power on the Earth each day also than all those reserves.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)

    PV power is expected to reach widespread grid parity real soon now, even with all the negative externalities of fossil fuels (pollution, war, sickenss) being ignored.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity

    (A recent earthquake in Indonesia released more power than all the planet's known fossil fuel and uranium reserves combined also, but we don't know how to harness that power yet. :-)

    The empowered human imagination is the ultimate resource.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate_Resource

    Would you be around, using a computer, and posting on slashdot if people a couple of centuries ago has said that we should keep the Earth's population at a hundred million to make sure we did not run out of wood for cooking fires and to avoid the problems posed by Peak Whale Oil? Or if ten thousand years before that, people had said we should keep the Earth's population at around a million indefinitely to avoid using up the readily available flint supplies too soon?

    I'm not saying limits do not exist at any given time based on our knowledge and infrastructure. But, we are no where near those limits as fare as the solar system. I just did a calculation that the recend SN 2011b supernova released enough energy in a month to power a trillion trillion human intellects for 10 billion years. There are 100 billion such stars in a typical galaxy, and a 100 billion or more such galaxies in the visible universe. That's a lot of energy, even if we can harness only a tiny fraction of it someday.

    We could easily support tens of billions of humans on Earth, with plenty of room for wildlife, if we used solar power and ate a healthier diet with a lot less animal products.
        http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
        http://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

    Ask yourself, who might be making money off of selling you despair leading to your advocating for supergerms and a massive die-off of humanity?
        http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  224. Bill is awesome!! by crabel · · Score: 1

    While I am no big fan of M$, I have become a big fan of Bill. He is simply awesome! I am currently battling with a bucch of homeopathic peope in an anti-vaccine forum. And, to be honest, those people are idiots. They have no idea of statistics or even biology. I rape them with wikipedia knowledge. Still, these idiots rech a lot of people. And try to convince them with celebrities which are on their side (*cough* Scientology *cough*). So: Go, Bill, go!!

  225. Re:He's right - WRONG! by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    You make some good points. Please also look into these links for approaches to improving autism situations to build on the dietary interventions you are already doing:
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html
        http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/vit-D-theory-autism.shtml
        http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
       

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  226. Looking at the vaccination broader picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting how someone who has taken advantage of the entire society with a closed source OS is now so profoundly philanthropic. It is quite easy to jump in this complex debate of vaccination and claim you have all the right answers, just because it has just been found that an anti-vaccination ex-physician lied. It is a major logical error - a bad generalization - to state that if one anti-vaccination person is a liar, they all are. It is also a major logical error to add credibility to someone's opinion because of his social status.

    Why this story about manipulated data and link to autism have overshadowed the fact that there are other problems with vaccines? Yes, I do recognize that vaccines are an excellent way to reduce the occurrence of a number of serious diseases. But just tell me why, in 2011, it is still not possible to produce vaccines that are free of thimerosal, an organomercury compound, free of squalene, free of aluminium, and free of any other proven toxic substance? Yes, of course, it is known that if your vaccine is too "clean", it is less effective and the immune response is not as strong.... but why not finding some "vaccine dirt" that will not be highly detrimental to those few individuals reacting seriously to toxic ingredients, even in minute amount? Are the pharmaceuticals too lazy to do so, sitting on traditional arguments, like it is justified to sacrifice the minority of those who happen to be too sensitive, for the good of all the others?

    This situation is not acceptable anymore, from my point of view. For example, you can easily find over-the-counter tear drops in unit doses so they do not contain any preservative agent. Why not applying this principle to vaccines, and ban multidose vaccine bottles? This wouldn't solve the adjuvant problem, but would at least eliminate the thimerosal issue. You have to start somewhere. Then, find a suitable adjuvant, stimulating a strong immune response, and presenting no known toxicity. I'm not an immunologist, but a substance like that should exist!

    If you are totally pro-vaccination, open your eyes, stop accusing of pseudo-science anybody who is not blind to what should be improved in the current vaccine formulations, and help develop new, safer formulations for everybody, including those who are highly sensitive to toxic adjuvant or preservative agents. Safer formulation will then be more widely accepted, and then more lives will be saved.

    P.S. Sorry if my English writing is not totally satisfying to you â" it is not because i have received vaccines with toxic substances in them, it is because English is not my native language.

  227. Bill Gates: Use vaccines to lower population by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill Gates: Use vaccines to lower population
    Billionaire advocates curbing CO2 by reducing earth's inhabitants

    Read more: Bill Gates: Use vaccines to lower population http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=127346#ixzz1DLJgtBp2

  228. Re:OK, so it's only chicken pox you're writing abo by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The Autism scare was over a 'study' on the MMR vaccine.

