Slashdot Mirror


UK Court Orders Two Sisters Must Receive MMR Vaccine

rnws writes "The BBC reports that an English High Court judge has ruled that sisters aged 15 and 11 must have the MMR vaccine even though they and their mother do not want it. The High Court decision, made last month, came after the girls' father brought a case seeking vaccination. When outlining her decision in the latest case, Mrs Justice Theis emphasized it was a specific case 'only concerned with the welfare needs of these children', but lawyers say as one of a series it confirms there is no longer any debate about the benefits of the vaccine."

699 comments

  1. Good. by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The BBC reports that an English High Court judge has ruled that sisters aged 15 and 11 must have the MMR vaccine even though they and their mother do not want it. "

    No, the kids don't know any better, and the mother is practicing child abuse, especially against the 11 year old.

    Brainwashing your kids against vaccination is particularly evil.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Good. by Mitchell314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Find me a kid that wants to get shots. Of course they're going to be against it. But yeah, it's sad this very dangerous idea is still floating around, all because somebody wanted to get money from an alternative vaccine and thus fabricated a lie.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    2. Re:Good. by b1scuit · · Score: 2

      Pregnancy isn't an illness.

    3. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      read the fucking summary...they are not enforcing the vaccination, the father is

    4. Re:Good. by Entropius · · Score: 1, Informative

      Home birth is quite safe in all but high-risk cases, and we know which ones those are.

      Being unvaccinated is not.

    5. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know, man. Pregnancy is listed under "Conditions", they advice you should NOT have your first child at home, and they provide a mid-wife TO YOUR HOME if you decide to give birth at home.

      What are you going on again? Any links?

    6. Re:Good. by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Informative

      NHS these days, "Pregnancy is not an Illness", ergo, you need almost no medical care to give birth

      Do you have any references for that leap? I looked it up and the references I have found to that phrase is in literature like this.

      Pregnancy is not an illness and the majority of women remain well throughout their pregnancy. In fact, research shows that most women who work are healthier during their pregnancy than those who do not work.

      It is about the ability to work while pregnant and has nothing o do with the level of care during delivery.

      you are encouraged to give birth at home.

      According to this NHS page the choice is up to the parent. It looks like they give a pretty balanced picture of the choice between the options.

    7. Re:Good. by umdesch4 · · Score: 2

      I just got over a nasty case of shingles, was completely out of commission for a couple weeks. It was every bit as terrible as you might have heard. I wouldn't wish that kind of agonizing pain on my worst enemy. If the court wants to convince these kids to get the shot, send them to me, and I'll tell them all about it and send pictures.

    8. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did this garbage seriously get modded up? Really?

    9. Re:Good. by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are more than welcome to publish a paper in a medical journal disproving the health benefits of vaccination and herd immunity. Until such revolutionary change comes about in medicine, choosing not to vaccinate a child *is* particularly evil, as it endangers not only the child but everyone around him or her. Teaching the child not to vaccinate only exacerbates the problem.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    10. Re:Good. by besalope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pregnancy isn't an illness.

      Exactly. It's just a parasitic relationship.

    11. Re:Good. by wisnoskij · · Score: 0

      Well statistically you would expect the deaths to go way down, as modern hospitals have far higher rates of child and mother mortality than non hospital deliveries.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    12. Re:Good. by Pseudonym · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Find me a kid that wants to get shots.

      Both of my kids, when they were in the age range 4-7. Neither were scared of needles, and the doctor gives you a jelly bean.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    13. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly like the idiots showing up sick at work and making others (especially those who are weaker) sick - the original person does it to avoid a few days without pay - and then causes someone else to take 2 weeks off sick.

      Selfish people are everywhere :/

    14. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      ...the mother is practicing child abuse, especially against the 11 year old.

      I actually do medical research for a living. One of the things that continues to surprise me is how much there is that we don't know about (preventing) infectious diseases. Of course, some topics (e.g. the human immune system) are incredibly difficult and it will be many decades before we have anything approaching a solid understanding. But I also see a lot of low hanging fruit - where the technology now exists to answer some important questions - but where there's not a whole lot actually being done.

      And, as far as I can tell, the main limitation is money: if some government or other were to wade in and say "Here's a trillion dollars (i.e., the cost of the Iraq war), now go out and get some answers - then it would actually be possible to get some answers".

      For example, let's say we really believe that this "herd immunity" thing is important - that we want as much as possible of our population to be immune to the measles. Well, how long does the effect of the vaccination last? Should we also be (re)vaccinating adults. And, if so, how often? And And what about early detection? Could we simply put up a "measles detector" in every school so that when some kid walks in the door shedding infectious measles viruses then the alarm goes off and the kid can be quarantined?

      And what about diseases which are not well controlled by vaccines - e.g. colds, flu, tuberculosis. Can we understand more about how they are transmitted? Suppose someone with the flu sneezes in a crowded subway car , or nightclub, or classroom, etc. What fraction of the surrounding people will breathe in the aerosoled virus particles and get sick?

      You'd think that by now science would have a clear answer to these kinds of questions. After all, they're basic questions affecting the health of most of the people on the planet. And I don't want to imply that there's been no research whatsoever on these topics. But what's surprising to me is that there hasn't been enough research to really settle the matter. There's still a lot of uncertainty even among serious scientists.

      So, yeah, it's "child abuse" if one lttle girl somewhere doesn't get a measles vaccine. But what about all those ultra-rich investment bankers who couldn't possibly afford to pay more tax to fund the research that would actually answer these questions? Or what about the average slashdotter? So you think this infectious disease stuff is important? Well, how much have you donated yourself in support of such research? Or, when it comes right down to it, maybe you don't believe in science yourself? You don't believe that the knowledge gained from more scientific research would actually reduce the incidence of infectious disease in the world?

    15. Re:Good. by eis2718bob · · Score: 2

      Funny that the rise in shingles cases has occurred since varicella vaccination became common.

      What's changed is that there is no longer a large amount of chicken pox virus floating around the community, constantly challenging folks' immune systems. To get exposed you now have to go to a doctor and buy it. (This is the "shingles vaccine".)

      For many diseases, such as polio and measles, vaccination is undoubtedly a huge good, preventing a huge number of deaths and tragic illness. But for varicella, the vaccine may result in more harm than good.

    16. Re:Good. by Xicor · · Score: 1

      i hated needles as a kid, and STILL hate needles. i almost never get anything with a needle unless i absolutely have to. ill generally take the flu over a vaccine.

    17. Re:Good. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well statistically you would expect the deaths to go way down, as modern hospitals have far higher rates of child and mother mortality than non hospital deliveries.

      Apples and oranges.

      With a few unfortunate exceptions, home births are low risk births which are really pretty safe with routine medical care (that can be delivered at home). So you don't expect any deaths / bad outcomes (but they happen).

      Hospital births include low risk and high risk deliveries. Some of the latter don't do well even with the best medical care. So, no you cannot statistically compare the two unless you are very careful to tell us just what exactly you are comparing.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    18. Re:Good. by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Shingles is a variant of chicken pox and you can get it as an adult even if you had chicken pox (or when had a vaccination) as a child.

      I had measles, mumps, rubella (was generally called German measles back then) and chicken pox as a child. This was before the vaccines were available. I wouldn't advise catching them "naturally", but I also don't like the mental picture of a child being restrained and being stabbed with a hypodermic by order of a court.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    19. Re:Good. by r1348 · · Score: 1

      Then all forms of sexual reproduction are.

    20. Re:Good. by mrbester · · Score: 1

      s/when/even

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    21. Re:Good. by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      I went through a weird stage between the ages of roughly 7 and say, 16 where I was extremely uncomfortable with needles. Then I had to get a lot of blood drawn for some tests, and something just clicked, and I was like "this is no big deal. Sure, its uncomfortable, but its not really scary". It was a good time for it to happen to, because the nurse that was taking my blood was semi-incompitant or something, and had to stab me about 30 times to get a vein.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    22. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Society would be better off if you did not procreate.

    23. Re:Good. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I never hated needles until I had an appendectomy at age 12. They couldn't get the needle in me. 10 tries by 3 people until I was wired for surgery. It hurt. I've never liked them since then.

    24. Re:Good. by zippthorne · · Score: 2

      To be fair, the contagious period and the visible symptoms period don't necessarily overlap enough for it to matter - by the time you're symptomatic enough to realize you should stay home, you might have already infected your coworkers.

      I blame workplaces that are stingy with sick-time and work-from-home time. (especially work-from-home time. Lots of things you could be sick with that you don't want to spread, but you're not impaired enough where you want to sit around doing nothing and getting behind. (and being bored...))

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    25. Re:Good. by unitron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      i hated needles as a kid, and STILL hate needles. i almost never get anything with a needle unless i absolutely have to. ill generally take the flu over a vaccine.

      Then you've probably never really had the flu.

      Oh, and before you wound up completely out of action for a week except to grab the trash can near the bed when your stomach tries to turn itself inside out and escape your body via your throat, and you have spasms in abodmen muscles you never knew you had, you've probably helped spread the disease to who knows how many others.

      Do like I do, look the other way and accept that there's going to be some momentary pain.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    26. Re:Good. by quantumghost · · Score: 2

      Home birth is quite safe in all but high-risk cases, and we know which ones those are.

      Several Ob-Gyns I know are fond of noting:

      You can't expect 21st century outcomes with 18th century ambiance.

      Caveat Emptor.

    27. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tell me then, whats in that needle??

    28. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I went through a weird stage between the ages of roughly 7 and say, 16 where I was extremely uncomfortable with needles. Then I had to get a lot of blood drawn for some tests, and something just clicked, and I was like "this is no big deal. Sure, its uncomfortable, but its not really scary". It was a good time for it to happen to, because the nurse that was taking my blood was semi-incompitant or something, and had to stab me about 30 times to get a vein.

      The best trick with kids, especially boys, is to take a friend of theirs when it's time to get a shot. They'll want to look tough in front of the friend, so no freaking out, no crying. Once they've been through it once without acting like the world is going to end they have that something click which you're describing. From that point on, you don't the friend anymore, it won't be a big deal.

    29. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's about your right to decide what goes into your child's body. Actually it's about favouring one parent's preference for that over the other parent's preference. Actually it's about social responsibility and herd immunity. Actually, it's about lots of things, and life isn't simple.

    30. Re:Good. by Forbo · · Score: 2

      I thought it was common knowledge that life is a terminal, sexually transmitted disease.

    31. Re:Good. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The Father wanted to vaccinate his children. The Mother didn't want it. This is about the government mediating a dispute.

