Congressional Committee Casts a Harsh Eye On Vaccination Science

The Bad Astronomer writes "A recent hearing of the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform became a bully pulpit for antivaccination rhetoric when Representatives Dan Burton (R-Ind.) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh.) made speeches connecting vaccines to autism — a connection that medical experts have shown does not exist. Although there were actual medical researchers there as witnesses, they were mostly berated by the Congressmen on the panel. Vaccines are one of the most successful medical advancements in human history, having saved hundreds of millions of lives, and after copious studies have been shown to have no connection with autism. Despite this, a vocal antivax lobby exists, including, clearly, members of Congress. In part this is why preventable and potentially fatal diseases like pertussis and measles are once again on the rise."

Comments

Congress Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough said...

Re:Congress Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

No, instead we get people denied life-saving treatments because the insurance company bean counters refuses to pay for it and people going in debt hundreds of thousands of dollars since the other choice is death.

Re:Congress Sucks

[PortHaven]

And this is going to cease just because the government got involved?

Re:Congress Sucks

[alen]

2 or 3 congress people out of 575 are spouting some nonsense

this isn't congress holding a hearing, this is a subcommittee of some committee holding a hearing. chances are whatever is said will be forgotten before they have dinner

Re:Congress Sucks

[s73v3r]

It is far less prevalent in nations with Universal Health Care.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, when the system is not deliberately setup to fail by one party's ideological motivations. People in pretty much all other first-world countries with single-payer system do not have to chose between death and crushing debt from medical bills.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Squiddie]

The beautiful thing is that you wind up screwed either way.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Desler]

Nope. Contrary to what the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys would have you believe almost no one in other first-world countries would trade their health care system for that of the US. And, yes, this is even with the errors that happen.

Re:Congress Sucks

[History's Coming To]

Being unfamiliar with the legal and political systems in the US, can anyone enlighten me: if a senator says vaccines are bad, a parent decides not to vaccinate their kids, and people then die as a result, can the senator be sued? In the UK we have parliamentary privilege which offers a degree of immunity to our politicians.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Beardo the Bearded]

I've been in the Canadian, American, and Belizian medical systems this year.

In Belize, they'll do what they can. They can't get their hands on pretty much any supplies. Even gloves and syringes are impossible to get.

I've had to get some tests done at home. It took about 2 months to see a dive specialist and then another month for a follow-up. It took eight months to get an echocardiogram. I do require an MRI to check for nerve damage in my spine but I'm waiting to see the doctor who can refer me to the machine. OTOH, my friend got a CT scan in 30 minutes when they thought he was having a stroke.

In the US, you get in right away, any tests that you'd like. You just have to pay for it. There was a clinic in Belize run by a company in Texas, they wanted my CC first and then I could get treated.

I've considered -- seriously considered -- going to the US and paying out of pocket to get the tests sooner than Canada can get around to it. I mean, there's a simple fix, just add a law to prevent any elected official in Canada from having secondary health coverage.

Re:Congress Sucks

[tnk1]

If the beans you are talking about are limited medical resources, then perhaps you want someone to count beans. It seems like Congress could use a few bean counters itself, not to mention a little brains, and a heart.

Being mortal, much like yourself, I do understand that if it comes to getting a disease that could be debilitating or fatal, I certainly don't want to go into debt trying to avoid death. Although, I should point out that preventing death in general is a fruitless endeavor in and of itself. The harder you fight against that inevitability, the more that *someone* has to pay to keep you alive, whether it be you, the insurance company, or the state.

Moreover, look at who you are asking to be in charge of our health system. Look very, very closely. These are the same people who couldn't even keep their hands off of Social Security, and that was just supposed to be enforced savings. No one trusts the government, but everyone seems to want to put it in charge of health care. It's a weird dissonance that you see when you look at it. It's the exact same government, run by the same legislators and bureaucrats in exactly the same way, but somehow they are completely incompetent one minute, and completely trustworthy in the other.

Re:Congress Sucks

[AK Marc]

We already have death panels. The difference is that under the "old" system, your death panel makes more money the more people they kill. But the people that are (indirectly) paid to kill you are ok because it's "private."

Or are you asserting that there aren't thousands of dead people who were denied treatment (usually with the excuse it was "experimental") by their private insurance?

Re:Congress Sucks

[englishknnigits]

I'm not a lawyer or a doctor so I am talking out of my ass. That being said, I've never heard of a senator being held accountable for anything he/she said that turned out to be wrong (other than a blatant lie under oath) regardless of the consequences. They might be able to get him for giving unlicensed medical advice but they could probably get around that with technicalities. For example, saying "vaccines are bad" as a general statement isn't the same as saying "you should not give your child a vaccine because it will harm him" to an individual. The former wouldn't cause issues, the later could even though the implication is the same.

Re:Congress Sucks

[tnk1]

Well, why would they want another health care system? No one is arguing that it's not great to get health care for free. What people are legitimately wondering is how long the gravy train will last.

Of course, when it does fail, they will be in the streets burning tires when the money runs out, but until then, everything is great.

I don't know what Rush or Hannity say, as I don't pay much attention to them, but if they are trying to tell people that universal health care is going to be unpopular, they're insane. Still, let's not confuse popularity with long term sustainability, because that is a different issue entirely.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Archangel Michael]

No, but they don't always get the latest greatest medical developments found in the US either. MRIs still take months to get in Canada, you really want to be on waiting list for everything?

Re:Congress Sucks

[niado]

We have the same thing here. It is based on your system.

Re:Congress Sucks

[azadrozny]

I recall that the US Congress members also enjoy the same privilege. Most anything they say in an official capacity, especially from the floor of their house is all protected, whether slanderous, negligent, or indecent.

Re:Congress Sucks

[PortHaven]

Really, cause it always seems people are coming to the U.S. to get treatment they can't get approved elsewhere.

Re:Congress Sucks

[sjames]

You know, universal health care doesn't mean congressmen actually treat patients, right?

Re:Congress Sucks

[Archangel Michael]

And people make fun of Sarah Palin. Kucinich is a nut job, he is just left wing enough that leftwingers ignore much his nuttiness.

Re:Congress Sucks

[geekoid]

Y)OU cite sources. What rationing? what are you calling rationing?

Right now, in the US Rationing is happening in the form of '30+million people getting no health care.
Every country with government healthcare has better health care.

Re:Congress Sucks

[PortHaven]

That's right....

But you know what, we already pay more $$$ per person than those countries. So let's provide universal healthcare. Just do it for no more than we're already spending.

Deal?

Re:Congress Sucks

[HornWumpus]

They did kick Lehey off the Intelligence committee after he was caught leaking. He should have been hung.

Re:Congress Sucks

[geekoid]

There are no death panels.
Having people find out what kind of End of life actions you want is a GOOD thing. DO you want resuscitation? Do you want to be unplugged if 'brain dead'? and so on.

Much better then 1000s dying from the current insurance death panels. i.e. service denied.

Death panels is a scare term invented by republican and hyped through fox. There aren't people denying you services, or putting you to death.

You \have to be an idiot to hear someone say 'death panel' and actually believe it means someone is killing you.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Bengie]

The NHS example is just another extreme, which is effectively a strawman for the universal healthcare as an idea. NHS is just a poorly implemented version.
I was in the ER recently and while waiting around, I got to talk to a nurse who told me that most of the people they see in the ER are just people who could not afford their regular check-up, so they just come to the ER claiming to have a problem.

The hospital is ethically and legally obliged to take them in and run tests, which cost A LOT more than a regular check-up. Because the price is too high for the patient, the hospital just soaks the loss and raises the prices for everyone else who does have insurance, which causes insurance rates to go up, which causes more people to lose insurance, which causes more people to come into the ER instead of getting regular check ups.

Do you see the problem? It's a positive feedback system that reduces efficiency and increases costs.

Re:Congress Sucks

[cptdondo]

That must be why the CIA ranks the US 51st in life expectancy, well behind almost every European nation.....

There is rationing here in the US along economic lines. Try getting medications or medical care with no insurance and see how well that works for you.

Re:Congress Sucks

[geekoid]

No, but I wish they could. Oprah and Jenny McCarthy should be sent to prison for manslaughter.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Trepidity]

Yeah, I typically have to wait in the US to see a doctor for anything non-emergency. And definitely to see a specialist.

I guess there might be some super-premium service where you pay tons of cash out of pocket and get concierge-like service. But if you're a normal person with a normal health plan from your employer, you play by their rules to get scheduled.

Re:Congress Sucks

[jythie]

Healthier people keep working, and are more productive in general.

Health insurance does not just take 'calculated risks', it pays people to figure out why they should not honor their commitments. They are mind numbingly profitable because they are an incentive to not actually cover health problems, and thus as a system for actually keeping a population healthy they are a dismal failure... a failure the majority of 1st world countries have learned from and stopped using.

Re:Congress Sucks

[cptdondo]

And that's not rationing? If you have money, you can get it. If you don't, die. That's pretty severe rationing in my book.

Re:Congress Sucks

[DigiShaman]

Rationing!
Rationing!
Rationing!
Rationing!
Rationing!

Re:Congress Sucks

[Just Some Guy]

We already have death panels. The difference is that under the "old" system, your death panel makes more money the more people they kill. But the people that are (indirectly) paid to kill you are ok because it's "private."

Maybe it's a good idea to take out a life insurance policy with the same insurer. "Oh, $100,000 is too much for a new lung? OK. That works out to $735,000 for my widow."

Re:Congress Sucks

[atriusofbricia]

You \have to be an idiot to hear someone say 'death panel' and actually believe it means someone is killing you.

I don't believe that is what they think. What they think, and are absolutely correct about, is that medical care is a finite resource. In the end it ultimately doesn't matter whether it is paid for with tax money or private money there must be some level of rationing or it runs out. That's not politics, it's math.

The difference is that with private insurance you can switch companies and try for a better policy and better service. It is also far more likely to be efficiently run, and therefore not go out of business or suddenly cut benefits like government run programs will have to do when the money runs out. With the government you've got exactly zero choices and if you don't like what they did what are you going to do? Sue them? Good luck with that.

Re:Congress Sucks

[atriusofbricia]

Being unfamiliar with the legal and political systems in the US, can anyone enlighten me: if a senator says vaccines are bad, a parent decides not to vaccinate their kids, and people then die as a result, can the senator be sued? In the UK we have parliamentary privilege which offers a degree of immunity to our politicians.

Doubtful. If a parent decided not to vaccinate their kids because they think it causes autism, whether some Senator said anything or not, then they're blithering idiots anyway.

Re:Congress Sucks

[tnk1]

Care to elaborate, or are your rhetorical skills limited to just saying that other people need them?

Re:Congress Sucks

[EvolutionInAction]

I don't know about the European, but the Canadian Debt Crisis is... Well, non existent. How's the mortgage crisis coming along?

Re:Congress Sucks

[mcmonkey]

No, but I wish they could. Oprah and Jenny McCarthy should be sent to prison for mans laughter.

What's wrong with making guys laugh?

And I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss anything Denis Kucinich says, as he's obviously got somethings figured out.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Pope]

Being mortal, much like yourself, I do understand that if it comes to getting a disease that could be debilitating or fatal, I certainly don't want to go into debt trying to avoid death.

And therefore you will have found the cup with the poison is closer to you.

Re:Congress Sucks

[interkin3tic]

Who modded this troll? Honestly, it's hard not to go into hyperbole when talking about anti-vaxers. They're killing children. Literally, albeit less directly than slitting their throats. And these people have ears on congress. It's not enough that congress protects banks above the national interest, protects industry's ability to pollute over the interests of it's citizens and the rest of the world, and erodes our rights to make people think they're doing something to stop terrorists... NOW you have these people spreading lies about an invention that does nothing but save lives?

What about that doesn't suck? If there's a better example of congress sucking than this, what is it? The patriot act's passage? At least there were two sides in that debate. With anti-vaxers, they've got nothing. Papers which were proven bad, gut feelings, and a lot of movie stars vomiting into the media. That's all there is. Compared to this, the patriot act is a shining beacon of logic from our legislature.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Zordak]

I am in awe of your rhetorical skills, sir. Your thorough, thoughtful analysis of the GP's post had me spellbound from the first word, to the very last, nearly a dozen words later. And you even managed to say the words "false dichotomy" twice! That's doubly impressive, because sometimes smart people who know what they're talking about also say those words one after the other.

Re:Congress Sucks

[amRadioHed]

Maybe it seems that way because you aren't paying attention. People are about 10 times more likely to leave the US for medical tourism than to come to the US.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Ziggitz]

It also always seems to be the US and the third world where people frequently die of treatable diseases.

Re:Congress Sucks

[gorzek]

Would a "thorough, thoughtful" analysis really convince the GGP that s/he is wrong, or at least arguing a completely nonsensical point?

Without getting into a blow-by-blow, the "everybody dies someday so there's no in medicine" angle is a joke. I see it all the time, usually promoted by self-described small-government libertarians who believe it is a brilliant insight into the human fear of mortality. In reality, it's a lazy and thoughtless justification for antisocial behavior, not to mention hypocritical, given that I'm sure these individuals do go to the doctor once in a while, because it turns out they don't want to die of a simple infection or other eminently treatable affliction.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Rich0]

I think a factor to consider is that care can vary considerably within both the US and Canada, which makes many average comparisons misleading.

My understanding is that in a well-served area in Canada you can get pretty quick service. In remote areas, not so much.

In the NE US my experience has been that while you do need to schedule non-emergency tests, you're talking about scheduling them within a few days, unless you have rigid scheduling preferences ("I'd like a Tues between 3-5"), and then you might wait a week or two. Oh, if you want to see the #1 rated cardiologist in the NYC area then expect to wait a few months. However, if you just want to see any cardiologist you can probably find one with an opening in a few weeks at most, and again all of that is assuming non-emergency care. If you show up in an ER complaining of chest pains or something you'll be seen by doctors and have a barrage of tests started almost immediately, with results back within hours (varies by test, largely due to the nature of the tests themselves). I would hope most first world ER/AEs would have similar results, but I know a guy in the UK who suffered with pneumonia for a month or two before getting antibiotics with all the delays (perhaps he just failed to go to AE when he should have, but you'd think the first doctor to talk to him would tell him to go - if I called a doctor in the US to schedule an appointment and mentioned difficulty breathing they'd tell me to call 911 right away).

From everybody I've talked to (mostly coworkers at a multinational all with good incomes and insurance/etc) the sense has been that the US tends to have the fastest care - you just really get ripped off price-wise all around. Again, if you're picky and don't want to talk to anybody but the "best" specialist in the region then you're going to wait, but I'm not sure how many countries even let you pick a doctor.

Re:Congress Sucks

[crazyjj]

Agreed! We need to get government out of health care. I propose the following changes, in this order, to finally free us from the burden of government run health care:

1) Eliminate all healthcare benefits for all Congressmen, past and present. This will give them all the freedom to handle their own health care. I'm sure the Republican Congressmen will be the first in line to support this!
2) Eliminate all healthcare for vets and active duty military. They've earned to the right to pay for it themselves.
3) Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid. Grandma deserves the chance to choose and pay for her own nursing home care. Get government out of the way!

Re:Congress Sucks

[Straif]

There is a big difference in people leaving your country for often questionable and untested treatments (although you help make the GPs point by pointing out it's often the FDA (big government) which restricts the access to these treatments) vs leaving for the tried and true treatments which there is simply a horrific waiting line for.

Up here in Canada there are tonnes of stories of people who live near the border crossing over for day trips to receive same-day testing for things they are on months long waiting lists to receive back home. There are also a lot of cases of people going across the border to receive drug treatments in the US for drugs that while legal in Canada, are not on the approved drug list for certain conditions so are not covered for use. In most provinces you do not have any choices about extra health insurance to help cover those costs either, if the provincial plan doesn't cover it you are out of pocket for the whole cost if you can even get a doctor to prescribed the treatment for you.

Under a fully socialized medical system you as a consumer do not have the option to shop around for a different alternative to your current health care insurer. What the government says is law and getting them to change, even when you have the backing of the medical community, is a long and very time consuming process.

It's definitely not the best solution but at least in the US you can look for other companies to sign up with and while that process can be hard (again, often helped by the governments interference such as limitations on inter-state insurance) it does mean that 1 denial of service is not the end of any chance you have of help.

Re:Congress Sucks

[shutdown -p now]

Rationing exists in any healthcare system with limited resources (which is all of them) - it's just a matter of how you implement it. In USA, it's based mostly on your ability to pay - no cash, no care. In other countries, it's made available to everyone, which, of course, means that if you're a rich guy, you are not serviced as quickly or as well as you would in a system where you'd be the only guy buying the service (though in most places, you can spend extra $$$, beyond what you pay in healthcare taxes, to get better service - with some exceptions like Canada).

Re:Congress Sucks

[andy16666]

Canada takes just as long as the US. There is no difference. While you anecdote is cute and all, but this shit as actually been studied.

That's a pretty silly thing to say. Canada's system is universal and ends up costing the tax payer less. AND the wait times are similar. Overall, I'm pretty happy with our system and how it stacks up to the patchwork of semi-functional and generally inefficient systems that Americans have to navigate.

Re:Congress Sucks

[shutdown -p now]

Is Germany going broke? What about Finland, Sweden, Norway? Canada, Australia, NZ?

Countries that are broke are not broke because they have public healthcare. They're broke because they didn't balance their books. You can do that with overspending on healthcare, but you can also do that with e.g. overspending on military while fighting pointless wars all over the world *cough*.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Rich0]

That might not actually change their decision much. The decision is supposed to be based on quality-adjusted years of life. If they're not spending $100k on your new lung it is probably because they don't expect it to buy you more than a year or two, or maybe longer than that but living in utter agony or something.

If so, then they're paying off your widow no matter what, so it is just a matter of whether they want to dump $100k on a heroic procedure first.

Of course, such a thing would help keep them honest.

Oh, and if you have trouble paying your premiums on that insurance and you sell the policy to a 3rd party (who pays you cash in advance, becomes the beneficiary, and takes over the premiums) then you most certainly DON'T want those guys on your death panel. The faster you die, the more money they make.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Charliemopps]

Ok...
Doctors leaving Germany over low wages:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/german-brain-drain-sick-of-bad-pay-doctors-flee-germany-a-399537.html

Waiting lists for hospital treatment:
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nireland/healthcare_ni/healthcare_nhs_healthcare_e/nhs_patients_rights.htm#Hospitalwaitinglists

Hospitals unable to meet maximum wait times and resorting to fraud to meet guidelines:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-90691/Patients-cheated-NHS-waiting-list-scandal.html

Wait times continue to increase despite government pressure:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/19/david-cameron-pressure-nhs-waiting-times
"Recent hospital figures show the average waiting time across all 19 departments to be about eight months. While breast surgery patients are seen in less than a month, patients waiting for a pain management appointment can expect to wait years"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-20238418

Remember those "death panels" that were such a joke? Meet a victim of one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/2910780/NHSs-refusal-to-fund-cancer-treatment-costs-mother-21000.html

Re:Congress Sucks

[shutdown -p now]

The difference is that with private insurance you can switch companies and try for a better policy and better service. It is also far more likely to be efficiently run, and therefore not go out of business or suddenly cut benefits like government run programs will have to do when the money runs out.

All this hypothetical laissez-faire handwaving is well and good, but care to explain why, for an average citizen, healthcare is better and cheaper (accounting for taxes etc) in countries with public healthcare systems, compared to USA? Practice shows that 1) it is not more efficiently run (if by "efficiency" you mean bang for the bug, i.e. effective treatment and/or prevention per dollar spent), and 2) no matter how much you shop around, the best you can get is still worse than what you'd get in a public system.

With the government you've got exactly zero choices and if you don't like what they did what are you going to do?

Vote?

Re:Congress Sucks

[andy16666]

I don't know how other universal health care systems are run, but in Canada you have a fair amount of choice when it comes to who provides your care. The government isn't directly making any medical decisions or directly providing patient care. In other words, it's single payer, but not single provider. The government essentially acts as a single insurance company, where choices about what care is given are left up to the attending physician and are subject to available resources as in any system.

It's not a perfect system, but it's also not what most people think it is.

Re:Congress Sucks

[mcgrew]

You're talking about Indiana and Ohio, with perhaps the most retarded legislators in the nation. What I want government to do with health care is get the damned insurance companies out of it, they're just leeches; unnecessary middlemen. I have no say in how a company is run, I do have some say in how government is run, even if it is just one puny vote per candidate. Socialized medicine works, medicine as a business doesn't. Some things governments do better than the private sector, this is one of them.

BTW, Indiana and Ohio need to get rid of those turkeys.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Straif]

Canada and the US are only close on ER times, not on testing times or even treatment times.

In Canada, if you're not considered an emergency the timing for your treatments and testing is usually measured in months. In Ontario, for example, the provincial wait time for a CT scan is 37 days. It's 93 days for an MRI. And those are both averages (taken directly from the official Ontario government website). In many places it's not unusual to see triple digit wait times.

If you have a really good doctor who knows how to game the system you might be able to get that cut down by a couple of weeks but it's still not a same day or same week process and you really don't have too much choice in the matter. I know at least two people in the last couple months who were told that if they had the means they would be better off driving a couple hours south and getting some tests done in the US. The only issue there is that you have to make sure to pick the right facility. Not all MRI's are created equal.

Re:Congress Sucks

[sopwath]

Under a fully socialized medical system you as a consumer do not have the option to shop around for a different alternative to your current health care insurer.

This is not the case with a single payer system. Although the direct decision is removed from the consumer, the government still shops around for the best price for products or services.

It's definitely not the best solution but at least in the US you can look for other companies to sign up with and while that process can be hard...

Unless you're poor or your employer gets a kick back to offer a single health insurance option or you have a pre-existing condition. ...it does mean that 1 denial of service is not the end of any chance you have of help.

You're clearly in denial about the reality of poverty and income mobility in the U.S. The fact is that 10% of the population has de facto zero access to healthcare except in extreme emergencies. All but a small portion of Americans have low-quality health care options and anything related to a traumatic or chronic condition means going bankrupt.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Hewligan]

Remember those "death panels" that were such a joke? Meet a victim of one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/2910780/NHSs-refusal-to-fund-cancer-treatment-costs-mother-21000.html

It's true. These socialised health care systems have a horrible tendency to not fund vital drugs like this, just because the clinical evidence shows they don't work.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Rakishi]

I've never had complaints in the US about how long it took me to get seen by a doctor.

Yeah, I typically have to wait in the US to see a doctor for anything non-emergency.

Depends where you are I guess and how much you look into options.

I've had no trouble seeing a doctor after a couple hour wait at one of the walk in clinics in the city (which takes pretty much every insurance under the sun). I've also managed to get same day appointments as well. Now with my regular doctor that's not going to happen but that doesn't meant there aren't other options.

And definitely to see a specialist.

My gf has managed to get same day appointments with specialists in the past and worst case she had to wait a few days. I haven't had a need with my current insurance to get quick specialists appointments.

My last insurance, Kaiser HMO, I had no issues getting appointments with specialists same day if it was necessary (ear infection? wow that's nasty, okay, drive to our larger location here, you'll be seen in 45 minutes). Easily within a week for less urgent needs like sleep issues although, to be fair, their psychiatry department was utter crap.

I guess there might be some super-premium service where you pay tons of cash out of pocket and get concierge-like service. But if you're a normal person with a normal health plan from your employer, you play by their rules to get scheduled.

Trust me, my insurance is far from the best.

Re:Congress Sucks

[gewalker]

A significant factor in US avg. lifespan is that the US has a larger black population. Blacks don't live as long as whites even when controlling for other factors. Some factors are understood such as genetic diseases like sickle cell anemia that kills off blacks much more than whites, or diabetes (which includes a genetic component). This does not explain all of the difference, neither does behavioral differences such as twinkies and crack babies.

Re:Congress Sucks

[logjon]

It's a knee-jerk response to an uncomfortable truth. They've made up their minds. Too much freedom is scary. Europe's way is good. To point out the cracks in the European system that are only going to get worse as time moves along means that, gasp, we might just have to fend for ourselves. And that's scary to people who are convinced nobody should have to fend for themselves. So they plug their ears, or, in this case, mark it "troll". It's not to get revenge. It's to comfort themselves; we all know troll posts can be safely ignored and don't warrant a response. This gives them a little more time to pretend everything is hunky dory until their policies finally put us in a position where nobody has any choice but to fend for themselves. Personally, I hope I'm dead by then. If not, I'm still prepared to fend for myself. And they can shove off if they need something from me.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Rakishi]

However, if you just want to see any cardiologist you can probably find one with an opening in a few weeks at most, and again all of that is assuming non-emergency care.

Actually, you can probably get an appointment within a few days at worst in some areas if you don't care about who sees you. I just checked and in my area there's plenty of cardiologists with open appointment slots 2 days from now.

Also, at least in my city, there are walk in clinics that have most specialists on hand although you may need to wait some time (read: hours) before being seen (disclaimer: never tried walk in specialists). Very comfy chairs mind you so it's not too bad.

Re:Congress Sucks

[spitzak]

There are also a lot of cases of people going across the border to receive drug treatments in the US for drugs that while legal in Canada, are not on the approved drug list for certain conditions so are not covered for use.

Can you explain this? I would understand avoiding a wait but you already described this in a previous sentence.

It seems unlikely there is any way the Canadian health service will cover the cost of the drug in the US that it won't cover in Canada. So it would be full price in both countries, so I don't see how going into the US would save money. Possibly it is a drug that is not available at all in Canada even if not covered? But my understanding is that there are far more drugs available in Canada than the US as the FDA has stricter regulations.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Sentrion]

I live in America and get my family's meds mail-order from a well-established Canadian pharmacy. Saves me thousands of dollars, with or without insurance. Ironically, I'm not leeching off of the Canadian tax-supported health system - the Canadians are actually making a PROFIT off of me, even though those same meds from US sources are 10-100 times higher in price. In the spring I'll be flying to Bolivia to have dental work from an American (ex-patriot) dentist with a state-of-the-art facility and staff. Most of the cost will be in airfare and lodging, but four times cheaper than the same treatment in the US. I'll mix in some sight seeing to make it more of a vacation. Other Americans are flying to Spain for experimental brain surgury, paying out of pocket, generating profits for private practitioners, and getting treatment not available in the US even if it was affordable (which it never is).

In the end it doesn't matter what health care system America had as long as the laws are written to serve the interests of lobbying groups with billion dollar budgets.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Trepidity]

I agree it varies; my experience has been mainly in Texas. Also, my group coverage was via Kaiser Permanente, which does an entirely "in-house" system: you see Kaiser doctors at Kaiser facilities. In emergencies you can go outside the system, but if you go to a non-Kaiser doctor for non-emergency care the coverage is much lower. I've fortunately never had to visit an ER myself, but a friend of mine had to go to the ER in Brooklyn for a broken arm, and had to wait more than two hours before they put a cast on it. I assume the wait times are lower if you're having a heart attack, though.

Now I'm in Denmark where the service is actually quite good. Not only can I pick any doctor, but I can pick them through a nice online interface: there is a state-run website that lists all doctors within my municipality, and I can switch doctors there. And you won't wait 2 hours in the ER to have a broken arm set.

Re:Congress Sucks

[lgw]

Greece went broke and their healthcare system utterly collapsed. And they're somehow a shining example of how to run things. I'll never understand it, as long as I live.

This post is on topic for the thread, not particularly inflamattry, and tre as far as it's not opinion. There was no reason to mod this down beyond "I disgaree".

Political disucssions on /. used to be fun - argumentative, mind you, but fun. Now we've become DIgg, and it's ruining the site, because closed-minded fools think mod points are for silincing opposing views.

WTF Slashdot? This used to be a far more open-minded community!

Re:Congress Sucks

[QuasiSteve]

Can't say I've ever fully understood this part of the healthcare debate.

Many people who like the U.S. system will point out that their waiting lists are shorter - that is, as long as you've got the expensive medical insurance for it. Which, unless your employer has you covered, may very well be near impossible for you to even get.

But then, I'm from NL. If I want to bypass the waiting lists, I have that option as well: I can go to a private clinic. Yes, my insurance would have to cover that and that would be a hefty additional to the base insurance we're all practically required to get. But that pretty much would just put me on even terms, and get the best of both worlds if I really were impatient or indeed desperate enough.

Of course there are yet other options - going to Germany or Belgium, for example. Some base plan insurers will happily cover that. Or, for dental work needing done, Turkey is a popular destination.

( Keep in mind that any argument regarding having to go to another country while discussing options within Europe - let alone the EU member states - is about as moot as arguing that people in Minnesota may have to go to Florida to get the care they need/want. It's really not that big of a deal even if, of course, one would prefer having the care available at one's doorstep. )

Re:Congress Sucks

[Vaphell]

main reason the us hc is fucked up: the tax code. WW2 era wage freezes that made employers offer other perks, a practice that was later rubberstamped by the congress.
Employer based insurance is paid with pre-tax dollars, individual insurance is paid with post-tax dollars - of course everybody will pick employer provided option. That led to the moronic situation where you are bound to your employer like a dog on a leash and the whole industry is geared towards group insurance so the individuals have next to no bargaining power. Protectionist legislation rising barriers of entry for out-of-state competition certainly doesn't help, neither does using insurance for trivial bullshit that should be paid out of pocket.

Re:Congress Sucks

[lgw]

There is an ever-growing group of American youth who are so sold on socialism that they unthinkingly suppress any facts pointing to problems with socialism, to avoid the stress of coping with those facts. And they seem to have taken over /.. It's sad, really.

Re:Congress Sucks

[butchersong]

I'm not sure how accurate that is... Nations record things like infant mortality differently. If you're relying on each country to report this themselves then you'd have to verify each countries methods. I'm pretty sure I've seen in the past that the US method for reporting this is expected to yield a higher number. Apart from that you'd probably also want to control for the lifestyles of those participating. This is something I'm certain they don't do and as everyone knows the average "American diet" is something of a byword for all things bad.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I often see it touted that Americans have poor health for the amount of money we spend and have poor rankings for overall health but part of me wonders how much of that is due to the poor quality of our system or the piss poor diet and activity levels of most Americans. I would love to see some analysis that would normalize the data for such things. I don't believe that our system is a good as it could be but I think that the US would have somewhat better standing.

Re:Congress Sucks

[cyberchondriac]

Doesn't necessarily mean that work for the US though. Healthcare needs a total overhaul to bring costs down, not just a shift in how the insurance is paid for.

Re:Congress Sucks

[mcgrew]

The US is #1 in only one health care metric. Life expectancy? Nope. Children dying in their first year? Nope. First five years? Nope. The one metric that we are #1 in is cost. We have the most expensive health care system in the world, but it's far from the best.

You really believe you get what you pay for? I have a bridge for sale...

Re:Congress Sucks

[XeLiTuS]

Agreed. Let me back you up with some metrics I have... 75% of the time they're wrong every time.

