Congressional Committee Casts a Harsh Eye On Vaccination Science

Congress Sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:45 · Score: 5, Informative

Enough said...

Re:Congress Sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:55 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by s73v3r · 2012-12-04 06:13 · Score: 3, Informative

It is far less prevalent in nations with Universal Health Care.
Re:Congress Sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 06:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Desler · 2012-12-04 06:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-12-04 06:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Re:Congress Sucks by AK+Marc · 2012-12-04 06:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Congress Sucks by englishknnigits · 2012-12-04 06:53 · Score: 2

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 by niado · 2012-12-04 07:07 · Score: 3, Informative

We have the same thing here. It is based on your system.
Re:Congress Sucks by Archangel+Michael · 2012-12-04 07:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:Congress Sucks by geekoid · 2012-12-04 07:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Congress Sucks by HornWumpus · 2012-12-04 07:10 · Score: 2

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

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Congress Sucks by Bengie · 2012-12-04 07:14 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by cptdondo · 2012-12-04 07:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by geekoid · 2012-12-04 07:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Congress Sucks by Trepidity · 2012-12-04 07:15 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Re:Congress Sucks by cptdondo · 2012-12-04 07:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by DigiShaman · 2012-12-04 07:20 · Score: 4, Informative

Rationing!
Rationing!
Rationing!
Rationing!
Rationing!

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Congress Sucks by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-12-04 07:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

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."

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Congress Sucks by atriusofbricia · 2012-12-04 07:24 · Score: 2

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.

--
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Re:Congress Sucks by EvolutionInAction · 2012-12-04 07:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by interkin3tic · 2012-12-04 07:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by amRadioHed · 2012-12-04 07:40 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Re:Congress Sucks by gorzek · 2012-12-04 07:41 · Score: 2

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.

--
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Re:Congress Sucks by Rich0 · 2012-12-04 07:44 · Score: 4, Informative

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 by crazyjj · 2012-12-04 07:47 · Score: 4, Funny

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!

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:Congress Sucks by Straif · 2012-12-04 07:47 · Score: 2

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.

--
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Re:Congress Sucks by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-12-04 07:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-12-04 07:49 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-12-04 07:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by Hewligan · 2012-12-04 08:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
"If God created us in his own image, we have more than reciprocated"
Re:Congress Sucks by Rakishi · 2012-12-04 08:19 · Score: 2

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 by Sentrion · 2012-12-04 08:29 · Score: 4, Informative

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 by Vaphell · 2012-12-04 08:39 · Score: 3, Informative

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 by mcgrew · 2012-12-04 08:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

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...

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Congress Sucks by ilsaloving · 2012-12-04 09:09 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by publiclurker · 2012-12-04 09:37 · Score: 2

Funny, none of my friends from countries that have nationalized health services agree with that statement.
Re:Congress Sucks by cheater512 · 2012-12-04 09:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Australia's health care system works pretty well.
Re:Congress Sucks by Comrade+Ogilvy · 2012-12-04 09:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by mybecq · 2012-12-04 09:45 · Score: 3, Funny

*cough*
You'll have that looked at, right?
Re:Congress Sucks by TapeCutter · 2012-12-04 09:51 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Congress Sucks by PPalmgren · 2012-12-04 09:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-12-04 10:09 · Score: 2

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 by DigiShaman · 2012-12-04 11:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Congress Sucks by Archangel+Michael · 2012-12-04 11:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:Congress Sucks by TFAFalcon · 2012-12-04 11:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Hey! Now we know by phantomfive · 2012-12-04 05:45 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:Hey! Now we know by LunaticTippy · 2012-12-04 05:54 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
Man, you really need that seminar!
Re:Hey! Now we know by N0Man74 · 2012-12-04 06:34 · Score: 4, Informative

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 06:49 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by Lurker2288 · 2012-12-04 06:49 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by AK+Marc · 2012-12-04 07:00 · Score: 2

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

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Hey! Now we know by gorzek · 2012-12-04 07:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yeah, but.... FREEEEEEEDOM!

--
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Re:Hey! Now we know by geekoid · 2012-12-04 07:18 · Score: 4, Informative

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...

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Hey! Now we know by tibit · 2012-12-04 07:52 · Score: 2

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

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Re:Hey! Now we know by jdavidb · 2012-12-04 07:57 · Score: 2

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.

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:Hey! Now we know by hondo77 · 2012-12-04 08:12 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Re:Hey! Now we know by TechHSV · 2012-12-04 08:30 · Score: 2

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 by dl107227 · 2012-12-04 16:30 · Score: 2

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.

*facepalm* by Desler · 2012-12-04 05:49 · Score: 2

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

Broken System by RichMan · 2012-12-04 05:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 06:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by dywolf · 2012-12-04 06:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.

Understanding Burton by kadams54 · 2012-12-04 05:52 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by Hatta · 2012-12-04 06:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Understanding Burton by CajunArson · 2012-12-04 06:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Re:Understanding Burton by MozeeToby · 2012-12-04 06:45 · Score: 2

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 by cyber-vandal · 2012-12-04 07:01 · Score: 2

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 by T.E.D. · 2012-12-04 07:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by Kavafy · 2012-12-05 02:09 · Score: 2

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 by aztrailerpunk · 2012-12-04 05:52 · Score: 2

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

--
Foot placed squarely in mouth since 1983.

this is an old, old, story by crgrace · 2012-12-04 05:56 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by MozeeToby · 2012-12-04 06:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by T.E.D. · 2012-12-04 07:55 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

These people infuriate me, way more than... by kannibal_klown · 2012-12-04 05:58 · Score: 4, Informative

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... by Jason+Levine · 2012-12-04 06:05 · Score: 4, Informative

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.)