    32. Re:Good. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And, as far as I can tell, the main limitation is money: if some government or other were to wade in and say "Here's a trillion dollars (i.e., the cost of the Iraq war), now go out and get some answers - then it would actually be possible to get some answers".

      It's all about luck. Money buys more chances, but no guarantees. I don't know anyone that guarantees a cure for cancer for a trillion dollars, but nobody would turn it down.

    33. Re:Good. by bmo · · Score: 0

      I'm replying here, because I'm telling you that you're an idiot and your wall-of-text is basically meaningless. This "I'm only asking questions" bullshit doesn't cut it. Your post is both fact and content-free.

      --
      BMO

    34. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascist liberal. Leave them alone. If they die, then so be it, but at least they have a choice. Your view is Marxist in its finest form. It's will be the downfall of the US.

    35. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      But would I let a government make that decision for me/them? Hell no. I'd start killing people long before submitting to that tyranny.

      RTFS the government didnt make that decision, the father did. The father just used a court to force the mother to do it, the father brought suit against the mother not the government.

    36. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you're the norm.

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

      Of course, a hospital *ambience* is what's important?!
      And you get pretty damn close. Most complications are known ahead, in which case a home birth is ill advised.

    38. Re:Good. by unkiereamus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've got a theory about hating needles, or being afraid of them.

      The reason that most kids and later adults who are afraid of needles is because they were lied to when they got their first injection/venipuncture. If they're told "Don't worry, this won't hurt." in the misguided belief that they'll relax so it'll hurt less, then the surprise becomes a lifelong aversion. If however the provider was honest and says "This will hurt, but only for a little bit" and ideally bribes them with candy after, then you're golden.

      I have absolutely no proof for this theory, it's purely anecdotal, but it seems sound, and at any rate, I always tell a kid something will hurt if it MIGHT, let alone will. I never lie to a pediatric patient.

      --
      I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
    39. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You two are talking about different flus, JFYI.

    40. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get flu vaccines as a mist up yer nose, no needles at all.

    41. Re:Good. by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Informative

      s/even/only/. You can get shingles only if you have previously had chicken pox. If you haven't, and if you get exposed, you get chicken pox, not shingles. Shingles is just the long-dormant virus becoming active again.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    42. Re:Good. by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      What always got me was merely picturing the liquid squeezing into my veins. If I think about the for too long I get sick... even if there are no needles around.

    43. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Children in general do not have those kind of rights in any system and it is left up to the parents. In this case the parents are disagreeing which is why the government is involved. The same kind of idiotic outrage could be made if they decided in the opposite way. "How dare the government put my child at risk by not letting me vaccinate them!"

    44. Re:Good. by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Find me a kid that wants to get measles, mumps and/or rubella.

    45. Re:Good. by Dantoo · · Score: 1

      I shudder when I hear somebody has shingles. I have had gaping wounds and broken bones. Nothing has ever approached the unceasing mind-searing agony of shingles. Nothing, not-ever. I genuinely feel for you.

    46. Re:Good. by unkiereamus · · Score: 2

      There's a statistic I've run into multiple times throughout my education. It's there to make us feel better about delivering a child, something we do infrequently at best. (In fact, in 8 years I've still never done it, I'm hoping to keep up that record.)

      99% of neonates will not require resuscitation.

      The flip side of that is, of course, that 1 out of every 100 births will require extraordinary measures. So let's just go ahead and say that we're 99% accurate in spotting the high risk OB pts (which is quite generous, believe me.), that means that 1 out of every 10,000 "normal" births will require resuscitation.

      Per the CIA Factbook, the global birthrate per minute right now is about 252, which means that once every 40 minutes or so, a birth we thought would be no problem results in a child requiring extensive, trained care.

      --
      I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
    47. Re:Good. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I agree with you in the abstract. And I readily concede that it's still happening today; there is a lot of over-medicalisation of "variations of normal" going around.

      Nonetheless, this is not relevant to the question of vaccination, and particularly in the case of the MMR vaccine.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    48. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That sort of tyranny exists so that idiots like yourself DON'T start killing people.

      Seriously, if you don't like having diseases controlled using the most efficient means (vaccine instead of quarantine) the you get to fuck off and live in your own vaccine free society. The only reason you haven't died yet is because everyone else around you vaccinating has shielded you.

      It should not be a choice sometimes. Because everyone fucking dying because some shithead like you shouted FREEEEEEDDDDUUUUMB is the stupidest idea I have ever heard.

    49. Re:Good. by YukariHirai · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't advise catching them "naturally", but I also don't like the mental picture of a child being restrained and being stabbed with a hypodermic by order of a court.

      I don't like the mental picture of a child being forced to have a shot either (though it does happen basically all the time; kids typically aren't very willing to have a bit of sharp metal jabbed into them), but the mental picture of kids having these diseases is even less pleasant.

    50. Re:Good. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. You do not have to include the high risk patients, and we do have a good reason to rule them out of that data.
      Just compare the patents that a competent midwife would of warned away from a home-birth.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    51. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you've probably never really had the flu.

      You base this on... nothin'. Just because he'd rather have the flu than get a shot doesn't mean he hasn't had the flu (which is rather unlikely to begin with).

      I never get flu shots but have had the flu multiple times, and on almost all of those occasions lasted almost a week.

    52. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagination is more important than knowledge, as they say. But, from your offended tone, I gather that you're not in the habit of donating your own money to infectious disease research. :)

    53. Re:Good. by Oligonicella · · Score: 0

      Hardly. Same species. If you meant that as humor... needs work.

    54. Re:Good. by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You should try giving blood. The needle looks more like a tube, around 2mm diameter. You also get to see your blood flowing down the tube, into the bag that slowly fills up.

      I've given more blood than I currently have in my body.

    55. Re:Good. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      As Cosby's "Dr Huxtable" was explaining all the goodies that hospitals have on hand for any pregnancy emergency, the young man who was listening said "Do you refund the fees if she doesn't need them?"

      Follow the money.

    56. Re:Good. by YukariHirai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is about your right to decide what goes into your own body, to keep the government away from it.

      That's all well and good, but what goes into your body does have an effect on other people, not just you. For a wild hypothetical, if there's a choice between getting an injection and 100 people around you dying, you're just plain being an arsehole for refusing the injection, and a good case can be made for it being for the good to force you to get it. If it's a choice between you getting a shot that will kill you and 100 people around you dying, it's rather less clear cut... a generous enough person might accept and be the sacrifice, but while it is rather selfish it's not entirely unreasonable to refuse, and being forced to get the shot would be wrong.

      Vaccines come somewhere between those two extremes. Negative effects of getting vaccines are pretty rare and tend to be relatively minor, but negative effects of not getting them can be devastating for far more people. And even if it is just you that dies if you don't get a shot, that's still a pretty negative effect for the family and friends that care about you and perhaps depend on you.

      As such, I cannot in good conscience oppose certain vaccinations being mandated.

    57. Re:Good. by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      Not all. Nothing containing different DNA grows inside a fish.

    58. Re:Good. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Do you get a refund on you fir insurance is there is no fire?

    59. Re:Good. by anomaly256 · · Score: 0

      The context of this debate extends beyond the context of this article.

    60. Re: Good. by anomaly256 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Why should you or anyone who's had their vaccinations care what I do with my own fucking body? It's not your right to decide nor is it the court's or the government's. SPECIALLY when you've had your vaccinations and can't catch it if they work, right? right? How dare you presume to have any say at all in the matter. Seriously. You and people like you are a disease. I wish there was a vaccination for /that/.

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

      Brainwashing your kids against vaccination is particularly evil.

      No, brainwashing in any way is evil.

      One man's brainwashing is another man's religion.

      Perhaps you can just sit there and think about your bullshit double standards as you get ready for church.

    62. Re:Good. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Informative

      A lot of people don't know what the flu really is like - they get a winter cold and call it "the flu", or they get some gastrointestinal bug and call it "the stomach flu". My ex-boss was notorious for the former... he'd have the sniffles but it was "a touch of the flu". Then when a coworker was out for two weeks with the real thing, ex-boss made a lot of derogatory comments because of course HE always came to work, even with "the flu".

      The real flu lays most people out flat - congested lungs, bad sore throat, temps well above 100, a feeling like a truck ran over you. The increased mucus production can make you queasy when it ends up in your stomach, but it's not a stomach bug.

      BTW I'm not intending to take sides - just making a comment.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    63. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not brainwashing if it's the accepted common sense

    64. Re:Good. by unitron · · Score: 1

      Then you've probably never really had the flu.

      You base this on... nothin'. Just because he'd rather have the flu than get a shot doesn't mean he hasn't had the flu (which is rather unlikely to begin with).

      I never get flu shots but have had the flu multiple times, and on almost all of those occasions lasted almost a week.

      I base it on the relative levels of discomfort.

      I don't enjoy flu shots. I don't look forward to them. They don't feel good. And I generally prefer not to think about needles at all.

      But on an unpleasantness scale with enough scope to contain the actual experience of suffering an influenza infection, a flu shot is almost too small to see.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    65. Re:Good. by samkass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes and no. You do not have to include the high risk patients, and we do have a good reason to rule them out of that data.
      Just compare the patents that a competent midwife would of warned away from a home-birth.

      "A competent midwife" is a loaded statement. In the UK most midwives have at least a 3-year degree or an additional set of courses on top of a nursing degree. In the US, many midwives are "self-taught" or taught by apprenticeship by others and there is little oversight. And, of course, the US does not have universal health care so many more pregnancies are higher risk with reduced prenatal care of the mother or child. I'm not sure where the study the parent poster was quoting was done, but it should certainly control for health care systems as well.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    66. Re: Good. by quantumghost · · Score: 5, Informative

      Of course, a hospital *ambience* is what's important?! And you get pretty damn close. Most complications are known ahead, in which case a home birth is ill advised.

      No. If I must spell it out: the ambiance of home births do not equate to the success of a hospital based birth.

      There are plenty of "known complications" that can predict the need for C-section:pre-eclampsia, hypertension, previous (high risk) fetus, HIV infection of the mother, sexually transmitted infections, previous classical Caesarean section, previous uterine rupture, prior problems with the the perineum, bicornuate uterus, to name a few.