Re:Congress Sucks

[PeeAitchPee]

Or looking the other way while banks write mortgages to people who have no fucking chance of ever paying them back, and then allowing said banks to use hundreds of billions of stimulus money for M & A stuff and multi-million dollar payouts to the execs who caused the problems -- while doing NOTHING to prevent it from happening again. Or giving subsidies to Big Oil / farmers / Solyndra. Or stealing from Social Security. Or giving out tax breaks to *anyone* without putting the money back in with a corresponding increase somewhere. The wars absolutely suck, and both sides refuse to end them, but they're not the only reason the US is broke.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This is the lion's share, but even comparing white populations there is a difference.

If there's any consolation to us in the US, if you get heart disease or diabetes and need treatment, care is better here. After all, doctor success scales with number of times they perform procedures.

I'll bet the bulk of the racial disparity is more obesity-related, for that matter.

Re:Congress Sucks

[ilsaloving]

Cite sources? Look north for pete's sake. As a Canadian, you will take my socialized medicine from my cold dead hands.

It's not perfect, but at least I don't have to worry about being bankrupted by the cost of cancer treatments because insurance wouldn't cover it, saying that that wart I had when I was 5 constituted a 'pre-existing condition'.

Honestly, the entire *world* looks at America as a fantastic example of how NOT to run a national health care system.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Man On Pink Corner]

The NHS example is just another extreme, which is effectively a strawman for the universal healthcare as an idea. NHS is just a poorly implemented version.

Yeah, I know, and Communism is just a poorly implemented version of Marxism, right?

Re:Congress Sucks

[shutdown -p now]

I'm left wing - much more so than your average Dem - but, judging by this story, Kucinich is retarded.

Re:Congress Sucks

[cayenne8]

Y)OU cite sources. What rationing? what are you calling rationing?

Right now, in the US Rationing is happening in the form of '30+million people getting no health care. Every country with government healthcare has better health care.

Well, Obamacare does not cover everyone...we're spending a lot of money just to add a few more % people on the covered list...

And as far as rationing...we've had a number of people from the UK and Canada complain about just this in the past threads on /. concerning socialized medicine as provided in their respective countries....

Re:Congress Sucks

[Bengie]

I am not comparing NHS vs USA's system, just saying any health care system with current day problems should not have a "waiting list" for life threatening issues unless it's because of needing a kidney/liver/etc transplant. In general, if there is a waiting list, hire more doctors or find a way to better weed out people who don't need it.

Re:Congress Sucks

[cayenne8]

Wow!!

Man..just can't wait for those to come to the US soon!!

Obamacare, is just the start....to get us onto that bandwagon.

Personally, I've never understood people that want the likes of the typical DMV worker to be in charge of doling out health care....

Re:Congress Sucks

[tnk1]

Would a "thorough, thoughtful" analysis really convince the GGP that s/he is wrong, or at least arguing a completely nonsensical point?

If you're going into an argument only when you think you can actually change their mind for certain, you're doing it wrong.

Your point about the death argument seeming like nihilism is well taken, but I think you are mistaken in how you are reading it. Health care tends to be argued from a very sentimental position a lot of the time, and many times, the stories are upsetting. However, none of those stories explains how you address how the system is going to work over the long term. There is a reality out there that points out that no matter how much money you throw at health care, there is only one outcome.

Democracies are good at certain things. They are very good at limiting wars because wars ultimately hurt populations. So, no matter how jingoistic you may start out, eventually there will be a backlash. Wars may be expensive, but they will usually stay limited and end. It doesn't end the problem, but it sort of puts a bound to how much the population is willing to take.

Health care and other entitlements are a whole different animal. There is absolutely no checks on those for a democracy other than the population's willingness to accept that we can't simply legislate ourselves into prosperity. Governments have guns, taxes, and the ability to grab a lot of money. This means that they can ultimately make a health care system work, until the money runs out. When it does, though, unlike a war, which everyone will want to end, no one will want to reform or in any way touch health care, even if the reform might make the system viable for the future, if their own benefits are changed. And no politician will dare to step up to reform them if they can avoid it. It essentially takes over the government and continues until the government becomes insolvent.

That's the point. I'm not trying to say there is no point in health care. What I am saying is that we have to have a clear-eyed view of just what we think we are creating when we start thinking we can manage health care via government. I don't necessarily think insurance is the only possible solution, but I think the government is a worse solution long term because I think it could ruin an otherwise solid government.

Re:Congress Sucks

[cayenne8]

A significant factor in US avg. lifespan is that the US has a larger black population. Blacks don't live as long as whites even when controlling for other factors. Some factors are understood such as genetic diseases like sickle cell anemia that kills off blacks much more than whites, or diabetes (which includes a genetic component). This does not explain all of the difference, neither does behavioral differences such as twinkies and crack babies.

Not to mention...black on black violence, which often leads to death...

Re:Congress Sucks

[Bengie]

It's easy to point out a system that is bad, but very hard to design a system that is good. I went the route of pointing out the bad, but never claimed to have a better system.

All I know is the current system has a huge failure and fixing that issue with almost any other system will do better. If we're willing to pay more for people to visit the ER, why not let them get regular check-ups and save some money? Either way, the monetary worse case is the same.

Another fun point. On average it costs the USA economy $250k to raise a child to 18. If that person dies or is not healthy enough to do good work before paying back their debt, we're losing out on money. Health care is an investment as much as basic education.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse, the 'key' paper wasn't just proven 'bad'. It was proven to have been FALSIFIED. It wasn't a case of misinterpreting data, or improperly correcting for some unidentified, it was a case of making up the data whole cloth in order to get the results the 'researcher' wanted. It wasn't poorly done science, it was FICTION.

Re:Congress Sucks

[publiclurker]

Funny, none of my friends from countries that have nationalized health services agree with that statement.

Re:Congress Sucks

[cheater512]

Australia's health care system works pretty well.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Comrade Ogilvy]

My mother-in-law was begging her insurance company for 19 months to get the MRI her doctor authorized, as her hip painfully disintegrated. The insurance knew better than the doctor -- hey, surely another round of painkillers will be good enough.

When the insurance company finally relented, I think it only took a few weeks to get that MRI. So under the statistics about the awesome American health care system, her "wait" was ~14 days. Yet from her doctor's POV, her actual wait was, oh, 570 days. If only she were in the crappy land of Canada, her wait would have been, oh, 400 or 500 days less.

Lo and behold, her MRI showed such a dangerously disintegrated hip that she was ordered bed ridden until she could have an emergency hip replacement.

But WE do not ration in the USA. Oh, no, no, no, not evil socialist rationing. We just worship at the altar of the Free Market (and pretend that rationing is not rationing, even to the point of lying to ourselves.)

Re:Congress Sucks

[mybecq]

*cough*

You'll have that looked at, right?

Re:Congress Sucks

[AK Marc]

That might not actually change their decision much. The decision is supposed to be based on quality-adjusted years of life.

That's how the public death panels are supposed to work. The private ones get to deny treatment for any of a thousand reasons, and they aren't even necessarily required to answer why, if you ask. Something not covered will not be covered no matter how many years it buys you or how much it costs. And, when treatments get expensive, things get covered less (caps and other things start applying).

Re:Congress Sucks

[Comrade Ogilvy]

MRIs for non-emergencies take months in the USA, as well. But the way they play the game here is to override the doctor's opinion and say "N. O." That way the patient never shows up on any waiting list. When the doctor asks for the 7th time, THEN the wait might be a couple weeks.

Rationing is rationing. Torturing the doctor with paperwork and playing a waiting game does not make capitalist healthcare rationing into something other than rationing.

Re:Congress Sucks

[TapeCutter]

Australia, it's not perfect, nothing is. However our national health outcomes are rated in the top 10, a family of four pays about 1/10th the cost of comparable private insurance in the US. It been.Statistically our system would have to kill another 20K people a year to be as effective as the US system. Polls consistently show that 80% or more of Australians approve of the system.

Re:Congress Sucks

[will_die]

Under the old system you had multiple levels of places you could sue to make the insurance company pay if it was covered and the people who initially defined if it was experimental are people outside the insurance company usually a panel of doctors approved by your state.
The death panels under the new system are a one panel for everyone which you cannot sue to change, you can get it changed by a 3/5 supermajority vote of congress.
You will still not get coverage for experimental procedures but now you don't have a realistic way of getting that changed and you have no realistic way of getting payment if it is done in error.
Give me the system where the private company looks at everything to see what they have to pay, and keep costs down, and there is then a system to get them to pay if there is an error vs this new system where some public secret organization decides if they should pay and are still doing it to keep costs down.

Re:Congress Sucks

[PPalmgren]

What about massive procedure backlogs for critical surgeries? My aunt in Finland died because there was too long of a wait between breast cancer detection and removal (1 year). To him, that's death panels...she wasn't important to operate on fast enough for a life threatening issue. Apparently they have some of the best socialized medicine in the world, but it was bad enough to turn my dad into a die hard conservative on the topic. He says its like a lottery, if you get assigned to a bad center then you're totally fucked.

Re:Congress Sucks

[MobyDisk]

for an average citizen, healthcare is better and cheaper (accounting for taxes etc) in countries with public healthcare systems,

It is the "accounting for taxes etc." part that makes your claim hard to prove. A typical US resident pays average of 6% sales tax and 30% income tax. In the UK they pay closer to 20% sales tax and 60% in income tax. How much of that tax goes to health care costs? Is it actually cheaper? I'd love to see some economic analysis on this point.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Charliemopps]

You just don't understand do you? It's not up to you if it's worth trying or not. It's HER life. She gets to decide if she wants to try leeches to cure her cancer. In a private system, she can seek out and purchase insurance that covers what she wants. In a single payer system you HAVE NO CHOICE. A panel of doctors decides if your treatment is worthwhile or not. In a single payer system, the least cost solution wins. The cheapest way to cure some diseases is to simply make the patient wait long enough that the problem "goes away" in this case the patient paid for it out of pocket, in other cases they just die.

I'm not a republican by any means. But the government absolutely sucks at everything they do. Keep them out of my healthcare please. The roads on the way to the hospital are bad enough, I don't need the medical system to be full of holes as well.

Re:Congress Sucks

[tnk1]

It would be better if they did. Then they would at least be doing something useful with the medical degrees that some of them think they have. That or someone would sue them for malpractice and we can at least recover something from them.

I mean, I see people go bananas about creationists getting on the SciTech committee, but of course, these are the group of people, even perhaps some of the exact same people, that you will have legislating health care reform.

And then you have the vaccination nuts on the other side. I mean, the forcible rape pregnancy stuff is bad enough, but now you have idiots trying to undo over a century of solid public health care, and one of them is actually supposed to be "progressive"!

Re:Congress Sucks

[shutdown -p now]

It's pretty easy to account, since government finances are mostly public. It doesn't really matter what a typical UK resident pays in taxes in total - you just look at the size of UK health budget, and divide it by the number of people.

Studies on the topic are numerous and easy to find online. Here is a commonly referenced aggregation of numbers from OECD, where the numbers come from their own more detailed study (OECD Health Data).

Re:Congress Sucks

[scot4875]

We have rationing in the US as well, except we ration our health care by who can afford to pay for it, not by who needs it the most.

Are you going to try to claim that "pay up or fuck off" is fairer than need-based rationing?

--Jeremy

Re:Congress Sucks

[tnk1]

A congressman is a congressman and history is full of turkeys as congressmen. They're the best when they are limited in what they can do, and worst when they have the money and the goodies to make voting for them almost obligatory.

The president may have gotten just over 50% of the popular vote, but he isn't going to be writing the health care laws. The people who are currently steering us towards a cliff with the 14% approval rating are doing that.

I probably shouldn't be surprised, but I find it strange that people want to put their health care in the hands of people they don't trust. I guess we're just grasping at straws now.

Re:Congress Sucks

[sjames]

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see the lot of them drummed out of public office yesterday. However, I don't accept their existence in congress as a valid reason not to implement universal health care.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Stormthirst]

If you compare the admin of medicare to the insurance industry. Medical industry around 15-20% spent admin, Medicare around 3%. What's so inefficient about that?

Re:Congress Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Cite your sources that Greece's financial woes lie strictly at the feet of it's health-care system!

There are MANY financial reasons why Greece's economy failed, and Health Care isn't in the top 5.

If Socialised Healthcare is doom to an economy explain Canada, France, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland etc etc etc.

All of whom have some degree of socialised healthcare AND strong economies (though many European economies are being dragged-down by the efforts of a few fiscally irresponsible countries such as Greece and Ireland).

-AC

(PS: Canada has one of the most socialised medical systems in the world, and until our current Neo-Con corporacratic PM moved into parliament, we had the healthiest economy on the continent... we're STILL better off than the Americans are, tho Harper is doing his level-best to catch us up...)

Re:Congress Sucks

[interkin3tic]

I'm not fresh on the details, but I wasn't 100% convinced when I looked into it a few years ago that Wakefield had intentionally fabricated data. If I remember correctly, the heart of the problem was that the PCR machine he had used to get most of his results was unreliable. Seemed to me that it probably was intentional, but it may not have been malicious, it may have been that he really wanted to believe the results it seemed to be showing him, but had he been objective about it, he would have known it wasn't.

At any rate, no smoking gun for intentionally falsifying had been found, and he insists it's true. There's no sane scientist or doctor who thinks the studies are accurate, so I think it's more fair to leave it at that, and make sure we're not overstating it by saying he intentionally lied. Probably yes, and he had financial motive to lie.

Re:Congress Sucks

[DigiShaman]

Supply and demand. Piss off the doctors and medical industry, and either the docs will retire early, change career path, while disincentivizing the young from entering the field.

If you want to address the "why" of health care being so expensive and limited, maybe you should first understand the "how" of *regulation and it's effects along with the lack of proper industry standards. A lot of our healthcare issues boils down to the entitlement mentality and shoving the burden of support on others without just compensation.

Re:Congress Sucks

[budgenator]

Article I, Section 6 of the US Constitution:
"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

I would think that would cover suits filed over speech occurring in congress

Re:Congress Sucks

[radtea]

I mean, there's a simple fix, just add a law to prevent any elected official in Canada from having secondary health coverage.

Exactly. Pretty much every socialized system in the world except Canada's allows for a robust third-party care system. Including such rabid enemies of social democracy as Sweden, Germany and France. But if you suggest it here you get run out of town on a rail while hypocrites like Belinda Stronach skive off to the US for treatment the moment they become seriously ill.

Canada has a two-tier health care system: one for the rich (and what member of Parliament does not qualify as "rich" after two terms in office, given the present value of their pension?) and one for the rest of us.

This unfortunate reality is that this is made necessary by the predatory health care industry to the south of us, but it's time we figure out how to deal with that. In particular, I would argue for a law that had two parts, to be voted on separately. The first would affirm the principles of the Canada Health Act, which is what prevents covered services from being insured privately. The second would make it illegal (penalty: total asset forfeiture, including pension) for anyone who voted for the first part to ever access any health care services that were not covered for everyone under their provincial plan.

Single-payer public systems are obviously better than what the US has, but single-payer public systems of the kind that Sweden, Germany, France, Australia and quite a few other places have are obviously better than what Canada has, both in terms of quality of care and lower cost. The differences go beyond simple health care policy to social policy (preventative care, parental leave, etc) but it's not as if any of it is a great big mystery to anyone who isn't an ideology addled idiot.

Re:Congress Sucks

[AdamWill]

The other factor to consider is that the U.S. has very liberal healthcare regulations. To put it more colorfully: the U.S. is very tolerant of people offering medical treatments which have no proven use whatsoever. So long as they don't actively hurt anyone, and you jump through the appropriate legal loopholes, you'll do fine.

The publicly-funded systems in Canada won't pay for you to receive a treatment for your disease which has been shown by clinical studies to be completely ineffective in treating that disease. obviously. There wouldn't be any fricking point.

But say the disease you have is a terminal one, and you read on the internet that this treatment REALLY WORKED because some dude in Florida had it and he ran a marathon the next week! Can you go the the U.S. and waste a ton of your own money on that treatment? Why yes, you absolutely can. It will be a waste of your (extremely precious) time and money, but you absolutely can do it.

Quite a lot of medical tourism to the U.S. falls in precisely this category of quacks taking advantage of the desperate. That doesn't seem like something the U.S. should be *proud* of.

Re:Congress Sucks

[kelemvor4]

And people want them even MORE involved with our health care. At least we won't have to worry about pregnancies from forcible rapes, or autism from vaccines now. Ugh.

Not exactly. People want them to provide healthcare for those not wealthy and therefore able to afford it themselves. You were close, though... well, not really.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Straif]

It's not necessarily about the cost of the drug, it's simply that under a government controlled system the treatments that can be prescribed for certain illnesses are limited to the Provincial guidelines.

If a drug that exists in Canada is only listed as acceptable for conditions A and B in your province, a doctor would have a very tough time prescribing it for condition C. This means having to go through a provincial review board for permission, even when clinical trials and standard procedures in the US say it is an acceptable treatment for C. It usually comes down to a simple cost/benefit analysis and in a single payer system where even the treating physicians are working for the government, once the decision is made against you, you're SOL.

Cancer drugs are a prime example of this where some drugs, despite their effectiveness on certain patients who may have originally received treatment in the US, are denied as treatments in Canada because they are not on the approved list for that particular type of cancer. This leads to the patients bringing the Province to court in the hopes of overturning their decisions, which may happen but even in the good cases where it does may take years.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Stormthirst]

Democracies are good at certain things. They are very good at limiting wars because wars ultimately hurt population.

You have seen what America has been up to right? Currently in two wars, and were dropping bombs in Libya not so long ago. War without end.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Archangel Michael]

We will have rationing one way or another. What you are proposing is bureaucrats do the rationing. Healthcare with the grace of DMV. Next!

Re:Congress Sucks

[Archangel Michael]

I'm Libertarian, and I find retarded people on every side, including my own. Some people even claim I am retarded ;)

Re:Congress Sucks

[TFAFalcon]

Would you rather have death panels appointed by the government or by the insurance industry?

In both cases they can decide not to pay for treatment you need to survive, but the private industry also has an incentive to let you die quickly - any money they save on treatments can then go to their bonuses.

And in both cases you have the option of paying for the procedure yourself, bypassing the panel.

Re:Congress Sucks

[LF11]

Yup. The current ER situation is a classic example of government intervention going horribly awry. You cannot 'nationalize' one part of an industry. You must nationalize the whole thing, or keep your hands out of it.

Re:Congress Sucks

[LF11]

You're clearly in complete denial about the reality of poverty and income mobility in the U.S.

Medicaid is free. Lots of other things are very cheap, or free, if you are at the bottom of the income scale.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Beardo the Bearded]

That's an electrocardiogram.

I had an echocardiogram.

Re:Congress Sucks

[fremsley471]

My brother works for an Indian pharmaceutical company. India don't recognise patents on medicines. The NHS in the UK pays US 40c for his 6 pills from a blister pack of 'generic' heart medicine. He can sell the same 6 to the USA for > US 5$.

You're being screwed as the cost of pills are tiny as compared to the rest of your healthcare. In the UK, as external costs are visible, they are lower. And wait, did someone say "cartel"?

Re:Congress Sucks

[fremsley471]

Dear AC,
      Congratulations, this perfectly describes the current working of the NHS. However, I don't think the parent poster was having his leg pulled, just fundamentally lied to.

I was in the US for a few months during the 'Obamacare' debate of 2009 and the bollocks that was being talked about the NHS was simply amazing, e.g., people over 59 are denied any heart treatment. Our American hosts asked us if this was true!

Re:Congress Sucks

[TFAFalcon]

Isn't what you're describing the same as what happens when insurance companies determine what treatments they cover? Or do they just give the patient a blank check and let them pick their own experimental treatment?

Any communal system of paying for healthcare has to set limits on what is covered. Any patients that have the resources are always allowed to go and find other treatments, if they feel that the system isn't taking good enough care of them.

Government or insurance company, the results are similar in each case (except that insurance companies get to pay bonuses if they deny enough claims).

Re:Congress Sucks

[MikeBabcock]

You seem to have very little real first-hand experience with how these systems actually work.

First of all, very few people in the USA could afford to pay the cost of experimental treatments themselves even if they wanted to, so lets stop claiming its an option for anyone but the uber-wealthy.

Secondly, my wife has a rare genetic disorder here in Canada and our doctors ordered up special drugs from a drug company directly that had no official clearance numbers associated at a cost of $20,000/day because they were deemed worthwhile. Doctors aren't making these decisions about your health because of costs, they're making them because of their educated opinions and experience. cf. Ornathine Transcarbamylase deficiency if you need to.

If your doctor in either funding system doesn't think you should be on an experimental treatment, he's either a quack or you shouldn't be on it. Neither has anything to do with the funding model.

That is to say, drugs are either approved or they aren't. If they're approved, they're available. If they're not, its because they're not deemed to be safe.

Re:Congress Sucks

[TFAFalcon]

But that takes money. And with all the austerity measures that are being demanded, healthcare is such a nice place to make cuts (unlike armies which are important!).

Re:Congress Sucks

[colin_faber]

Welcome to the new normal. Everything is to be tolerated except thought.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Rakarra]

You just don't understand do you? It's not up to you if it's worth trying or not. It's HER life. She gets to decide if she wants to try leeches to cure her cancer.

If she wants to pay for her own leeches out of pocket, then by all means, leech away.
However, if she wants someone else to help pay for it, whether that be insurance, single-payer, medicare, etcetc, then people paying the bills get a say in whether a treatment is nonsense and/or if it should be covered.

Re:Congress Sucks

[homer_ca]

Sometimes, I get the feeling Kucinich is allowed to exist to make leftists look stupid. If you want to feel proud and not embarrassed about supporting a leftist, check out Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders. Must be something in the water up in Vermont.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Tagged_84]

Being an Aussie I can say hell yeah! In fact our government recently admitted to an issue with our dental care and will spend $4.1 billion on dental schemes! I've been meaning to do a reality check with US deniers of free health care. Maybe draw a little comic that shows their "reality" and the real reality of it. Something along the lines of:

Brainwashed masses reality
Person gets cancer, Doctors try to save person's life using expensive methods, person lives but everyone burdened by their "debt". Country goes broke.

Actual reality
Person gets cancer, gets into remission, person lives and goes on to work another 30 years generating wealth and tax that pays back more than the cost of his treatment. Maybe even some good culture by spreading their personal story of triumph over cancer without needing a bajillion dollars.

Let's do it to dental care in celebration of Australia's one smart move (hey, we don't have many lately!):

Person needs a filling and dental health encouragement, can't afford dentist and never gets help, gum infection spreads and person dies an early death from heart disease. The sad reality and end.

Re:Congress Sucks

[chilenexus]

> (ex-patriot)

An ex-patriot is someone who no longer feels a strong support for his or her country.

An expatriate (in abbreviated form, expat) is a person temporarily or permanently residing in a country and culture other than that of the person's upbringing.

Spelling does matter.

Re:Congress Sucks

[RebelWithoutAClue]

replying to kill accidental mod.

Re:Congress Sucks

[mattack2]

Right now, in the US Rationing is happening in the form of '30+million people getting no health care.

Who is "getting no health care."?

Are you claiming that people without insurance by definition are not getting health care? Because they are. Hospitals are required by law (unfortunately(*)) to treat people in the ER, whether they can pay or not.

(*) I think if they have a life threatening ailment, they should have to be treated. If they DON'T have a life threatening ailment, after being triaged to decide that, the hospital should be able to refuse to treat them (send them to an urgent care clinic, a free clinic, whatever).

Re:Congress Sucks

[Gr8Apes]

Rationing occurs. However - instead of calling it rationing, we should just limit national health care to a set of health issues that are relatively fixed cost. Yes, that means cancer, HIV, and other "expensive" diseases are not covered. Too bad. There's health insurance for that.

Re:Congress Sucks

[mattack2]

But the government absolutely sucks at everything they do.

(I agree with you on healthcare.)

But what about the fine Internet you're using to discuss? The infrastructure was created by the government.

You also slam roads, but I don't think we'd have as good of a transportation system as we do (from my U.S. perspective) if it were all private. I tend to lean libertarian on many fiscal issues, but voted for high speed rail in CA, and BART extensions, etc. Even if just to get others off my damn road!!!

Re:Congress Sucks

[able1234au]

It is the "accounting for taxes etc." part that makes your claim hard to prove. A typical US resident pays average of 6% sales tax and 30% income tax. In the UK they pay closer to 20% sales tax and 60% in income tax.

60% income tax for the UK is a marginal rate that very few would pay and those that would, would have deductions to offset it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_tax_NIC_percentages.svg would suggest that the average would be closer to 30%, perhaps 25%. Also don't confuse the rate with what is actually paid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Income_tax shows that the National Insurance brings in 104 billion pounds and health outlays is 109 billion.

Re:Congress Sucks

[kipling]

In the UK they pay closer to 20% sales tax and 60% in income tax.

Maybe not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

Re:Congress Sucks

[shutdown -p now]

FDA is actually quite notorious for being one of the most stringent regulating agencies in the West when it comes to drugs. There are quite a few that you can buy in Europe, but not in US.

Anyway, there's no reason why this particular thing has to be a part of a public healthcare system. I certainly haven't heard of people from Canada or UK complain that drugs (especially those that have actually being prescribed by the doctor) cannot be found anywhere. Generally speaking, it's the opposite - because it's a single system, if doctors routinely prescribe something, then the appropriate amounts will be made available.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Charliemopps]

You have a choice in insurance companies. Through my employer I have a choice of 6 different plans. They all cover various things and costs of the most expensive is more than double that of the cheapest plan. But it has more coverage for my family and a wider selection of drugs. I could chose a plan that only partially pays for generic only drugs. Or the more expensive plan that covers generics in full and has a co-pay on non-generic (and many drugs are not available in generic form in the US due to heavy lobbying by drug companies) The point being is that I have choice as long as I can afford it. If I want to spend half my paycheck on health insurance I can.

I had an uncle that had terminal cancer. The doctors said they could go in and cut it out... put him through Chemo... give him another 5 years maybe. But this guy was a Korean war vet. He was a POW 3 times, had 5 bullet holes in his back (he said if you ever got shot while running towards a gun you were a damned fool) Great guy... He told the doctors to go fuck themselves, please write me a prescription for strait morphine. That's exactly what the doctors did. He was high as a kite until his death about a year later. That was his choice. I wouldn't have made the same choice, but it was up to him. I want to have a choice.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Charliemopps]

You live in Canada. You have a VASTLY different prescription drug landscape than we do. To compare drug formularies with ours is apples and oranges. Our political system in the US is flat out corrupt at this point. For the rest of the world to tell us that their governments are doing fine at healthcare is rather silly. Our laws are literally written by businesses that want them to be written in their favor. We only have 2 political parties, with no option to vote outside that 2 party system... and both of those parties take money from the very businesses that will profit from a single payer system. It may work for you, but there is no way in hell it will work here until we figure out a way to clean out our government. I don't foresee that happening anytime soon.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Charliemopps]

in a single payer system, she has no option to pay for insurance that covers those leaches. And because the entire system is governed by a single entity, no research will go into stuff that's "proven ineffective" much like acupuncture and chiropracty... both of witch have now been proven to reduce doctor visits and lower medical costs... granted it's likely a placebo effect, but the fact of the matter is, under a single payer system they'd have faded away. The only reason they still exist in England is due to research done elsewhere.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Bustbang]

Every Canadian pharmacy I've seen online seem shady. How do you sift through the scammers?

Re:Congress Sucks

[drsmithy]

No, but they don't always get the latest greatest medical developments found in the US either. MRIs still take months to get in Canada, you really want to be on waiting list for everything?

I'd rather be on A waiting list than NO waiting list.

Re:Congress Sucks

[rtb61]

I am always suspect of "I am 'not who I claim to be' but" messages typical used by marketing types to hide who they are and to give false legitimacy to what they are promoting. So I went to the Dennis Kucinich web site http://kucinich.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=1461 and this is what I found on autism "Congressman Kucinich, as a member of the Congressional Autism Caucus, is dedicated to finding the causes of autism and helping individuals with autism access the therapies they need. He has spoken out in favor of additional research during hearings of the Committee on Government Reform. "

With regards to vaccination, it's all about Vaccination Liability, " a massive holiday gift to the pharmaceutical industry in the form of liability immunity". Which he is opposed too, with the track record of pharmaceuticals any kind of liability immunity is just plain insane.

With regards to vaccinations, it is absolutely clear and obvious not all of the are created equal, some are of dubious efficacy and quality just mass produced in conjunction with some fear campaign to promote billions in sales for little or no benefit. It is clear the pharmaceuticals have become far to big and desperately need to be broken up and in many cases their psychopathic executives investigated for murder and treated accordingly.

Re:Congress Sucks

[The_Noid]

It's perfectly possible to have private insurers. You just have to:

1. Mandate a minimum, standard base package.
2. Mandate that all insurers have to accept anyone for that base package.

Like in the Netherlands. Insurers can then compete on price for that base package and any extras and everyone can get insurance for basic health care.

Vote?

Showing that once again the root of the problem is in the retarded electoral system of the USA, that gravitates towards having only two parties, which means that politicians don't have to care about the people.

Re:Congress Sucks

[TFAFalcon]

But no plan is going to cover all drugs. And as you stated even the most expensive plan you have available won't fully cover non-generic drugs - and the problem described in this 'death panel' article was that there are certain (overly) expensive drugs for cancer patients which the NHS does not cover. So the situation is the same as with private insurance, except that with private insurance you have the option of getting even less coverage (while likely still paying more then).

And there is another thing - how many employers offer such a wide range of plans? Many won't offer you a choice, if they offer medical insurance at all. So you're stuck with whichever insurance company (and their policies) they choose to use.

Re:Congress Sucks

[tehcyder]

The NHS example is just another extreme, which is effectively a strawman for the universal healthcare as an idea. NHS is just a poorly implemented version.

The NHS may not be perfect but it's a million fucking times better than any for-profit system run for the benefit of insurance companies.

Re:Congress Sucks

[tehcyder]

Well, why would they want another health care system? No one is arguing that it's not great to get health care for free. What people are legitimately wondering is how long the gravy train will last.

The NHS here in the UK isn't "free", it's funded out of taxes. Everyone pays for it, and those in need get the treatment they need. It's insurance companies living off people's fear that are on a fucking gravy train.

Re:Congress Sucks

[tehcyder]

I should point out that preventing death in general is a fruitless endeavor in and of itself.

So your solution to the health care issue is not to bother having any health care, because in the long run we're all dead anyway?

Genius, pure fucking genius.

Re:Congress Sucks

[terjeber]

Sorry, that happens more when government runs health-care, not less. Lots of treatments are never used in many places in Europe at all because they are too expensive.

Re:Congress Sucks

[terjeber]

No, it is not. It is more prevalent.

Re:Congress Sucks

[terjeber]

Nothing much to do with health care, but lots to do with health. Nationalized health care doesn't prevent you from over-eating junk.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Jesrad]

Piss off the doctors and medical industry, and either the docs will retire early, change career path, while disincentivizing the young from entering the field.