    No it was over a fraud by Dr Wakefield who was attempting to patent a rival vaccine and also accepting money from lawyers bringing a suit against the MMR vaccine manufacturers to the value of 400,000 pounds sterling. That was no "study". That was a scam. The damage has been done in that you have been conned into thinking it was a study around a decade after the fraud was revealed.
    It may seem like nitpicking but that fraud is the foundation of the arguments the anti-vaccine lobby get rich on.

  229. Come on Bill! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    You have a gazillion bucks in the bank, people are reading stories on /. about exactly what time you felt the need to go for a crap and what sort of toilet paper you used to wipe with....when you have that much pull in society, do something important with that power. Use your massive amounts of money (instead of just giving it away like the billionaires club Zuckman is in) to actually set up info centers to help people all over the world be more informed, so you do not need to actually send out the help and step on political toes, but you can set up centers to help inform people, and having access to computers for these centers at really cheap prices (M$ could have shares in this program or something)
    you would get some help from governments also as you are trying to help school their population in what to do if...xxx...or ....yyy etc...

    Use your power for good Bill, don't use it to just complain about the state of affairs all the time...we know this from the news channels already

  230. Re:Smoking seriously harms you and others around y by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1
    The evidence says that passive smoking is responsible for about 1% of total premature deaths worldwide.

    Worldwide, 40% of children, 33% of male non-smokers, and 35% of female non-smokers were exposed to second-hand smoke in 2004. This exposure was estimated to have caused 379 000 deaths from ischaemic heart disease, 165 000 from lower respiratory infections, 36 900 from asthma, and 21 400 from lung cancer.

    So yeah, it's not that big issue for lung cancer, but a stunningly large for heart disease.

    To refute my point, please provide links to peer reviewed studies contradicting the study I linked, no older than 5 years, otherwise I have to say that your statement "tremendously trumped up and in some cases just as falsified as the wakefield BS" seems like astroturfing propaganda from some of those PR companies working for the tobacco industry.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  231. Forced vaccination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think what is largely being neglected by Bill and others is that there is a difference between a forced vaccination and a necessary one. I am not anti-vaccination, but I am selective. Many things are vaccinated for in the states which are not always necessary, and I don't agree with combining different vaccinations into one shot so that a kid has to have less - especially since many times vaccination schedules are not necessarily coincided with a child's developing immune system. Gates isn't doing anything except spreading FUD telling people they're killing there children.

    I think vaccinations are great for what they're designed, but we can't expect to vaccinate everyone to the point that no one gets sick. As far as flu shots go, there was a recent slashdot article that also pointed out a study showing that the majority of the people who get flu shots also live healthier to begin with, and that some data suggests that the correlation between flu shots may be due to that.

  232. And he should know by hawkfish · · Score: 1

    It is pretty well known that Mr. Gates is on the spectrum, which makes his condemnation of this particular bit of lunacy even more powerful.

    --
    You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
  233. Re:OK, so it's only chicken pox you're writing abo by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    The reason I put the word "study" in quotes is because that is what it was called when it was presented, yet it was not properly done. Useing quotes around words that have described something, when the discription isn't really valid is common in the English language, and I believe you are well aware of this. Fraud in "studies" is common fare, as is committing the fraud for lots of money.

    The pro-vaccine groups are causing as much damage, if not more than the anti-vaccine groups. They are also as confused. You say in your very own post that Wakefield did not say that "Vaccines are bad". In fact, you claim that Wakefield was pro-vaccine. Yet you somehow come to the conclusion that his is to blame for the whole mess.

    Clearly his position was misrepresented, as he clearly wanted kids to get vaccinations. He just wanted them to get HIS vaccination. So, while the anti-vaccine folks have misrepresented what he said, causing a great deal of harm, you too are guilty of misrepresenting what he said, and contributing to that harm.

  234. Re:OK, so it's only chicken pox you're writing abo by dbIII · · Score: 1

    You say in your very own post that Wakefield did not say that "Vaccines are bad". In fact, you claim that Wakefield was pro-vaccine

    He was then when he thought he could make money that way but now a decade after being caught he's leading the charge for the anti-vaccine groups because he's making lost of money there instead (and keeps pulling out the "they mistreated Galileo for tellinng the truth" line like many scam artists). How's that for a fine illustration of anti-vaccination being a rigged game for sociopaths?
    So on one side we've got people pretending a criminal fraud was reality and on the other we've got advertising hype over a chicken pox vaccine. While both are bad they are not remotely the same thing and IMHO are of such different degree that they can't be seriously compared with each other. While elements of the US health care industry at times act like organised crime there is still a wide gulf between that and real crime.