      The problem lies in the unexpected indications (same reference): prolonged labour or a failure to progress (dystocia), fetal distress, cord prolapse, uterine rupture, hypertension or tachycardia after amniotic rupture, placenta praevia, placental abruption or placenta accreta, breech or transverse presentation, failed labor induction, large baby weighing >4000g (macrosomia), umbilical cord abnormalities (vasa previa, multilobate including bilobate and succenturiate-lobed placentas, velamentous insertion), meconium in the amniotic fluid, fetal acidosis (including lactic acidosis), amniotic fluid embolism, and my personal favorite the wonderfully morbid splenic artery rupture, to name a few. Not to mention the risk to the baby once delivered including aspiration, respiratory distress (including apnea), bronchopulmonary dysplasia, persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn, cardiac abnormalities not seen on screening ultrasounds, necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, and cardiac arrest, to name a few more.

      Most of the midwives/doula/witchdoctors have little to no training in these conditions. They literally "do not know what they do not know". As a result there is often a significant and life-threatening delay in transfer to a medical center where someone who is versed in all aspects of child birth (the Ob-Gyn), gets to bail the mother and fetus out. Wanna roll the dice with your kid? Go for it, you have every right - most women and fetuses will survive...but for those who have complications, I repeat: Caveat Emptor.

      As for me and my wife? I'm not going too risk it, and I personally have the skill, knowledge, experience and license to perform c-sections (albeit emergent ones)....

    67. Re: Good. by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 5, Funny

      You and people like you are a disease. I wish there was a vaccination for /that/.

      It wouldn't help you.
      You don't take vaccinations remember...

    68. Re:Good. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Well of course, the US has some of the worst healthcare of the entire world, it would be a huge shock if staying at home and receiving no treatment did not decrease your risks there.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    69. Re:Good. by anyanka · · Score: 2

      Except gut bacteria, maybe?

    70. Re:Good. by umafuckit · · Score: 5, Informative

      Find me a kid that wants to get shots. Of course they're going to be against it. But yeah, it's sad this very dangerous idea is still floating around, all because somebody wanted to get money from an alternative vaccine and thus fabricated a lie.

      As far as I know, the MMR controversy was not initially related to an alternative vaccine (at least not one that was ever produced). It originated with Dr. Andrew Wakefield in the UK who claimed there was a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. He produced a flawed paper claiming such a link and had been paid 55k GBP by parties interested in establishing a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy#Wakefield_Lancet_paper_controversy The only reason the whole thing blew up as it did was because the press reported his "findings" in an uncritically positive light. (This is the same press who have warned the British public about the dangers of "WiFi radiation in our schools" on the front page of a national broadsheet.) Wakefield's paper was later retracted when evidence of fraud (data fabrication) came to light. Whilst this was reported in the media, it wasn't really made clear that the whole house of cards had collapsed. The media didn't apologise (as far as I know) nor did they embark on a campaign to clear the name of the MMR vaccine, so to speak.

      Wakefield had plans to profit from the demise of MMR (testing kits, alternative vaccines, etc) but he never got that far.

    71. Re:Good. by Chuckstar · · Score: 4, Informative

      What are you on about? Influenza is a type of virus, not a series of symptoms. You can have a bad flu. You can have not so bad a flu. If they are both caused by the flu virus, then they are both flu.

    72. Re:Good. by Chuckstar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Please stop spreading nonsense. "Flu" is a disease caused by the influenza virus. You can have bad symptoms from the influenza virus. Or you can have not so bad symptoms from the influenza virus. But both are flu.

    73. Re:Good. by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yep. I remember one kid who kept asking, "Will it hurt? Will it hurt?" and his mother kept saying, "No, not a bit, honey" and the like, and the kid clearly wasn't buying it. So I looked him in the eye and said, "This is going to hurt worse than anything you've ever felt in your life. It's going to hurt worse than anything you've ever imagined in your life. It's terrible. You'll be screaming. It will feel like your arm is getting chewed off by a wolf ..." While he was giggling, I gave him the shot and he barely even noticed it. I'm willing to bet he was a lot less fearful the next time he went in.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    74. Re:Good. by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The flip side of that is, of course, that 1 out of every 100 births will require extraordinary measures. So let's just go ahead and say that we're 99% accurate in spotting the high risk OB pts (which is quite generous, believe me.), that means that 1 out of every 10,000 "normal" births will require resuscitation.

      Your calculations assume that there are no risks that are associated with hospital births (and not present with home births). I don't know the numbers, but it must be more than zero.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    75. Re:Good. by jd2112 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do you get a refund on you fir insurance is there is no fire?

      I personally have never insured my Christmas tree, I wasn't aware of such a policy.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    76. Re:Good. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Brainwashing your kids against vaccination is particularly evil.

      Its not quite as bad as forgetting that society exists for the individual, not the other way around, and mandating medical procedures is about one of the most onerous invasions of personal liberty there is.

    77. Re:Good. by LordLimecat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The dangerous idea floating around is that the state has more rights than the individual. Are you going to defend the violation of someones body against their will-- not for any crime committed, but simply because the state deems it best?

      Whats next, sterilizing the unfit?

    78. Re:Good. by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      Even worse is that the varicella vaccine is known to fail at offering life long protection. The prevailing theory being that the vaccine requires the booster created by the wild strains of varicella to keep it's potency. This means that tests on small groups work great, but when the entire population has been vaccinated, the vaccine is on a time limit. The has the very real potential of leaving a majority of the adult population without immunity to a highly contagious disease.

      While I don't think that the mortality/morbidity rate is high enough for varicella to warrant worrying about a vaccine, (You are after all, more likely to die from a home cooked meal than chicken pox) it should be noted that the mortality rate of chicken pox is 10x higher in adults than it is in children. So, the herd immunity through universal vaccination that helps us with diseases like polio are likely dramatically increasing the risk of death from chicken pox.

    79. Re:Good. by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Then you've probably never really had the flu.

      Im assuming youve never had a vasovagal reaction; its no picnic either. Fainting in a public clinic is not up there with one of my top hobbies, and its usually more trouble than its worth convincing the clinic aid that youre not going to die, you just need somewhere to lie down, and please dont call the ambulance.

      Not that Im saying the flu is preferable, I just think you underestimate the degree to which needles can be a problem for some people. And do spare me the "get over it" thing; this isnt something one can control.

    80. Re:Good. by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I've always tended to get over whatever other people had really fast. Same symptoms, just less severe and not nearly as long. Anyway, I recently decided to start getting flu shots because I plan to have kids some day, so I wanted to find out if I'd any issues now, than get surprised when I got mouths to feed.

    81. Re:Good. by LordLimecat · · Score: 0

      Until such revolutionary change comes about in medicine, choosing not to vaccinate a child *is* particularly evil

      no, its exercising personal liberty. It doesnt become "OK" to sack any personal liberty you like just because you can show its beneficial to society to do so. Or would you like to bring back policies of sterilizing the unfit?

      There is no "right" to "not get ill". "Bodily autonomy" is one of the most fundamental rights there is. The idea that the state is mandating strapping someone down and giving them an injection whether they like it or no is pretty horrifying in my book, much more so than if they simply quarantined the kid on the off chance he got sick.

    82. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a selfish company if it doesn't pay when you are really sick. That exactly causes that behaviour. Not infecting your colleagues would be mitigated with sick pay.

    83. Re:Good. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      oops, forgot about that... Perhaps I should have added "in the process of sexual reproduction"

    84. Re:Good. by tolkienfan · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would agree, except for one detail... the court merely agreed that the father could vaccinate them, even without the mother's consent.

    85. Re:Good. by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are more likely to die by being burned to death from a home cooked meal than you are from chicken pox. If your goal is to protect children, your efforts would be better spent having kitchens banned from homes, as well as the cooking that happens in them. While there are vaccines that are simply awesome like the polio vaccine, the trend of implying, or outright saying that mild diseases like chicken pox are just as bad as polio, does more harm than good. When the 'experts' are behaving just as bat-shit insane as Jenny McCarthy, they lose credibility. Even worse is that they should know better.

      I recommend that people look at the data provided about chicken pox. Take the data from those that support use of the vaccine. Don't just take their conclusion. Look at their data. The data doesn't support universal use of the vaccine. It supports use of the vaccine in high risk patients and adults. Use in children actually increases the individual's risk because the vaccine is well documented as not offering life long immunity. By pushing the risk of infection from childhood to adulthood, the vaccine may be producing as much as a 10x greater risk. The data also shows cases of shingles increasing with the increased use of the vaccine.

      Interestingly enough, the chicken pox vaccine is also a shingles vaccine, so the typical scare tactic of telling people that if they don't get the vaccine, they will get shingles is an outright lie. Not only does childhood vaccination not offer protection against shingles, adult vaccination can be used as a vaccine against shingles irrelevant of whether you were vaccinated against chicken pox, or gained immunity by catching the disease.

    86. Re:Good. by devent · · Score: 1

      I just can't understand that some future parents are risking the life of the mother and the life of the child for some traditions, religion or what ever is it why they chose their homes with a) no medical staff, b) no doctors, c) no medical equipment, d) no medicine, as oppose to a hospital.

      But then of course some parents are choosing to mutilate their child's genitalia...

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    87. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascist tea bagger redneck nut job. No idea what Marxism is. Shouting at imaginary threats while ignoring the true and real threats. Typical.
      You are a true cave dweller on bullshit mountain.

    88. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US's healthcare is worst among industrialized nations (not "in the world") because of the lack of free medical care. People here wait until they're really sick before they go to the doctor or hospital to have a problem investigated, which right off the bat means they'll need more aggressive care... If hospitalized, uninsured people are only given the basic care needed to keep them from dying right away before being sent home, and people with most insurance get somewhat-better care but are still pushed out as soon as it's remotely possible.

      Also, for-profit & pseudo-"non-profit" hospitals cut corners to the very edge of endangering patient care -- having far more patients per nurse than is wise, relying too heavily on student nurses and LVNs, having them work extra-long hours, nurse practitioners taking the place of doctors for stuff beyond vaccines & standard mild illness, and so forth.

    89. Re:Good. by CycleMan · · Score: 1

      There are at least two categories of midwives in the US. There are home-birth midwives, and registered nurse midwives. The latter have just about every power that an Ob-Gyn has, with the exception of surgery and maybe a few other things. And the benefit to delivering at a hospital with a RN midwife is that they are experienced in normal births and how those are supposed to progress, the range of variations possible, and methods for encouraging the birth process without jumping straight to drugs and knives.

      By contrast, many OBs are highly experienced in all the possible situations where major complications arise, and are more comfortable in those settings than a natural but slow labor process. At least some OBs are more comfortable delivering via C-section because its duration is better controlled than natural labor. (Some allege that the increased cost of a C-section, and the ability to make one's tee time or opera concert also play a role in OBs encouraging or pressuring for pitocin, epidurals, and major abdominal surgery.)