See France for an illustration. French doctors and nurses were on strike in mid-november over government's price controls. At the same time we have what many call "medical deserts", zones where actual medical care is far away and in short supply. But, hey, at least it's the gubn'mint paying in our place... in exchange for a third of our salary.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Eunuchswear]

You just don't understand do you? It's not up to you if it's worth trying or not. It's HER life. She gets to decide if she wants to try leeches to cure her cancer. In a private system, she can seek out and purchase insurance that covers what she wants. In a single payer system you HAVE NO CHOICE. A panel of doctors decides if your treatment is worthwhile or not. In a single payer system, the least cost solution wins. The cheapest way to cure some diseases is to simply make the patient wait long enough that the problem "goes away" in this case the patient paid for it out of pocket, in other cases they just die.

Then isn't a good thing that your fantasy of a "single payer system" doesn't exist. In the UK if you want private health insurance you can have it. If she wanted the drugs that the NHS wouldn't pay for she just had to pay for them herself.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Rich0]

Yup, ERs in the US work entirely on Triage, and tend to have more/less busy times. I've been to them both for very serious and not very serious issues, and for the simplest issues some have expedited processes that you can volunteer for (nurse practitioners/etc). (It was a holiday weekend and while I'd normally just make an appointment I was concerned that if would be unwise to just let the issue go on for days without antibiotics, and I don't really mind the wait.) Show up to an ER with difficulty breathing and you should get immediate care.

However, you hit on a serious problem with the US health system - ERs in low-income areas like Brooklyn. That ER is require to treat all acute conditions regardless of ability to pay, and since the US does not have universal coverage that means treating a LOT of people without being paid for it. These ERs tend to be overcapacity since nobody is going to build a new hospital in that economic climate so people have even been known to die in ER waiting rooms (a recent scandal involved somebody calling 911 from a hospital waiting room and being turned away by the operator since they were already at a hospital, then dying). That sort of thing can happen in cities and poor areas, due to the way healthcare is (or isn't) financed. In suburbs it isn't a problem, since hospitals are profitable and if one gets too busy they just expand or somebody builds another one.

The average middle-class US voter just avoids going into areas like Brooklyn - see no evil, hear no evil...

The inner city problem exists because everybody just wants to stick their heads in the sand. Legislatures pass laws that require acute care so that they can say they're doing the right thing, but then they don't do anything to pay for it, so it becomes "somebody else's problem." The people in Brooklyn would get better care under almost any other system - if they just let poor people die on the street then at least there would be well-functioning hospitals for those with some kind of income, and if they actually paid for care then there would be well-functioning hospitals for everybody. What we have now is a sort of no-man's land where everybody gets pretty lousy care in those areas.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Rich0]

I can believe that, though the reality is that your employer basically is the one that decides what your life is worth. People rail about this insurance company or that one, but I've found that the company involved makes little difference (except for a few companies that only do high-end plans). What matters is which plan your company paid for, and they're REALLY hard to compare.

If your employer paid Aetna for the expensive PPO option, then you'll have access to just about any care that is reasonably established in the profession (certainly anything that Medicare or the VA or a European health system would pay for). If your employer paid Aetna for the cheap PPO option, then you're going to get routine denials, and a style of administration that is analogous to running out the clock in most sports. Either way the job ad will just say "Aetna PPO available." Then you'll find some internet forum where inexplicably people are going back and forth about how horrible Aetna is or how wonderful they've been.

Regardless of whether we ever have a public option I'd love to see a requirement for published stats on percentage of premiums that get spend on actual care, and a ban on employer-provided healthcare. The customer is always right, and when the employer is the customer you can imagine that there are perverse incentives. Why should your employer care if you live or die? The faster you die the sooner they can stop paying your short-term disability.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Rich0]

What you say is absolutely true, though it probably should be noted that insurers won't pay for most of that stuff.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Rich0]

In his case the problem was pneumonia (mild at first).

He saw his GP within a few days, and basically was sent home with some with some aspirin and instructions to return if things didn't improve. When things didn't improve he was given an appointment for a chest x-ray days later. Then the doctor had to wait a week for the x-ray to be read. Then after some delay he was diagnosed with pneumonia and received antibiotics.

I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in-between, but the various steps each introduced latency of days and the bottom line is that he was untreated for several weeks. He became VERY sick and was barely able to talk for a month.

That's just an anecdote, and perhaps he didn't avail himself of all options or push hard enough to keep things moving along. However, when my wife in the US had a touch of pneumonia we took her to the ER late at night. Within a few hours she had been discharged fully able to breath with an inhaler, having been given O2 almost immediately upon arrival X-rays, and interpretation of those X-rays, and treatment with a nebulizer/steroids.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Rich0]

See my reply - this was somebody I know personally, so it isn't propaganda from your favorite right-wing candidate. However, I wasn't there, and I can't vouch for how well he was utilizing the options available to him within the NHS. Perhaps experiences vary considerably within that system.

His condition wasn't very serious when it first presented, though it became very serious having been left untreated for weeks. The initial presentation as a non-serious problem may have contributed to it not getting rapid attention, and perhaps the system just failed to properly escalate when things got worse.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Eunuchswear]

Well. no.

Some treatments are never used in many places in Europe at all because they don't work.

Re:Congress Sucks

[strikethree]

A lot of our healthcare issues boils down to the entitlement mentality and shoving the burden of support on others without just compensation.

Pardon me? I have to pay $10k of a $14k medical bill when my son broke his wrist because I have a fucking entitlement mentality and want others to support me? Exactly WHO is getting all of this free medical care that they are not entitled to? It sure as fuck is not me.

Re:Congress Sucks

[fadethepolice]

A large part of health care being expensive is due to doctor's being on a pay per unit of activity billing style instead of on a salary. American health care, per individual, is more expensive than most NHS and it still leaves out the previously cited 30 million people. Stop and think about it for a second. If a specialist surgeon got a set salary instead of getting a headhunter fee for each operation that he/she in fact sets, what do you think would be less expensive? Is it entitlement to make sure that our elders, after working their whole lives, are not just cast out onto the street to starve and die of disease? Perhaps medicare is so out of whack because private health insurers reap 65 years of relatively happy profits from relatively healthy people, and then when retirement comes on they walk away with that money and leave the taxpayers with the bill? If old people on medicare were in the same insurance pool as people in their thirties then the system would work. It is private companies walking away with 60 years of premiums that is the issue here. Please stop getting your information from conservative radio hosts and parroting it all over the internet, you are embarrassing yourself.

Re:Congress Sucks

[heefeneet]

You just don't understand do you? It's not up to you if it's worth trying or not. It's HER life. She gets to decide if she wants to try leeches to cure her cancer. In a private system, she can seek out and purchase insurance that covers what she wants. In a single payer system you HAVE NO CHOICE.

I undertand perfectly. I live a country with public health care, and I do have a choice. This may come as a surprise to you, but you can buy a strange thing called "private health insurance". I have one that covers every the public health insurance doesn't, and covers the rest of everything the public doesn't cover fully. It costs a total of €200 per year. PER YEAR! That is the platinum version, the cheapest version is around €50 per year to cover 50% of the price on all medicin the public doesn't cover.

When the public insurance covers pretty much everything, getting a private one that covers the rest is insanely cheap.

Remember the /. mentality. There are only absolutes. You either have 100%-private healthcare or 100%-tax funded care. You cant have a mixture of the two. That doesn't fit the "for us or against us" worldview that thrives here.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Electricity Likes Me]

You just don't understand do you? It's not up to you if it's worth trying or not. It's HER life. She gets to decide if she wants to try leeches to cure her cancer. In a private system, she can seek out and purchase insurance that covers what she wants. In a single payer system you HAVE NO CHOICE. A panel of doctors decides if your treatment is worthwhile or not. In a single payer system, the least cost solution wins. The cheapest way to cure some diseases is to simply make the patient wait long enough that the problem "goes away" in this case the patient paid for it out of pocket, in other cases they just die.

I'm not a republican by any means. But the government absolutely sucks at everything they do. Keep them out of my healthcare please. The roads on the way to the hospital are bad enough, I don't need the medical system to be full of holes as well.

That women, and everyone, in countries with socialized healthcare systems always have the option to pay for private coverage, surgery and procedures.

Yet why are they in the news about it? Because they can't afford it, and want the taxpayer to pick it up for them.

See, the difference is, public healthcare systems aim to provide as much treatment as is demonstrably efficacious and affordable. The patients of public healthcare systems are similarly free to seek whatever private treatment they want - but hey, private treatment is pretty expensive, and hence they don't all get to choose whatever quack solution they think will definitely save them.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Electricity Likes Me]

Also - to put this in another context - what's the long run effect of that on the labor market?

Having healthcare tied to your specific job is a ridiculous reducer of workplace mobility.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Electricity Likes Me]

(*) I think if they have a life threatening ailment, they should have to be treated. If they DON'T have a life threatening ailment, after being triaged to decide that, the hospital should be able to refuse to treat them (send them to an urgent care clinic, a free clinic, whatever).

This sounds good in theory, to people who don't deal with hospitals or medical practice. Every doctor will tell you it just doesn't work though. Triage itself in an ER is both time-consuming (practically on the same level as treatment) and risky. What do you triage? What do you say "this isn't serious enough" without effectively winding up providing treatment?

If someone comes in complaining of a severe headache, you have to actually check them out and make sure they're not in the middle of a severe brain swelling because oh, it turns out they got hit pretty hard in the head today. Suddenly you've got the doctors mulling over this guy thinking "we need to keep him under observation".

By the time someone gets to the emergency room you can't turn them away without effectively having to treat them first and determine what they have. The answer is to stop them winding up there in the first place, and the best way to deal with that is to make sure they can afford to go to their GP before something gets bad enough that they head to emergency.

Re:Congress Sucks

[terjeber]

Rubbish. A number of treatments, rationing, remember, are never used in Europe simply because they are not deemed worth it. This goes for life-prolonging treatments for certain types of cancer, for example. In the US they are available if you are insured, in most places in Europe they are not. If I had pancreatic cancer, for example, I would love another six months to live, no matter what the cost, but that is not available to me in Scandinavia, the UK and most other European countries.

Me, I am Norwegian, currently living in Norway, formerly a resident (for a decade or so) of the US. Since I was working and work supplied insurance (that I had to pay parts of) I had access to treatments that simply are not given in Norway due to cost. Also, for a few hours my doctor in the US suspected I might have epilepsy. He suspected for a few hours (from about 9 in the morning 'til about 3 in the afternoon) since I was in the US. In Norway getting the suspicion confirmed or falsified would have taken from four to six months, a period in which I would not be allowed to drive, have certain types of jobs etc.

As an insured person I had health care at an order of magnitude higher quality in the US than in most countries, most of Europe included. For the insured, the US has the best health care system in the world. Bar none. It is tremendously expensive though. Nobody spends more on their health care systems than the US, both the private and the public systems are better funded than in Europe.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Electricity Likes Me]

I find it curious you didn't say which country was more centrally controlled then Canada.

Could it be fictionland, made-up ville? Or perhaps say, a corrupt former soviet satellite state? Hitler's Germany?

Re:Congress Sucks

[Electricity Likes Me]

Yeah the loans were not the cause of the the GFC. They were the underlying instrument used to kickstart it, but those loans were not ultimately worth the annual global GDP of the entire planet (one estimate is that there's $62 trillion of CDS's out there - the annual global GDP is about $70 trillion USD for 2012), which is what the credit default swap market was estimated at (note: estimated - nobody knows, it was all private and it's all this unrealized possible debt that's making those loans so toxic).

Those loans were a drop in the damn ocean of debt. Those loans we can deal with (hence bailing them out - because heaven knows who'll actually pay if they default).

Re:Congress Sucks

[Electricity Likes Me]

For comparison, the subprime mortgage market in the US was worth about $1.3 trillion a year, with about $10.1 trillion USD in outstanding mortgage debt in 2012. Not all of those are actually bad, provided they don't get their interest rates jacked in a panic. That's a sizeable chunk of change - but it's still 1/7th the total problem, and the estimate of the size may be a severe underestimate.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Electricity Likes Me]

Democracies are good at certain things. They are very good at limiting wars because wars ultimately hurt population.

You have seen what America has been up to right? Currently in two wars, and were dropping bombs in Libya not so long ago. War without end.

America has very carefully shielded it's population from the realities of fighting too wars, and a big part of it's current budget woes can be blamed on that. Two wars, yet when American went into Iraq the attitude from the White House was "we're at war, let's party - have a tax break!"

Re:Congress Sucks

[fey000]

As a non-sequiteur of interest, there appears to be a correlation between financial difficulties in Europe and corruption. There does however, not appear to be anything in connection with national health services. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Re:Congress Sucks

[shutdown -p now]

Sure, but at this point it isn't laissez-faire, since you're regulating the prices. In Canada, most of the healthcare system is also run by private companies, but at the prices set by the govt.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Reziac]

I sometimes wonder if stuff like anti-vaxers is egged on by the factions that believe human extinction would be a good thing for the planet... and being easy enough for educated idiots to believe, it gets spread at high levels (like Congress).

Re:Congress Sucks

[lonecrow]

No. Not enough said. Did you notice the R in front of their title? Congress is a reflection of the electorate. If you disagree with crap like this then it is your responsibility to raise the level of awareness in your community so that congress is a reflection of a better informed electorate. You have to counter the misinformation so prevalent around us.

Throwing up your hands and giving up will solve little and is just surrender to the ignorant.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Rakarra]

Acupuncture has no, absolutely no medicinal value beyond placebo.
I'm fine with prescribing placebos as long as they're (very) cheap.

Re:Congress Sucks

[tnk1]

Have you actually seen the casualty counts, even of civilians included, from these wars you speak of? Before we mostly wiped out the advanced non-democratic regimes, wars against them numbered in the millions. In the first war, a generation decimated. In the second, a whole continent charred, two cities bombed with atomic bombs, just to get the aggressor to surrender without another couple million killed. That's what happens when non-democratic regimes get up to war.

America? We haven't yet even gone through the Purple Hearts that we had manufactured for the expected casualties for the Japan invasion in WWII. Sure, war has not ended. Even democracy is not enough to end all war forever, but in ten years of Afghanistan and Iraq, we have fewer casualties by far than in 4 years of the Korean War. Certainly civilians have died as well, but even thousands of them dying in ten years doesn't shine a dim light towards what you dealt with in the major conflicts started by non-democratic states.

The reason for that is simple: to even fight wars in democracies, you simply cannot have the same level of devastation and civilian peril that you would accept under non-democracies. Wars that would be considered flawless victories by the likes of previous monarchical and despotic regimes, we consider to be somehow complete failures.

It may seem strange to you, but not all wars are created equal, and while the existence of a "state of war" seems to be the order of the day, to simply ignore the scope and severity of what you're talking about makes it impossible to show any improvement whatsoever. No state or system currently in existence is going to be pacifistic unless someone else is holding an umbrella over them and looking out for their interests. But, if you ignore the real improvement in actual lives and property damaged, then there is no way to show the way towards the eventual goal of ending wars.

So yes, I see a huge improvement by democracies over the warfare of the past, both in terms of our own losses and those even of the enemy. It seems like an unpopular thing to call the wars successful, and in their goals, they have not always had the intended effect, but to say that they represent no significant improvement is, I think, not really defensible.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Desler]

Overwhelmingly, they don't.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Desler]

One anecdote does not invalidate anything. Look up the satisfaction rates of people in other first-world countries for their health care systems. It's not anything like what the right-wingers lead people to believe.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Peristarkawan]

Read that Wikipedia paragraph again. It's weirdly phrased, but what it's saying is that in the clinical trials the drug didn't work when used as an adjuvant treatment. As a primary treatment, which is how it appears to have been prescribed in the Telegraph article, Avastin is an approved drug with supporting clinical evidence.

Re:Congress Sucks

[jpate]

Health insurance is insurance. It survives because it takes calculated risks, and the general public is not a very good risk health-wise. The value and the problem with insurance is that it faces the reality that there are limited resources out there head-on. Now you may well be correct to say that using those resources for the benefit of only those who can pay is unfair, but what criteria do you use to ensure fair distribution?

The general public is a much better risk than the current system, which contains a disproportionate number of people who need more expensive treatments because they've been avoiding relatively cheap preventative care, or show up to the emergency room with no coverage at all. The health care reform prioritizes preventative care and universal coverage. You're right that the general public is a worse bet than only NBA players, but it's a much better bet than what we're covering now.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Richy_T]

Is it entitlement to make sure that our elders, after working their whole lives, are not just cast out onto the street to starve and die of disease?

Yes it is. You might argue that it's justified but that's entitlement nonetheless.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Richy_T]

And governments get to build huge unaccountable bureaucracies that exist for their own sake and well beyond their useful lifetime and their workers get the benefits and bonuses even with piss-poor performance (often encouraged in certain government enclaves).

Re:Congress Sucks

[Richy_T]

Haha. No. The initial protocols and infrastructure were created by the government but much, if not the majority of the current infrastructure is privately owned.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Ol Olsoc]

Kucinich is a nut job, he is just left wing enough that leftwingers ignore much his nuttiness.

Yay! You would have won one internet if you called them "libtards" Try again, please.

Stupid wears all political stripes. We veer dangerously close to it ourselves some times..... ahem...

The whole autism/vaccine link has been so thoroughly debunked that it is amazing that anyone could be so poorly read that they would even consider bringing it up again. The researcher (Wakefield)was debunked, he lost his license.

He was working with a lawyer to try to make money - one of the worst nightmares for a drug company is to be sued in any form involving children. You are simply going to lose.

People started getting their science and health information from a soft core porn model, Jenny McCarthy.

The original toxin was supposed to be the mercury based preservative. It was removed. There was no effect on autism rates

Not to be dissuaded, the anti vaccine people decided that the toxin was something else

Some 24 percent of parents believe that she is correct, according to Wikipedia. She still defends Wakefield.

Some parents are refusing to vaccinate their children, herd immunity is being lost, and children with weakened immune systems are being put at risk

And children are still becoming autistic.

Having suffered a bout of whooping cough about 5 years ago, probably from that loss of herd immunity, I would have to say that any parent who voluntarily decides it's okay for their child to get it ought to be locked up. When you cough and spasm so much that the world is going red, and you hope that it goes away before you die, it isn't in the realm of fun.

But in one of these quirks of human nature, when something works so well that people don't become ill any more, there will be people who think "No one gets sick from that, why should we have to do it?"

Re:Congress Sucks

[cyber-vandal]

Until it's you that the health insurance company refuses to pay for. I bet you won't be so callous then.

Re:Congress Sucks

[notonthegrid]

If you look at UK health care, it's pretty obvious that when the government
takes over health care, and then the government goes bankrupt, the people
don't get health care.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Ol Olsoc]

The difference is that with private insurance you can switch companies and try for a better policy and better service. It is also far more likely to be efficiently run, and therefore not go out of business or suddenly cut benefits like government run programs will have to do when the money runs out.

"Try" is the operative word here.

But let's take your statement at face value. why isn't that the case now? Why can't everyone just insure with who gives them the best deal and service?

The answer is that it isn't how the health insurance industry works. Who outside of an employer has the option of going to different providers? Even where I work, it's three programs by 1 provider. If I decide to go outside, now I'm individually insuring myself, with no group benefits.

And then there is the "existing condition" bugaboo. If you have any major issue, welcome to the insurance you are going to have to have for the rest of your life. You of course could switch companies, but without coverage any more.

The problems with health insurance are the same as with any insurance. You are betting against yourself. And you shouldn't have to bet against yourself regarding health. For there are many issues that will eventually have to be sorted out. What about end of life care? My mother in law probably racked up 400-500 K in the last two years of her life. That's a lot of money, other people hardly cost a thing.

Unfortunately, the present system of insurance companies, and Medicare/Medicaid is stuck in a positive feedback loop, with the hospital Emergency rooms function as General Practitioners for the poor, who of course cannot pay the high ER room process, which then get passed along to the rest of us. This present system is severely broken.

I fear however, that there is a big failure of concept on the part of many people. These discussions tend to turn into "My uncle had to wait a year to treat his Crocinosis of the weehole!", or those stupid death panel arguments.

What we need to do is to start whittling away at the stupid stuff, like Emergency room visits for simple things. I spent a lot of time at the Hospital with my father this year, and being near the ER, I could see that the majority of ER patients were poor people with minor ailments that needed treatment. If they go to clinics for their ailments - which is where someone who needs a couple stitches should be going, they won't incur the costs of an ER visit.

Re:Congress Sucks

[History's Coming To]

So politicians the world over get immunity, but the 2 year olds don't. For once this is a case where "Think Of The Children!" is applicable.

Re:Congress Sucks

[aardvarkjoe]

if a senator says vaccines are bad, a parent decides not to vaccinate their kids, and people then die as a result,

You could make the argument that anyone that makes a life-or-death decision based on the statement of an American politician deserves exactly what they get. It's not like it's any secret that every word that comes out of their mouths is a lie.

Re:Congress Sucks

[CptPicard]

There's an interesting double standard by the way that relates to this rhetoric on "entitlement mentality" -- the opponents of public healthcare are opposed to both using money to treat other people's illnesses in a universal insurance sense and they are also opposed to any kinds of controls on making sure the money gets efficiently spent, calling that "rationing".

It's a convenient argument -- damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Re:Congress Sucks

[CptPicard]

I'm not really sure I am all that interested in "having choice" in my healthcare as I believe that medicine is a science and that doctors are far more qualified to make decisions about effective treatment than I am. Of course, I am allowed to refuse treatment in the style of your example. After that, it is simply a matter of making sure that the delivery mechanism of this known best practice works; it is relatively easy to optimize and you can leverage economies of scale.

As for the funding, as it is fairly easy to objectively agree on what we're seeking to achieve, IMO only someone opposing the "entitlement mentality" would be opposed to universal insurance that guarantees the broadest insurance pool. Having "choice" in insurance essentially just breaks the pool up, lets the insurer play games with excluding people from coverage and requires quite a lot of knowledge from the insured person so that he doesn't get screwed buying the wrong kind of insurance that doesn't cover this and that drug...

Re:Congress Sucks

[psmears]

You just don't understand do you? It's not up to you if it's worth trying or not. It's HER life. She gets to decide if she wants to try leeches to cure her cancer. In a private system, she can seek out and purchase insurance that covers what she wants. In a single payer system you HAVE NO CHOICE.

In fairness you do still have the choice to purchase insurance that will give you additional cover. That's not taken away from you - you just get given a baseline level of care that you don't (directly) pay for.

Re: Congress Sucks

[psmears]

regarding comments about drs fees in UK clogging up ER's most drs are bulk billed ur free under our Medicare system. I thought the NHS was the same?

Bengie's comment was unclear - you're absolutely right, nobody pays to see their doctor in the UK - his point was that in the US people have to pay for their doctor so if they can't afford it they go to the ER instead, which is less efficient...

Re:Congress Sucks

[psmears]

I was in the ER recently and while waiting around, I got to talk to a nurse who told me that most of the people they see in the ER are just people who could not afford their regular check-up, so they just come to the ER claiming to have a problem.

I think some people have misunderstood your comment - you're talking about the ER in the US, not the UK, right? (For the benefit of others, in the UK people don't have to pay to see their doctor, and the "ER" is called "A&E" (accident & emergency)).

Re:Congress Sucks

[CptPicard]

Most rare diseases, of course, are not covered at all.

As someone living in a socialized-medicine country and with a very rare disease, I'd say my specialist treatment has always been excellent. I bet I'd have issues getting insurance in the first place in the States, and it certainly wouldn't cover the "pre-existing condition". I'd be willing to bet that it is indeed the rare-disease people who benefit the most from our kind of a system.

Re:Congress Sucks

[rmdingler]

This. And what about your garden variety religious zealots who deny medical care to their children as part of a belief set that their magical benefactor will heal them?

Re:Congress Sucks

[rmdingler]

Yeah they suck, but each of them has a top tier health care plan.

Re:Congress Sucks

[CptPicard]

How exactly is public healthcare to blame for the situation in Greece?

Re:Congress Sucks

[Rakarra]

Maybe it seems that way because you aren't paying attention. People are about 10 times more likely to leave the US for medical tourism than to come to the US.

Yeah, but how much of that is seeking real medical treatment that they were denied, as opposed to disproven or unproven treatments denied here but allowed in more lax countries, like the coffee enemas Steve McQueen got in Mexico to try to cure his cancer?

I'll buy that a bunch of people cross the borders to buy cheap drugs in Canada or elsewhere though.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Holladon]

Medicaid is free. Lots of other things are very cheap, or free, if you are at the bottom of the income scale.

Actually, it's the other way around. People who have more money and can afford to buy things in bulk, for instance, get better prices on virtually everything. People who have economic mobility also have better bargaining power and are better positioned to negotiate down prices. People with sufficiently high liquid assets have access to free banking and cheap credit -- whereas poor people, when they're lucky enough to find jobs that pay a reasonable amount, often find themselves unable to so much as CASH THEIR PAYCHECKS without getting charged for it (and you just try going to your employer and asking to be paid in cash instead of by check. I'm sure that'll work out real well for you). Not to mention, when you have liquid assets/a rainy day fund/etc., you're more likely to be able to float unanticipated expenses without subjecting yourself to extortionate interest rates. And even if the expenses are high enough that you have to borrow to pay them, as noted, you have much better access to cheap credit. Try being poor and getting a loan to pay for your brake replacement. These days, you'll be LUCKY to get approved at 25% APR on a low-limit credit card if your credit score is below, say, 700.

And Medicaid? Oh man. Have you ever tried to qualify for government aid? Fuck, have you ever even filled out a government form other than a driver's license application? Guess who has an easier time proving that they qualify for government aid? Oh, yeah, the people who've had access to sufficient educational resources to understand the legal requirements for qualifying, and to actually, you know, know what their damn rights even ARE. I've met many people on various forms of government aid. Almost to a person, the ones getting any government money worth talking about are people who are educated and financially stable -- and white, by the way.

I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever even MET a legitimately poor person if you actually seriously think that **anything** is cheaper/easier for poor people.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Holladon]

in a single payer system where even the treating physicians are working for the government.

I'm sure there are countries where all of the doctors literally work for the government, but what you're describing is actually socialism, which (Republican lies notwithstanding) is worlds different from single payer. Particularly when we're talking about anything that has a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening in America, this is a critical distinction to keep in mind, and throwaway comments like this suggest either a misunderstanding of important underlying principles or a subtle attempt at intellectual sleight-of-hand.

Cancer drugs are a prime example of this where some drugs, despite their effectiveness on certain patients who may have originally received treatment in the US, are denied as treatments in Canada because they are not on the approved list for that particular type of cancer. This leads to the patients bringing the Province to court in the hopes of overturning their decisions, which may happen but even in the good cases where it does may take years.

It's really no better in the US. It's just that here, to add insult to injury, the people denying the claims are making scads of profit off of it at the same time. Not to mention, there's no presumptive right to review, since it's all contract-based. If you want to challenge an insurance company's decision, you have to pay thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket court costs and lawyer fees just to have the opportunity to make an ARGUMENT that the insurer breached its contract with you. And, before the ACA, as an insured you had virtually no presumptive legal rights -- the insurer was free to write the shittiest, most one-sided contract in the world, and short of lucking out and finding a sympathetic judge*, you'd be SOL if your contract gave them sufficient discretion to deny arguably legitimate payment claims.

*Btw, you need a sympathetic judge to even have a chance to present your case to a jury -- if the judge doesn't like your case, you can get thrown out before trial and your only option is an expensive, years-long appeals process. Oh yeah, and the budgets for the federal court system and pretty much every state judiciary are getting hacked and slashed left and right, since we're in a recession and "you need to pay more in taxes to fund the court system" for some reason doesn't have the same persuasive appeal as "we need to take money from these government departments to give money to firefighters and schools" -- the net effect being that if you're a little guy with a legitimate civil case but no money, you're pretty much fucked. If you're a big corporation that makes a habit of inflicting negative externalities on your customers and/or consumers generally, this is a fantastic development. I was recently at a local bar event and a defense lawyer who represents insurance companies piped up, during a discussion about how California's judiciary is being slowly bled to death by the legislature, suggesting that we make up for the shortfall in court funding by simply raising the initial filing fees from a few hundred to a few thousand. A few thousand, of course, is nothing to an insurance company with a legal budget in the millions (especially since it will likely LOWER costs overall by increasing plaintiffs' barriers to access to the justice system and thereby disincentivizing litigation in the first instance), but it's the difference between being able to pay the bills and defaulting on your credit cards/getting evicted for the average struggling consumer. And... I better stop before I get going on a rant about the bullshit anti-consumer propaganda that is the tort reform movement... (I rep both plaintiffs AND defendants, btw -- I'm by no means an exclusive plaintiff's lawyer, I just know the smell of bullshit when I detect it).

Re:Congress Sucks

[MikeBabcock]

Yes, I live in a country that has actually implemented the system you criticized, and so I told you how it works.

If you don't want to argue about how state-funded healthcare works, then don't. But if you do, those of us who live with it will remind you how backward American thinking on the subject is.

Re:Congress Sucks

[lsatenstein]

Supply and demand. Piss off the doctors and medical industry, and either the docs will retire early, change career path, while disincentivizing the young from entering the field.

If you want to address the "why" of health care being so expensive and limited, maybe you should first understand the "how" of *regulation and it's effects along with the lack of proper industry standards. A lot of our healthcare issues boils down to the entitlement mentality and shoving the burden of support on others without just compensation.

==
Many many doctors I have met who worked in the USA, as surgeons, as GPs etc, returned to Canada to practice. Here is what they told me.
a) As a heart surgeon, I found so many patients I could cure, but they did not have the means to cover the operations cost.
b) After paying fees, and insurance, and always being fearful of a malpractice suit, forcing me to send the patient to innumerable tests, just to cover my ass, found there was no joy in being a medical doctor
c) Hospitals are for profit, which means that examinations, or examination approvals are designed to squeeze the last bit of money from the patient or from his insurance company.
d)As a surgeon I returned to Canada to practice medicine, free from lawsuits, free to all residents of the province, where the dream of saving lives by entering into medicine, is being fulfilled.
e) I returned to a community, I have about 3000 dossiers on active and occasional patients. I am more than a for profit doctor. I earn an above average income. I do not need to have more than two homes. (City and cottage)

Re:Congress Sucks

[Sentrion]

OK, but in this case both apply.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Sentrion]

Check the pharmacy with http://www.cipa.com./

www.planetdrugsdirect.com and www.jandrugs.com are both reputable.

Yes, otherwise there are too many scammers mixed in the pool when you search Google.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Sentrion]

Thanks for pointing this out for AC above. Reverse of multiplication is division.

Re:Congress Sucks

[euroq]

Although, I should point out that preventing death in general is a fruitless endeavor in and of itself.

The fight against preventing death has resulted in ever increasing lifespans for humanity. So, obviously, the resources spent have been fruitful, even if we haven't achieved immortality.

No one trusts the government, but everyone seems to want to put it in charge of health care.

Well, most of the human population actually does put a form of government in charge of health care. (Admittedly, most of the human population didn't actively chose that)

Who is in charge of it with private health insurance? When you have private health insurance, the people in charge of it are people who want your money and will sacrifice your health in order to make more money. I prefer dumbass bureaucrats to people with an incentive to not heal you. (see all the stories about the bonuses insurance company workers got for finding ways to deny coverage).