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:These people infuriate me, way more than... by PeterM+from+Berkeley · 2012-12-04 07:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

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... by niado · 2012-12-04 07:26 · Score: 2

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... by AK+Marc · 2012-12-04 07:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:Dumb fundie article by Desler · 2012-12-04 05:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

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? by MightyMartian · 2012-12-04 06:00 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:5.4.3.2.1... by Andrewkov · 2012-12-04 06:02 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Re:Self-healing system by benjfowler · 2012-12-04 06:04 · Score: 2

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 by Arancaytar · 2012-12-04 06:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by khb · 2012-12-04 06:06 · Score: 2

"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.

"a vocal antivax lobby exists" by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-12-04 06:06 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

--
#DeleteChrome

Re:"a vocal antivax lobby exists" by erroneus · 2012-12-04 06:33 · Score: 2

It also rhymes with "fax" which is short for facsimile.
Merry Xmas.
Re:"a vocal antivax lobby exists" by blueg3 · 2012-12-04 08:17 · Score: 2

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:Dumb fundie article by maeglin · 2012-12-04 06:08 · Score: 2

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 by dkleinsc · 2012-12-04 06:09 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

One sided by TelavianX · 2012-12-04 06:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by Ichoran · 2012-12-04 06:18 · Score: 2

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 by 241comp · 2012-12-04 06:26 · Score: 4, Informative

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."

--
Full-Featured GPL Web Hosting Control Panel
Re:One sided by MozeeToby · 2012-12-04 06:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Ichoran · 2012-12-04 06:58 · Score: 2

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 by TelavianX · 2012-12-04 07:00 · Score: 2

"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 by MozeeToby · 2012-12-04 07:18 · Score: 3, Informative

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 by MozeeToby · 2012-12-04 08:31 · Score: 2

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:SAY NOTHING by Jason+Levine · 2012-12-04 06:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.)

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.

Re:Let them die. That's what natural selection is by codewarren · 2012-12-04 06:13 · Score: 2

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:Dumb fundie article by denobug · 2012-12-04 06:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

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:Anti-Science party is...? by GungaDan · 2012-12-04 06:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?

--
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!

Re:Insane by philip.paradis · 2012-12-04 06:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Write failed: Broken pipe

Re:Insane by sycodon · 2012-12-04 06:17 · Score: 2

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

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

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.

Re:Dumb fundie article by spire3661 · 2012-12-04 06:22 · Score: 2

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.

--
Good-bye

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science... by Ichoran · 2012-12-04 06:25 · Score: 4, Informative

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 by MightyMartian · 2012-12-04 06:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:Freedom of choice by s73v3r · 2012-12-04 06:26 · Score: 2

- 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.

Re:Dumb fundie article by alen · 2012-12-04 06:27 · Score: 2

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

Oh great, the one time we get bipartisanship ... by bhartman34 · 2012-12-04 06:32 · Score: 2

... 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:Oh great, the one time we get bipartisanship .. by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-12-04 06:37 · Score: 2

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 by bhartman34 · 2012-12-04 06:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

/. Bypartisanship: by Hartree · 2012-12-04 06:41 · Score: 2

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.

Vaccines vs. natural immune assault by environment by PeterM+from+Berkeley · 2012-12-04 06:48 · Score: 2

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:Freedom of choice by PortHaven · 2012-12-04 07:03 · Score: 2

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 by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-12-04 07:03 · Score: 2

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... by UnknowingFool · 2012-12-04 07:07 · Score: 2

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?

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Re:Hasn't this been solved? by HornWumpus · 2012-12-04 07:18 · Score: 2

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.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:Hasn't this been solved? by Ikkyu · 2012-12-04 07:18 · Score: 4, Informative

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/

Herd immunity by OrangeTide · 2012-12-04 07:29 · Score: 2

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)

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science... by IndustrialComplex · 2012-12-04 07:38 · Score: 2

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?

--
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj

Screw you Darwin. by VortexCortex · 2012-12-04 07:56 · Score: 2

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:Vaccine = No Autism, but Vaccine != No risk by UnknowingFool · 2012-12-04 08:00 · Score: 2

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.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Re:SAY NOTHING by SleazyRidr · 2012-12-04 08:41 · Score: 2

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!

--
Is 1563649 a prime number?

Re:SAY NOTHING by stymy · 2012-12-04 10:38 · Score: 2

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.

Speaking of phoney ... by gargleblast · 2012-12-04 13:15 · Score: 2

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.

This debate is important! by Theovon · 2012-12-05 03:38 · Score: 2

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).

I benefited from taking the vaccines. by lsatenstein · 2012-12-05 06:42 · Score: 2

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.

--
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada

Slashdot Mirror

Congressional Committee Casts a Harsh Eye On Vaccination Science

129 of 858 comments (clear)