      Bottom line: UK-level midwives do exist in the US too, and I can recommend some fantastic ones in Silicon Valley if you're reading this and looking for one.

    90. Re:Good. by devent · · Score: 2

      Vaccination is a matter of public safety, because even if you don't get sick you can infect other children or adults, causing deaths. So if you want to exercise your liberty then stay in your home your entire life.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    91. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wonder, while defending the individual's right to be unvaccinated, will you also defend the individual's right not to be exposed to life-threatening disease? We should consider voluntarily unvaccinated disease carriers as willfully negligent, if not something more severe like homicidal.

    92. Re:Good. by sl149q · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference is that there is little societal benefit to NOT having your chicken pox vaccine but there is a huge benefit to people being able to eat.

      We put up with 30,000 + deaths a year so that people can easily get around using cars. Simply lowering the maximum speed on highways to 30 mph and in the city to 10 mph would be a huge win WRT to deaths. But the tremendous cost to society mitigates against that.

      When there is a small cost against a small but incremental benefit it is still a good idea to do it. If you can conclusively demonstrate that the cost to society from 100% use of any vaccination is higher than the cost of not vaccination we can (and should) have a discussion. Be prepared however to defend against the "but one child saved" groups.

    93. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite... home births have something like 10x the risk of birthing under medical supervision.

      Funny that! :-)

    94. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't sound at all like influenza. That sounds like food poisoning.

    95. Re:Good. by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      You can't consider the children at all. This is one parent against the other, period.

      When parents disagree, society normally abstains. Until it becomes a court case, then society has to take care of itself.

      This is not, morally or ethically, about brainwashing. It is the legal system taking conventional wisdom at the time a case is raised. Same as it always was, for better or worse.

    96. Re:Good. by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Find me a kid that wants to get shots. Of course they're going to be against it. But yeah, it's sad this very dangerous idea is still floating around, all because somebody wanted to get money from an alternative vaccine and thus fabricated a lie.

      I thought it was basically a lawyer wanted to do a class action against vaccine makers so he had a doctor concoct some fraudulent studies showing that vaccines cause autism and other diseases.

      Not just someone hocking alternative vaccines, but someone purposely creating a debate to get rich quick. I think the lawyer in question was disbarred, and the doctor stripped of his license.

    97. Re: Good. by tolkienfan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      With all your knowledge and experience you didn't notice that many of those things would be diagnosed ahead of delivery? Also, many of them have vanishingly small probability. Even if you do have an issue, having a home birth doesn't guarantee permanent damage or death, and a hospital doesn't guarantee a perfect outcome. And having a baby at a hospital carirs additional risks.. such as MRSA. I actually had a baby contract a Staph infection at the hospital. Luckily it wasn't resistant, but she went through the works: two spinal taps, an echo cardiogram, a central line for 8 weeks of round the clock antibiotics (two kinds, the first one caused a drop in red blood cells), a bone window. Such an outcome is LESS likely with a home delivery. Shit can happen either way. For high risk births, it makes sense to have them at a hospital - even in the E.R. For the vast majority of births, it won't make an iota of difference.

    98. Re:Good. by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      That 99 is certainly rounded, and I suggest that far fewer than 1% of neonates require resuscitation.

    99. Re:Good. by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      i hated needles as a kid, and STILL hate needles. i almost never get anything with a needle unless i absolutely have to. ill generally take the flu over a vaccine.

      Then you've probably never really had the flu.

      Oh, and before you wound up completely out of action for a week except to grab the trash can near the bed when your stomach tries to turn itself inside out and escape your body via your throat, and you have spasms in abodmen muscles you never knew you had, you've probably helped spread the disease to who knows how many others.

      Do like I do, look the other way and accept that there's going to be some momentary pain.

      I've slept on the floor next to the toilet. And I still don't want the shot.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    100. Re:Good. by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Except in the case of children - who lack the experience to make proper judgments about their own health.
      In that case, the state definitely has a responsibility to protect them from ignorant parents.
      Also note that in this case, the father was in favor of the immunization - only the mother objected.

    101. Re:Good. by immaterial · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of examples of intraspecific parasitism. What's species have to do with the nature of a relationship?

    102. Re: Good. by anomaly256 · · Score: 1

      When did I say that? If you read what I post I do take vaccinations, I just carefully weigh the actual benefit/risk first instead of jumping on the seasonal vaccination of fashion.

    103. Re:Good. by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 2

      That's funny, I'd rather someone remove my blood marrow than have the flu.

    104. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. Having a government department decide that

      Anti government - check

      you are to be forced to have a corporation-manufactured product

      Anti corporation - check

      injected into your body is orders of magnitude more dangerous

      Irrational fear - check

      than either any potential side effect from the vaccination on the individual or the danger to the community from the individual not being vaccinated. I can't understand why both the pro-vaccination group and a lot of the anti-vaccination group fail to see this argument.

      Are you going to die from preventable disease out of spite towards government and corporations?

      Would I get vaccinated or let my children be vaccinated? If the threat was real enough, yes. But would I let a government make that decision for me/them? Hell no.

      Here is where your "argument" falls down.
      1. You don't trust government.
      2. You don't trust corporations.
      3. It seems a pretty safe assumption you aren't going to trust scientists or doctors.
      So how will you decide if the threat is real enough? Fox news? (Its a corporation by the way)
      You clearly dont have the mental capacity to decide for yourself about vaccinations, so who will decide for you?

      I'd start killing people long before submitting to that tyranny.

      Really?? all the bad things governments and corporations are already doing are ok, but vaccinations is where you draw the line.
      I call bullshit.

    105. Re:Good. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Sounds a wee bit Freud-y, but not entirely implausible. Personally I think the jellybeans are the right strategy.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    106. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, come on over and get shot!

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

      Thanks for reminding us
      MMR season is just around the corner...

    108. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard of a trick some (maybe old-fashioned?) nurses use: They mildly slap the spot just before putting in the needle - the mild pain from the slap makes the needle completely unnoticeable. Now, I'm not very experienced with kids so it could be that very small children are so sensitive to such a slap that it won't make it any easier but for older kids and adults that just hate needles, it can probably work.

      Personally I have had a condition which has meant so many blood samples to be taken that a vaccination needle is absolutely nothing - in fact, I look forward to taking the flu vaccine and some travel vaccinations again since usually the nurse at the clinic I go to is the first readhead that I've ever considered hot and she's clearly just waiting for me to ask her out :P

    109. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you've seen many if not all of those unfortunate conditions (and I hope they all had a positive outcome), but I have to wonder if your sample is biased. Out of x cases requiring intervention (I mean emergency c-section or similar, rather than epidural or simple pain relief), what multiple of x proceeded smoothly without any need for intervention? There's only so much money available for medical treatment in the public system here in Oz, and wouldn't it be better to spend it where it's really needed, rather than spend it on negligible-risk births "just in case"?

      FWIW, my wife delivered both our children at home with me, a midwife and one other helper. She practically delivered the second one herself, she was crowning when the midwife arrived, and 10 minutes later I had a daughter. It was 2.5 hours from waters breaking to placenta delivery. She was 36 with the first one, 40 with the second one, and her ob-gyn was supportive of the home delivery, even though his insurance wouldn't let him attend. We wouldn't have risked a home birth against his advice, but she just didn't need to deliver in a hospital.

    110. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They mildly slap the spot just before putting in the needle - the mild pain from the slap makes the needle completely unnoticeable

      That might make the injection hurt less, but it's actually done to make the vein stand out. Rubbing the area rather than slapping it is more recommended these days.

    111. Re:Good. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      There are indeed such risks. Particularly in the US, doctors sometimes suggest or encourage unnecessary c-sections because they think they're safer (and less likely to result in lawsuits), opening the door to a number of complications; people (either doctors or mothers) choose to induce labour chemically to fit a schedule, leading to fatal exhaustion from prolonged labour; and there's some evidence that lying down while giving birth is less healthy than standing up, simply because of how the human body is built, which comes with yet another raft of potential issues. Here is a discussion of the first one. Not sure I agree with this study, but hey, these things happen. It's fairly easy to research.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    112. Re:Good. by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

      Pregnancy isn't an illness.

      Exactly. It's just a parasitic relationship.

      Its symbiotic; the mother draws quite a bit from the fetus. I remember reading about mothers who were experiencing a lot of stress during pregnancy. After delivery the mothers had some hormone balance issues. Turned out their body was drawing hormones from the fetus during the pregnancy to help them along. Once the baby was delivered they weren't getting this 'top up' and had issues with this. It could be contributory to post-partum depression.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    113. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Home birth is quite safe in all but high-risk cases, and we know which ones those are.

      Well of course you know which ones they are. In hindsight. Or, do you have a magic crystal ball that can see the future? If so, I'd really like to borrow it.

    114. Re: Good. by Adriax · · Score: 2

      I've had 3 cavities filled and a quarter a toenail removed (infected ingrown, big toe, right quarter of right toenail) all without anesthesia because I couldn't stand getting the shot. Even refused the painkiller drip the ER offered when I was passing a kidney stone (4mm, painful but passable).
      The cavities weren't that bad, just railroad spikes of ice through the brain. But the toenail is every bit a torture as you can imagine. I snapped the bed railing when he started digging under the nail with the surgical equivalents of needlenose pliars and wire snips. I don't regret turning the shots down one bit.

      For some of us the shot really is worse than the consequence of not getting it.
      Though I have started getting flu shots now that I have kids. I just have to suck it up and be a dad because the alternative is scarier than any number of shots.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    115. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The idea that the state is mandating strapping someone down and giving them an injection whether they like it or no is pretty horrifying in my book, much more so than if they simply quarantined the kid on the off chance he got sick.

      The state in this case is not mandating that. The father of the children is mandating it, and the state came down on his side. Are you horrified in general by parents forcing their children to have medical procedures? Children tend to hate that sort of thing pretty universally and often need to be forced and restrained in some way.

    116. Re:Good. by GNious · · Score: 1

      I've had a pile of blodtests done, and have donated blood - every time, the statement from the nurse/lab-assistant has been, "this will hurt a little bit".

    117. Re:Good. by LordLimecat · · Score: 0

      Fair enough, but GP does seem to be advocating this regardless of whether the father supported it or not.

    118. Re:Good. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      No. It doesnt. The right to parent your kids is another fairly fundamental right.