Also, just because I believe a single payer system would be more efficient and better doesn't mean I find bureaucrats completely trustworthy.

Re:Congress Sucks

[M4n]

Do you not have private providers in Canada? We have the NHS but I can still go and pay for anything I want.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Comrade Ogilvy]

She lives in NYC. I suspect there are enough machines in town. And ultimately the insurance company paid, so it was not for lack of coverage.

Re:Congress Sucks

[Straif]

In many provinces it is actually illegal to charge patients for health related services.

In Ontario, for example, it is not technically illegal to operate certain health related services privately (private clinics are most peoples sources for family doctors) but those clinics cannot charge their patients (they can directly charge foreigners for these services). All cost must be processed through OHIP (the Ontario provincial health plan) and they have set prices for services. This creates an extremely inflexible system where expansion of services happens at a snail pace because the Provinces don't have money to spend on expansion and private industry doesn't want to expand because at OHIP prices they could never recover their costs.

Other provinces have different rules so in some places it is actually possible to just pay to get an MRI, although those services are usually still very limited.

I've always preferred a system where private clinics could have public/private hours where they take provincial health care patients for a certain percentage of their time (with an average patient/hour rate calculated by looking at local hospitals turnaround times to make sure they aren't skimping on public service) but then can take private patients for the rest. I would figure no one could complain over a 75/25 public/private split but you'd be surprised at how many people simply hate the idea that a person can 'jump the line' if they have money even if it meant that because of that system the line would be much shorter for everyone. It's very much a cut off your nose to spite your face mindset.

Hey! Now we know

[phantomfive]

Pundits have been asking how we can overcome the deadlock in congress, and finally get things done.

Now we know. There is full bipartisanship on stupidity.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[tnk1]

This is why I am perfectly happy with gridlock. Anything that allows either party to move forward with their platform just means more spending and more stupidity.

Unfortunately, now they've gone and turned on the nuclear bomb timer and are now arguing about how they want to turn it off. Who knew that the only thing they could agree on was a way to ultimately destroy the government?

Re:Hey! Now we know

[alphatel]

Pundits have been asking how we can overcome the deadlock in congress, and finally get things done.

Let them keep breeding without vaccines. Things will get done even faster when they die off.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[LunaticTippy]

The loss of herd immunity affects everyone, even if you are vaccinated. Vaccines need to be nearly universal in order to have the full effect.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[N0Man74]

Here's a story for you, from This American Life, distributed by Public Radio International.

Episode 370: Ruining It for the Rest of Us, Act 1: Shots in the Dark

Summary:

Measles cases are higher in the U.S. than they've been in a decade, mostly because more and more nervous parents are refusing to vaccinate their kids. Contributing Editor Susan Burton tells the story of what happened recently in San Diego, when an unvaccinated 7-year-old boy returned home from a trip to Switzerland, bringing with him the measles. By the end of the ordeal, 11 other children caught the disease, and more than 60 kids had to be quarantined.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, since vaccines are only ~80% effective (very rough estimate depending on the vaccine, etc), a large number of people who get the vaccine aren't protected either. These are the people who need to be protected by herd immunity. These are the people who are hurt by the anti-vaxxers.

And you never know, you might be one of those whose vaccine didn't work.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[Anonymous Coward]

It only matters to the un-vaccinated.

Which include babies still too young for the inoculation.
Let's not go back to babies dying from diseases none of us should be carrying.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[Lurker2288]

You're a little off. It is possible to be vaccinated but not immunized--the vaccines aren't perfect, after all, so maybe you got the shot but you're still susceptible to infection if you're exposed. Herd immunity protects you by decreasing the odds that you'll be exposed. The same goes for people who are vaccinated, but who are immunodeficient for some reason--even though their immune systems might recognize the pathogen it may not be able to mount a robust response. So it's not just the people who aren't vaccinated who benefit.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[AK Marc]

Who knew that the only thing they could agree on was a way to ultimately destroy the government?

They didn't even agree on that. The Republicans wanted to destroy the country by "starving the beast" and Democrats wanted to destroy the government by providing basic services. But with both working to their separate goals, they succeeded in working together to destroy the country (not government, the government is still standing, even if the jobs are leaving and people are worse off).

Re:Hey! Now we know

[AK Marc]

Vaccinations are not 100%. When 100% of people are vaccinated with a 90% success vaccine, then nobody will get the illness. When 70% are vaccinated with a 90% success vaccine, some vaccinated people will be affected.

There's also babies that die of whooping cough before they are old enough for vaccination, so they recommend care givers of infants get boosters. If the herd immunity was high enough, the babies would be safe until they can get their own vaccine.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[AK Marc]

Because if there's an outbreak, he's one tiny mutation away from death.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[gorzek]

Yeah, but.... FREEEEEEEDOM!

Re:Hey! Now we know

[jeffmeden]

Incorrect. it only matters to the un-vaccinated.

"Herd immunity (or community immunity) describes a form of immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a significant portion of a population (or herd) provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity"

It's about the vaccinated, who are already actively protected, creating a passive protection effect for the non-vaccinated through numbers.

You are correct that herd immunity benefits everyone (Even the unvaccinated) but similarly a lack of herd immunity puts more in danger than just the willfully unvaccinated (since not everyone can be vaccinated for reasons other than their own ignorance/arrogance, and a vaccine doesn't guarantee every recipient 100% immunity). Yes, it would be nice if we could just stand back and let the antivax nuts make their way out of the gene pool, but unfortunately that's not exactly how it works. Plus, not all vaccines are cheap; a government mandate is basically the only way to get the kind of uptake that provides herd immunity. There are many dangers to the path the antivax idiots are interested in going down.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[geekoid]

Some points, cause you are wrong.
1) Vaccines aren't 100% - Elderly aren't as effective, children before vaccinated are at risk. Which is, of course, unvaccinated but somethines peopel forget that includes infants.

2) Un-vaccinated people can be a vector for mutation, rendering the vaccination less effective.

3) Un-vaccinated people cost all of us tremendous amount of money. Lost work, hospitalization, etc...

Re:Hey! Now we know

[tibit]

Heck, some people are actually allergic to certain vaccine ingredients and can't be vaccinated because of that.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[tibit]

I've had it as a kid, and I don't recall it being much worse than, say, the flu I've had at least once in my life.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[jdavidb]

an unvaccinated 7-year-old boy returned home from a trip to Switzerland, bringing with him the measles. By the end of the ordeal, 11 other children caught the disease, and more than 60 kids had to be quarantined.

That's 11 children whose parents should've vaccinated them, rather than blaming other people for their failure or inability to prepare.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[hondo77]

CDC to the rescue:

How serious is the disease?

Measles itself is unpleasant, but the complications are dangerous. Six to 20 percent of the people who get the disease will get an ear infection, diarrhea, or even pneumonia. One out of 1000 people with measles will develop inflammation of the brain, and about one out of 1000 will die.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[rtfa-troll]

Technically, since vaccines are only ~80% effective (very rough estimate depending on the vaccine, etc), a large number of people who get the vaccine aren't protected either. These are the people who need to be protected by herd immunity. These are the people who are hurt by the anti-vaxxers.

And you never know, you might be one of those whose vaccine didn't work.

More importantly your children may be. I think one off the most important things that can be done in this debate is for parents to try to insist on their schools demanding vaccination certificates from all children present or specific medical certificates with statements of vaccine allergies making vaccination impossible.

Gradually we will have children segregated into two groups; those in schools which do have vaccines and those in schools that don't. Then one day we will have a great learning experience for the parents... uh... when we realise that all of the people on one school have autism.... I guess.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[TechHSV]

Even if you're vaccinated you can still get the disease. It just greatly decreases the possibility. Plus not everyone can receive the vaccination due to other medical conditions. So if the kid who traveled was vaccinated, he most likely would not have been infected and it would have most likely meant the others would not have been infected.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[will_die]

Its 12 other children's parents, you are missing the parents in Switzerland who had not vaccinated the child that gave this child measles.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[Darinbob]

Does anyone have a vaccine to prevent children from growing up into politicians?

Re:Hey! Now we know

[socceroos]

Wrong. Being vaccinated does not necessarily make you immune.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[tibit]

Hmm. Perhaps it's that bad, then. Consider me the lucky one, then :)

Re:Hey! Now we know

[dl107227]

And how about the children that are too young for the vaccine? Or the ones with allergies to common components of vaccines (such as eggs). I believe both of those represented children in the story who ended up with a measles infection. That is also one of the reasons we depend on herd immunity.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[tehcyder]

I've had it as a kid, and I don't recall it being much worse than, say, the flu I've had at least once in my life.

You wouldn't be saying that if you'd died of it.

Re:Hey! Now we know

[Kavafy]

But vaccination does not give 100% protection against the disease. So unvaccinated children are actually a danger to everyone (albeit less of a danger to the vaccinated).

Re:Hey! Now we know

[quacking duck]

Much as this demonstrates a serious problem antivaxers have caused in the US, what does the boy catching the disease in Switzerland say about the state of measles vaccination/prevention in *that* country?

(Answer: the antivaxers are just as virulent there as they are in the US)

Re:Hey! Now we know

[euroq]

Incorrect. it only matters to the un-vaccinated.

Incorrect, although your points were correct. The non-vaccinated population allows diseases to mutate into something that can affect the rest of the population. Many old scourges of humanity have been completely destroyed because of near universal vaccinations. Think about this: if nobody who had a venereal disease ever had sex again, then many venereal diseases would be gone in a generation. (Yes I know there are ways around this...)

5.4.3.2.1...

[aztrailerpunk]

Queue the anti vaccine crazies in 5.4.3.2.1...

Re:5.4.3.2.1...

[ColdWetDog]

Hey, cut that out. That's my luggage combination!

Re:5.4.3.2.1...

[Andrewkov]

Yeah, don't they know autism is caused by wifi??

Re:5.4.3.2.1...

[ericloewe]

You haven't read about it, apparently.

Wi-Fi causes rashes, Cell Phones cause Cancer, Vaccines cause autism.

Be sure to get those three straight, or else you'll irritate some idiot who firmly believes he's right because you got his moronic beliefs slightly mixed-up. It's not about convincing them, they're pretty much incurable, but if they're not annoyed they tend to spread their bullshit around a bit less often.

Re:5.4.3.2.1...

[jeffmeden]

Hey, cut that out. That's my luggage combination!

Don't worry, they will never figure out that it only works when standing on your head...

Re:5.4.3.2.1...

[tibit]

What's flamebait about that?! Pretty much spot-on, if you ask me.

*facepalm*

[Desler]

What next? Jenny McCarthy and the doctor who carried out the fradulent study that started this madness get called as expert witnesses?

Re:*facepalm*

[AK Marc]

They just want to get Jenny in their private chambers.

Broken System

[RichMan]

The US electoral system runs on corporate money. Corporate money prefers politicians that can be manipulated. In some cases you get the direct results of the manipulation, in other cases you get the results because the politicians are not fact driven.

There is full bipartisanship on stupidity, and it is because the system is broken.

Re:Broken System

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only broken because the electorate is mostly made up of idiots. If most people could approach issues in a rational manner, it wouldn't matter how much money was thrown at them. In the end the truth would win out. But the basic voter is utterly stupid and can easily be manipulated quite simply with basic emotions. You don't even need money if you can pull the right heart-strings.

Re:Broken System

[Anonymous Coward]

As a professional political social engineer, I can tell you that there is no such thing as a person that can't be manipulated. In fact the more sure you are you can't be manipulated, the easier it is.

Essentially, the whole point of communication is manipulation. Either to get somebody else to do something, or to get some information, which will always be biased by the preferences of the other side and hence effectively resulting in manipulation.

We design whole realities nowadays. and if you ever looked at the schedule of any meaningful politician: It's stuffed with meetings with what are basically purely lobbyist meetings. Sometimes disguised a bit, sometimes not even that. This is where politicians get all their views from. And there is not enough time for any other source to squeeze in.
The same lobbyists are the "sources" for most of your "news" by the way. (Slashdot is included in this.) So as unacceptable as it sounds... this is where your views come from too. (And mine, I must painfully admit.)

You can check all of that. You'd be an idiot to believe an AC... especially a SE one. So go ahead. trust your own eyes, and your own eyes only.

Re:Broken System

[dywolf]

the system isnt broken. it's amoral. i has no rightness or wrongess, no fixedness or brokenness. the system just is. it is a tool. the tool is never anything in and of itself but a means to some end. what the end is is dependent on the user.

and right now the majority of the users arent paying attention and/or dont care about how the tool is being misused to their detriment. they're too busy watching Biggest Loser and the Kardashians.

Re:Broken System

[vell0cet]

Could you imagine the amount of money they'd make treating people with the diseases? Or lifelong treatment of people with complications of the disease?

Wheelchair makers would make billions on polio victim alone!

Re:Broken System

[stymy]

Keep in mind that the reasons politicians bend over for corporate money is because that money gets them votes through advertising. However, if they think something else will get them votes, like this anti-vaccine nonsense, they'll do that. I'm sure the pharmaceutical companies aren't very happy about this.

Re:Broken System

[radtea]

We design whole realities nowadays.

"Freedom is freedom to say 2+2=4. Grant that and everything else follows." You're familiar with the source, so I won't bother to cite it.

Wish I had mod points though: your post definitely deserves a
+1 Funny".

Understanding Burton

[kadams54]

This is mostly a side note, but I grew up in Dan Burton's district. He has a grandson with autism and has made the anti-vaccination a personal cause. That's not to excuse his ignorance, but rather to help provide understanding. Powerful emotions are at work here, which is why confronting them with rational logic will not work. To be honest, I wish his constituents would vote him out of office; his district includes a number of employees at the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly (headquartered in Indy) and his anti-vaccination stance puts him at odds with their best interests.

Re:Understanding Burton

[Hatta]

There are millions of parents of autistic children who are smart enough to understand that there is no connection between vaccines and autism. The fact that he has an autistic child doesn't help provide understanding. He's an idiot plain and simple.

Re:Understanding Burton

[CajunArson]

Wait a minute... I thought we were only supposed to like politicians that stood up to big evil corporations*. Here we have a politician who is standing up to big evil pharmaceutical corporations, shouldn't we be applauding him?

* Note that I never said it had to be *logical* to stand up to them, just that you bash them as "evil." The word "corporation" has replaced "jew" as an acceptable target of pogroms in the modern age.

Re:Understanding Burton

[kadams54]

Sorry but that is no excuse.

*sigh* Which would be why I said, "that's not to excuse..."

Re:Understanding Burton

[MozeeToby]

He has a grandson with autism, that to me should mean he would be better informed than the average. Instead he's globbed onto the anti-vaccine crowd so that he has someone to blame for his family's hardships. It's disgusting that we let people like that control the political debate in our nation.

Re:Understanding Burton

[cyber-vandal]

Yeah those poor persecuted billion dollar world controlling artificial entities and the suffering billionaires who run them. How on earth can you say with a straight face that fear of the too powerful is in any way equivalent to persecution.

Re:Understanding Burton

[gorzek]

At what point is someone supposed to be accountable for believing in things that are just plain wrong? I get that emotions factor heavily into it, but that's not an acceptable excuse from someone who is elected and paid to make sensible, informed decisions about public policy. Check your emotions at the door, or abstain from voting on those issues. At the very least, your emotions had better be tempered by information, so you're voting based on facts and not just "gut feelings" or because you're upset.

When did embracing our base instincts and engaging in intellectual laziness become virtues?

Re:Understanding Burton

[T.E.D.]

Burton actually is retiring at the end of this session (this month). Kusinich lost his election, so he's leaving too.

Basically this is just a bunch of tinfoil hat screeching from a couple of loonies who no longer have to tone down the crazy because they know they won't have to face the voters again.

Re:Understanding Burton

[compro01]

The word "corporation" has replaced "jew" as an acceptable target of pogroms in the modern age.

Hath not a corporation eyes? Hath not a corporation hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer? If you prick them, do they not bleed?
If you tickle them, do they not laugh? If you poison them, do they not die?

Somehow it just doesn't seem to work.

Re:Understanding Burton

[kadams54]

I think it's important to recognize that, on this issue, Burton is an ideological crusader. We know that we tend to deal with cognitive dissonance by suppressing evidence to the contrary. In Burton's mind, he is basing his stance on information:

A number of credible national and international scientists testified that mercury in vaccines is a contributing factor in developing neurological disorders, including, but not limited to, modest declines in intelligence quotient (IQ), autism, and Alzheimer’s disease and the body of evidence to support that conclusion gets larger every day.

http://burton.house.gov/issues/autism

As I said before, I think the only way to combat this is to remove Burton from office. His view is a powerful mix of cherry-picked evidence and raw emotion and will likely never change. I am hopeful, given the right opposition candidate, that his constituents (many of whom are chemists, doctors, and other scientists who know better) will replace him if he continues on this path.

Re:Understanding Burton

[tibit]

Doubly so an idiot for not understanding that emotions don't usually lead to rational decisions. Going on an anti-vax crusade due to having an autistic kid is equivalent to going on a rape spree because you just couldn't hold it anymore.

Re:Understanding Burton

[frank_adrian314159]

... his district includes a number of employees at the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly (headquartered in Indy) and his anti-vaccination stance puts him at odds with their best interests.

Not necessarily. Pharmaceutical firms hate vaccines. They hate the costs associated with producing them, they hate the governmental restrictions on pricing, and they'd like to get out of the business altogether. And many pharmaceutical companies don't actually produce vaccines, but may produce drugs for the amelioration of symptoms due to and/or cure for the disease caused by the pathogen.

In short, don't assume that Burton is working against anyone's interest other than those of the general populace, whose health he's endangering with his stupidity.

Re:Understanding Burton

[gewalker]

Burton retired (probably reading the tea leaves, he was strongly contested in the primaries in 2010). Susan Brooks will be seated as his replacement come January.

Re:Understanding Burton

[kadams54]

No assumptions - remember, I grew up there. Lilly's had to spend millions on legal costs associated with Thimerosal lawsuits. They may be out of the business these days, but they've still had to defend themselves against lawsuits for vaccines manufactured in the 1970s. Another quirk that not many realize: lawyers will typically sue any and all manufacturers of a particular drug. It doesn't matter if Lilly made the vaccine that the child in question received; if they made a [fill in the type here] vaccine that year, they'll be included in the suit.

Re:Understanding Burton

[compro01]

Burton is already being replaced. He announced his retirement almost a year ago and is gone in January.

Re:Understanding Burton

[ls671]

You will see Scully, you will see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_and_the_Black_(The_X-Files)

Re:Understanding Burton

[Kavafy]

Exactly, exactly, exactly. And not only that: he's an elected representative, with an obligation to inform himself honestly and as objectively as he can.

Re:SAY NOTHING

[aztrailerpunk]

The problem with this is we need their children to be vaccinated as well. see Herd Immunity

this is an old, old, story

[crgrace]

Anti-vaccination rhetoric is nothing new... in fact at the turn of the 20th century there were huge struggles regarding the smallpox vaccine. It's a fascinating instance of the struggle between liberty and social responsibility and the rights and the responsibilties of the individual with respect to the state.

There's an amazing book about the early-20th-century smallpox vaccination campaigns and the associated anti-vaccination campaign called Pox: An American History.

I can't recommend it enough. Says so much about the United States and how people's opinions have change (and how for some, they haven't!).

Anyway, here's the link: http://www.amazon.com/Pox-American-History-Penguin-Life/dp/1594202869

Re:this is an old, old, story

[MozeeToby]

Yes, stupid people have been speaking out against vaccines for more than a century. But this isn't stupid people on the street. It isn't a former playboy model. It isn't your high school drop out cousin. These are the people we chose to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. That they are so wildly, ridiculously misinformed on such an important topic is horrifying.

Re:this is an old, old, story

[T.E.D.]

Actually, no. Both of those men will be out of office next month. "We" chose others to represent us. Both are being replaced by women, as a matter of fact.

So essentially this is a couple of stupid people on the street, minus about 3 weeks.

Re:this is an old, old, story

[tibit]

Political positions usually negatively select fair, intelligent decision makers who are not driven by ideology and dogma.

These people infuriate me, way more than...

[kannibal_klown]

These people annoy me more than rabid moon landing denyers.

The people that believe the autism link, are really out there. I've seen interviews with people that believe this, and no matter what facts/figures/papers you put in front of them they believe they are wrong or lies. Yet they're sure the one report they heard about or read is 100% the truth.

What's more aggravating is when they invite you to prove them wrong, PLEASE prove them wrong, I don't want this to be true and don't want to fear this. Then someone does, and that same person just ignore them.

Penn and Teller had a great episode about this on Bull Sh*t. It's quite insane.

I mean, I have an easier time understanding people that believe the moon landing was a hoax. I don't subscribe to that theory, but I can at least understand them. It was a big deal, we really only have the government's say-so that it happened and that they didn't just send a probe to land stuff. Just 1 source: the government. Fine, be paranoid. It's not really hurting anyone if a person doesn't believe we landed on the moon.

But these people, they have tons of independent studies, investigations, saying that the link was faked or just plain wrong It would be one thing if just ONE party was saying the autism link was bunk... but we have LOTS of different / independent / smart people debunking it. And they don't want to believe it. Meanwhile children suffer.

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than...

[Jason Levine]

What's more aggravating is when they invite you to prove them wrong, PLEASE prove them wrong, I don't want this to be true and don't want to fear this. Then someone does, and that same person just ignore them.

And then, when you do prove them wrong, they move the goalpost (the "reason" why they think vaccines cause Autism) and then tell you that you need to prove them wrong again. If you refuse at any point, they take it as a sign that they've won. No, anti-vax proponents, you can't just think up wilder and wilder explanations as to why/how vaccines cause autism and claim that everyone else needs to disprove you or you are correct. It is up to you to present evidence. Real, testable evidence. (And, no, "thinking of something in your head" or "listing something that goes into vaccines at some point in the process" isn't real, testable evidence.)

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than...

[MachDelta]

Penn and Teller had a great episode about this on Bull Sh*t.

This one?
It's cute. (And also NSFW without headphones). Doesn't really address the core argument in any way, but it's still a fun demonstration.

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than...

[erroneus]

I have no direct knowledge and I, like most of everyone else, simply have to trust in my medical professionals.

But I have a concern. We know that mercury is poison. Why is it needed for vaccine? Perhaps someone here actually knows the answer and would share? Surely there are other elements or chemicals which could be used in place of mercury?

That said, I recognize that we get more mercury from fish than we get from vaccinations. After all, most people eat more fish than they take vaccines. Also, there is the occasional broken flourescent bulb... especially popular now are the CFLs right? We have ample sources of mercury so refusing vaccinations on that basis is kind of ridiculous in a sense... you're getting your USRDA of mercury in other forms.

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than...

[The Moof]

These people annoy me more than rabid moon landing denyers.

As well they should be. Moon landing deniers are a fun debate about government conspiracies. However, at the end of the day, nobody's affected by their belief that we never made it to the moon. Antivaxers, on the other hand, can kill other, non-antivax people with their misguided beliefs. The second you're delusion starts harming people, there's a huge problem.

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than...

[PeterM from Berkeley]

Point 1: they've taken thimerosol out of most vaccines.

Point 2: We probably get more mercury exposure from burning coal than from CFLs. I personally get most of my mercury exposure from my silver-mercury amalgam fillings. That last one really adds up. CFLs are pretty much innocent, just like you admit vaccines are.

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than...

[rubycodez]

False! why do you spread an urban legend, a rumor, just because you feel it makes you part of the "right" side of an argument?

Get the facts, right from the US government, mercury is STILL USED and is LEGAL in many vaccines

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#t2

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than...

[niado]

But I have a concern. We know that mercury is poison. Why is it needed for vaccine? Perhaps someone here actually knows the answer and would share? Surely there are other elements or chemicals which could be used in place of mercury?

You are referring to Thiomersal. It was used as a preservative, but is no longer used, largely due to a thought process similar to the one you present.

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than...

[AK Marc]

It hasn't been in vaccines for years, and the reports of autism increased with media reports, increasing after the removal of mercury.

P.S. Cl is a poison, and Na is also deadly. But they are the two ingredients in the most common seasoning on the plant. You really put NaCl into your body? It's an explosive metal and gaseous poison!

There's nothing wrong with mercury in vaccinations, and no evidence anyone was ever harmed by its presence.

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than...

[tibit]

You don't get any mercury exposure from silver-mercury amalgam fillings. The fact that there are mercury atoms somewhere in your body doesn't automatically translate into bio-available mercury.

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than...

[smaddox]

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

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than...

[ZombieBraintrust]

Mercury is used as a poison to kill bacteria that may contaminate the vaccine. In vacines that don't use Mercury some other poison is used to dissinfect the vacine. Mercury is contained in fish.
Most pediatric vaccines come in doses of 0.5 mL (one-half milliliters) so most concentrations are reported “per 0.5 mL.” Because thimerosal is half mercury, a vaccine with 0.01% concentration of thimerosal
= 0.005% concentration of mercury
= 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL of vaccine.
(For comparison, most commercial fish contain an average of 23 micrograms of mercury per 8 ounces of fish (i.e., 0.1 micrograms of mercury per gram of fish)).

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than...

[kannibal_klown]

Agreed, which I state. But, they're mostly harmless idiots. Their belief in a faked moon landing doesn't affect me or my family beyond aggravation. Let them spread the paranoia for all I care.

But, spreading the paranoia about the whole vaccine thing... that hurts people. It convinces people to not vaccinate their kid which causes problems for their kid AND for people who can't get vaccinated easily (allergies, money, other stupid parents, etc).

-----------

However, the best argument I've heard about the mirror / flag thing is... "What's more believable, that way the heck back they sent people... or they sent a really simple probe that just dumped some stuff on there"

Again, stupid and represents the impossibility of arguing with them. But as far as they're concerned, that's a reason and somehow something "we" have to disprove.

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than...

[AK Marc]

OMG, you figured out that naming one of the elements in a chemical may not be a good representation of the properties of that chemical.. So Hg in a compound doesn't necessarily make that compound deadly. That was the point.

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than...

[AK Marc]

Looks like less than 10/50 in the chart you linked to have it, and anyone worried about it can avoid those specific ones without much trouble. You've said nothing that contradicts anything I've said, so I'm not sure what you are claiming is false.

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than...

[Electricity Likes Me]

It's also not used at all in some European jurisdictions, yet the autism claim keeps coming up there too. Same with Australia.

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than...

[quacking duck]

I mean, I have an easier time understanding people that believe the moon landing was a hoax. I don't subscribe to that theory, but I can at least understand them. It was a big deal, we really only have the government's say-so that it happened and that they didn't just send a probe to land stuff. Just 1 source: the government.

Two governments, actually. The USA says it happened. The USSR didn't say it didn't happen.

These were bitter cold war rivals, not ten years before they almost came to nuclear war over Cuba, and the USSR still didn't call them on it--and they had a half dozen missions to do that, too. On top of all the other scientific rationale, this one really cements it. Anyone who then takes the conspiracy theory further and claims the USA and USSR were colluding in a moon hoax belongs in a padded cell.

Re:SAY NOTHING

[MightyMartian]

If it only affected their brats, I'd agree with you. The problem is that once you break herd immunity, others may die. There are people who for various reasons cannot take vaccines. Providing almost everyone they come into contact with is vaccinated, there is little likelihood of infection. Once herd immunity is broken, such individuals are at grave risk.

Re:Dumb fundie article

[Desler]

How about you people explain why the only studies showing any links were to due to fraud and any legitimate study shows no links?

Re:Hasn't this been solved?

[MightyMartian]

More than debunked, Andrew Wakefield (I refuse to use the epithet Dr. for this vile repugnant and thoroughly evil man) has been outed as a con artist who was attempting to undermine the use of MMR vaccines so he could push his own vaccine combo.

Well...

[benjfowler]

Looks like fucking idiots are well represented in Congress.

Congrats to the American people for electing these utter fuckwits to office. Pat yourselves on the back.

Re:Well...

[cyberchondriac]

Yeah, well, I'm sure your government is perfect and your country a utopia.

Re:Dumb fundie article

[MightyMartian]

Shut up troll. The MMR-autism link was Wakefield's fabrication.

Re:I really wish they would try this

[Attila Dimedici]

OK, now that you have separated the religious people into geographical regions according to whether or not they are educated (non-secular is another way of saying religious), what is your plan for the secular (non-religious) people?

Typical

[vlm]

This is the same organization that prays before meetings, wants evang christianity inserted into everything, and wants to regulate everything. No newsflash that they did something flaky. Next week look forward to pi() being defined as "3" and a repeal of the law of gravity.

Re:Self-healing system

[benjfowler]

Problem with this idea, is that these monsters endanger kids and very sick immunocompromised patients in hospital.

IF enough people opt out, herd immunity is destroyed (i.e. there's enough unvaccinated people around for a disease to propagate and linger in a population), and the death rate will soar. It's already happening.

*shrug* I think I could object less if only rabid libertarians died of vaccine preventable diseases; but it just doesn't work that way.

Re:Freedom of choice

[Arancaytar]

I agree that you shouldn't be obligated to get vaccinated, provided you lock yourself into your house and never touch or breathe on anything in public ever .

Re:Freedom of choice

[khb]

"I do not care what you put into your body but I do care if you try to force me or my family to take something against their will."

The problem is that unvaccinated people create a repository for the disease. It harms the entire "herd" for some to not be vaccinated. Vaccination isn't a panacea, some people can get sick (although typically less seriously than if they'd been vaccinated)

Perhaps the way to "split the difference" is to set up "reservations" for people who don't want to be vaccinated. Or perhaps a single state. Then you will all only have each other to infect. Also, it will provide compelling evidence ... if you are right, you'll all be healthier than the rest of us. If you aren't, at least we won't be suffering because of poor choices you've made.

Anti-Science party is...?

[superdave80]

And here I thought it was just Republicans that were anti-science. Looks like the Dems are trying to join the club as well.

Re:Anti-Science party is...?

[GungaDan]

Kucinich wasn't an anti-science rep. Hell he claimed to have seen a UFO from Shirley MacLaine's house. Science fiction is kinda like science, right?

Re:Anti-Science party is...?

[Quiet_Desperation]

Politicians are pro-themselves.

Everything else is bullshit and advertising.

"a vocal antivax lobby exists"

[93 Escort Wagon]

So they're against out-of-date computers?

Please don't try to invent bad catch phrases that don't make any sense. Nobody refers to vaccinations as "vax". Yes, we get it - "vax" rhymes with "tax", and there's overlap in the two groups. Really clever, we're all in awe of your wordplay prowess.

Re:"a vocal antivax lobby exists"

[erroneus]

It also rhymes with "fax" which is short for facsimile.

Merry Xmas.

Re:"a vocal antivax lobby exists"

[idontgno]

Oh, that's just hax.

Or, to the English-impaired, "that's just h@xx0r".

Re:"a vocal antivax lobby exists"

[blueg3]

While vaccine is not shortened "vax" (in common usage), "antivax" is the common shortening for the anti-vaccination lobby. Stupid? Yes. Common usage? Also yes.

If you're going to be nitpicky, people opposed to VAX would be anti-VAX, not antivax.