  235. /. Sheeple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "anti-vaccine idiots"

    Wow. I usually credit the /. crowd with at least the sense to question / test what is considered common knowledge, but the sheer effectiveness of this brainwashing is... staggering. In most respects, when you see a topic that is this polarizing, don't you do your own research? In most cases, if you find out that a long-running belief that you've held and acted on is in fact incorrect, the consequences might be minor. But in this case, you're charged with trying to make a decision that could affect life: that of your own children, and those they come into contact with. Do you really want to blindly accept the propaganda (from either side) that you're fed, or do you want to try to do a little validation on your own? I would caution acting out of fear one way or the other.

    In researching this very subject, I approached this as I do most IT challenges by going to the root and working outward. So, it seemed to me that before you even get to the safety question, the first would be to try to validate: Are vaccinations effective?

    This, of course, is the generally accepted truth, but only a little research uncovers that even in the case of the polio vaccine, the incidence of polio had decreased by 82% before the vaccine was introduced. Most charts that claim the effectiveness of the vaccine start in 1956, after this huge decline. Correlation != causation; this is not only overlooked, but seemingly deliberately so, and is (at least) misleading. And this manipulated data seems to be used, along with fear, to induce the general populace to vaccinate. Though, if the data actually indicated causation, people would likely come to that conclusion freely, so one has to question the motivation of this deception.

    Taking the risk to vaccinate (just read even the manufacturer's labeling to get a real idea of what you're really getting into) for the possibility of some benefit is one thing, but if the effectiveness of a vaccine is similar to that of a placebo, the risks, in some cases, could outweigh the benefit.

    At any rate, why not see what raw data you can find? Studies are semi-useful, but I've seen much of the same misrepresentation of the raw data there. The Danish MMR study is the most complete study I can find for that vaccine; it at least had a control group (which most lack: bad science), but that group represented only 17.98% of the participants.

    "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

  236. Vitamin D & iodine deficiency kill children, t by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/autism-information.shtml
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/cancerMain.shtml
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/07/22/pregnant-women-advised-to-get-more-vitamin-d.aspx
    http://www.iodine4health.com/

    Both are involved with immune function in different ways. Adequate vitamin D is needed to make the brain's master antioxidant, glutathione. Adequate iodine helps excrete heavy metals. Both are involved with zapping cancer cells (it's said the average adult gets one cancer cell a day, but a good immune system deals with it). Vitamin D is essential to preventing pregnancy complications, including C-sections.

    The US RDA for iodine may be way too low, especially considering how much bromine and fluorine kids are exposed to. The vitamin D RDA is also too low, even with being recently revised upward.

    Eating fruits and vegetables also helps preventing lots of disease and is essential to good health.
        http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
        http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-the-food-pyramid-of-the-insane.html

    One can tease out a lot of the individual nutritional and environmental causes in some cases of autism:
        "Autism Research: Breakthrough Discovery on the Causes of Autism"
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html

    Let's get that all right before arguing too much over other stuff and what the true risk/reward assessment is for otherwise healthy kids and vaccines. A focus on magic bullets may be leading us to miss the big picture here about optimal health, which is earned by eating right and a lot of good lifestyle choices.

    If pediatricians educated parents more about nutrition, we'd probably have a lot healthier population, even without vaccines.
    "Disease-Proof Your Child: Feeding Kids Right"
    http://www.amazon.com/Disease-Proof-Your-Child-Feeding-Right/dp/0312338058
    "A groundbreaking book that explains the connection between nutrition and disease prevention-showing parents how to keep their children healthy by feeding them right. Bombarded by the media with stories about childhood obesity and dangerous hormones, pesticides and additives in foods, and told that allergies, asthma, and ear infections are on the rise, parents have never been more concerned about what to feed children. In this invaluable resource, featuring easy-to prepare, tasty recipes, Dr. Joel Fuhrman explains how cutting edge nutritional science can be brought to the family table with amazing results. "

    See also for how to break out of the junk food pleasure trap:
        http://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  237. Re:OK, so it's only chicken pox you're writing abo by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    No, there is not a wide gulf between them. Parents are being told by the government, and health care industry that they will be murdering their children if they don't get a medical procedure that INCREASES their chance of dying. How you consider that better than one man faking a study over a decade ago is astounding. Tens of thousands of kids every year are being subjected to an unnecessary medical procedure that increases their chances of dying of the disease the medical procedure is claiming to protect them from. How you can not call that criminal fraud, is beyond me.

    I'm not going to defend Wakefield, but the only fraud I have seen from concerning him was concerning a faked study to discredit a single vaccine. This loses much of it's "evil" points due to the fact that there are other vaccine formulations to vaccinate against the same diseases that were not part of the discrediting attempt.

    Whereas the chicken pox vaccine is being is being widely injected into most of the US's children. For the subset of the population that is leery of vaccines in general, the chicken pox vaccine being universally recommended is at least as damaging as the Wakefield 'study'.

    Your argument implies that fraud by an individual is worse than fraud by an entire industry.