    119. Re:Good. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I used to keep guppies that had live births, I've also gutted dog fish which had fetuses inside.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    120. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I saw growing up frequently hospitalized (and needlephobic), it has a lot to do with how hyper/hyposensitive the individual is, either in that location or that kind of pain. I recall many instances of being totally baffled by seeing kids that showed either far more *or* far less pain than I did to something, or indicated it in class or the playroom -- and phobic infants like I was reacted only upon seeing a syringe, needle, or related equipment, not to the staff (which avoided wearing telltale attire like white coats).

    121. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As I typically see, you fucking assholes just assume. I got cancer in my twenties, and I've had it up to hear with ignorant shit from people just like you.

      Some reasons why not 100% of the population that wants to be vaccinated can be:
      * Certain vaccinations are given at certain ages -- infants aren't immune, they are shielded only by their reduced contact to the outside world.
      * There are individuals that have known allergic responses to ingredients in vaccinations.
      * There are individuals with weakened or no immune systems from other medical causes which would die when given the vaccine.
      * The elderly are not required because it is assumed they had some strain/variant of the measles/mumps/chicken pox/etc. when they were younger. How would their immune systems respond to an unmitigated outbreak?

      Not everyone is (YOUR AGE) and (YOUR HEALTH LEVEL), and deviations from that are not solely due to (ANECDOTAL POOR LIFE CHOICE[S]). I didn't choose to have my fucking cancer. You can choose to have a pinch for a few seconds. Live in a society or get the fuck out.

    122. Re:Good. by ruvablue · · Score: 1

      "Bodily autonomy" I believe in that too: don't let your germs violate my bodily autonomy. There is no right "not to get sick", but if someone infected you with a crippling disease on purpose you would be opposed to that too , right? It is possible nowadays to trace microbes to their source i.e. cholera in Haiti was found to be from Nepal via genetic testing of the cholera strain. Someday that may be possible for all infectious diseases [genetic testing--finding strain]. When that day comes, I hope it comes with tracing what jerk refused vaccines and brought it into our lives. I think of it as an assault. Of course, you did not touch me, but that is not the standard in assault.[*That's for battery.] But your germs did. Not getting a vaccine is like feeding bears: you may like it, the bears may like it, but it endangers everyone around you, especially a neighbor. Feeding bears is against the law. So should be feeding infectious diseases that are preventable via vaccines.

    123. Re: Good. by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Couldn't you have gone with another form of pain management? There's topical anaesthetics, oral analgesics, even general anaesthetics...

      When I had my wisdom teeth pulled (all four at once, plus four other teeth to make room in my jaw), I got a pretty broad spectrum of things. Oral sedative to help keep me calm going into the procedure, injected sedative to keep me calm during the procedure, topical anaesthetics to make the needles in the mouth hurt less, and then injected local anaesthetics for the procedure itself, followed by oral analgesics to manage the pain after the local anaesthetics wore off. You'd think that, if they couldn't have done any injections, they probably could have done the sedatives fully orally, and they probably could have dispensed some heavier oral analgesics to help during the procedure...

    124. Re:Good. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Theyre not "my germs". Bacteria exists in the real world. Deal with it (preferably without stomping over every notion of personal liberty).

      I think of it as an assault.

      Thinking it so doesnt make it so.

    125. Re:Good. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Vaccination is a matter of public safety, because even if you don't get sick you can infect other children or adults, causing deaths

      Are we talking a number of additional deaths from not being MMR vacinated (statistically) thats even remotely on par with the number of, say, automotive deaths?

      If not, it would seem to invalidate the idea that its a sufficient public risk to warrant such a violation of personal liberty.

    126. Re:Good. by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1

      Pointless post.

      Summary by paragraph:

      P1: I don't know much, but I have an opinion

      P2: Fund more research - is good (duh)

      P3: I don't understand herd immunity, but it's complicated (psst... read about the effect it had on Polio and then make your decision)

      P4: Some viruses don't vaccinate well (because they mutate rapidly). I don't understand how they work!! Woah! Biology!

      P5: Science is awesome, but it ain't perfect (duh)

      P6: So yeah, random rant about not funding research enough, and a nonsensical question about the reduction in infectious diseases.

      You're aware that smallpox killed over 400,000 Europeans per year in the 18th century (approximately 1% of the population)? Our "research" isn't perfect, but it has made an ENORMOUS dent in worldwide mortality rates.

    127. Re:Good. by pspahn · · Score: 0

      Until such revolutionary change comes about in medicine, choosing not to vaccinate a child *is* particularly evil, as it endangers not only the child but everyone around him or her.

      Yes, because it really is much much better for that child to grow up in an overcrowded world where violence is more likely to erupt and they can instead die in a horrible war from a horrible weapon.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    128. Re:Good. by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't about flu. This is about MMR vaccine. Example: if pregnant woman manages to catch rubella, if she's lucky, child will be stillborn. Unlucky, and it will be born severely disabled.

      These infectious diseases are not a joke. These are diseases that wiped out a good 10-20% of people before they reached adulthood before vaccination was invented and left many survivors with some degree of disability for life.

      The reason why we don't have to worry about having ten kids so that around four make it to adulthood is because we have vaccination against the nastier diseases, and because vaccination and resultant herd immunity effectively wiped many of the most dangerous diseases out of our everyday lives.

    129. Re:Good. by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      here's a horror story that writes itself, considering seasonal shots and MMR use albumen as a purportedly "inert" suspension:

      in 2010 I attended a warehouse in Sutton that housed 50 million chicken eggs. My reason for being there could be summed up in few words: kill rats.

      They were EVERYWHERE. Thousands of them, jumping all over the eggs, pissing all over the *very porous eggs* to get to the bags of dry dog food at the other end of the building, then on their way back, ripping up the egg cartons to take back for nesting material, dropping capers and still pissing all over the eggs on the way.

      Were those eggs destroyed?

      No.

      After a couple months of me fighting a losing battle to control the rats (ended up ordering the dog food out of the building - remove the food, the rats generally fuck off but this lot were too well established), several refrigerated trucks finally arrived to take the eggs away.

      Knowing what I know, and having seen what I saw, you come near me with a needle I will fucking stab you in the eye with it.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    130. Re:Good. by Avalanche_Joe · · Score: 1

      How is it a public safety issue?!? If the public is vaccinated against _whatever_, then how is the person not vaccinated against _whatever_ putting the public in danger? The public is already vaccinated, so they can't get it, right? Because you imply that if you get the vaccination, you are not going to get _whatever_. The only ones that have anything to fear from non-vaccinated people are other non-vaccinated people. That is the risk they are taking by not getting vaccinated. I'm not even against vaccinations. But that line of crap you spouted is just ridiculous.

    131. Re:Good. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      This has no impact on definition whether relationship is parasitic or symbiotic. Some parasitic wasps for example have exactly the same reaction from their hosts after emerging if host survives. In fact, some of them even control the former host to protect them against predators similar to how babies use mother's natural instincts for certain features such as big round eyes and baby faces to continue the parasitic control. We're basically hard wired for it.

      One should not misunderstand - fetus has a purely parasitic relationship with mother. Post partum depression is simply about loss of internal parasitic hormonal control.

    132. Re:Good. by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      Who's this GP you speak of?

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    133. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean "staying home from school and playing video games"-disease?

    134. Re: Good. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Take a good look at history. Discounting age of modern medicine, the single biggest caused of death among women have been birth complications. The only exception was occasional passing of a large epidemic.

    135. Re:Good. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      By that notion, murder is completely okay because murder is natural and exists in real world among most species.

      When you progress beyond jungle animal, you gain certain right and certain responsibilities. If you want to remain a jungle animal, please leave the society.

    136. Re:Good. by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      Can you be more arrogant?

      Some poeple are too young, too old or two weak to be immunised. Then is also a small percentage of poeple that even though they were immunised, they have lost protection or it failed somehow.

      Either way, a number of poeple in the community are at risk due to no fault of their own, and when selfish asshats decided to go un-imunsed due to some rubbish they read in a chain letter it puts people at risk.

    137. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not entirely - in a true parasitic relationship, the host sees no benefit. In pregnancy, the *host* receives a child to carry their genes forward in the next generation.

    138. Re:Good. by Luckyo · · Score: 0

      When you join human society, you gain rights, and you gain responsibilities. One of them is not endangering the very society.

      If you feel that societal rules are too restricting, no one stops you from leaving society. There are plenty of places where you can go live outside society.

    139. Re:Good. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      That is the favorite argument of abusive parents, frequently used on social workers and police when they come to pick up the child full of bruises.

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

      There are some parasites which absorb and carry genes from their host. They're stil parasites.

    141. Re:Good. by manquer · · Score: 1

      No, the kids don't know any better, and the mother is practicing child abuse, especially against the 11 year old.

      Brainwashing your kids against vaccination is particularly evil.

      -- BMO

      While Vaccination as a theory/concept itself is not a bad thing, there are enough defective/ improperly prepared/ fake vaccines in the world that if you not worried about it, you are just being foolhardy. To be clear I am not implying that avoiding vaccines is the solution, just that there is some validity on the other side of the argument as well.

    142. Re:Good. by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Please stop treating us all like idiots. If anyone is going to know about such a thing it's going to be the doctors at that clinic and not some random MSCE with an axe to grind.

    143. Re:Good. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Not everyone can be vaccinated, even if they want to be. Some people have immune system issues which prevent vaccination, or are simply too young or too old. These people rely on herd immunity for protection, which anti-vaccination people are actively hurting. So no, it's not "ridiculous", it's just something you have no idea about, but assume you do, because you're awesome and know everything.

    144. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Then you've probably never really had the flu.
      Then he probably has a good immune system which can deal with the influenza virus as efficiently as possible. Common factors include, but are not limited to, previous exposure to similar strains, nutrition, physical exercise level and age.

    145. Re: Good. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      As someone else that has had cavities filled without anesthesia it's several orders of magnitude on any scale less pain than wisdom teeth even the day after the anaesthetics have worn off. The above poster is just making a big deal of what was often typically done with that dental procedure a few years ago.

    146. Re:Good. by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the influenza virus is respiratory, not gastro-intestinal. "Stomach flu" is an oxymoron.

    147. Re:Good. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Wakefield was patenting materials for an alternative vaccine which sounds precisely like "related to an alternative vaccine" to me, but more importantly to the court when the trial come up.

    148. Re:Good. by DrXym · · Score: 2, Funny
      As a grown up, I rationally weigh up the pluses and minuses of a flu vaccination.