Re:"a vocal antivax lobby exists"

[blueg3]

Only one example? Don't be so lax.

I'm in a group that dresses up like it's the 80s and holds candlelight vigils to promote world peace. I sent out flyers recently about it using an archaic telecommunications medium.

That's right, it was the "Wax Pax to the Max" fax.

Re:Freedom of choice

[Desler]

Fine. Keep yourself and your brats away from other people and their kids if you want to be disease carriers. You have no right to harm others because of your stupid decisions.

Re:Dumb fundie article

[maeglin]

Stupid typical slashdot science fundie article.

For everyone of you who claim that vaccines saves lives, tell that to the parents of children who develop autism for no reason and within days of getting a vaccination shot.

At least they didn't die of pertussis. Unless that's your goal -- eliminate autism by letting more children die? Do you hate autistic children only, or all children?

Are you 100% certain that the vaccine shot that you are willing to take, or that you are willing to give your children is really safe enough to put into your body?

I am 100% certain the vaccines are safer than the diseases they prevent. That's all that is required of them.

Another thing, why is it that vaccinations that are given to children are the same dose that are given to adults? Is that really safe for children?

I don't know. Maybe because vaccines aren't medicines? Is your assertion even true? Who knows.. Go ask a scientist. It's strange that you seem to think your ignorance is a valid argument against science. What was that meme?... "Fucking magnets, how do they work?"

The last thing, do you really think that the companies that make these really care if you have ANY health problems from whatever vaccine they make for you when in the US they are protected by law from harming you?

No. Do you really think their goal is to spread autism?

Re:Insane

[dkleinsc]

1. Dennis Kucinich's Politifact record: He's about 17% wrong, as he is in this case. That's a considerably better record than many.
2. He's lost his seat. You don't have to deal with him past January.
3. For what it's worth, I've met the man, and I've seen no signs that he was 100% insane. And I've met people that were pretty insane.
4. He's been frequently right when most of Congress was wrong. For instance, he firmly believed that Iraq had no WMDs.
5. Ron Paul doesn't think he's nuts, and worked with him regularly on bipartisan initiatives.
6. He's turned his political career into a small fortune and marriage to a really hot redhead, so his goals are reasonable enough.

One sided

[TelavianX]

I am not anti-vaccine by any means. I am just anti all vaccines for a newborn baby. Why pump a human, at its most critical stage, with a bunch of foreign chemicals? Does a newborn really need to be vaccinated against STD's? Why not wait until the child is more robust?

Re:One sided

[Ichoran]

It's because compliance rates are higher for younger children, all else being equal. So if you _can_ vaccinate at 6 months, the argument goes, why wait until, say, 12 years, when the chance you'll actually get it done is lower?

Re:One sided

[241comp]

Assuming you really want to know and aren't just asking to start an argument: It is because newborns are at greatest medical risk if infected by one of the many diseases for which they are vaccinated and because for some diseases (such as Hep B), once it is contracted it can be a lifelong illness which later vaccination cannot prevent/cure. From the WHO:
"Young children who become infected with the hepatitis B virus are the most likely to develop chronic infections:

90% of infants infected during the first year of life develop chronic infections;
30–50% of children infected between one to four years of age develop chronic infections."

Re:One sided

[s73v3r]

Does a newborn really need to be vaccinated against STD's? Why not wait until the child is more robust?

You mean, wait until after they've started having sex?

Unless you have some evidence showing that it is a bad idea, pipe down.

Re:One sided

[MozeeToby]

A child's immune system is well established in the months after they are born, else the vaccines wouldn't do anything in the first place (since they rely on the immune response to actually do anything). We vaccinate children as young as possible because young children get sick! Pretty much the only "STD" that a young child is vaccinated against is Hep B, which is also transmitted any number of other ways and has huge repercussions for the rest of the child's life if contracted. Not to mention that every single "well baby" visit is less likely to be attended than the one before it, especially by the poorest people who are at the highest risk for these diseases.

This isn't rocket science! Vaccinating children, even newborns has zero detectable health costs (despite the anti-vaccine crowds looking for them for decades) and provides enormous benefits.

Re:One sided

[PortHaven]

Because, doing 1 vaccine every few months is less likely to cause risk to the life and well being of the child. Then to be lazy and give them 8-12 in a six month period.

Re:One sided

[TelavianX]

So you are saying all or none? Which is quite an unconvincing argument and then you tell me to pipe down? I think vaccines help quite a bit, but diet helps quite a bit more. Anyways, In 1975 Japan eliminated all vaccines for children under two and that when that happened; their infant mortality rate plummeted so that it was the lowest in the world.

Re:One sided

[PortHaven]

Yes, but let's look at which ones are needed early and which ones are not. Hep B is not really needed early if mother is not infected.

Re:One sided

[alen]

STD's are transmitted by liquids, sex is just a vector

lots of conditions like blindness back in the old days were caused by infections that weren't controlled through drugs or vaccines. just because a pathogen doesn't kill you doesn't mean it can't hurt your body, especially with young children

Re:One sided

[Lurker2288]

So, you can cite some facts to support your contention that spreading vaccines out is less risky? Or is that just your amateur opinion?

Re:One sided

[ericloewe]

Unlike most people think, "sparing" one's immune system from having to deal with all sorts of crap does not make it better. Quite the contrary. The earlier the better, too, since it promotes the development of an immune system and reduces the risk of some freakish infection.

Essentially, if it's been proven safe at ~6 months (somewhat random choice, but the logic holds), there's no point risking waiting any longer, especially because there are no positive side effects from waiting.

Re:One sided

[Quiet_Desperation]

Er... when do kids start having sex in your neck of the woods? ;-)

There's like, you know, a *few* years between birth and sexual activity where we could more rationally schedule the vaccinations. Vaccinations are not forever in many cases, and vary widely as a function of the virus and even individual biochemistry. Scheduling them later is logical for something like STDs.

Re:One sided

[Ichoran]

Actually, a lot of early vaccines don't really contribute to lifelong immunity, even if the immune system is mature enough to generate some protective temporary immunity. Vaccine catch-up schedules for older children often skip one or more injections.

Also, a lot of young children don't get sick any more because of herd immunity. If you don't vaccinate them, though, you have to be extra-confident the herd that they are interacting with is adequately immune. (If you herd your babies, which we generally do, then you do need to have the baby-herd immunized to get protection.)

Re:One sided

[PortHaven]

Well, I'll give you one right now...

If you give a child multi-package vaccines. It becomes much more challenging to determine which may be providing a negative indicator.

And we can probably look to the history of number of people who die when 2 or more illnesses afflict them as being statistically higher. As pretty solid proof of a higher stress on the immune system.

But my whole point is how said info is reported and collected, essentially it's usually not. Leads to a gap in which pretty much all the evidence is questionable in most of these studies.

Re:One sided

[TelavianX]

"Zero detectable health costs"? Look at http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data.html. So far 2.5 billion has been paid out in court for vaccine related injuries. If you actually think about it for every case brought to court there is probably 100 or maybe a 1000 times more that doctors explain away. Vaccines are not nearly as clean cut as you think.

Re:One sided

[TelavianX]

The WHO also lists diet as a bigger risk to well being yet very little is being done about it. http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/en/ People would much rather waste trillions on medical costs than fight the problem where it starts.

Re:One sided

[TelavianX]

A lot of problems were also caused because of malnutrition yet that is never really thought about.

Re:One sided

[TelavianX]

In 1975 Japan pushed all vaccines to 2 years or older. Their infant mortality dropped to the lowest in the world.

Re:One sided

[MozeeToby]

Ok, I should have been clearer, vaccinating earlier has zero detectable costs when compared to vaccinating later.

As for the complication rate, it is an order of magnitude smaller than the complication rates for the diseases that they vaccinate against. Diseases that used to be pandemic and almost certainly would be again if vaccination rates drop much more than they already have. On an individual, game theory level, you might have an argument for things not being clear cut. After all, if I'm never exposed to the disease (because everyone around me is immune) there's no benefit in getting the shot, there is only the (statistically tiny) risk of an adverse reaction that permanently harms me. But if everyone follows that logic society loses massively as the diseases return to their old levels. That's why the vaccine compensation courts were set up in the first place, to guarantee that the cost of an adverse reaction is recoverable, putting averaged out cost for the patient as close to zero as possible.

Re:One sided

[compro01]

The only "STD" an infant would be vaccinated against is Hepatitis B, and that's given because Hep B is also transmissible via breastfeeding, and the assays are unreliable at detecting recent infections.

The other early vaccines (Rotavirus, DTaP, hib, pneumococcal, and polio are given at 2 months) are against diseases that are a significant source of infant and early childhood mortality, and thus it is a really good idea to immunize against them as soon as possible.

Re:One sided

[niado]

Yes, but let's look at which ones are needed early and which ones are not. Hep B is not really needed early if mother is not infected.

Hep B is considered an "optional" vaccine for this very reason - there is a very low risk of contracting it. But, shit happens, so some people like to get it just in case (and some doctors recommend it), since your baby getting Hep B would be a nightmare, and there are virtually no side-effects.

Re:One sided

[TelavianX]

There is some logic to that but not much. There is a clear correlation between insecticide use and polio for instance. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/west5a.html When the polio vaccine for first introduced polio rates dramatically shot up. Some governments even banned the polio vaccine. http://www.vaccinetruth.org/polio_vaccines.htm As of today the polio vaccine is the number one cause of polio. http://www.preventdisease.com/news/12/011812_Polio-Vaccinations-Are-Now-The-Number-One-Cause-of-Polio-Paralysis.shtml

Re:One sided

[tibit]

Newborns are the most robust things out there, at least mechanically speaking. Most adults would never make it alive through an upsized ride through the birth canal. Same goes for falls, and various other things. I'm not entirely sure that a normal newborn is in any way "at its most critical stage".

Re:One sided

[tibit]

And you have solid proof the two are related. Care to point to any references?

Re:One sided

[tibit]

Mr. Cruise, is that you?

Re:One sided

[MozeeToby]

I could spend hours picking apart your links but how about this one. One the one hand, they argue that 'non-paralytic' polio numbers were being included to boost the reported cases in order to generate support for the vaccine. On the other, they talk about the "Cutter Laboratories Incident" where live virus made it through the vaccine manufacturing process and infected tens of thousands of people. The only problem? Of the tens of thousands of people infected by the Cutter Incident, a whopping 56 of those cases were paralytic. By their own argument the incident was a tiny blip on the radar. Not to mention the fact that the incident was a national scandal, caused by poor practices and not a result of the vaccine itself.

They also ignore the fact that polio is still epidemic in countries where the polio vaccine is not available. They flat out lie about the numbers of polio infections (claiming that they were in rapid decline in the early 1950s when in fact 1952 was one of the worst outbreaks ever). They try to support those numbers by arguing that polio deaths is a more accurate count that polio incidence despite the fact that there were dramatic improvements in the treatment of polio going on in the 1950s.

That's as far as I got before I was too overwhelmed with the mind-numbing blindness of their analysis to continue. They have made their decision on what the numbers mean, and they'll be damned if the numbers are going to say anything else.

Re:One sided

[PortHaven]

It is not optional. It is mandated by many states due to the leading of the FDA. I mean, yes, you could live in your own little hole and not get it. But if you want your kid to go to pre-school. It's very mandatory.

Re:One sided

[TelavianX]

The numbers don't lie, but your interpretation of them might.

Re:One sided

[PortHaven]

No, I was thinking about maybe age 7-10 when their immune system is a bit more developed.

Re:One sided

[Lurker2288]

It's certainly true that the more things child a receives at a time, the more difficult it may be to attribute an adverse reaction to any one of them. Which doesn't support your original claim, that "doing 1 vaccine every few months is less likely to cause risk to the life and well being of the child." Your second argument, that being infected with two diseases at once produces greater mortality, may or may not be accurate (you've provided no supporting evidence), but that's only material if vaccination produces disease. If your contention is that children are at risk of mortality due to concurrent infections caused by vaccination, then please provide some evidence that this actually happens in the real world.

It might seem like I'm unfairly placing the burden of evidence on you by demanding these things, but I need to point out that the U.S. vaccine schedule is determined by doctors and experts in immunology and infectious disease who take this very seriously and who have access to the best data available. If you're suggesting we do something different, then the amount of evidence you'll need to provide to justify that is pretty substantial.

In your last line you suggest that there's a problem with the way this issue is studied--fair enough. Can you explain to me what you think the problem is? I'll point out that the government requires that vaccines be studied the same way they'll eventually be used, so you have kids in group A who get the new vaccine, and kids in group B who get a placebo. Groups A and B will be as alike as possible in all other respects, including the other vaccines they receive. These studies don't turn up the evidence of harm that you seem to think should be there. Likewise, there have been numerous large (as in tens of thousands of patients) observational studies conducted in multiple countries which compare different vaccine schedules, and none of these have identified a smoking gun. So what about the current state of the evidence allows you to dismiss it out of hand?

Re:One sided

[dev.null.matt]

While your argument is pure misdirection, there's a pretty simple reason that there is no "mandatory nourishment" for children but there is mandatory vaccination.

While terrible, malnutrition only affects the malnourished child. Vaccines are not 100% effective (http://www.smallpox.mil/messageMap/messageMapAll.asp?cID=57). Thus, exposing the UN-vaccinated child to the normal population puts the 5% on whom the vaccine is not effective at risk.

As with most things the government mandates, the reason is to stop you from posing a threat to society as a whole.

Re:One sided

[niado]

It is mandated by many states due to the leading of the FDA. I mean, yes, you could live in your own little hole and not get it. But if you want your kid to go to pre-school. It's very mandatory.

Interesting, I just looked this up to verify and you are correct. It seems that I happen to live in one of the 3 backward states that does not mandate it.

Re:One sided

[blackraven14250]

Were there any concurrent changes to infant care during that time that could also account for the difference? I'd imagine that it was part of a larger set of regulations, not just this simple change alone, that may have made this irrelevant.

Re:One sided

[mvdwege]

Oh hell yes there was a concurrent change: Japan was going through an economic boom.

Infant mortality strongly correlates to material welfare. Richer people tend to have more money to spend on postnatal care.

Re:One sided

[abies]

My friend works with severely disabled/handicapped children, with quite a few of them being result of adverse vaccine reaction. No, it is not very common, but this is a special institution which gathers all such cases from large area over the country - so from his personal point of view, there is 'plenty' of cases. He said that bringing his own daughter to be vaccinated was one of most scary experiences in his life, even if he knew that statistics make it extremly unlikely that anything goes wrong. But he still DID vaccinate his child. Despite of having to care about 10+ vaccine 'victims' each day, he still believes it is right thing to do.

Re:One sided

[Electricity Likes Me]

It is mandated by many states due to the leading of the FDA. I mean, yes, you could live in your own little hole and not get it. But if you want your kid to go to pre-school. It's very mandatory.

Interesting, I just looked this up to verify and you are correct. It seems that I happen to live in one of the 3 backward states that does not mandate it.

It's also very important we mandate it there, because little kids do stupid things like gets cuts and scrapes and generally practice poor hygeine and would sterilization practices. If you wanted to pick an environment where they're going to exchange bodily fluids likely to spread Hep B, that's the one.

From wikipedia:

HBV can be transmitted between family members within households, possibly by contact of nonintact skin or mucous membrane with secretions or saliva containing HBV.[47][48] However, at least 30% of reported hepatitis B among adults cannot be associated with an identifiable risk factor

More importantly: it's effects are very long term. Get it when you're little, and you could become a chronic carrier. Lo and behold at age 40 you're suffering for liver cancer, and probably die of it. Or nothing happens - but you give it to your kids, who that then happens to.

It is a nasty, long-term illness with very severe consequences for a sizeable number of those who get it.

Re:One sided

[Electricity Likes Me]

But which more likely yours does.

Re:One sided

[Electricity Likes Me]

Hep B is transmissable by any number of factors. Something like 30% of infections have no known vector, and it's known to tend to spread amongst families (i.e. people living in the same household). Sexual transmission is a very likely means of infection, but it's not the only one and long-term exposure to people with Hep B in close quarters is likely to result in an infection - we just don't worry about it, because most of the world is vaccinated against it.

Re:SAY NOTHING

[Jason Levine]

Exactly. If only children of anti-vaccination parents got the diseases, I'd say this was the parents' personal call and keep the government out of it. But when a parent says "I'm not vaccinating my kids", they expose other kids (too young to get the vaccine, vaccine didn't "take", or has a valid medical condition keeping them from getting the vaccine) as well as senior citizens who grew up pre-vaccines to the disease. People DIE because of this. All caps just seems too small to emphasize this. If you don't vaccinate your kid, you might be responsible for someone else's baby dying.

And, even if you are heartless and don't care about anyone else's kids, get your kids vaccinated. To quote Penn and Teller: Even if vaccines caused autism - WHICH THEY DON'T - but even if they did, it would be much better for your child to get autism than to DIE from the disease.

(Note: I'm a parent of a child with autism, albeit high functioning autism, and I likely have autism myself.)

Re:SAY NOTHING

[Amouth]

And I thank everyone for taking their vaccines. I happen to be one of the people who can't get them anymore due to medication i'm on, and yes it would suck if the general public wasn't mostly vaccinated.

Re:Insane

[Gr33nJ3ll0]

Between the hot redhead, and the not quite 100% insane he almost sound human! :)

Ignore the lawyers behind the curtain

[xanthos]

Helicopter mommies don't buy congressmen, lawyers do.

Product liability lawyers don't want this potential cash cow to die just yet. All they need is a judge who doesn't believe in science because they personally "know better."

Re:Ignore the lawyers behind the curtain

[Archangel Michael]

All they need is a judge who doesn't believe in science because they personally "know better."

That works for all sorts of things, doesn't it? Gay Marriage, Snails in canals in California, bugs in trees, owls, global warming .... All we need is one judge to rule them all.

Re:Let them die. That's what natural selection is

[codewarren]

That's not how vaccination works. No vaccination provides 100% immunity to 100% of recipients. Instead it relies on getting enough people vaccinated to make it difficult for the pathogen to find fertile ground. This is known as "herd immunity". If large swaths idiots refuse vaccination, that in turn puts the non-idiots at risk.

Re:I really wish they would try this

[Amouth]

So as one of the educated people why not send the uneducated up north to deal with the winter, and the rest of us head south where the weather is a lot more hospitable?

Re:Dumb fundie article

[denobug]

Stupid typical slashdot science fundie article.

For everyone of you who claim that vaccines saves lives, tell that to the parents of children who develop autism for no reason and within days of getting a vaccination shot.

Are you 100% certain that the vaccine shot that you are willing to take, or that you are willing to give your children is really safe enough to put into your body?

Another thing, why is it that vaccinations that are given to children are the same dose that are given to adults? Is that really safe for children?

The last thing, do you really think that the companies that make these really care if you have ANY health problems from whatever vaccine they make for you when in the US they are protected by law from harming you?

I don't usually make such direct and opinionated comment but you sir, is an idiot. Many vaccinations in discussion here are well proven with plenty of track records on their effectiveness and potential side effects. This records spans multiple DECADES and all over the globe. The United States Congress is running a race to the bottom while the rest of the world is trying to vaccinate every kids in their country to improve their public health. Yet someone like you is standing behind a position with very little proven science and are very much in a position to prevent the stability of public health.

We are not just talking about funding studies here on the side effect, which most would agree to be a beneficial thing (even if they don't agree with it). In fact we are talking about STOPPING current vaccination programs, which has been proven to be HIGHLY effective as far as public health goes. This goes a farther than than the individual expression. Public health at large must be properly protected with programs well run and supported by the professionals with good knowledge and experience. Right now the majority of the experts says vaccination is a good thing. We need to trust their ability in their field. There are very little reason why would majority of medical professionals would lie together on issues such as this.

I also don't normally make this request but some with mod points please mod this post down to negative (I don't mind if you do mod mine down as well). This post has zero benefit to the readers and is nothing but flame bite.

For the record I took all the vaccination required and it has no ill effect on me.

Re:Insane

[philip.paradis]

For what it's worth, I've met the man, and I've seen no signs that he was 100% insane. And I've met people that were pretty insane.

A guy walking down the street wearing a bathrobe chanting odes to aliens that resemble giant bunnies is only dangerous to the extent that motor vehicle collisions might occur due to the distraction of the spectacle. Conversely, people who generally appear stable and sane, but hold deeply ingrained lunatic views and occupy seats of power are the ones you need to worry about.

Re:Insane

[sycodon]

He's turned his political career into a small fortune...

Is it just me, or is this a bit disturbing?

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[Desler]

And if you think that's a scienfically smart practice. You need to pull your head out of the textbook which is stuck in your arse.

So if it's not "scientifically smart" then you can clearly point out the medical studies to show this, right? Otherwise your just spouting empty rhetoric.

Re:Dumb fundie article

[s73v3r]

For everyone of you who claim that vaccines saves lives, tell that to the parents of children who develop autism for no reason and within days of getting a vaccination shot.

I would ask them whether they'd have a child with autism who is still alive, or a child that developed Polio. One of those children could still live a healthy, full life. The other one would be dead before they hit puberty.

Another thing, why is it that vaccinations that are given to children are the same dose that are given to adults? Is that really safe for children?

Show us your research that it's not.

Unfortunately...

[Nexion]

It will likely take proving out what causes autism to quell concerns about vaccinations. I personally believe that it is unlikely that vaccines cause autism and can only assume that it is something genetic. Perhaps it is just that we coddle people too much these days so they don't have to integrate. Maybe we just saw the worst cases as "insane" people and properly diagnose now. I do take objection to forced medication however as I believe it is unethical. Yes, it is sad that children suffer the choices made by a parent. Sadly they are too young to make an informed choice themselves. Would I vaccinate my child? Yes, of course. The benefits far outweigh the potential consequences IMHO. Do I know for certain that vaccines cause absolutely no harm? No, and nor does anyone else.

Re:Unfortunately...

[niado]

Do I know for certain that vaccines cause absolutely no harm? No, and nor does anyone else.

Well, it is known that vaccines cause at least some harm..., but it's not even comparable to other things, such as...riding in cars, and most parents don't have a problem transporting their children by automobile.

Re:Unfortunately...

[PRMan]

One theory is that it isn't the vaccines as much as the change in how the vaccines are given. When I was a kid (I'm almost 43), a doctor would NEVER give you a vaccine when you were already sick. And they would NEVER vaccinate a pregnant woman. They would reschedule it for later.

Today, doctors don't seem the least bit concerned about having an infant's developing body try to fight off multiple diseases at once or subjecting the unborn to disease fighting antibodies. I sometimes wonder if this change in behavior in vaccinating infants and unborn children causes developmental problems such as autism, which has increased at a rate that genetics alone cannot explain.

At least 5 times doctors have recommended that a member of our family be vaccinated while already sick. In all cases, we rescheduled until we were well. They also recommended that my wife get a vaccine while pregnant, but we refused until after our daughter was born.

My father on the other hand was talked into a flu vaccine while he already had a bad cold (that's why he went to the doctor!) and got pneumonia and almost died. Because old people's brains are apparently unable to see danger (see Slashdot), he continues to swear by his flu vaccine despite the fact that he comes down with the flu about a week later and has for about 5 straight years now (but doctors will tell you that science says this doesn't happen). He tries to get us to get flu vaccines as well, but we don't and we don't get the flu like he does. I have only had the flu once in the last 5 years, and my wife twice.

Re:Unfortunately...

[tibit]

How the heck do you know your dad is coming down with flu like clockwork after getting the flu vaccine? That'd be a rather big discovery if that were true. Talk to some immunology profs...

Re:Unfortunately...

[compro01]

Today, doctors don't seem the least bit concerned about having an infant's developing body try to fight off multiple diseases at once

Because they already are, every hour of every day. Do you have any idea at all how many viruses and bacteria you're exposed to on a given day?

They also recommended that my wife get a vaccine while pregnant

That depends on the vaccine. Seasonal flu vaccination is recommended during pregnancy, but tetanus vaccinations are to be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

My father on the other hand was talked into a flu vaccine while he already had a bad cold (that's why he went to the doctor!) and got pneumonia and almost died. Because old people's brains are apparently unable to see danger (see Slashdot), he continues to swear by his flu vaccine despite the fact that he comes down with the flu about a week later and has for about 5 straight years now (but doctors will tell you that science says this doesn't happen)

Lemme guess, he's getting the nasal mist flu vaccine.

God damn it

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

I used to have respect for Kucinich, too.

Isn't there anyone in Congress who has the people's best interest at heart AND has a brain in their head?

The two traits are so uncommon in Congress that I suppose it would be wishful thinking to imagine that there was any overlap.

Re:God damn it

[akeeneye]

Maybe not in the Congress, but thank the FSM for Bernie Sanders in the Senate.

I used to have respect for Kucinich, too.

Isn't there anyone in Congress who has the people's best interest at heart AND has a brain in their head?

The two traits are so uncommon in Congress that I suppose it would be wishful thinking to imagine that there was any overlap.

Re:God damn it

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Maybe not in the Congress, but thank the FSM for Bernie Sanders in the Senate.

Don't you mean "Maybe not in the House"?

Re:God damn it

[akeeneye]

You're right, that's what I should have said. I sit corrected.

Re:God damn it

[PRMan]

If you truly cared about others, would you go to Congress or work for a church or the peace corps or a charity or something?

And if you had a brain in your head, would you go to Congress? Or would you do something creative that makes you feel fulfilled because you solved a difficult problem or created something beautiful or useful?

From the answer to the 2 above questions, it should become obvious who goes to Congress...

Re:God damn it

[c6gunner]

Kucinich has been a 9/11 denier for most of the last decade, along with pushing all kinds of other crazy conspiracy theories about mind-control satellites and chemtrails and such. The lunatic even proposed a bill that would ban "psychotronic" devices that are "directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of ... mood management, or mind control." He's a less-vocal version of Jessie Ventura. Why in the world would you ever have had any respect for him?

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[silentquasar]

I wish I could vote this up. I think the whole Autism freakout thing unfairly devalues the argument that the science on vaccine safety is severely lacking.

I also am not against vaccines on principle, but am nervous about them in practice.

Re:Dumb fundie article

[spire3661]

NO proven link between the two. Until you can show solid proof, you have no standing. You might as well say autism is caused by foul aethers.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[Slippery_Hank]

The causality argument for a single observation is NEVER strong, especially when that observation was a clinical treatment and not a controlled scientific experiment. If for every 1000 vaccines a doctor sees there is a single complication, then he is right to dismiss it as a statistical anomaly. Causal relationships don't exists if they are only present 0.1% of the time.

More propaganda from the Big Pharma

[sgt_doom]

".. a connection that medical experts have shown does not exist."

Sonny, you ever actually read any real scientific studies? Any actual research protocols of studies you claim to prove otherwise??
Those "medical experts" from those companies which have racked up the largest criminal penalties in the history of humanity: GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Merck, etc, etc., ad nauseum?

Over the past several years I, and numerous others, have posted links to well-respected and reputable studies by scientiest throughout the planet --- one of the recent ones was the French study detailing the correlation between incidents of childhood autism and the number of vaccinations administered to very young children under the age of 2 years, etc.

Unless you cite an overwhelming number of verified, and verifiable, studies with proper protocols having been followed, to bolster your point, you are just another voodoo-hoodoo stooge.

You remind me of that propaganda sister station to FoxFiction, NPR, which last year, on the anniversary of the Kennedy Assassination in November, broadcast a pure fiction as fact interview with a retiring crackerhead from South Carolina, who claimed to be a "journalist" and wrote the Rambler column for a major Southern newsrag.

This clown claimed to have run into a woman in Tennessee who had served in the military back in the 1950s, and while practising on the firing range at the base she was stationed in at Japan, frequently saw a young quiet Marine who came almost every day to practise firing his rifle. The Rambler claimed this woman told him she later recognized him again as Lee Harvey Oswald, on the day of Kennedy's assassination in November of 1963.

Problem? Women weren't allowed on any military firing range back then, and not even back in the late 1960s and 1970s when I was in the bag (in military and combat). Fiction is fiction, sonny, no matter how many times you spin it....

Re:More propaganda from the Big Pharma

[darkstar949]

This clown claimed to have run into a woman in Tennessee who had served in the military back in the 1950s, and while practising on the firing range at the base she was stationed in at Japan, frequently saw a young quiet Marine who came almost every day to practise firing his rifle. The Rambler claimed this woman told him she later recognized him again as Lee Harvey Oswald, on the day of Kennedy's assassination in November of 1963.

Problem? Women weren't allowed on any military firing range back then, and not even back in the late 1960s and 1970s when I was in the bag (in military and combat). Fiction is fiction, sonny, no matter how many times you spin it....

Eh, without knowing more of the story there is no reason to say off hand that she might not have been on the firing range unofficially. According to official history about 20% of the WACs served overseas in the 1950s and even if they weren't officially allowed on the firing range, there is nothing to say that the rules might have been bent or broken for someone. There is just know way to know for sure without more information. Also, June 1975 is when the weapons training became mandatory for women.

This isn't to say that the story is true, but that off hand there isn't anything that raises an immediate alarm bell.

Re:More propaganda from the Big Pharma

[Chas]

Over the past several years I, and numerous others, have posted links to well-respected and reputable studies by scientiest throughout the planet --- one of the recent ones was the French study detailing the correlation between incidents of childhood autism and the number of vaccinations administered to very young children under the age of 2 years, etc. [/quote]

Yet there's not a link available in this post to any of the things you've purported to talk authoritatively about.

Moreover, you haven't give your credentials so we can understand whether or not you're another internet pundit or if you are, in fact, in a position to judge scientific data accurately.

As to whether these companies have been sued or not. Been found guilty of crimes or not. This is just FUD at work.

Microsoft and Apple have been prosecuted and lost. People still buy and use their products.

Yes, the fact that they're getting sued over DRUGS is a bit more important than "My iPod blew up when I dropped it on a bunsen burner". This is what government oversight is supposed to be for.

Also, the people screaming about "This particular ingredient is bad/evil/poisonous" seem to thing single exposure contagion is enough to kill people.

Certain things, in certain quantities over certain periods of time can be extremely unhealthy for you. Yes.

The amounts going into vaccines and their preservatives are infinitesimally lower than that, in singular doses that are then filtered out of the body rapidly without having time to build up to dangerous exposure levels.

As with most other emotion-based negative responses, all people are doing is pointing at one small portion of a thing and going "BAAAAAD! ALL BAAAAAAD!"

Re:More propaganda from the Big Pharma

[Logarhythmic]

You might have tried reading TFA before accusing the submitter (who, by the way, has a PhD in a science field and probably knows a thing or two about what makes a credible research study) of not providing any evidence to support his position. There are actually quite a few references provided, if you had bothered to check before accusing a well-respected scientist of fabricating a work of pure fiction.

Re:More propaganda from the Big Pharma

[will_die]

The parent knowledge is really off. During the 40s and 50s WACs basically ran a lot of firing ranges for the army, you have many places where they filled every position except for the top leadership slot. This can be seen in various Army history books.