  238. Re:Anti-vaccination is a rigged game for sociopath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely there's a case to argue that if you don't get your child vaccinated then you're guilty of child neglect and your child goes on to contract that disease then you're guilty of neglect. I mean, if Christian Scientist parents can be found guilty of child neglect because instead of tasking their child to the Hospital they prayed to their invisible friend then failure to protect and care for your child be believing some equally spurious cock-and-bull story should see them in court as well.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121322824482066211.html
    http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/2010/11/christian-science-theology-opposes-both.html
    http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/xsci/suffer.htm

  239. Re:OK, so it's only chicken pox you're writing abo by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Your argument implies that fraud by an individual is worse than fraud by an entire industry.

    It most definitely does not unless you pretend that I also believe some vast conspiracy theory about "fraud by an entire industry". After your earlier posts I expected a far more mature attitude. Were you drunk when you wrote this one or merely playing some childish game?

  240. Re:OK, so it's only chicken pox you're writing abo by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    Are you really taking the position that "fraud by entire industries" doesn't happen, or is even unusual? Really? Did you not see the fraud in the housing bubble? Do you not see the fraud that happens as SOP in real estate now? Do you think that the accounting practices in the Movie industry is on the up and up? How about how the ratings are assigned? The music? You don't see fraud as SOP there? Throwing out the 'C' word doesn't make your right. Conspiracies happen all the time. You know that. I know that. The legal system that convicts people of it knows it. Or do you think that the legal system charging people with conspiracy is just some conspiracy to make people believe that there really are conspiracies when they don't really exist?

    You clearly understand how the chicken pox vaccine increases risk to individuals, yet it is almost universally recommended. To believe that the chicken pox vaccine increases risk to individuals, while it being universally recommended requires that you believe there is industry wide conspiracy, or the industry wide incompetence in the medical industry.

  241. Stop playing games and pretending I'm someone else by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Look - you can argue with your flawed cardboard cutout version of who you think I am in your own head on your own all night without any input from me.
    I disagree strongly with your premise so there is no point extrapolating that any furthur. Fraud and massive conspiracy by the entire health care industry with no manifestation apart from using advertising techniques to sell more chicken pox vaccines? I really do not think I can say anything about you pretending that I believe that which can be phrased politely.
    You are being insulting and childish just to pretend you've won some sort of argument. Continue it in your own head if you are going to twist what I write to the exact opposite. Feel free to bring in irrelevant bullshit from everywhere like the housing bubble.

  242. Nutrition matters by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but there is a link between nutrition and many chronic diseases. And it's not just about "boosting" the immune system, but also about having a "smarter" immune system that knows better when to turn itself on and off in different situations.

      Other sources on curing type-2 diabetes with diet in a matter of days in most cases:
        http://www.rawfor30days.com/index4.html
        http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html
    If you study the science, you will see why. The combination of removal of refined carbohydrates, plus significant eventual weight loss, puts the body back into a range where it can produce enough insulin on its own (with less insulin resistance due to less fat) that the body can manage itself again (in most cases of type-2).

    Dr. Fuhrman is not a "questionable source". He is a board certified family practice doctor, author of numerous books, has a published study to show his successes, and has been on numerous media shows, and so on. His work is probably the best scientifically footnoted recommendation of anyone in the field of health and nutrition.

    His advice is easier to follow when you also read this:
        http://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

    As for Lupus or Herpes, I can only point to what he says:
        http://drfuhrman.com/disease/Other.aspx
    "As long as you are still breathing, it is still possible to improve your health with improvements in lifestyle and nutrition. It is typical for people to see a variety of great changes when they adopt the high, nutrient diet-style which I recommend. Besides reaching an ideal weight and lowering blood pressure and cholesterol, other problems are resolved too. For example, it is common for those with attacks of recurrent herpes to stop experiencing attacks. Those with indigestion and reflux don’t need their acid-suppression therapy anymore. People stop getting hemmorhoids. Their body odor improves. They have better stamina and think more clearly, and their skin tone and color improves."

    If you don't want to explore that, well, that's certainly your choice. There is a lot of misinformation and conflict of interest out there and it is hard to wade through it. And no one can guarantee results.

    But the logic is there -- immune system health is effected by things like vitamin D status and vegetable and fruit consumption (and probiotics and good sleep and humor and so on). That fact is undeniable based on the overwhelming scientific evidence, even with most scientific money going in to prove magic bullet drugs and ignoring basic nutrition.

    Nutrition matters. Other things matter as well, of course.

    If you do even the tiniest bit of research yourself, you will see the connection.
    http://www.google.com/search?q=immune+system+nutrition

    As I've said before, unfortunately, a focus on magic bullets often distracts us from the basics. And the meat, dairy, processed corn, and big pharma companies are in no hurry to tell us any different (even though each can sometimes be part of a healthy life etc.).

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.