      On the plus side, not getting flu means I don't feel like shit for a week, I don't take days off for illness, I don't pass on the disease to my family or colleagues and I don't leave myself at a higher risk of a worse repository infection or even die. On the minus side, I must spend 20 euros and 15 minutes of my lunch time for a tiny pinprick injection.

      I tell you, it's a huge dilemma .

    149. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no mercury in the MMR vaccine, they stopped using thiomersal before the whole autism scare!

    150. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be a fucking pussy, MAN UP!!!!1

      Unless you're a woman. In which case crying is acceptable.

    151. Re:Good. by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      I would certainly advise people to get chicken pox rather than be vaccinated. Getting a primary chicken pox infection as an adult is far more serious than getting it as a child, and you need to get lifelong boosters of the vaccine in order to avoid any risk of getting chicken pox later in life.

    152. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And almost always painful.

    153. Re:Good. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I've slept on the floor next to the toilet. And I still don't want the shot.

      Then you're either stupid, or insane. Not sure which, I spent 7 days on a cot 8 ft away from my bathroom. I was so weak for the first 3 days that I couldn't get to the bathroom without help. By the 4th day, I could just walk, sort of. I fainted twice, trying to walk that 8 feet. On the 5th day I was only fainting 50% of the time. It took me nearly a month to recover from it.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    154. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite so, unfortunately there is no vaccin yet against stupidity.

    155. Re:Good. by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Actually, he stated he does get vaccinated. The point wasn't about doing it voluntarily based on choice, but having that choice removed.

    156. Re:Good. by Xest · · Score: 1

      I was never afraid of needles as a kid, even at the dentist but there was just one time in my early teens where I caught a glimpse of the dentists needle as he put it in my mouth and I've never been so scared of anything in my life.

      But I've been fine with them again ever since, it never happened again.

      So I'm not sure it's something as simple as conditioning, it turns out even if you're not afraid of them then sometimes something in your brain can click to make you shit yourself like never before when you see one going into you.

    157. Re: Good. by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      In actual practice, Marxism at its core is about using copious amounts of violent force against anyone who objects to whatever "society" (actually a small group of people at the top) deems is in the best interest of "the people" (again, what's actually in the best interest of the party regarding maintaining power). The theory of

      Marxism will always require much more persistent use of state-sponsored violence to remain "pure" Marxism than any sort of representative government.

    158. Re: Good. by zachie · · Score: 1

      Because many vaccines do not give you protection with 100% probability, but they make enough % of the population immune so that a virus is prevented from spreading. People who avoid taking vaccines are hurting everyone who's not immunized by the vaccine by providing more chances for a virus to spread. So not only you are hurting yourself, but also many others. Hence the state needs to control this particular flavor of idiocy as much as it needs to prevent drunk driving.

    159. Re:Good. by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      A parasitic relationship doesn't need to be intra-species. While most people seem to object to classifying pregnancy as a parasitic relationship, it still is.

    160. Re:Good. by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, OP is correct. Most people who think they've had the flu have actually only had a cold. They're different types of viruses which just share some similar symptoms.

      The flu tends to be much worse. One key difference is that whereas a cold will just stuff up your nose and make your head feel miserable, the flu will make you feel like you just ran a marathon and then a truck ran over you. It also tends to last a lot longer. I was bedridden for 10 days, and it was 3 weeks before I felt normal again. It was so bad that even though I wanted to go back to work, I was afraid to because I didn't want to pass it on to a coworker and make them go through the same misery I had just been through. Totally the opposite of the guy who's only had a cold and thinks you should just tough it out and come to work.

      I get my flu shot every year now.

    161. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      semi-incompitant

      Just like you're semi-illiterate and can't spell "incompetent"?

    162. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This makes no sense at all.

      If he doesn't get a vaccine and the rest of the people do, he will be the only one dying.... if the vaccines work as promised that is.

      If the vaccine doesn't help you survive when your neighbor who isn't vaccinated gets infected, then why take it at all.....

      So it should be up to each person to decide.

    163. Re:Good. by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      It was both, actually. Wakefield got money from the lawyer to make up evidence, and he was patenting (I think) an alternate vaccine at the same time. He was recently (2010) stripped of his license in the UK.

    164. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... that lasts twenty-plus years..

    165. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's all well and good, but what goes into your body does have an effect on other people, not just you. For a wild hypothetical, if there's a choice between getting an injection and 100 people around you dying, you're just plain being an arsehole for refusing the injection,

      I thought the whole point of getting the shot was to keep you from dying, not 100 people around you dying. If people want to die early or their kids here is a bizzar concept...........let them. It's a self correcting problem.

    166. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The reason that most kids and later adults who are afraid of needles is because they were lied to when they got their first injection/venipuncture."

      Really? I would have thought it was because I am adverse to being stabbed with things.

    167. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Studies in the UK show that doctors believe childbirth to be much riskier than the general population does (and much riskier than reality) - and Ob-Gyns doctors believe the risk to be even higher than other doctors. The most likely reason is a sample bias in the cases doctors see - uncomplicated births do not involve doctors at all. if you need a specialist Ob-Gyns doctor during childbirth, then the birth isn't routine and something's already gone wrong.

    168. Re:Good. by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No actually you're both correct. A virus is a virus. The body's immune response determines how much you're knocked about. I had influenza too. I caught it from my sister who was hospitalised because of it. For me it felt like a common cold. It wasn't worth the trip to the doctor except for the whole sister going to hospital bit so I went and had a blood test done which gave the same results as my sister.

      For me it was like a cold that took longer than normal to shake. I also get my flu shot every year now (because my company sponsors it).

    169. Re: Good. by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Why should you or anyone who's had their vaccinations care what I do with my own fucking body?

      Because no vaccine is 100% effective.
      Because we might care about children too young to be vaccinated.
      Because we might care about immunodeficent people.

      How dare you presume to have any say at all in the matter.

      We wont if you will stop posing a risk to everybody, i.e. going anywhere public. It will also protect you from physical interaction with people with an active empathy, who are apparently like a disease.

    170. Re:Good. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      "This will hurt, but only for a little bit"

      The flu jab doesn't hurt at all at the time. However it gives you a dead arm for about a day and a bit which aches like someone has hit you with a hammer. Local anaesthetics on the other hand suck a lot and are much worse when you tense up.

      I have a theory about hating needles too. They hurt and it sucks getting them.

    171. Re:Good. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Fees? Do you live in the United States of America by any chance? I wasn't aware there was a fee for giving birth in a hospital. Heck one of my colleagues just gave birth to a baby with TGV which was rushed straight into surgery and has spent the last 2 weeks in hospital under intensive care. No fee for that either.

    172. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that there are thousands of strains of flu. Some will cause much worse symptoms than others covering the full spectrum from being no worse than the common cold to requiring hospitalisation.

    173. Re: Good. by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      Because, as has previously been mentioned numerous times already.

      Not everybody can.

      But everybody who can should.

    174. Re:Good. by fatphil · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is that neither was able to form a well-reasoned and internally-understood argument in favour of the shots. They had to trust you and your explanation why it would be good for them. I'm definitely not saying you did anything wrong at all, quite the opposite; it's just that in a situation where they have such a dependence on you, they cannot be critical of what you're telling them, right or wrong.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    175. Re:Good. by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      Good job following it with a much more concise fact and content free post.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    176. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Long post. Good oratory. Emotional appeals. Big words. No evidence.

      Some evidence - http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d7400?tab=full
      Women planning birth in a midwifery unit and multiparous women planning birth at home experience fewer interventions than those planning birth in an obstetric unit with no impact on perinatal outcomes. For nulliparous women, planned home births also have fewer interventions but have poorer perinatal outcomes.

      That means that, for uncomplicated pregnancies, there's a statistically higher risk only for first time mothers.

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

      You right to swing your fist ends at the point of my nose. There are children too young to be vaccinated yet, these 2 could infect others, people who statistically have a much higher mortality rate with those diseases. If it was just them, your rant would make sense, but it isn't, and you need to creep back under your bridge.

    178. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well maybe not. My parents objected to me being vaccinated and I thank them for it. When I travelled overseas to work and needed to get the MMR vaccine I ended up with little red spots all over my body and was sick for about a week.

      Side effects for vaccines also include possible infection with the virus. For example Gardasil has a listed infection rate.

      As well in the past there have been numerous problems with vaccines. From heavy metal poisoning to long term effects such as brain tumors.

      This is not to say that vaccines don't have their place, or that they are inherently evil. It is to say that they are products sold for profit. As such it should fall to the coustomer to decide whether to buy.

      Also the idea that an unvaccinated individual puts the community at risk is absurd. If the vaccine is supposed to protect from infection than it is ridiculous to think an unvaccinated person could infect one who is.

      I would also like to point out that cases of SIDS rise around the same age as mandatory vaccination.

    179. Re: Good. by tylerbuys · · Score: 1

      Well maybe not. My parents objected to me being vaccinated and I thank them for it. When I travelled overseas to work and needed to get the MMR vaccine I ended up with little red spots all over my body and was sick for about a week. Side effects for vaccines also include possible infection with the virus. For example Gardasil has a listed infection rate. As well in the past there have been numerous problems with vaccines. From heavy metal poisoning to long term effects such as brain tumors. This is not to say that vaccines don't have their place, or that they are inherently evil. It is to say that they are products sold for profit. As such it should fall to the coustomer to decide whether or not to buy. Also the idea that an unvaccinated individual puts the community at risk is absurd. If the vaccine is supposed to protect from infection than it is ridiculous to think an unvaccinated person could infect one who is. I would also like to point out that cases of SIDS rise around the same age as mandatory vaccination.

    180. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know anyone that guarantees a cure for cancer for a trillion dollars, but nobody would turn it down.

      We already have cures for some cancers. But curing cancer, generally, is a hard problem - so hard that the best path toward a general cure is almost certainly to just focus on increasing our understanding of basic biology (and science/technology generally).

      But infectious diseases are interesting in that we already know how to prevent transmission - e.g. avoid contact with causative pathogen - e.g. don't breath in someone else's sneeze if they've got the flu. So infectious disease is more in the catgegory of world hunger / malnutitrition. We know the cure - we just need to find a way to deliver it.

      There's a huge need for more infectious disease research. But, unlike cancer, much of it's of the low-hanging fruit variety - solving known technical problems - which is not to say that understanding the basic biology of infectious disease isn't also interesting and useful.

      All this focus on vaccines is like saying everyone should program in C. Sure, C is a very useful language and for some applications (e.g. kernel level programming) it's the best choice - but for other applications it's almost certainly not best. Vaccines are great for certain infectious diseases (e.g. smallpox) but they're not, and should not be, the only tool in our toolbox for fighting infectious disease.