Re:More propaganda from the Big Pharma

[darkstar949]

You're not offering proof --- I stand by what I say, based upon my very own military experience --- and I didn't even bother to mention that those closest to Lee Oswald never were aware of his spending any time at the firing ranger, other than the mandatory qualififying, when he failed and they would pencil him in. sgt_doom

I'm not saying that they aren't mistaken or lying about seeing Oswald I'm just saying that there is nothing about that story that seems implasable on the face of it meerly because of a women on the firing range. Although the more I think about it and with regards to what the other commenter said, I can't think of any reason that a woman couldn't have been an RO given that WAC's where armorers during WWII (also a hard job to do if you can't fire the weapon in testing). Some of the basic of the story check out as women did serve overseas during during that time frame and someone bending the rules (or breaking them outright) isn't exactly unheard of in the military so I'm just saying that you can't dismiss it on those two grounds. There are tons of other better reasons to do so.

Re:More propaganda from the Big Pharma

[HArchH]

No, that's not what people are doing. For many years science reported time and time again of the link between mercury preservatives and autism. People with disabled children are desperate to understand why their child is affected and the link, from authoritative sources, seems to make sense. Science created this problem with the false reports, published in respected journals, and supported by numerous other studies over the years. Then suddenly the original reports are discredited as the work of a liar and a cheat and all of the people that read those reports over time are supposed to change their minds? No way.

I've discussed this with university educators as recently as four years ago that were fully convinced of the relationship between autism and vaccination and who marked my daughter's reports down when her writing questioned that link.

It's going to take years to undo the harm done by the original and follow up reports. Public perceptions of risks and benefits are not objective. And right now there is little epidemic consequence to not having vaccinations. But when enough people are no longer covered, and kids start dying from polio, whooping cough, and other formerly controlled problems, the fault is all going to rest with those that wrote and published the lies about the relationship.

Re:Freedom of choice

[Desler]

People already do get quarantined if they carry highly infectious diseases. What's your point?

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[Ichoran]

The VAERS database is open. You can check yourself to see if your entry is there (assuming you know enough to find it in anoymized form).

    https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index

Re:SAY NOTHING

[MightyMartian]

Quite frankly I don't think it should even be a choice. We limit liberties in other ways for the general good; you can't throw toxic waste into water systems, you can't drive the wrong way down the highway, you can't shout "fire" in a theater and you shouldn't be allowed to move freely through the populace unvaccinated.

Feel free .....

[sgt_doom]

...to have those "mystery" vaccines shot into you which were concocted in those dirty bathtubs by sub-sub-subcontractors in China --- you ever follow the current news, ever?????

Re:Feel free .....

[crgrace]

...to have those "mystery" vaccines shot into you which were concocted in those dirty bathtubs by sub-sub-subcontractors in China --- you ever follow the current news, ever?????

Actually, the quality of the vaccine is a critical issue and was one of the main axes the vaccination/anti-vaccination struggle revolved around. In fact, it was addressing exactly this kind of concern that the United States started regulating pharmaceutical companies. The book I linked to "Pox: An American History" goes into a lot of detail about this issue. This is one area where anti-vaccination agitation improved the way we provided vaccine.

It's very interesting... at one point around 1900-1905 the United States had compulsory vaccination, but didn't take responsibility for the quality of the vaccine. We've come a long way since then, but we can still do a lot better.

Re:Feel free .....

[niado]

I think you just got wooooshed. I hope.

Re:Feel free .....

[Culture20]

...to have those "mystery" vaccines shot into you which were concocted in those dirty bathtubs by sub-sub-subcontractors in China --- you ever follow the current news, ever?????

Whew, for a moment there I thought my investment in tin foil stocks was a bad choice. Thank you good Sir for proving me wrong.

I believe GP is referring to the fungal meningitis infected steroid shots which were processed in a "factory" with wild birds flying (and pooping) in the rafters. The compounding center was in New England, not China.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[hondo77]

Data being poor is exactly why you and your wife are unable to get the HPV vaccine. CDC to the rescue:

If a 30-year-old female patient insists that she wants to be given HPV vaccine, can I give it to her?

HPV vaccine is not FDA-licensed for use in women older than age 26 years at this time [emphasis mine]. Studies are currently being conducted in women age 27 years and older. ACIP does not recommend the use of this vaccine outside the FDA licensing guidelines; however, many physicians administer this vaccine as off-label use. There is no reason to believe the vaccine would be any less safe for women in this age group than for younger women. Clinicians should decide if the benefit of the vaccine outweighs the hypothetical risk.

You should have gotten off your pro-science arse and done a quick Google search.

Re:Freedom of choice

[s73v3r]

- Are you a nurse or a doctor? Some hospitals require you to take a shot.

You made the choice to go into that line of work. Don't like it? Find another job. Isn't that what all of you "freedom" people shout whenever a labor dispute happens?

- Are you in the military? Good luck denying taking shots.

Same thing. YOU chose that job. Don't like it? Find another job.

- Are you student in a public school? Staff claims that it's "the law" to take shots. Some schools do not even ask permissions, they just give shots.

You are using public resources, those come with restrictions. You do NOT have the right to endanger anyone else just because you think it's some kind of right.

These are just simple examples how vaccines are pushed, in many times against persons will.

In not one of those cases was it against someone's will. In every single case, the person made a choice to go into a field or use a service knowing full well that it would have that condition. They were completely free to choose something else without that condition.

And one last thing: in many cases medical companies lobby and outright finance drug approval agencies, just like with any big business. Medical business is no different from military, finance or oil. If you don't trust these industries why the hell would you trust medical?

You're going to have to prove that this is true, and that it is relevant in any way.

Regardless of party

[ThatsNotPudding]

If a congress critter is actively threatening our herd immunity (and oh, look; Whooping Cough is back with infant fatalities!), that critter needs to GO (as in defeated).

It doesn't matter if it's because you believe in a book of fiction or some air-headed celebrity that has to find blame for an imperfect snowflake;: your crackpot beliefs must STOP WHERE OUR IMMUNE SYSTEMS START.

Re:Regardless of party

[PortHaven]

You do realize, that a LOT of these "re-surgent" diseases. Have hit those who were already immunized...

Re:Regardless of party

[Quiet_Desperation]

You're going to have to cite something to support "a lot" but, yes, for whooping cough the CDC blames a less than stellar vaccine rather than lack of herd immunity. The French are developing a better one administered via nasal spray. That being said, vaccinated kids do suffer less severe symptoms from the disease, and an imperfect vaccine is not an argument against vaccination. No vaccine is 100% perfect, and new disease strains come along (the annual flu season being the archetype for that problem) but it's absolutely, positively better than nothing.

Re:Regardless of party

[PortHaven]

My point is, that there will almost never be a perfect "herd immunity". Granted, perhaps we might actually make a few diseases go extinct. Lyme would be nice. Seriously wish we ahd a vaccine for that.

And for the most part, I am very supportive of vaccines for highly infectious and contagious diseases. Like respiratory infections, measles, etc.

I have issue on mandates for less infectious diseases, particularly those that are along the lines of STD transfer. (drugs, sex, blood/fluid exchange, etc). Not sure I feel those should be mandated.

My daughter was up on all her vaccinations, but Hep B. We were waiting a while longer on that one. And was unable to attend pre-school because of it.

Re:Dumb fundie article

[alen]

the MMR vaccine is given at the point when autism would be first detectable. but there are always signs before hand that are ignored.

i have 2 kids and the first was thought to maybe have aspergers and missed some milestones

autism has nothing to do with MMR or vaccines because in the US autism is an upper middle class condition and clusters in areas where people are better off than most people. the latest theories are fertility treatments which a lot of upper middle class people use, having kids later in life or having a lot of chemicals around your kids. there was a study in northern europe that linked autism to some plastic flooring used in homes

why is it that almost everyone gets vaccinated but autism is mostly found in middle class families with mothers who have kids later in life?

want to lower your risk of having kids with autism? have kids in your twenties, don't party and get drunk every other day, keep healthy and have kids naturally without chlamid or invitro or any other procedure

Re:I really wish they would try this

[bobthesungeek76036]

The country is already divided pretty equally down the middle. Religious zealots want pro life, guns, war, and no Gubberment. Non religious sensible folk want universal health care, no war, no class warfare, etc. Basically you can choose to progress to the future or regress to a cave, depending on which side you choose.

I'll take the former and progress to the future thank you very much.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[PortHaven]

I agree...

I'm not sold on the autism issue, but I think there are other links and concerns often overlooked.

Re:I really wish they would try this

[compro01]

I'll take snow and cold over hurricanes.

Oh great, the one time we get bipartisanship ...

[bhartman34]

... and the commonality is idiocy. In a just universe, Kucinich and Burton would both be stripped of their seats and set adrift on a large barge with the other anti-vaccine imbeciles. I hope anyone who voted for those two asshats sees the error of their ways, now.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[PortHaven]

Wrong...

If he dismisses it becauce he believes the complication rate is 1 in a 1000. And every time there is any incident, dismisses it for that reason. He is, creating his own false dichotomy.

Er...

[Quiet_Desperation]

Well, at least it was a bipartisan effort. Um, yay?

Easy Solution!

[DarthVain]

Those that don't want vaccines can go get put on a list. They don't get vaccine, everyone else does. Let the invisible hand of darwin figure it out.

Re:Oh great, the one time we get bipartisanship ..

[Quiet_Desperation]

I hope anyone who voted for those two asshats sees the error of their ways, now.

Bah ha ha ha ha! Good one!

Both been in Congress since the last century.

Re:Insane

[bhartman34]

1) It doesn't matter what percentage of the time he's right. If he's got this particular position, he's a moron. It's like being smart other than thinking the moon is made of Gouda cheese.
2) Thank .
3) 100% insanity doesn't matter. As we see here, 1% insanity goes a long way.
4) See #1
5) Ron Paul thinking he's not nuts should tell you something.
6) Crazy people can often do quite well for themselves. Look at Jesse Ventura.

Re:Dumb fundie article

[ericloewe]

Let me correct you. Idiots only harm themselves. That guy is complete asshole.

Re:I really wish they would try this

[Attila Dimedici]

Well, OK, but you said you wanted the uneducated religious people to move south of the Mason-Dixon line (I assume that is what you meant by "the Dixie line") and educated religious (non-secular) religious people to go north. What I wanted to know was whether your intention was for the non-religious people to divide along the same lines (in which case I suggest that you should prepare to move south, since you apparently are unfamiliar with the what the Mason-Dixon line is and the fact that it bears no connection with Dixie--except that the part of the country known as Dixie is south of the Mason-Dixon line, although not all of the U.S. south of the Mason-Dixon line is "Dixie".).

Re:Insane

[bhartman34]

It's disturbing, but it's a pretty common occurrence. The thing that nauseates me about it is he puts himself forward as a champion of the people.

Re:Let them die. That's what natural selection is

[gmuslera]

So natural selection will help even more. Will take out the idiots that refuse vaccination, and the non intelligent enough people that live near to them.

/. Bypartisanship:

[Hartree]

This whole submission is an exercise in bipartisanship. We have a story of politicians from both sides being silly.

We also have slashdotters from both sides assuring us that the politician from the party they don't like is a complete insane moron and that the one from the party they like is just occasionally wrong and shouldn't be written off as a fool.

There seems to be symmetry here.

Re:I really wish they would try this

[bobthesungeek76036]

Where will the majority of the folks go? You know, the educated religious people???

At some point in the not too distant past

[mark_reh]

it became a bad thing to tell a stupid person that their ideas were crap. We told them that they were all special and unique snowflakes and their ideas were as valid and important as anyone else's.

Have you ever noticed that stupid people are almost always on the wrong side of every argument? Unfortunately, our American democracy counts the voices of the stupid equal to the voices of the not stupid. That's why we are still arguing about evolution, global warming, etc.

The US is well into a permanent downward slide and the human race in general is doomed. We have destroyed our planet before our technology enabled us to leave it behind. I think the thanks goes mostly to the stupid...

People who rail against vaccines

[WillAdams]

should be assigned to care for people in iron lungs for whom the Polio vaccine was too late.

Re:People who rail against vaccines

[barryvoeten]

Did you know they only introduced that one after the peak was already past?

Re:People who rail against vaccines

[TelavianX]

The use of polio as a vaccine example is an epic failure. There is a clear correlation between insecticide use and polio for instance. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/west5a.html When the polio vaccine for first introduced polio rates dramatically shot up. Most european governments even banned the polio vaccine. http://www.vaccinetruth.org/polio_vaccines.htm As of today the polio vaccine is the number one cause of polio. http://www.preventdisease.com/news/12/011812_Polio-Vaccinations-Are-Now-The-Number-One-Cause-of-Polio-Paralysis.shtml

Re:Antivaccination frauds are murderers

[ericloewe]

Can we just form lynch mobs and get rid of them?

Vaccines vs. natural immune assault by environment

[PeterM from Berkeley]

Hello,

    We have maybe 12 different vaccinations for infants. I read this in a health magazine:

"When a child is born, he or she is literally assaulted by thousands of species of bacteria and viruses that child has never seen before, because they were in the sterile womb environment. Given that, I don't think we need to worry about the relatively small number of shots we give children."

I found that a difficult point to refute--you get born, and suddenly, yes, you're immersed in a bunch of germs. Thousands or maybe millions of types! This is normal, expected, and unavoidable. Yet we're supposed to get worried because we add a dozen or so dead germs to that list of exposure?

This doesn't really address "bunch of foreign chemicals", but I think that the other, inactive components of vaccines can be tested for safety. Even thimerosal, which tested as safe, was removed as a precaution because it had some mercury in it, so what, exactly, are you worried about in the "foreign chemical" arena???

--PeterM

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[ericloewe]

I understand your point of view. Please consider the following:

I could list a couple of deadly diseases that can almost certainly be avoided by a vaccine, which is almost certainly safe. It's a high risk of death vs. a small risk of some weird side effect, which will most likely be very minor (especially when compared to something as debilitating as death).

Re:Hasn't this been solved?

[Lurker2288]

No to mention the fact that at this time of his 'study' he was on the payroll of a lawyer looking to gin up some anti-vaccine lawsuits.

Warning, warning on cited web studies (Eli Lilly)

[sgt_doom]

http://antiantivax.flurf.net/

The above site mentioned is owned by a marketing director at Eli Lilly, Paul Sleigh, in Australia. You want to check back on Eli Lilly which, until that recent criminal penalty against GlaxoSmithKline, held the record for the largest criminal penalty levelled against a biopharmaceutical. That's what I meant about criminal corporations and their propaganda. How about a neutral party, sonny?????

Equivocation is the real plague

[Anonymous Coward]

What does creating a virus strain that could be in the wild right now in order to learn how to kill it have anything at all to do with vaccines? If I add more question marks you will take me seriously??????????

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[PortHaven]

Just the fact that the doctor immediate dismissed vaccine as a reason, and retorted that vaccines are unlikely to be the cause. Even given the symptoms matched the symptoms of the illnesses that vaccination was for.

And the fact that such experiences are fairly common, is proof the system of solicitating the data is flawed. And sorry, scientific method says if you discover a flaw, you go back an fix it. And right now there is a serious flaw in medical denial of symptoms being attributed to vaccines.

The doctor wouldn't even bother to report it, so I had to report it to VAERS. (And yes, I did confirm, it is there...) But for most people, when something like this incident occurs. It's not ever being reported. So we're making assumptions on bad data.

Heck, and I'm not even anti-virus. I don't buy the autism link. I just think our methodologies of implementing, delivering, and how we require/refuse certain vaccinations is rather !@#$% up.

Re:Vaccines vs. natural immune assault by environm

[Ichoran]

Welllll, those thousands of other bacteria and viruses aren't usually injected into us in quantities high enough to often cause a low-grade fever. Let's not use bad evidence, even if the concerns are unwarranted or part of mass hysteria or whatever.

Re:Any of you stooges following the news?

[Lurker2288]

What does the H5N1 research you reference have to do with vaccination, exactly?

Re:Let them die. That's what natural selection is

[codewarren]

...or work near them, or shop near them, or watch movies, or fly on planes, or ride trains. Where exactly is this place devoid of all idiots that you speak of?

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[MozeeToby]

Causal relationships don't exists if they are only present 0.1% of the time.

Sure they do, you're probably missing some other factors, but you can still have a causal relationship. For example: eating peanuts causes an allergic reaction in .5% of people, that is a statement of a causal relationship. A better statement would be .5% of people are allergic to peanuts and eating peanuts causes an allergic reaction in 100% of them, but that doesn't invalidate the first statement in the slightest.

Quarantine for infectious, deadly disease

[PeterM from Berkeley]

Hello,

    I fully expect to be quarantined if I am unfortunate enough to contract, say, drug resistant TB until I'm either dead or not contagious.

    Similarly if I am infected with ebola, pneumonic plague, or a raft of other nasties. Furthermore, I fully support society's right to lock me away should I be infected with one of those.

    HIV is barely contagious. However, I believe there are cases where people who have deliberately spread HIV have been locked up, too. But for most people, HIV+ people don't need to be locked up because they have a very low risk of infecting anyone else.

    And I think even people with TB don't need to be quarantined if they're taking sufficient measures to stop infecting anyone else.

--PM

Re:Quarantine for infectious, deadly disease

[PortHaven]

HIV is almost guaranteed to be a mandated vaccine when it comes out in a few years.

Probably be mandated for children and not available for adults. :-P

Re:Freedom of choice

[PortHaven]

Not harming mine...

Then not harming millions...

Call me evil, or call me a father.

But I am kind of confused here. So if I don't get my kid vaccinated, and you do. What risk is there to your kids? Just saying...

Re:Let them die. That's what natural selection is

[Quiet_Desperation]

Everyone sane will leave the country soon anyway.

Oh yeah? Where are they going?

I'm serious, because I want to go. Do I need to be in the 1%. I'm in the 3%.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[Ichoran]

Er, wait, so female protanomaly colorblindness isn't a result of genetics because the rate is only 0.01%?! Sadly, blanket statements are no substitute for statistics.

Re:Freedom of choice

[PortHaven]

Yes, that'd suck...and my kids were vaccinated for polio and most other common illnesses.

In fact, I'd like to get the HPV vaccine....but can't. Cause I'm too old. Yet it's okay to mandate children get it?

Seriously, that's just !@#$% up.

Re:Let them die. That's what natural selection is

[Quiet_Desperation]

Crap. Quote fail. Now no country will want me. :-(

Re:Insane

[AK Marc]

He's been frequently right when most of Congress was wrong. For instance, he firmly believed that Iraq had no WMDs.

Iraq did have WMDs. We found them. They were all Made in the USA and given/sold to him by Reagan. They were also so old as to be inoperable. But they were there. But that was ignored because now that Reagan is dead, we aren't supposed to talk about his multiple treasons. We are at war with Iraq. Reagan gave/sold weapons to our enemy we are at war with.

Ron Paul doesn't think he's nuts, and worked with him regularly on bipartisan initiatives.

Wait, are you arguing for or against his sanity? Most don't agree Ron is all there.

He's turned his political career into a small fortune

So abusing your politcal power for personal gain is a good thing?

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[UnknowingFool]

As for the science, well considering how few vaccine related incidents are ever even attributed to vaccines. I am skeptical, the analysis can be right. But if the data is poor, the science means very little.

Care to qualify that statement about "poor" data? One study conducted in the Netherlands showed that the risk of autism was the same whether a child received the vaccine or not. Why the Netherlands? Because of universal health care and Dutch health systems, there are very detailed medical records on virtually all of the citizens there. So records on millions of children could be analyzed. That was just one study.

But here's what happens. Doctors believe that there is almost no vaccine related issue.

I challenge you to come up with one public health official that has ever said there are no risks to any vaccine or medication. There are always risks. Read the warnings on a bottle of aspirin. For the vast majority of people, vaccines are safe. For a very small group of people, there are adverse reactions ranging from minor to major problems. In this case, doctors studied the autism risk and concluded that the possibility is very unlikely.

So when they're presented with an issue that is probably vaccine related. They dismiss it. And so the data is a very very poor sampling.

What planet have you been living on? When the supposed link was first suggested many different doctors from many different countries studied it. And after years of study (most of which at taxpayer expense), they all could not find a link. Frankly I am disgusted that these researchers and doctors could have spent their time on other research that might have shed more light on autism rather than chase a ghost.

So sorry, I am pro-science. Pro-vaccine. Just have issue with how the FDA handles and mandates some of them. And even more issue with the fact that we give 18 month old immune systems up to 6 vaccines in a single office visit.

What is your specific objection to the schedule? Would you prefer that there are more dead 18 month olds to make you more comfortable?

Re:Freedom of choice

[PortHaven]

My point sir, is that vaccines should only be mandated for highly infectious diseases. If we're mandating such, than it should be a highly infectious disease.

We're mandating the Hep vaccine which is basically on par with HIV transferrance methods. So we're deeming it highly infectious, but not quarantining.

That's my point, if it can spread from sneeze to cough. Yes, I see a societal need. But if it's not highly infectious. Than I do not think it should be mandated by law. Highly recommended - yes.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[Ichoran]

Don't forget to multiply by the risk of catching the disease when you say "high risk of death".

The calculation for at-risk populations can be very different for low-risk populations. That's why, for example, countries in temperate climates don't bother vaccinating for yellow fever unless people are going to be traveling.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[ericloewe]

Let's see...

The FDA does some very weird shit. I'm not familiar with their handling of the HPV vaccine, but I do know its effectiveness is greatest when taken before any sexual contact, therefore the focus on kids. Everything carries risks, so why risk a vaccine that is barely effective?

As for your daughter, a mild form of the disease is a common side-effect from some vaccines. It's been statistically documented and is known. You imply your daughter was fine after the admittedly unpleasant side-effects. The amount of vaccines doesn't imply a higher risk either. Some vaccines are mostly devoid of side-effects, and some have more. Whenever more than one vaccine is administered at once, it means the combination has been studied and shown not to be a problem.

It's weird that you're dismissing the statistical analysis that is done for vaccines, yet start drawing conclusions from a sample size of one. If you're going to criticize generally-held medical opinions, you might want to learn medicine first. You wouldn't claim that General Relativity is BS without actually studying it, would you? It's a similar thing - seemingly counter-intuitive, yet proven right.

you are illogical

[rubycodez]

So typical the "herd immunity" card is drawn out. The truth is more than 1 in ten will not be protected by the vaccine, you do not and will not have herd immunity anyways. It is immoral to force someone to have a foreign substance injected into their body, for the truth is some people are maimed and killed by vaccinations (allergic reaction, improperly deactivated viruses, etc.). You are free get a vaccination yourself and for your children, it will probably work. No one else is your problem.

Re:you are illogical

[SleazyRidr]

First, where did the "more than 1 in ten" figure come from? All of the vaccines with which I'm familiar have effectiveness of >99%.

Second, if you don't want to get vaccinated, kindly stay away from me and my family, you've claimed that there's a >10% we're not protected from you even if we're vaccinated, and I don't want to take that risk.

Re:you are illogical

[rubycodez]

the 99% is marketing hype by big pharmy. look at real independent studies, anywhere from 40% to 90% in real world depending on manufacturer, process, virus used, etc.

Why do you assume I've had no vaccinations? I have problem with certain manufacturers and processes, but I and family have all legally required ones. Had influenza shot (which are 60%-80% effective in various independent studies) this year too. But you are blindly believing as religious-like act of faith, and moreover on the basis of that willing to force others to conform to your invalid views by violating the sanctity of their bodies.

Re:you are illogical

[SleazyRidr]

I am not "believing" I am accepting the conclusions of multiple independent studies. I am willing to force others to conform to my views if it meets the right balance of liberty and safety.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[UnknowingFool]

FDA first rejected because testing were mostly focused on the young.

First of all most vaccines are targeted to the young because their immune systems would benefit more than older people. Second, the FDA does not recommend the vaccine for older people specifically because they have no data. And your problem with the FDA following a cautious procedure is? Isn't this opposite to what you advocated previously?

Re:Vaccines vs. natural immune assault by environm

[TelavianX]

Humans have been born for quite a long time and have optimized themselves for that "normal" exposure to the environment. Thus the normal exposure is not really foreign at all. The mother through the breast milk can even pass antibodies to the child thus helping it further. The problem is the chemicals which are historically foreign.

Re:Hasn't this been solved?

[HornWumpus]

Aside from the fact that Wakefield is a profiteering murderer, mercury has been clinically proven to have nothing to do with autism.

Scandinavia has removed all the mercury from their vaccines for more then a decade. Their autism rate remains equal to other western nations.

That leaves the anti-vaccine people grasping at straws and sputtering with no 'plausible' mechanism.

Re:Hasn't this been solved?

[Ikkyu]

No need to call him Dr., he's been stripped of his medical license. http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/13/great-science-frauds/slide/andrew-wakefield/

Re:Any of you stooges following the news?

[caknuckle]

When was the last time you were attacked by a bear? Clearly the Bear Patrol is working.

Re:Insane

[bhartman34]

Iraq did have WMDs. We found them. They were all Made in the USA and given/sold to him by Reagan. They were also so old as to be inoperable. But they were there. But that was ignored because now that Reagan is dead, we aren't supposed to talk about his multiple treasons. We are at war with Iraq. Reagan gave/sold weapons to our enemy we are at war with.

Well, two things:

1) IIRC, Saddam Hussein still had chemical weapons as late as the 90's, so it's not as if Reagan sold Iraq all of them in the 80's, and they were mothballed after then.
2) You're using the present tense when you shouldn't be. We were at war with Iraq. Once four years after Reagan left office, and again ~ 13 years after. But we weren't at war with them when he sold them, and that's the point. At the time, Hussein was our guy, because he was keeping the power of the Iranians in check (which we seem to be having some trouble with, now that he's gone).

Re:Insane

[geekoid]

"5. Ron Paul doesn't think he's nuts, and worked with him regularly on bipartisan initiatives."
Talk about your low bar.

Re:SAY NOTHING

[Archangel Michael]

The moment you limit liberties for the "general good" you're falling into the trap of tyrants and dictators.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.

Re:Hasn't this been solved?

[geekoid]

Hey now, he didn't go to school for years to be a 'Mr Repugnant evil man"

Re:Any of you stooges following the news?

[pesho]

I recall when /.'ers were much, much better informed --- now they fall for any pseudo-corporate hoodoo-voodoo......

And I recall the time when baseless conspiracy theories were laughed out Slashdot instead of being moded "Insightful".

Vaccine = No Autism, but Vaccine != No risk

[caknuckle]

It really bothers me that the argument is either Autism, or no Autism, because there is a lot more to this. Vaccines still carry a potential risk, and there's plenty of evidence to support this. The mere fact there's a Vaccine Adverse Event Database shows children are being hurt by vaccines.

There are a large number of anti-vacciners (who are intelligent people btw) who simply don't want to take the risk associated with the current multiple vaccine schedule as laid out by the medical community. Some choose to vaccinate on their own schedule i.e. using the multiple vaccines at once approach, or simply not at all. It's a risk either way and I hope people simply do a bit of research either way before deciding.

I'm also very surprised that the majority of /.ers are for blindly trusting government to tell us when, why and how to protect our kids. When they come out and start vaccinating for chicken pox, the common cold, ADHD..will these people blindly follow as well?

Re:Vaccine = No Autism, but Vaccine != No risk

[UnknowingFool]

Vaccines like all medication carries risk. Anyone who says otherwise ignores basic science. The risk however is very, very small compared to the benefits. However, what you neglect to take into account is herd immunity helps the majority of those that cannot be vaccinated. Your decision puts others at risk, but all of us are not blind followers. Some of us think that the small risk is acceptable.

The function of Congressional meetings

[Registered Coward v2]

is to provide representatives the opportunity to make speeches and hear testimony that supports their viewpoint. There is no desire to understand competing viewpoints or actually foster discussion.

Re:SAY NOTHING

[MightyMartian]

I just gave three examples of where liberties are limited. Are you suggesting that not being allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre is tyranny.

There's freedom, my friend, and then there's anarchy. In times of pandemic, even free countries like the US instituted quarantines. There's not much use for liberty when a fair chunk of the population is sick near to the point of death.

Re:Insane

[DigiShaman]

That's the rule, not the exception. If you're not banking millions after getting into politics, you're doing something wrong. But then again, most of my fellow American's are too fucking stupid and ignorant to know the difference anyways. So it's a moot point now isn't it?!

Move along, nothing to see here.

Re:Dumb fundie article

[AK Marc]

For everyone of you who claim that vaccines saves lives, tell that to the parents of children who develop autism for no reason and within days of getting a vaccination shot.

I'd tell them, but they are a fiction. Small changes over a long period are hard to see, but when a significant event happens, people re-evaluate. That's why "scaring your hair white" continues as a meme. It was *never* true, but has been around hundreds of years or longer. People deny they are going grey, then once they have an "experience" they see themselves again, slightly differently, and notice the grey more prominently than before. Their hair didn't change, just their perception. A slow trip to autistic from birth will be ignored by parents. Then, when they get vaccinations, they'll look harder at autism because they have been told to be suspicious of doctors and science. Then they see the changes that were starting from birth for the first time. Broken human psychology doesn't cause medical problems, even if it makes parents swear to medical problems.

But yeah, point me to one of these fictitious parents, and I'll tell that to the parents.

Are you 100% certain that the vaccine shot that you are willing to take, or that you are willing to give your children is really safe enough to put into your body?

I'm not 100% sure anything I put in my body is absolutely safe. What's in my tap water? What's in bottled water? What's in the vaccine? I will drink tap and take vaccines. I'm not 100% sure, but anyone that is is lying (unless they work at the treatment plant and test all their water before drinking).

Herd immunity

[OrangeTide]

The anti-vaccine crowd benefits from the herd immunity that the rest of us sane people provide them. But really, if someone's little baby gets mumps or cholera or something and dies because of the behavior of a minority of idiots, I think at least there should be criminal negligence pressed against them. If not a literal lynch mob. Sorry, but I don't think people will be terribly rational or reasonable after they watch their child get smaller and weaker and paler over several days, I certainly wouldn't hold a grieving parent fully accountable for their actions at that point.
(this is the one time that somebody does need to think of the children)

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[caknuckle]

I wish I could mod you up as well. The argument always comes down to Autism or no Autism..when there's a definite risk that should be investigated.

Re:SAY NOTHING

[jeffb (2.718)]

The moment you limit liberties for the "general good" you're falling into the trap of tyrants and dictators.

I know this doesn't technically meet the definition of "Godwin's Law", but it's very close.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.

Like most people who quote this statement, you're begging the definitions of "a little", "temporary", and "essential". In this particular case, dying of pertussis or going blind due to measles is pretty damn permanent.

Re:I really wish they would try this

[AK Marc]

secular is non-religious. non-secular is not religious.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[TelavianX]

The problem is he is pointing out systems like VARS which are woefully inadequate for vaccine related problems. There has been 2.5 billion paid out by the legal system for vaccine related injuries. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data.html I guarantee you that for every court case there is at least a 1000 others that doctors have explained away. Think about it for a second.

Re:Dumb fundie article

[geekoid]

Studied by thousands of scientists. or
Some nut with Google?
Which to choose, which to choose...

"Are you 100% certain that the vaccine shot that you are willing to take, or that you are willing to give your children is really safe enough to put into your body?"
Yes.

", why is it that vaccinations that are given to children are the same dose that are given to adults? "
Some are less some are the same and some are more. This is done for medical sound and scientific reasons.
Uptake can be different, and vaccines aren't drugs. meaning it's not how much column in your blood. Vaccines go to a lymph node and collect immune cells.

"The last thing, do you really think that the companies that make these really care if you have ANY health problems from whatever vaccine they make for you when in the US they are protected by law from harming you?"
yes. There is special legal circumstances around vaccines. One of those reason is that their isn't a lot of money in producing most vaccines.

Question about vaccines? go to the CDC, learn about them, learn how they work, learn how the immune response works, learn about the numbers. Learn from actual sources and not second hand anecdotes from people acting stupid.
We live in a glorious age. We have the Internet and you have no excuse from finding accurate data and facts.

Re:Dumb fundie article

[geekoid]

I saw an idiot make a decision that killed 5 people.

Idiot are a danger to everyone. Usually in unexpected ways.

Re:I really wish they would try this

[AK Marc]

the part of the country known as Dixie is south of the Mason-Dixon line, although not all of the U.S. south of the Mason-Dixon line is "Dixie".)

Looking up the definitions of Dixie and Mason-Dixon line (on Wikipedia), everything south of the Mason-Dixon line is Dixie.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[IndustrialComplex]

Seriously, I don't think there should be any vaccine that a child can be mandated while telling the parent it's not safe enough for them.

Did you know that the human body can react differently to the same substance depending on how old you are?

Lactose. Many adults lose the ability to produce the lactase enzyme. The result is that they can no longer break down lactose. This condition is rare in children, but not uncommon in adults. Thus lactose is more likely to cause problems if administered to an adult than a child.

These is a 'relatively' benign example, but you can NOT assume that the adult body behaves in the same manner as a child's body from a vaccine, drug, or surgical response.

Let's ignore for a moment the fact that there are chemicals/drugs which have different effects on adults vs children. What dosage do you apply?

Assume we just now developed insulin as a treatment for diabetes. Let's say you first develop, test, and verify the safety of insulin injections for children, would you give the same dosage to an adult? How would you know what a safe effective dosage is?

I damn well hope you wouldn't just assume that if insulin injections were safe for a child, that they would be safe for an adult exhibiting symptoms of diabetes.

(Opps, looks like you were just insulin resistant due to adult onset diabetes and we just dosed you with an amount of insulin which is appropriate for a child with insulin dependence, but when scaled up to adult dosages... is lethal)

Perhaps what is safe for children isn't universally safe for adults... Who knew?

the adjuvants are a problem too

[nido]

If there is a problem with vaccines, it is most likely related to the Adjuvants. These chemicals are included in the shot to irritate the body, hopefully getting it to take action against the targeted virus.

Personally, I think sewers, garbage service, and iodized salt have done much more for public health than vaccinations.

A tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis vaccine, for example, contains minute quantities of toxins produced by each of the target bacteria, but also contains some aluminium hydroxide.[4] Such aluminium salts are common adjuvants in vaccines sold in the United States and have been used in vaccines for over 70 years.

- Adjuvant (emphasis added)

There is also a full article here: Immunologic adjuvant

Mercury injected into a muscle is much more of a problem than environmental/dietary mercury exposure.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[silentquasar]

How is this a troll? Just because it's a different opinion than most of the rest of the \. readers?

Re:I really wish they would try this

[Amouth]

eh, hurricanes are easy. failing to plan for them is what gets you.

Hrmm, yet another thing to shorten the lifespan.

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple of years ago there was news that women didn't need regular mammograms.

http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2009/11/annual_mammograms_not_needed_u.html

Then there was the report that men didn't need to get PSA tests:

http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/health/paul-donohue/psa-screening-no-longer-worth-the-risk/article_92d1d8ba-ee74-5a7a-9702-888396c95e66.html

Now suddenly it is vaccinations. All of these things have been proven effective at catching disease early or prolonging lives. Now the media, the government and (Insurance Companies) come up with all these things that surely means an early death for many people.

I am not really one for conspiracy theories, but this is getting a bit suspect.

Damn

[barryvoeten]

I have rarely met such an overwhelming crowd of uninformed, misguided, highly educated beings. Does anyone really think it will help to discuss here? Nobody - I repeat, nobody, will move to the other side!

Re:Freedom of choice

[AK Marc]

The logic seems fine to me. I don't care if the person next door to me has leprosy, but that doesn't mean I;ll be going to dinner there, and I'd be upset if they broke in and used my toothbrush.

That and you assumed that vaccines cause harm. Which is an incorrrect assumption.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[silentquasar]

Sure, which is why my kids are getting vaccinated (that and the guilt-trip from our PCP about "herd immunity").

My problem is that I'm not so sure that in the long term the "small risk of some weird side effect" is simply that. My impression is that the science is way too thin in that area. I may be wrong on that point, in which case my argument does indeed fall apart.

It seems like the knee-jerk reaction here is to call any doubters in vaccine safety "anti-science" or whatever else. It seems to me that the ones who are "anti-science" are those who don't think it's necessary to explore the possible long-term effects and side-effects of vaccines, both at the individual and societal levels. I thought it was cool on Slashdot to be skeptical, especially when large, powerful organizations like the FDA and Big Pharma are involved...

Spend money on education or else

[silviuc]

stupid people will have more votes and there will be those to support their views in order to get their votes for a comfy life as a congressman. Then you will see stuff like this happening. Next they will burn books and paintings to banish the devil from the World. FFS, it's the dark ages again.

Screw you Darwin.

[VortexCortex]

Fuck you and your Evolution by natural selection. We WILL spend money on the genetically defected and mentally retarded people so their defects can be bred into our genes pool. We WILL let morons rule the Earth from places of power, despite their lack of fitness in regards to ANY leadership qualities! We WILL refuse to inoculate ourselves, so that the weak will die out and only the strong will survi-- oh, wait! FUCK!

Re:When your child get Rubella...

[TelavianX]

Why don't you actually look at the research instead of reading snippets and believing everything you are told. Money drives a lot more than just science.

Re:Now why do you suppose....

[tibit]

That doesn't make the message any less valid, though.

don't fall for burden-of-proof shifting.

[SuperBanana]

The mistake is accepting the challenge to "prove them wrong."

It's a logical fallacy to claim that the burden of proof lies not with the anti-vaccers, but with us to disprove their claim. Otherwise, one could simply go claiming all sorts of ridiculous things that are constructed to be difficult or impossible to disprove.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

They're shifting debate because there is no proof vaccines cause autism - what 'evidence' exists has been easily shown as falsified, misunderstood, misinterpreted, or the result of incompetence.

Don't accept the challenge. Put your foot down and say "No, it's not my responsibility to disprove your claim. It's your responsibility to prove your claim in a valid, logical, scientific fashion."

If they object, tell them that God told you the burden is on them. When they say that's nonsense, say "prove God didn't tell me."

Brilliant, no? :)

Re:I really wish they would try this

[Attila Dimedici]

This is taken from answers.com and is the best definition of non-secular I was able to find (there were several other good answers elsewhere, but they took longer to say the same thing. The word "secular" generally refers to non-religious things. Period. The word "non-secular" generally refers to religious things. Period.
If you disagree with this definition, how would you define "non-secular", in particular in this context?

Re:Freedom of choice

[compro01]

The "too old" bit is temporary. The trials of the HPV vaccine(s) in older adults are still in progress.

Re:Freedom of choice

[seffala]

What risk is there to your kids? Just saying...

Four ways:
1. All children have a period during which they're not vaccinated...between birth, and the actual time of vaccination. My daughter is not quite five, and she's still getting vaccinations.

2. Just because you got a vaccination doesn't mean it took...for some people, the vaccine has no effect.

3. Some people are immuno-compromised. With or without a vaccine, they have no resistance.

4. Some people simply can't take the vaccine, whether they want to or not.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[tibit]

Adverse allergic reactions to vaccines, including reactions that impact lung function, are nothing new. Consider yourself lucky in a way. They are pretty rare. It's a little, IMHO, price to pay, given the benefits. If you're so risk averse, I'm sure you don't drive in a car!

Re:SAY NOTHING

[fermion]

Polio does not kill. It requires intensive hospital stays, and can result in paralysis lasting from a few days to a lifetime. of course if you are paralyzed you get government help for the rest of your life. Those who reject vaccines, like those who wear motorcycle helmets, are not necessarily financially independent enough to cover all expenses themselves. They all too often go to the public teat to get funds for their "accident".

This is one of those many issue in the US that arrive from our irrational dedication to the so-called free market and the lack of dedication to the free market to allow people who do not show net productivity to exit.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[tibit]

Newsflash: doctors sometimes are stupid. I say it as someone who is personally responsible for my wife staying alive because some doctor(s) were stupid. Guess what: this has got nothing to do with vaccines. You're arguing that perhaps the vaccine adverse effect reporting does not magically work around stupidity of the doctors. You have a point, although it may be like complaining about UV in sunlight and expecting the solution to be a modification done to the sun...

Re:Freedom of choice

[blueg3]

Are you student in a public school? Staff claims that it's "the law" to take shots. Some schools do not even ask permissions, they just give shots.

What town does this? It it West Sue Us Please, or North I Made This Fact Up?

You have a newborn? Good luck trying not to have your baby taking shots.

I do, and it's pretty straightforward. We have to sign off on everything. We had to sign off on and initial every procedure, even ones that are, to me, no-brainers. Now, our pediatrician will not accept us as clients if we choose not to get vaccines, but to be honest, that's one of the reasons I go to him.

Re:I really wish they would try this

[Attila Dimedici]

Maryland has never been part of Dixie*. According to the Wikipedia entry on Dixie: "As a definite geographic location within the United States, "Dixie" is usually defined as the 11 Southern states that seceded to form the Confederate States of America."

*The Mason-Dixon Line is the border between Delaware and Pennsylvania on one side and Maryland and (West) Virginia on the other. The parenthesis around West in West Virginia is used because West Virginia was part of Virginia at the time the line was surveyed..

Naysayers unite

[WaffleMonster]

I love kuccinich's opening salvo. He references a thermirisol shield rider added by unknown person to the homeland security bill of 2002.

Trust and legitimacy is absolutely critical here peeps. When parents see government shennanigans and corrupt behavior it is hard to stand around and act surprised when they decide to distrust government recommendations.

I hate skeptics who often use the same tactics and logical fallacies as the conspiracy nuts..only they don't end up looking like crackpots only because they happen to be on the right/safe side of the argument.

In my view the biggest problem with these debates is hubris. Parents think their experience means shit. Doctors the same. Both are wrong.

The only people qualified to draw any conclusions are the statisticians.

Statisticians can't well do their jobs effectivly when bias and lack of conformity is baked into available feedback channels.

There are still doctors who see children after vaccination with high feaver or other problems and don't file the damn report because *they* don't see a link... an attitude made of the same misrecognition of the limits of ones own knowledge as any Alex Jones vaccination tirade.

There needs to be mandatory uniform reporting with appropriate education/guidelines to all doctors on vaccination reactions so everyone has quality data on which to draw informed decisions.

At least the government is trying but they should NOT have to be in a position of begging and settling for incomplete data.

"VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning that reports about adverse events are not automatically collected, but require a report to be filed to VAERS. VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members. Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.

From: https://vaers.hhs.gov/

"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report. Physicians and patients understand that minor side effects of vaccinations often include this kind of discomfort, as well as low fevers. On the other hand, more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones, especially when they occur soon after vaccination, even if they may be coincidental and related to other causes."

Re:Freedom of choice

[PortHaven]

They already turned in thousands of test cases. And since we've pretty much cleared it for kids to 26. I think there need only be a minimal affirmation for the use on adults. Would you not agree?

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[seffala]

Okay...I'll be the idiot who stands up for the science-deniers here. I'd prefer six vaccines delivered two weeks apart. I'm fully in favor of the vaccinations, though.

Against that you have to weight the trauma of six, rather than one injection...and I'm speaking of the parents' trauma, of course. Holy flying spaghetti monster you've never seen anything like a kid that knows a shot is coming.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[PortHaven]

So let's use "peanuts"

So imagine, a study was done, and a bunch of people are fed peanuts. A few minor irritations at most were noticed. And chalked up to other causes. We deem, peanuts do not cause allergies.

So when your son eats a peanut, and has an allergic reaction. You bring him to the doctor. You suggest that you think it's peanuts because he was just eating them. Your doctor replies, now, reactions to peanuts are very very rare.

He was probably stung by a bee or ingested something else. The result, no association is made between peanut and allergies. Others have had a similar experience. But the "belief" becomes self-perpetuating. And the data proves there are no allergic reactions to peanuts. Mind you, there have been, they just weren't recorded as such because of the underlying "belief" in their safety.

Granted, peanut allergies and vaccinations issues are probably an order of magnitude or two apart. But it's the same premise. And it's a fundamental flaw in our implementation of science in that area.

What I found astounding, is all these folks decrying anti-science. So adamant, that they can't openly accept the notion that the earth might revolve around the sun. But here I am pointing to an extremely dangerous (to the scientific method) practice that is common in American doctor's offices.

And the retort is "science, science, science"....yes, I agree. So let's DO IT RIGHT!!! Dammit!

Re:Oh great, the one time we get bipartisanship ..

[compro01]

Kucinich is gone come January. His district disappeared in the redistricting and he didn't win in the primary against Kaptur.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[PortHaven]

Yes, but the point is, had I not submitted my own daughter's case. There would be no entry. The doctor refused, and dismissed the notion that it could even be vaccine related.

And worse, I've read hundreds of similar accounts...which points to a problem in our implementation of reporting for our scientific process (does it not?)

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[PortHaven]

My problem is when they can feel free to "mandate" with gaps in knowledge, but then "refuse" over gaps in knowledge.

I can accept the FDA warning against use, or declaring this is not a proven use, whatever. But I am bothered that I am refused access over some "theoretical" gaps in knowledge. Than told I'm a lunatic when I have concerns over "mandated" vaccines in which concerns have been expressed.

Do you see the juxtaposition of that logical conundrum. Basically, I'm losing out in both ways. I've lost liberty twice. Liberty to DO, or NOT DO, with my body.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[PortHaven]

"Did you know that the human body can react differently to the same substance depending on how old you are?"

Yes I did....

I also am aware that we're talking about a difference between 26 & 27. Not that much difference.

I am also aware that many children are lactose intolerant. So if that's a risk, it's a risk across all parties.

Let's talk about dosage. Is the dosage for 26 different than 27?

The truth is though, that more often than not, a healthy young to middle age adult is more likely to handle any processing of a substance than a child.

20-35 year old is pretty much in almost all cases be less at risk. Sure there are probably a few exceptions. But I wager they're very few and far between.

"I damn well hope you wouldn't just assume that if insulin injections were safe for a child, that they would be safe for an adult exhibiting symptoms of diabetes."

And there are children who are likewise insulin senstive due to juvenile diabetes. Granted, it's less common.

So if it were unsafe for adults with diabetes, it would pose a risk to juveniles. But have even less chance of having been discovered during testing.

Would we rather have some of us old folk drop from such a mistake than our children?

Re:SAY NOTHING

[hamburger lady]

I'll come at you and yours with a different kind of metal

what, a gurney?

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[PortHaven]

Autism is a red herring...

Seems like everyone focus' just on that one aspect. I really don't buy the autism link much myself.

There are other concerns....largely in regards to reporting of incidents.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[PortHaven]

My issue, was with the fact that the doctor out-of-hand, dismissed that possibility of the incident being vaccine related.

The fact that it was dismissed and would have gone un-reported. That's BAD!!!

The irony, is that I had read about many similar complaints. It's almost like how when everyone is complaining that their new gadget is having a problem, it's all over the web, in discussion groups, etc. But when you call the company they plead ignorant like they've never heard of it and it's not happening to others (ignore the hundreds and thousands of posts to the contrary).

It's that denial mentality. That's bad for science, bad for everyone.

Re:SAY NOTHING

[SleazyRidr]

Good point, to continue to express my liberty I'll be driving home down the wrong side of the highway, with spray nozzles squirting oil under the tyres of the cars coming the other way. My freedoms shall not be abridged!

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[MozeeToby]

Except, in the case of vaccines, the researchers heard all the shouts of "It must be the vaccines" and they went back and did more research, with more kids and found that there was still no link, this time with a 99.99% certainty (as opposed to just 99.9%). And the anti-vac crowd shouts "No! It must be the vaccines!" So the researches go back again, and again, and again. And every time they find the same thing. Vaccines cause some minor reactions, very, very rarely they cause something more serious. But they do not cause autism. When the one side says "It must be the vaccine because... I think it is!" and the other stands on top of a mountain of data that says "we know, thanks to all this data, that it doesn't beyond any reasonable doubt".

Put another way. Yeah, it's possible that there's room in the statistics for vaccines to produce mental deficiencies in some tiny, miniscule percentage of people. But that number is statistically certain to be orders of magnitude less than the number of lives that are saved by those same vaccines. And even that statement is granting an aweful lot to the anti-vaccine crowd based on no experimental evidence.

Also, here's a fun fact for you: kids that get vaccinated are very slightly less likely to develop autism spectrum disorders. The cause and effect is almost certainly not that simple, if I had to guess I would say it's that vaccinated children have vaccinated parents, and a vaccinated mother is less likely to come down with influenza during her pregnancy, which new research indicates actually does correlate with autism.

Re:Freedom of choice

[dev.null.matt]

But I am kind of confused here. So if I don't get my kid vaccinated, and you do. What risk is there to your kids? Just saying...

According to this study, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15353533, only approximately 99.4% of those vaccinated against smallpox actually have the vaccine "take". That means if my child is vaccinated, yours isn't and mine gets an unlucky d1000 roll, he could catch smallpox from your child WHEN your child gets smallpox.

Re:SAY NOTHING

[pongo000]

Quite frankly I don't think it should even be a choice.

My son almost died when he went into anaphylactic shock immediately after receiving an MMR vaccination. This happened again a year later. Suffice to say, my son is medically exempt from ever having to take the MMR in his lifetime. It does happen (and yes, I understand this is not the same as linking vaccinations to autism), so there would have to be exceptions carved out of such a policy that do not require a proverbial act of Congress to invoke.

Re:Vaccines vs. natural immune assault by environm

[cyberchondriac]

Hello,

We have maybe 12 different vaccinations for infants. I read this in a health magazine:

"When a child is born, he or she is literally assaulted by thousands of species of bacteria and viruses that child has never seen before, because they were in the sterile womb environment. Given that, I don't think we need to worry about the relatively small number of shots we give children."

The womb is a sterile environment??

Re:Vaccines vs. natural immune assault by environm

[MozeeToby]

One thing that even most parents don't realize is the number of minor infections that a baby will get that we don't even have a name for because by the time we are old enough to talk about them we're all immune. I'd be willing to bet that if you sampled your child's blood every day of their life for the first 3 years, you'd see anomolous numbers as often as you'd see normal ones. Except 'normal' is a relative thing, an infant's immune system is under constant assault by thousands of diseases that we don't even know about. The perception that an infants immune system is somehow frailer than an adults is only valid because it hasn't been trained in on everything an adult's has.

It's common knowledge, for instance, that teething causes a fever right? Everyone who reads the parenting books knows that! Except it isn't true. Teething can cause a very minor raise in temperature, half a degree or so, but that's it. It just so happens that infants are very likely to come down with a number of viral infections around the time most kids start teething. And everyone knows that RSV is a serious disease that you need to take your kid to the doctor for right? Except no... literally every infant in the civilized world gets RSV, it's just serious for a very small number of kids who develop a bad case.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[Logarhythmic]

Sounds a lot like your daughter simply had an allergic reaction to something in the vaccine. Hell, I get asked if I'm allergic to eggs every time I get a flu shot and before I've ever had IV anesthesia administered. It doesn't have to be a sinister cover-up about "vaccine-related illness" in order for some people -- particularly infants and children -- to have (temporary!) adverse reactions. Whether administering potential allergens to infants is worth the risk of adverse reaction or not, I leave as an exercise to the reader. However, if you'd take the time to read what Phil Plait (the OP) has to say about this issue, you'd realize that the data is not, in fact, "a very very poor sampling" with respect to the assertion that vaccines cause serious neurological conditions like autism.

Re:Let them die. That's what natural selection is

[gmuslera]

Considering that somewhat the people that is in the government was directly or indirectly voted by US citizens, including those two, i would say outside US to start with. By default I don't attribute to malice that they got up there.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[UnknowingFool]

No you are complaining when they do something you don't like even though you ignored that there was good reasons. And then you complain when they did exactly what you wanted them to do.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[UnknowingFool]

You mean like in the vaccine adverse database in the US which is publicly available. Or in the Vaccine Court rulings which was set up to determine damages (if any) and allow plaintiffs to bypass the long tortuous procedure of the normal courts?

Preservation methods, labeling

[jago25_98]

They should be looking at the preservation technique rather than vaccination per sec.

I'd like an option to be able to drive to a location and get a vaccine fresh and verified without the use of preservatives.

I travel for work so I've had a lot of injections for visas. I take the shots in the arm without knowing whether it's formaldahyde, mercury or another technique used to preserve the virus.
When I get to work I have to undergo a lot of paperwork to handle formaldehyde in dilute form.

Looking at the number of vaccinations that could be taken in theory it can run into hundreds. As per electromagnetic radio interacting with the human nervous electromagnetic system, no cumulative effect is thought to be there.

Why not some labelling system so we can track what is going in our bodies. That way we can see if the amount is negligable - how does it compare to leaching from mercury fillings for example?

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[UnknowingFool]

Hey if you want to talk to your doctor and arrange multiple meetings, go ahead. Frankly I would like to get it all taken care of in one visit. And your doctor would too.

Re:I really wish they would try this

[AK Marc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Southern_United_States_modern_definition.png includes MD (though in the less common shading).

more likely...

[publiclurker]

corporate whores who defend the current situation by blaming the victims.

Re:more likely...

[tnk1]

That's right! We totally rammed those twinkies and crack down their throat!

You know, it used to be that being impoverished meant you were... you know... thin.

Re:more likely...

[Anonymous Coward]

When you're poor, it's about maximizing calories for your dollar, not nutrition. Just enough to keep you from feeling hungry all the time (caused by lack of nutrition! Nutritious foods leave you fuller longer).

I'm sure the poor would love to eat salads and nutritious organic foods and have a nice meat and potatoes dinner with wine on Sundays, but they'll have to settle for 2/$1 packs of cupcakes, ultra-refined dripping-with-preservatives "Potted Meat Product", and polish it off with a McDonalds extra value meal for $4.

Re:more likely...

[tnk1]

I can actually speak to this. I actually eat fast food like 5 days a week, and crap otherwise. I agree that it is really damn hard to eat a lot of fast food and lose weight. However, it is possible, even with things like burgers. I just order the entree item, a small soda, and definitely leave off the fries. I've actually lost 15 pounds on that diet.

Again, *very* easy to over-eat at a fast food place, because the calorie density of that food is very high, but it's far from impossible to at least remain at a level weight eating there. You just need to look at the calorie counts and eat accordingly.

I do, however, suggest taking vitamins to make up for certain nutrients you could be missing. And drink lots of water when you are thirsty. Avoid soda except in specified amounts during the day (no more than 12 oz and no more than once per meal). Other than that, no problem.

Point being, even in the face of difficult circumstances, you don't have to lay down and take it. Knowledge about nutrition is, for the most part, entirely free and available. It does require a little willpower, but it is entirely possible to do something, even with crap, and you're also spending a little less too. McDonald's may well be an excuse for chronic problems like cholesterol and poor overall nutrition, but there's no reason it has to make you fat unless you let it.

Re:more likely...

[Richy_T]

Pft. You're kidding, right. Many poor people would prefer a crappy MacDonalds meal (more like $15 or more when all's said and done) to a simple home-cooked meat-and-potatoes meal costing $6. Poor decisions are often why people are poor in the first place.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[IndustrialComplex]

I also am aware that we're talking about a difference between 26 & 27. Not that much difference.

No, you specifically referenced, and I quoted, a comparison between a parent and child. Two different age groups. Not 26 and 27. No parent and child age difference is 1 year.

I am also aware that many children are lactose intolerant. So if that's a risk, it's a risk across all parties.

There is not a singular risk. Risk is a quantifiable value based on the combination of a measure of likelyhood (probability) and damage potential. In this specific case, the risk is not evenly distributed across age groups. Therefore no, it is not across all parties.

With regard to drugs, risk is calcuated based upon the potential for harm, and likelyhood of that harm occuring. Even if the potential for harm is low, it is possible for the likelihood of that harm to become probable, and therefore the risk can be considered too great given the expected drawbacks. If a drug intended to treat acne has a 0.1% chance to worsen acne in children, but a 90% chance to worsen acne in adults. Assumign no other side effects, that drug would be approved for use in children, but not adults. So even though the risk existed for both groups, it was not equal for both groups.

And there are children who are likewise insulin senstive due to juvenile diabetes. Granted, it's less common.

Except you are assuming that your treatment when proven effective for children, is a treatment which is not likely to harm adults, based on your success in treating children.

You make several bad assumptions:

1. You assume that the treatment would be equivalent in efficacy
2. You assume that risk exposure is constant
3. You assume that dosage scales in a predictable manner.

So what happens if you are wrong:

1: Reduced or no efficacy: No efficacy means you waste resources and don't achieve the benefit, worse, you may believe it to work and expose yourself to greater risk. Reduced efficacy is a similar problem. (especially if the risk is nonzero)
2. Assuming risk exposure is constant, I think we have explained this one.
3. Dosage may not scale. It may require much less as you age, or it may require more. You can't know that until you test it or perform a thorough analysis to prove enough similarity.

I know you keep getting back to the 26 vs 27 year old thing, but think of a bell-curve. As you approach the edges, the known benefit-risk margin shrinks. That doesn't mean that the benefit-risk margin actually does shrink, but that you can't know the benefit-risk margin.

And the complaint about doctors not wanting to prescribe medications off-label? Well they are doing their own benefit-risk analysis and the risk to them is too large given the marginal benefit. That's all this is.

Re:Vaccines vs. natural immune assault by environm

[PeterM from Berkeley]

Yes.

Google is your friend:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002395.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/motherbabyinfections2.shtml

--PM

Re:Freedom of choice

[ilsaloving]

Gee, and I wonder why that is?

Re:Let them die. That's what natural selection is

[codewarren]

It's time to admit that your original statement was stupid.

Most of the U.S. population have no vote for most of the government. For example, only people in the districts of the two congresspeople mentioned in TFA could vote for them. The rest don't get a vote. These two could be literally brain dead and yet 98% of the population would have had no say in whether they got elected or not.

Also natural selection doesn't work the way you think it does. Government != parents.

Your comment is almost unintelligible. The irony of your declaration that the entire U.S. are idiots to be culled by natural selection is overwhelming.

Re:Insane

[dkleinsc]

It turns out the small fortune is pretty small: Only about $400K. That makes him significantly poorer than most of Congress.

Misleading summary and article

[WaffleMonster]

"Representatives Dan Burton (R-Ind.) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh.) made speeches connecting vaccines to autism"

Having spent about three hours with the hearing blazing in the background the summary and article are completely unfair and misleading.

Even the main villians Kucinich spent most of his time talking about environmental factors citing well known studies and UN data on human caused mercury pollution from coal plants.

The issue of vaccination was hardly discussed at all other than a congressmen begging for any remaining thermerisol still in use to also be canned universally...

"Although there were actual medical researchers there as witnesses, they were mostly berated by the Congressmen on the panel."

100% bullshit... watch the hearing yourself.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[lgw]

It's quite simple. The FDA has approved this for a certain age group and not (yet) for another. There's nothing more going on here. While the FDA can get a bit nuts, in this case it makes sense: the tests for kids were prioritized over adults, so those results are available earlier. Not sure why you would find that confusing or odd.

You're doctor is doing the right thing in refusing to prescribe an injection tht the FDA has not deemed safe. Any silliness here lies with the FDA.

One of the ways to "not balance the books" ...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Countries that are broke are not broke because they have public healthcare. They're broke because they didn't balance their books.

One of the ways to "not balance the books" is to commit to paying more for for health care than they can recover from government income.

This is complicated because all forms of government income suck money out of the private sector one way or another and that retards the private sectors production of wealth.

Someone always end up paying for the health care somehow. Rule of thumb: When the government is involved it ends up costing FAR more than when it's not.

(And before you point fingers at the pre-Obamacare health care costs, realize that the government HAS been involved - drastically - in so-called "private" healthcare for more than a half century.)

Re:One of the ways to "not balance the books" ...

[shutdown -p now]

One of the ways to "not balance the books" is to commit to paying more for for health care than they can recover from government income.

Sure, and I noted that much. The point is that a public healthcare system does not necessarily mean using more government income than you actually have. There are numerous countries that have good, working public systems that are funded from the budget without a runaway debt problem.

This is complicated because all forms of government income suck money out of the private sector one way or another and that retards the private sectors production of wealth.

So what? Who cares about private sector's production of wealth, when that wealth end up concentrated in the hands of a couple guys who run the system
That was precisely my point: public system is better for the average citizen (i.e. most of people in the country). It's worse for the few guys on top, who pay more for the same. But it's a relative "worse" - even in a public system, they're still doing much, much better than you and me. I'm not concerned about them.

Someone always end up paying for the health care somehow. Rule of thumb: When the government is involved it ends up costing FAR more than when it's not. (And before you point fingers at the pre-Obamacare health care costs, realize that the government HAS been involved - drastically - in so-called "private" healthcare for more than a half century.)

The problem with all you libertarian types is that, whenever one asks for a real world example, you all start bitching about how there isn't one because the evil gubmint has always robbed the poor wealth producers and suppressed the free market. But even so - we can still compare more laissez faire markets with more regulated ones, and see which ones fare better. USA (both pre- and post-Obamacare) is undeniably more laissez-faire with respect to healthcare than any country with a public system, yet all numbers show that USA is also less efficient in terms of how much health treatment a single dollar buys.

Now, I've often heard libertarians claim that laissez-faire only works if it's 100% free - so it's basically asking to believe you guys that, as we dismantle regulations, things are going to get observably worse, but we should ignore that because once we're fully there, they suddenly get all that much better. For some strange reason, most people, myself included, don't buy that argument: if following some course of action has direct negative results, which grow as that course is continued, it is only natural to change course and try something else instead.

Re:One of the ways to "not balance the books" ...

[homer_ca]

And again, Germany has a public healthcare system, and they're not going broke. They're the ones bailing out the rest of Europe (so far). The original reference to the Euro debt crisis is a strawman.

Re:One of the ways to "not balance the books" ...

[TFAFalcon]

Yes, with government running the shot the total cost of health care would likely go up - needing to provide treatment for everyone is expensive. But at the same time it would likely cost a lot less per person.
Insurance companies can deliver health care for a low cost (since they have a lot of incentives to be efficient), but that low cost doesn't get passed on to the 'consumer', but is instead inflated to pad the company bottom line. And don't say that there is serious competition in the market - the bar to entry is way too high for an outsider to have any chance of upsetting the status quo.