    181. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a rhinovirus will cause similar symptoms. Indeed, every single symptom that influenza causes, except (usually) fever and the associated extreme lethargy. And so many people call it "the flu" or "a mild flu". And a rotavirus or norovirus (along with a crapload of bacteria) will cause gastroenteritis, which some people call "stomach flu".

      Please stop spreading nonsense.

    182. Re:Good. by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      Right... because there's nothing that could be done to the albumen between egg and needle that might make it safe and sterile? I think if you look too closely at the food chain from source to table or medicine from source to needle or pill, there will be plenty of things that will gross you out. The question is whether the end products are safe and sterile.

    183. Re: Good. by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 2

      Not surprisingly, a good percentage of that was due to horrible sanitary conditions.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    184. Re: Good. by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      I would also like to point out that cases of SIDS rise around the same age as mandatory vaccination. --- there it is, your post immediately disqualified from proper discussion.

    185. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mild influenza and a rhinovirus infection have the exact same symptom set. Without a blood culture, there's no way for the sufferer to determine which it is. Shockingly, people often call two things that look exactly the same the same thing.

    186. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't they found a vaccination for stupidity ??

      Cheers,

    187. Re:Good. by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      'i hated needles as a kid, and STILL hate needles. i almost never get anything with a needle unless i absolutely have to. ill generally take the flu over a vaccine.'

      How about hospitals and whatchacallit... Death?

      Excerpt from the CDC:
      "How many people get sick or die from the flu every year?

      Flu seasons are unpredictable and can be severe. It is estimated that, on average, approximately 5% to 20% of U.S. residents get the flu, and more than 200,000 people are hospitalized for flu-related complications each year. Over a period of 30 years, between 1976 and 2006, estimates of flu-associated deaths in the United States range from a low of about 3,000 to a high of about 49,000 people."

    188. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're just upset because they're immune system is too weak to take care of itself.

    189. Re:Good. by westlake · · Score: 3, Informative

      If it's a choice between you getting a shot that will kill you and 100 people around you dying, it's rather less clear cut... a generous enough person might accept and be the sacrifice, but while it is rather selfish it's not entirely unreasonable to refuse, and being forced to get the shot would be wrong.

      Typhoid Mary.

      The only humane solution was commitment for life to a secure psychiatric hospital.

    190. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      maybe you're just a pussy

    191. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I walked in there and they gave me a shot in the arm, I woke up in another room with less teeth and a pain in my mouth. They can't knock you out with oral drugs because they need to get past the blood brain barrier and you can't do that unless you inject because your digestive tract will destroy any drugs before they get into your system. They might be able to get around this somehow but honestly can you just not be a pussy for ten seconds while they poke your arm?

    192. Re:Good. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      In your upper arm or thigh / ass cheek its an intramuscular injection, into your hip (Insulin, for example) it's into subcutaneous fat. Very rarely is anything injected directly into a vein, unless it's for recreational purposes.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    193. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      temps well above 100

      42 is usually lethal. 100 is impossible.

    194. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you live in a world where there is a 100% probability of catching the flu without a vaccine and a 0% probability with a vaccine, then, yes. Unfortunately, most people don't. In reality, the two percentages are not all that far apart. Additionally, many people get some mild complications from the vaccine.

      Influenza vaccines are not anywhere near as effective as those against many other diseases (most of which are also quite a bit more dangerous to a healthy person too). There are good reasons why some vaccines are part of regular vaccination programmes and others aren't.

    195. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, you.. yes you!

      Get the fuck out of my society!

      Kthx.

    196. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the original person does it to avoid a few days without pay

      Are there civilised countries where it is legal to suspend the salary of a sick employee?

    197. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, you trolling dickhead, not everyone can have the vaccination. Look up "herd immunity". Then realise what a pathetic, selfish little creep you are.

    198. Re:Good. by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      probably. It was late and I was tired.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    199. Re:Good. by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      I went through a weird stage between the ages of roughly 7 and say, 16 where I was extremely uncomfortable with needles. Then I had to get a lot of blood drawn for some tests, and something just clicked, and I was like "this is no big deal. Sure, its uncomfortable, but its not really scary". It was a good time for it to happen to, because the nurse that was taking my blood was semi-incompitant or something, and had to stab me about 30 times to get a vein.

      I used to hate it. They used to give injections to the class in alphabetical order. First kid in came out clutching his arm saying "oh that's really terrible - the worst I've ever had". The second the same. By the time it got to me I was dreading it. The anticipation was terrible .. I had a knot in my stomach. Of course the injection was hardly anything ... just a slight pin-prick. I kept up the pretence though, clutching my arm and saying how much it hurt for the kits still waiting ....

    200. Re:Good. by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      No. It doesnt. The right to parent your kids is another fairly fundamental right.

      You have the right to parent your kid as long as you do so responsibly. If not you will rightfully so find yourself in real hot water.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    201. Re:Good. by gsslay · · Score: 1

      Find me a kid who fully appreciates the effects and dangers of measles, mumps and/or rubella.

      To a kid it's a no brainer comparison. Immunisation means you will get stuck with a needle and it will hurt. As for all those diseases, well you may not get them at all, and if you do they just means days off school in bed. No biggy.

      Bottom line; kids don't have a clue. Cos they're kids. Asking them to consider the merits of immunisation is not necessarily going to result what's best for them.

    202. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no problems with blood being taken but give me a shot and I will feel bad for hours after. Doesn't matter if its a local anesthetic or a vaccine...

    203. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The influenza virus is constantly mutating. That is why you need a updated flu shot every year, even then it is for the most common flu strain going around. Even if you have the shot, you may still get the flu, just not the strains you have been vaccinated against.

      I have had the flu three times in my life. The first time I was bed ridden for a day, fine a few days later. The second time all I had was a stuffy nose and a light cough (since it was so mild I thought it was just a cold but the rest of my family were bedridden for while after they caught it from me). Third time put me in bed for three days. Still felt like crap after a week too.

    204. Re:Good. by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the suggestion. I'll test that hypothesis on my son next time he needs a shot, which will be the first time he'll be suficiently sentient to understand the words and project his anticipation.

      Because SCIENCE.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    205. Re:Good. by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      Does not work with paleo kids. But then, maybe replacing the candy with bacon would do the trick.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    206. Re:Good. by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      the whole point of getting the shot was to keep you from dying, not 100 people around you dying

      Those are not mutually exclusive. Vaccination is win-win this way. I'm fine with people wanting to die early (i.e. all hail the mighty wingsuit overlords !), I'm mixed about people who won't protect their own child from known preventable risks, and definitely against people who are actively helping out our species' predators.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    207. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money isn't a bad guess at one of the factors, though. The MMR vaccine is cheaper than the three separate jabs and therefore produces less proft per person immunised.

      The Herceptin case brought up in the UK by a woman with breast cancer that the drug was not tested for was bankrolled by the company making it.

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

      given that it has 30-70% efficacy provided that they actually match the vaccine well to the circulating virus, i don't really see the point, especially since according to you i haven't had a flu in 35 years

    209. Re:Good. by GrahamCox · · Score: 2

      My ex-boss was notorious for the former... he'd have the sniffles but it was "a touch of the flu".

      Indeed, people call the common cold flu to make themselves sound iller than they really are, but this diminishes the very real impact of genuine flu, which is very unpleasant indeed. Round here, those sorts of exaggeration are rightly dismissed as "man-flu" (as men are the ones that tend to exaggerate a cold, because "I have a cold" supposedly sounds a bit wimpish, which is also pretty silly).

    210. Re:Good. by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      I've also found how much it hurts depends entirely on how much the person holding the syringe controls lateral movement - for me, the actual puncture is exceptionally mild, but what starts to ramp up the pain is the needle being flexed side to side.

      Some nurses for blood donation are good about this, others seem to think that once the needle is in they really don't need to pay too much attention while taping that long spool of flexible plastic tubing in place.

    211. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't mind getting vaccination shots as a child.

    212. Re: Good. by Dan541 · · Score: 2

      Who the hell do you think you are to demand a right to adversely affect the health of everyone around you?

      If you don't want to vaccinate then fine, go live out in the desert far away from civilization.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    213. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose this is 100 in Fahrenheit which is around 38 Celsius

    214. Re:Good. by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I'd start killing people long before submitting to that tyranny.

      Really??
      all the bad things governments and corporations are already doing are ok, but vaccinations is where you draw the line.

      I call bullshit.

      Anti-vaxxers are psychopathic, no surprise they would resort to outright murder if their chosen method of harming society were placed at risk.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    215. Re:Good. by IRWolfie- · · Score: 1

      You may have caught a cold but attributed to flu since your sister was infected with it (correlation doesn't imply causation).

    216. Re: Good. by anomaly256 · · Score: 1

      Everybody? Hyperbole much? Since when do infants + immunodeficient people == everybody? I imagine that'll be the net end result once you're done removing natural selection from the evolutionary process though. But that's another topic really. Why is it so hard for you to read? It really speaks volumes about your mindless nature when you instantly strawman any argument on the topic in to being 'you are completely against vaccinations! omg /you're one of them/!' - For the second time, I've had my shots, the important ones. I wouldn't stop my children from having them either. But I do believe no external party has a right to dictate what I let bypass by body's natural filters and enter my blood stream. And you *are* a fucking idiot if you think that's unreasonable. You deserve the police state you're trying to bring in to being. You want to hand over all rights to your own physical being then go right ahead, I won't stop you. I'll stand here alive, healthy, and sentient pitying you. Oh yes, I have empathy. And right now it's screaming to think of the world you're trying to bring in to existence. The world where you have no rights *at all*, where you're a property of the state for the state to do with what they wish. Do you honestly want that? Can you really say that you're not a government shill and still want that?

    217. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you use newspeak definitions of parasitism.

    218. Re:Good. by Arker · · Score: 2

      That can certainly be part of it, but it's much more. IV injection violates the integrity of the body itself, which is a really powerful psychological issue for anyone, at any age, but especially children.

      It's one thing if you agree to it, if you do agree that you need it, it's another entirely when it is a matter of adults who are larger and more powerful deciding to do it and giving you no choice.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    219. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And having babies delivered in a hospital near very ill and contagious people makes sense? There's a reason no one wanted to go to the hospital in the 18th century: this was the place where you caught every disease possible.

    220. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US, medical personnel are licensed by the state. So it varies. I can't speak for all 50 states, but where I live, midwives have to finish nursing school.