Re:One of the ways to "not balance the books" ...

[Eunuchswear]

Someone always end up paying for the health care somehow. Rule of thumb: When the government is involved it ends up costing FAR more than when it's not.

Inconsistent with reality.

All universal health care systems are cheaper than the US system.

If your theory doesn't match reality then your theory is wrong. Sorry.

Re:I really wish they would try this

[Culture20]

Where will the majority of the folks go? You know, the educated religious people???

North, according to GP

us educated, non secular folk go north

Re:Insane

[AK Marc]

1) We have documented proof that Reagan sold them. It's not documented that Bush did it too, and Bush Jr isn't going to investigate Dad in the middle of a war. He'll ignore it and wait until a Democrat does and bash them for partisan bias.
2) Yeah, but that doesn't matter. He materially supported known enemies of the state. And not just Iraq. Reagan trained Osama bin Laden. We'd not have had 9/11 if not for Reagan's support of our "allies" (who were known then to be hostile to us). We chose the lesser evil of supporting our enemy's enemy, even when they were also our enemy. He was never not our enemy, he was just deemed to be "stable" enough to be worth supporting, despite being an enemy at the time.

You DO get mercury exposure from fillings

[PeterM from Berkeley]

I don't think it's enough to cause problems, but you do get mercury from your fillings.

You're correct that methyl mercury (from fish) and elemental mercury (from amalgam) differ a lot in their toxicity to the body.

See these references:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9391753

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

Re:You DO get mercury exposure from fillings

[tibit]

Very informative, thanks! The recommendations, then, are quite sane:

1. If you're obsessive about chewing gum, don't have amalgam fillings.
2. If you smoke (breathing through the mouth!), don't have amalgam fillings.
3. Don't excessively breathe through the mouth if you have many amalgam fillings.

I'll keep that in mind. I have 2 or 3 amalgam fillings. Not much of a gum chewer, I don't smoke, and if I breathe through the mouth while sleeping, my wife wakes me up (somehow that wakes up first). I guess I'm out of trouble. I like amalgams, they have some compliance and seem to better hold their seal up over time when top surface fillings are considered. For side-surface fillings, it's probably more of a stretch and I do have one side filling and have asked for epoxy solely due to mechanics of the situation. I didn't even consider the mercury.

Your post is one of the reasons why I can't give up slashdot :)

Re:Vaccines vs. natural immune assault by environm

[PeterM from Berkeley]

And the bacteria/viruses injected into us are dead (except the live polio vaccine), not alive and kicking like natural exposure.

--PM

This is why my state has 5500 whooping cough cases

[WillAffleckUW]

Anti-vaccination anti-science people like this are why my state has 5500 whooping cough cases in 2012 already, when we had only 400 in 2011.

And it's why everyone in my medical genetics and biostatistics labs went to get TDaP booster shots.

Seriously, I almost wish the Mayan calendar "crisis" was real, because they might rapture themselves.

Re:SAY NOTHING

[stymy]

I strongly disagree with the idea that parents should be allowed to choose to do something that will endanger their children like your hypothetical situation. In fact, I think that if a parent refuses to allow proven preventive treatments be done to their children, the kids should be taken away by Child Services, as the parents are clearly guilty of child endangerment.

Re:SAY NOTHING

[stymy]

You also shouldn't be allowed to endanger your children. They have a right to life that their parents shouldn't be able to take away from them.

Healthcre more expensive for the uninsured

[genericmk]

I recently opted to buy my own health insurance instead of buying into my company's group policy (small company, high average age, crappy policy choices). Anyway, while between my prior employer's health plan and my own, I was effectively uninsured for a couple of weeks. Sure enough my wife had an emergency in the middle of the night and went to the ER. She effectively left after receiving a pain killer. The bill was approx. $3000. That is three grand. Well, we did the most logical thing and bought a COBRA coverage (since it is retroactive). That same $3000 bill was "renegotiated" to few hundred bucks. What type of sense does this make? By virtue being an uninsured patient the hospital has zero insurance overhead. The insurance does not make the mandatory 15% profit. Yet, the bill is an order of magnitude higher for the uninsured? That's extortion. That is blackmail to purchase insurance. This is exactly wrong!

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[Ichoran]

I wouldn't exactly call VAERS reporting "a scientific process". The disclaimers on the database read like the ones on Slashdot polls.

If it were scientific, the doctor would call you a week after the injection and ask how her health was and if she suffered any major or minor maladies, and the answer whatever it was would go in a database.

Or, heck, all adjacent pairs of medical interventions could go into a database, whether it had anything to do with vaccinations or not. There is much you can do with lots of data; the health care system is designed to squirrel that data away into various different filing cabinets, not look for patterns. Medicine has a long way to go yet to be a data-driven science in the way that, say, advertising is. (Kinda makes you think about our priorities as a culture, eh?)

Even with the lack-of-reporting bias, VAERS still can be used to detect particularly problematic vaccines, simply because some reports do get through, and there's no reason to expect the legitimate ones are suppressed more than the illegitimate ones. The assumption is that _none_ of it is virus-related. So, okay, sample size is smaller and statistics are noisier, but you can still detect obvious trends with careful statistics.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[ericloewe]

It's always good not to accept what anyone says without further thought. I think you get the wrong impression, though. The science isn't thin, it's just based on statistics, which tend to be equated with uncertainty. Proof is that some vaccines (don't ask me which ones, though) were replaced after years either because a new formula was developed or because there was some weird side-effect.
What is also frequently done is restricting vaccines with a tendency for side-effects to high-risk groups. The flu shot comes to mind - it's recommended for high-risk groups only. Others, like yellow fever, are only administered to people travelling somewhere where there is a risk of catching it.
In the end, it all boils down to risk vs. reward, it's just that we often don't realize just how many deadly diseases we're vaccinated against.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[ericloewe]

We're looking at two different things: treatment and statistical analysis of the vaccine's side-effects. It's quite possible to report that the issues developed shortly after taking the vaccine, but treat it like it wasn't caused by it (the data is there, so it makes sense in some cases to try a different treatment).

Re:Vaccines vs. natural immune assault by environm

[Ichoran]

Indeed. But that doesn't make the statement in that health magazine (which I believe is just reprinted from a CDC fact sheet, or pretty close) any more relevant. It shows that infants have an immune system, but that's hardly in dispute. More relevant information would include things like strength of immune response to a vaccination vs. response to a cold. Otherwise it's just a reassuring-sounding trick to fool the scientifically illiterate into doing the right thing. Personally I take a pretty dim view of people doing the right thing for the wrong reasons; although it seems efficient at the time, it produces a brittle system in that if you don't know why you're doing what you're doing, you don't know how to react when something changes or you receive new information.

Re: Choice? Are you kidding me???

[almechist]

The difference is that with private insurance you can switch companies and try for a better policy and better service. It is also far more likely to be efficiently run, and therefore not go out of business or suddenly cut benefits like government run programs will have to do when the money runs out. With the government you've got exactly zero choices and if you don't like what they did what are you going to do? Sue them? Good luck with that.

Zero choices, eh? OK, you want to talk about choices?? First of all, in the US most health insurance is provided by one's employer, so there is effectively very little or no choice involved, in most cases you get to take whatever your job provides, and that's that. Secondly, changing from one greedy insurance company filled with people who get bonuses for denying care to another such company gets you what, exactly? Certainly nothing in the way of increased value or better care, nothing of any substance. THERE IS NO CHOICE FOR THE CONSUMER UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM! There's barely even the illusion of choice.

I simply don't understand why the anti-single payer crowd can't see that there can be no true free market in health care, especially under the current system. Consumers are allowed no real choice about virtually any facet of the care they receive, in most cases it's not even possible to find out in advance what a given procedure will cost. Unless health care consumers have access to information like the true cost of medical tests and procedures, along with information about the competence and reliability of the professionals who administer them, nothing resembling a free market is possible. This is obvious, it's basic economic theory. Why is it so hard to admit that health care just might, just possibly might, be an area unsuited to a purely free market solution? Remember, emergency medical care must, by definition, be administered immediately, often without input from a potentially unconscious patient. No patient choice = no free market. It's that simple. And as we've seen, attempts to impose a pseudo-free market via private insurance companies simply leads to the mess we have now: 51st in life expectancy. For god sake, a single payer system is not just the most efficient way for a modern industrialized society to deal with health care, it's the only way! Anything else leads to a grossly unfair and unethical two or more tier system, and life expectancies comparable to third world countries. We can surely do better than that.

Re:SAY NOTHING

[Archangel Michael]

You can yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Nobody is stopping you, there is no law against yelling "FIRE" in a theater. Else, yelling "READY, AIM, FIRE" in a play would be illegal.

What Freedom and Liberty loving people do, is look at what the results are. Yelling "FIRE" in a theater and causing a panic where people die, well that is frowned upon and people doing it should be tried (and convicted) of murder, and held civilly responsible (tort) for harm caused to others. I am not restricting speech, just the results of that speech. See the difference?

Re:SAY NOTHING

[Archangel Michael]

Then vaccinate your kids. Requiring it is tyranny. Getting AIDS is pretty serious too, but we don't lock people up or even stop them from having sex because they have it. Are you suggesting that maybe we should? I'd suggest that we put people with AIDS in special cities and not let them out, seems reasonable to me! (please note, extreme sarcasm)

The question is, how much "protection" is enough, and who gets to draw the line?

Re:SAY NOTHING

[Archangel Michael]

Ahh yes, the ridiculous counter example! Works every time!

Re:Insane

[sycodon]

Maybe you should make Bush walk 20 miles to the next school through snow up to his chest and dodging Grizzly Bears

Re:I really wish they would try this

[Attila Dimedici]

I did not first use the term "non-secular" I was merely interpreting the term used by someone else. In the context of the OP's post, what else would "non-secular" mean other than being another word for religious?
I believe that he meant either "secular" or "non-religious" but got the term wrong. When combined with his usage of "Dixie line" it suggests that the OP is as poorly educated as he intends to imply all religious people are.

Re:I really wish they would try this

[similar_name]

Unfortunately, the people are divided along those lines because thy are followers. Once people get behind Team A or Team B they all of a sudden believe and follow everything on that team. It's ridiculous and I've actually seen people completely change core beliefs once they join a team. There are few people that can support the ACLU and the NRA. So we have two parties that pick different Amendments and then defend their own and attack the other's. And a third party that supports the separation of church and state as well as the freedom to bare arms, well, that's just crazy talk.

Speaking of phoney ...

[gargleblast]

1. The US reports infant mortality deaths differently than many other nations

Better brush up on your debunking skills. From the NCHS's report Behind Internation Rankings of Infant Mortality: How the United States Compares with Europe:
a. The difference in reporting is not as you describe, and
b. "it appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking".

2. The US deaths from gangs ... and deaths from drunk driving

are, as you say, not health metrics but social metrics BUT thank you for reminding me of yet more indications of the decline and fall of the American empire.

Re:Speaking of phoney ...

[lonecrow]

2. The US deaths from gangs ... and deaths from drunk driving

Also, different styles of health care delivery can effect seemingly unrelated issues. In our single payer system in Canada we understand that if we can prevent drug abuse from happening or help people get off drugs sooner then we can avoid higher health care costs later. Smaller drug trade means less gang related violence and less trauma center treatment of gun shot wounds.

As for the driving more then others. Perhaps that means that your civil planning authorities are not giving enough weight to citizen health when they approve communities geared more towards driving then walking.

The crux of the matter is that you can't on the one hand say that the "Nanny State" is bad for personal liberty and your willing to put up with the negative consequences of not having a nanny state. Then turn around and deny the negative consequences as an "unavoidable" skewing of the data because your "unavoidable" differences.

Just suck it up and admit that you understand the pros and cons and are either happy or unhappy with the balance.

The French are willing to put up with 10 times the food related deaths as the USA for the sake of their love of certain foods. So stop being a coward and stand up for your principal that it is every man for himself and if you don't live as long as least you lived free.

USA - Please don't go to a public system

[pt73]

As someone from a public healthcare country, I implore you please DO NOT go to a public system. I don't want to loose your subsidy.

You pay market prices for drugs and provide big profits for pharmaceutical companies to develop and profit from those drugs. Our public monopoly purchasing system ensures that if a drug company wants its drug prescribed in volume in my country, they need to cut a very good deal on the price. Your market even encourages competition, meaning we can play companies off each other to get the best deal on similar products.

No doubt this happens in other areas such as equipment too.

So thank you USA for ensuring that drug and medical companies profit from you and we can squeeze them on price for our entire market. Please don't change.

Vitamin D deficiency causes autism

[Paul Fernhout]

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/neurological-conditions/autism/

Especially during pregnancy, due to our indoors lifestyles. There may be other causes too, including vegetable deficiency disease, but vitamin D deficiency is a apparently a big one. Other possible causes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html

With that said, most people posting here are probably total hypocrites about health. They will go on about "herd immunity" and how immoral parents are who don't vaccinate their children for whatever reasons, but these same posters will then most likely eat junk food, pull all nighters, go to work and school when sick with the flu or whatever else, and not get a vitamin D test, and sit most of the day. Thus, such posters (or their children) will likely spread far more diseases than an unvaccinated kid who eats a lot of fruits & vegetables & beans, avoids junk food, gets enough vitamin D and iodine, stays home when sick, washes their hands, sleeps well, moves around a lot during the day, was breast-fed to age two years or beyond (see WHO guidelines), works or learns mostly from home, and so on. See also:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/shop/ChildBookReviews.aspx

The lack of critical reasoning on this subject on slashdot is also saddening, whatever the conclusion. The typical argument here on vaccine safety seems equivalent to someone saying, because the Intel 386 CPU did not have a floating point bug in 1990 and still runs OK now (some version of some vaccine did not cause a specific problem over the years), that means any CPU produced by anyone in 2012 can never possibly have any bugs and will run forever (all vaccine lots are always safe). That's just a nonsensical argument from a quality control standpoint, given many vaccine formulations and production techniques are continually changing. "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

For all we know, the next lot of flu vaccine rush out could give millions of people AIDS because it was intentionally contaminated at the factory by someone. Specific vaccine lots may or may not be "safe" or "effective" either individually or in combination (ever installed one piece of software that broke something else?), but any discussion about the vaccine issue needs to be a lot deeper than what is apparent here, including issues of systemic risks from a single point of failure and the practical impossibility of providing several human generations of testing in advance when any lot of vaccine is released (especially when it is rushed out). A vaccine is not like a software patch than can be backed out, or in the worst case, be reformatted away. See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SV40
"SV40 became a highly controversial subject after it was revealed that millions were exposed to the virus after receiving a contaminated polio vaccine."

Diseases are also continually evolving.

So much of modern medicine and modern science (as well as the holistic industries) is full of social problems that people on all sides of this question may want to do their own research and think more deeply on this topic. Some related quotes:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science

What's sad is that there are low hanging fruits (and vegetables) that could reduce so much disease in the USA and globally such as vitamin D and eating more veggies. Things like that protect against all disease, including emerging ones. Those basics are being ignored by a

Re:I really wish they would try this

[AK Marc]

He was an idiot troll who obviously didn't mean "non secular" to mean religious, as he said "religious" go one way and "non secular" the other. I'm guessing he was thinking "non religious" and changed his mind half way through to "secular" and the combination was made. But from a practical sense, it would be best to move east/west so that we don't have all the Type-X in Floria, and all Type-Y in Maine. Maine is nice and all, but I'd only want to visit in summer/early fall. But east coast for X and West coast for Y, then split the country at the Mississippi or something like that.

How the FUCK...

[EmagGeek]

... do we keep electing these IDIOTS?

Re:I really wish they would try this

[gmhowell]

Not sure how a random wiki map is proof of anything. It certainly ignores the political reality of MD for at least 100 years. You could certainly make a strong argument during the Civil War, considering the lengths that Lincoln and others had to go to in order to keep a path from DC thru Baltimore up to Philly, but with the exception of some rural areas, MD is fairly blue and fairly northern. (Yes, the Western panhandle, Eastern Shore, and Southern peninsula cover a lot of square miles, the population pales in comparison to the I95 corridor).

Re:SAY NOTHING

[AK Marc]

So you are arguing that clean water only happens in dictatorships?

And vaccinations aren't generally that "temporary" and don't curtail liberty.

Autism

[tehcyder]

Presumably if vaccinations did cause autism, most slashdotters would be queueing up for extra shots.

Re:SAY NOTHING

[tehcyder]

The moment you limit liberties for the "general good" you're falling into the trap of tyrants and dictators.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.

What complete and utter bullshit. My liberty to shoot you in the face with a crossbow and rape your dog is quite rightly limited. With absolute liberty, it is precisely the tyrants who will be in charge.

Re:SAY NOTHING

[tehcyder]

I likely have autism myself

I hate it when people here say things like that. Autism is either a disease/condition, or it is not. You can't "probably" be pregnant.

If you can't definitely diagnose something wrong with you, there's nothing wrong with you. Being a bit obsessive and socially awkward doesn't mean you have something wrong with your brain, it's just a minor human variation like being good at running or singing.

Re:Freedom of choice

[Jesrad]

Freedom is impossible to seperate from responsibility. If you want the freedom to not be vaccinated, accept the full libability for any outbreak of disease you may cause.

Re:Insane

[bhartman34]

1) We have documented proof that Reagan sold them. It's not documented that Bush did it too, and Bush Jr isn't going to investigate Dad in the middle of a war. He'll ignore it and wait until a Democrat does and bash them for partisan bias.

Read what I said again. I know Reagan sold weapons to Iraq. We were propping up Saddam at the time to keep Iran in check.

2) Yeah, but that doesn't matter. He materially supported known enemies of the state.

Iraq wasn't an enemy of the state at the time he supplied them.

And not just Iraq. Reagan trained Osama bin Laden. We'd not have had 9/11 if not for Reagan's support of our "allies" (who were known then to be hostile to us).

Not true.

Re:You are using phony stats...

[mcgrew]

1. Someone else already debunked that one

2. There were 14,000 murders in 2010, while a million died from cancer and heart disease. Murders are little more than a rounding error in deaths; far more people die in accidents.

3. What insurance company fo you work for, shill?

Re:SAY NOTHING

[SleazyRidr]

It's an example of limiting freedoms for the general good, the only difference is that no one has faked a study to show that driving down the correct side of the highway causes autism.

This debate is important!

[Theovon]

Those of us who are educated in science are aware of the studies showing no correlation between vaccines and autism. Those of us a little more informed are even aware of two (two, not hundreds!) court cases in the past 10 years where the court ruled that the vaccine was connected with the onset of autism. Ironically, most anti-vax people are unaware of these cases; they just operate on pure FUD. This is partly because the anti-vas people who ARE aware of these cases are also aware that they do not support THEIR case. For instance, in one case, the little girl had a pre-existing mitocondrial condition, and she would likely have developed autism sooner or later anyway; all the vaccine did was accelerate what was already going on.

The thing is, as long as the ruling turns out in favor of the science (cross your fingers), then debating it in Congress is a good thing because it will force the issue to be explored in a very public forum.

Still, no amount of debate or scientific numbers will convince some people.

Now, as a scientist myself, I have spent my own share of time being baffled by fields not my own. For instance, exactly how physicists predict an unobserved particle to exist according to the standard model is largely a mystery to me. I've read the wikipedia articles, and I understand a fair amount of what I'm reading, but none of it is answering the basic question about how you calculate that there's a missing slot. I did manage to find an interview with Murray Gell-Mann, where he mentioned that he developed the quark model because it greatly simplified modeling the properties of many exotic particles observed in cosmic radiation. So if you can postulate the existance of quarks from observed particles, then you can postulate combinations of quarks not yet observed. But how they predicted the Higgs is completely beyond me; I can't find an explanation anywhere, and I can't glean this from what I have read.

So now, imagine being of average intelligence with a U.S. high school education. Do you think most people will understand the intricacies of immune response? I've met nurses who didn't know what imunoglobulins are, so how can you expect most other people to get it? People aren't going to have the foundation for understanding the basis for any kind of immune response, and now you're introducting something "unnatural." Given all the obesity, linked with our horrible diets, we're been trained culturally to look for things that are "all natural" (even though that too is rather meaningless). Add to that general frustration with the medical system, which generates a resentment for doctors (even when the problems are not their fault).

Interestingly, it goes the other way. You can be TOO well informed about vaccines. We had one pediatrician send us away because we wanted to space our our kids' vaccinations. You see, regardless of any connection to autism, a vaccine does generate an immune response, which causes symptoms, making the patient feel generally pretty lousy for a few days. So we decided to space them out. We're not behind. We just come in more often, getting one at a time. But they have a policy of not accepting patients who won't do vaccines on THEIR schedule.

Finally, some doctors and nutritionists have postulated separately two things: (1) A connection between liver function and autism and also lots of other maladies. The liver filters toxins from your system, and if it can't do it fast enough, you get all kinds of problems. (2) Vaccines are hard on the liver. I'm not sure if that's directly or as a result of the immune response. If you put those together, you might want to consider limiting the rate at which vaccines are given, to avoid overloading the liver (and the immune system and anything else involved).

... bleepin' dopes ...

[ninjagin]

I've always known that Dennis Kucinich is a tool.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[PortHaven]

VAERS, but what good is it, if your doctor won't report an incident, because it's well known that there are very few side affects from vaccines. Therefore, the issue at hand, is NOT a vaccine related symptom - even if it meets documented symptoms.

(This is VERY common, sadly.)

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[PortHaven]

I agree, the silliness lies with the FDA.

And might I add, that if you can't prove it safe for adults too. Then I do NOT believe it should be considered safe enough to mandate by law for children.

That is just !@#$% ridiculous.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[PortHaven]

The FDA should mandate ALL events that transpire immediately following a vaccination be recorded in VAERS. And then let the "data analysts" filter the data and remove non-relevant listings.

Otherwise, we're defeating the purpose. What if a vaccine caused heartburn. Lots of people bring their kids in for heartburn after a vaccination. But the doctors see no association, so the never report it to VAERS.

For VAERS to be most affective, all things need to be entered within a given relevant time frame. (at least 48 hours IMHO).

Then we might see that 150 entries for heartburn were entered after vaccination and discover there is an issue. Frankly, data reporting to VAERS should be mandatory, even for seemingly un-related issues. (Even broken bones, what if we discovered a vaccination weakened bones, and that there was a 500% increase in broken bones in the weeks immediately following vaccine xyz.

That is GOOD SCIENCE...

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[PortHaven]

Can we drop the friggen autism issue. It's like saying CO2 is the only environmental issue and ignoring deforestation, toxic waste, and other pollution.

Re:Freedom of choice

[PortHaven]

But not HepB...

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[PortHaven]

I just believe the FDA should mandate ALL incidents within 48 hours of a vaccination should be reported to VAERS.

Re:Freedom of choice

[PortHaven]

How is that different from "I vaccinated my daughter for pertussis" and she almost died from the vaccination? And had to be brought in for several breathing treatments...

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[UnknowingFool]

So your complaint is YOUR doctor won't do you want them to do? Not that there isn't transparency and a process already set up that specifically addresses your concerns. Why don't you find another doctor?

As for few known side effects, that's bull. There are lots of reported side effects, however, some of them are unproven as every single person might react differently to a medication. Generally known side effects are listed by the CDC and rates of occurrence. Autism is not one of them.

Re:Vaccines vs. natural immune assault by environm

[Reziac]

When a child is born, it is also immediately assaulted by all manner of foreign chemicals, just by touching its environment, sucking on its toes, chewing on its blanket, crawling on the floor, hugging the dog, sniffing the flowers, playing in the dirt, etc, etc, etc... I'd guess the average child encounters a great many more less-than-savory chemicals just in ordinary life than are ever injected into it as part of a full course of vaccines.

I benefited from taking the vaccines.

[lsatenstein]

Here is my situation.
My home is a duplex. On the main floor my wife and I have a bedroom, and my son-in-law, daughter and three grandkids share the rest of the home.
There is a basement bachelor apartment where I do my Compooter Science stuff, and write some humor.
My second floor is a tenant residence, where my two sons and significant others reside.

Two years ago I took the flu vaccine and the influenza vaccine (the latter is only once per lifetime)
Last year, I choose to take the flu vaccine. The rest of the family poo-pooed the idea, and ignored my pleading.
Well...
My son in law contracted pneumonia, and the flu, one after the other. He had fully congested lungs, and a few days of medium-high fever.
In the period of about two week's the entire house was with the flu, fever. vomiting and bedridden. I was the nurse, as I was the only one to not get ill.

So, do what you wish, but if you are 50+, the vaccine may save your life. Actually, it may save your live no matter your age.
The very first year you take the vaccine, your injection point may be a bit tender for a maximum of three days. Each year thereafter, (booster shots), there is no more reaction after the innoculation.

My wife bowed to my wishes and had the innoculations. My siblings and grandchildren did not. Somehow I think my wife and I will be playing housemaid/nurse this year. My wife says "If she did not take the vaccines and fell ill, she would not have to play nurse". I retorted, being alive is better than the consequences.

In Montreal, the vaccine is free if administered from the family doctor or local health Clinic. If we get the pharmacist to do it, there is a $20.00 charge.

Re:Dumb fundie article

[Reziac]

On the dosage thing, it takes a certain number (varying by the virus in question) of particles to generate the desired immune response, regardless of the size/age of the recipient. Half a dose can be worse than none (this is true of distemper vaccine in dogs -- I forget the mechanism, but in short, a poor initial response can prevent a better response from happening in the future). And when you're trying to override maternal antibodies, a very high particle count is best (I don't know to what degree this affects humans, but it's critical for parvovirus protection in puppies).

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[tibit]

That may well be a reasonable thing to expect. Write to your legislators!

Re:SAY NOTHING

[c6gunner]

He said it shouldn't be a choice, and he's absolutely right. Medical exemption is not a choice - it's an exemption granted by a qualified medical practitioner. The reason vaccination shouldn't be a choice is exactly because of exceptions like your son; herd immunity allows us to makes such exceptions, and still keep him safe. If we end up breaking herd-immunity, people with legitimate issues are the ones who are most likely to be harmed.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[c6gunner]

My problem is when they can feel free to "mandate" with gaps in knowledge, but then "refuse" over gaps in knowledge.

Totally. Like, we can't prove that god doesn't send you to hell for wearing a seatbelt, but they mandate wearing seatbelts anyway! And we can't prove that the christian god isn't the only one true god, yet, despite that, they refuse to mandate forced conversion to christiaity! The nerve of those people.

If you're new to the concepts of probability and uncertainty, I suggest taking a few college courses. The rest of us are quite comfortable evaluating each case based on the inherent risks and benefits.

Let them die.

[RockDoctor]

Americans, that is ; Though we do have "vaccine deniers" on this side of the pond, they are considered to be dribbling oxygen-thieves. Not even

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[Ichoran]

Agreed, except why single out vaccines? It should be every prescription or procedure. Just record everything and do data mining. You wouldn't even need a dedicated VAERS then, as all the data relevant to safety would be embedded in the standard medical records.

Re:Vaccines vs. natural immune assault by environm

[Electricity Likes Me]

Did you know if you take huge quantities of antibiotics, you'll also die?

Or that botulism toxin (botox) is the most deadly poison on the planet?

Also if you take huge quantities of that routine killer, H2O.

Are you aware that dosage level and mechanism of exposure are all important factors in determining toxicity and reactions? Did you read more then the first sentence of that paragraph on wikipedia?

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science...

[lgw]

And might I add, that if you can't prove it safe for adults too. Then I do NOT believe it should be considered safe enough to mandate by law for children.

Now that's just untrue. There are certainly drugs and treatments that are proven safe for children, and proven unsafe for adults. It's rare, but it happens.

Re:Insane

[Rakarra]

A small house in San Francisco costs a lot more than that small fortune.

Re:Insane

[Rakarra]

Are you talking about crazy people or eccentric people? And is eccentricity necessarily craziness?

"Science" Deserves the Blame!

[HArchH]

The false claims made by scientists and reported by scientific publications are totally to blame for the confusion that has flowed down into the general population and into their representatives about the dangers of vaccines as related to autism. It will take years to eliminate and probably thousands of people (mostly children) will suffer needlessly as a result.

Sadly, scientists are too often caught up in the fun of following trends like this and pitching into issues in which they are not directly involved so that the thing snowballs. Perhaps it's an attempt to look smart or appear involved in these latest trends as some kind of ego thing. I don't know.

But the backlash seen about the lies put forward by scientists regarding vaccinations should be a clarion call to all scientists about making extravagent claims that exceed the bounds of the tests performed.

The risk is that the reputation of science will be further, and deservedly, tarnished. Or more importantly, that society will turn its back on advancements that would otherwise provide some positive benefit.

Re:Dumb fundie article

[Trixter]

want to lower your risk of having kids with autism? have kids in your twenties, don't party and get drunk every other day, keep healthy and have kids naturally without chlamid or invitro or any other procedure

We followed every single stipulation you stated above, including natural childbirth, and our first-born was autistic anyway. Some of your assumptions are wrong. The age distribution for mothers is not weighted towards older women; it's fairly flat. Maybe you're confusing autism with Down's Syndrome?

Re:SAY NOTHING

[Jason Levine]

I say likely because, while all of the signs of Asperger's fit me perfectly, I haven't gotten a formal diagnosis. I'm not planning on getting one either because a) it's expensive, b) it wouldn't make any difference for me, and c) it wouldn't make any difference to my son who was diagnosed with Asperger's.

Obsessing can be good or bad. If you keep at something until it succeeds, it's a small dose of obsession. However, you probably haven't let it consume you and were able to switch to other tasks as needed. People with Asperger's simply can't switch tasks at the drop of a hat. This can lead to situations in work/school/life where you can't cope because your brain won't let you switch tasks. I've learned how to deal with this over the years. My son needs a lot of help with this (including pre-setting so it's not just dropped on him out of the blue).

A small bit of social awkwardness might be fine, but people with Asperger's don't understand social conventions. Think of Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory. While they'll never admit that he has Asperger's (it'd make laughing at his antics socially inappropriate), it's quite clear that he has it. He has trouble recognizing sarcasm, he takes things literally, he will monopolize the conversation with no regard for a back-and-forth flow, he needs time to decompress after social situations (the recent episode where Howard and Raj try to figure out what he does in a room), etc. My son acts much the same way. He'll take jokes as literal, he'll talk your eat off about every tiny detail in his latest video game based on being asked "do you like video games", he needs time to decompress from time to time, etc. I have trouble with this also, but have obviously had more time to work out what the social rules are for differing situations.

By the way, I don't think of having Asperger's as having "something wrong with me." My son and I do have to work a lot harder on things that neuro-typical people find easy. Then again, there are a lot of things that are difficult for neuro-typicals that we find easy to do.

Re:SAY NOTHING

[wwphx]

Seconded. I have an immune deficiency (CVID), my body does not produce immuneglobin. I can have some vaccinations, but they must be dead/killed vaccines, so I can't do the shingles vaccine and others like it. Apparently live vaccines can be fatal for people like me, but there's not a lot that I can find online on the subject.