    221. Re: Good. by anomaly256 · · Score: 1

      Again with the hyperbole.. It's not everyone. It's not even remotely close to everyone. And for the third time now I'm not against vaccinations - I've had them and will have my children have them. That's not the point. Please learn to read and stop regurgitating rote-taught indoctrination k thx.

    222. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think of it as an assault.
       

      Thinking it so doesnt make it so.

      That's exactly the problem with libertarianism. No two libertarians agree on what constitutes initiation of force.

    223. Re:Good. by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Find me a parent who fully appreciates the effects and dangers of measles, mumps, and/or rubella.

      The individual vaccines for those diseases were all produced in the 60's, so parents today weren't even born during their heyday. They've never experienced first hand the problems associated with these contagious, disfiguring diseases, to have the fear of... whatever, put into them.

    224. Re:Good. by anomaly256 · · Score: 1

      Anti-police state is not the same as anti-vaccination. Please learn to think.

    225. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People who assume Celsius make my blood boil. /joke

    226. Re:Good. by jambox · · Score: 1

      So if very few people know what Flu is like, then wouldn't it follow that not that many people have actually had it, then doesn't it follow that it's not really worth getting vaccinated because it's not that common?

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    227. Re:Good. by anomaly256 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for trying, but I think it's moot. Anyone with a strong opinion on this topic seems unable to carry out a rational conversation on it. Kind of reminds me of the creationism topic. Almost as if to have an opinion at all is to be a zealot per default or something regardless of the point of view you've adopted. Any one else who's opinion doesn't fit in to side A or side B has to be forced in to one or the other somehow so that you can label and judge them accordingly.

      'If I yell louder than you then I'm right and all my time spent believing hasn't been wasted'

    228. Re: Good. by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Everybody? Hyperbole much?

      I shouldn't have said anybody, but it isn't, strictly speaking, wrong. I have no way of knowing whether my vaccines are effective, so people potentially spreading diseases are a risk to me, and anybody else.

      For the second time, I've had my shots, the important ones. I wouldn't stop my children from having them either. But I do believe no external party has a right to dictate what I let bypass by body's natural filters and enter my blood stream.

      Right, so let's remove the "you" form my statement, and restate it as "People can choose whether they want to be vaccinated, but if they choose not to, they might not have the right to go to any specific public place."

      you're trying to bring [...] [a] world where you have no rights *at all*, where you're a property of the state for the state to do with what they wish [into existence]

      And you are the one complaining that I am using hyperbole and straw men.

    229. Re:Good. by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and before you wound up completely out of action for a week except to grab the trash can near the bed when your stomach tries to turn itself inside out and escape your body via your throat, and you have spasms in abodmen muscles you never knew you had

      Influenza is a respiratory illness, not a gastrointestinal one. Yes, it is possible for the flu to cause nausea and vomiting, but the overwhelming majority of cases involving GI distress you describe are caused by gastroenteritis, food poisoning (e.g., e. coli), and other stomach-related ailments. People who talk about having "stomach flu" are conflating two very different phenomena.

    230. Re:Good. by gutnor · · Score: 1

      As someone going through the process right now. Most of the talk is balanced in the same way that teaching intelligent design together with evolution is teaching a balanced view on current "evolution theories". In NHS view, everything is good and giving good result, that's purely your choice. At most they will recommend something like "Vitamin K" to the baby at birth, or give you statistic like 90% of women have a peridurale, but otherwise, it is up to you to document yourself or ask precise questions because balanced means all option will have equal talk time focused entirely on the positive aspect of it or mandatory disclaimer of objective nature only (i.e. never "it can hurt", but stuff like "it can affect your bladder in that fashion")

      For example, they will tell you how great Home Birth is and how great the birthcenter at the hospital is, but they will not check if your specific Home is actually superior or not to Hospital Birth. That's up to you to do the assessment yourself. based on what you read on the internet, not what they tell you. They will talk to you about all the mandatory problem that could happen with epidural, they will not tell you to do anything but will conclude with "women with epidural do great, but so do women without epidural". They will also share personal experience of women going through labour with a few paracetamols just in case they thought they pushed you toward epidural too much. Again you need to make up your mind based on the information that is available to you, not on what they tell you.

      BTW, we had a midwife recommending us to take document ourself before chosing for our kid to have the MMR vaccine because there are pro and con and the risk is to get one of MMR is actually very small. She didn't say the risk is small because of all the others that get vaccinated. (disclaimer: that midwife was an all natural as god intended type of person. So most likely her view were different than the NHS view. Still, she was allowed to express this balanced view of things)

    231. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. People don't like needles because it is unpleasant to get an injection. Not liking unpleasant experiences is a completely normal reaction. Some people are better/more disciplined at coping with it than others. That's it. No big mysteries about childhood traumas needed for an explanation.

    232. Re:Good. by emj · · Score: 1

      He took a blood test and by measuring C reactive protein (CRP) you can see wether it's a common cold or some more powerfull virus infection, I think 50 miligram/liter is an indication of influenza. The wikipedia page isn't very good for understanding the specific interaction of CRP and influenza, but I'm sure you can find it yourself.

    233. Re:Good. by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Says who?

      You don't "gain" rights, rights pre-exist our humanity.

      If you're harming someone else, that's infringing on their rights.

    234. Re:Good. by DrXym · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I really don't understand this reasoning. Driving at night with headlights doesn't offer a 100% guarantee of avoiding an accident but it certainly lowers the chances of having one. Wearing a seat belt doesn't offer a 100% guarantee you'll survive an accident but it certainly increases the chances of survivability . So I would hope most people would exercise common sense and do both things. Not everything has to be an all or nothing to have a benefit.

      So just because a vaccine is not 100% effective doesn't mean that the alternative of having no protection at all is in any way sane or rational. Hundreds of thousands of people die from flu or complications from flu related illnesses every single year. Many more suffer a really shitty week and continue to infect others while they do so. I wonder how many of those deaths would be avoidable if the person had received a vaccine (providing they were capable of receiving it), or if the people in their vicinity had received theirs.

    235. Re: Good. by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      If you want to make a point, stop posting as AC, flaming me, then proceeding to mod yourself up ("Flamebait" is -1, not +1, dumbass).

    236. Re:Good. by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      It's because she refused to stop handling food properly. Those are the same rules that are asked of EVERYONE.

    237. Re: Good. by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, hospitals should stop being so quick to cut the mother up if they want everyone to deliver there? When my daughter was born the doctor was pissy because she was taking her own sweet time. It was at the end of her shift and she got in an argument with the nurse and the new doctor about doing a C-section basically because she was tired of waiting for the baby. No complications, no problems, everyone is fine, she was just board and wanted to cut me open to get it over with.

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

      All the unvaccinated kids become conduits for measles to spread faster and kill more. It affects others. But if you are a selfish asshole then that is just OK, sure.

    239. Re:Good. by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Find me a parent who fully appreciates the effects and dangers of measles, mumps, and/or rubella.

      Who gets measles, mumps, and/or rubella anymore? The vaccine isn't necessary as everyone else gets it so we can't get it. MY kids will be safe and won't catch autism.

      (Note: The above should be read with dripping amounts of sarcasm in mind. I have a son who is on the autism spectrum and I don't believe one iota that any vaccine resulted in his condition.)

    240. Re:Good. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This is my experience as well. I tend to get pretty much every bug that people around me get, but I never seem to get all the symptoms. Not since I was a teenager have I had a bug actually clean me out at both ends without warning. Well, I got warning on one end, but I puked all over a stereo. Anyway, digressions aside, people who don't understand that everyone is different are dumb.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    241. Re:Good. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Does not work with paleo kids.

      That's okay, this is the information age, not the paleolithic.

      But then, maybe replacing the candy with bacon would do the trick.

      I prefer candied bacon.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    242. Re:Good. by smellotron · · Score: 1

      doesn't it follow that it's not really worth getting vaccinated because it's not that common?

      There is quite a large tail risk in a flu outbreak. three to five percent of the world dead? I'll take my chances with the shot.

    243. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel vaccination should be a personal decision. For all I care, require a doctor to sign something indicating he or she explained to the patient the risks with not being vaccinated. But I don't feel the government should dictate what we must inject into our bodies. Even if the vaccination was by a nasal spray, completely harmless and 100% effective, I still say it should be up to the individual to decide.

      However, given that the father was pushing for this (based on the summary, not the article which I didn't read), I say the court probably made the correct decision. If one parent wants to vaccinate, and one doesn't, the choice should fall with common medical recommendations in that situation.

    244. Re:Good. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Simply lowering the maximum speed on highways to 30 mph and in the city to 10 mph would be a huge win WRT to deaths.

      I'm not sure about that. I think you'd have people killing people over the traffic issues if you decreased the throughput so far.

      But the tremendous cost to society mitigates against that.

      Actually, cars are the source of the tremendous cost to society. What we should have instead is loads of public transportation. I favor PRT for short distances and ordinary rail (hopefully high-speed) for long ones, because of the inherent efficiency during periods of high utilization — which is what we'd have if we did away with the cars.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    245. Re: Good. by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 0

      No, when things happen in a hospital you are proximal to modern civilizations concentration of knowledge and applied technology which has made the single biggest difference to human health outcomes ever.

      When you are not proximal, if something goes wrong, you're about 15 minutes away under ideal conditions. Too bad brain death can occur in 3 minutes.

      And you're not including other factors - the hospital doesn't call the on-call ob-gyn's until they know there's a problem. Home births take an infrequent event (giving birth) and for no reason decide to bias the odds against the survival of the women and fetus.

    246. Re:Good. by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Which is all totally relevant when you're planning government policy and totally irrelevant when you find out you're in the less lucky percentiles where something could've been prevented.

    247. Re:Good. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The question is whether the end products are safe and sterile.

      The two are mutually exclusive. If your food products have been processed to the point of sterility, they're no longer safe. You have evolved to eat food containing active enzymes.

      I prefer food which is sanitary.

      I recently ate some of that salmonella-infected Foster Farms chicken, and I'm not sick. Okay, just because the bag came from one of the lots which is known to be contaminated doesn't mean that it is contaminated, but it's not a bad bed. However, one of the rules of chicken (or pork, for that matter) is that you always assume that it is contaminated! If you simply cook it sufficiently, and avoid cross-contamination by being scrupulous about cleanliness, then it doesn't matter if the chicken has salmonella. It is, in fact, utterly irrelevant.

      I'm sure there's a parallel to be drawn for medicine. The vast majority of our medications are either directly plant-derived or a synthetic form of a compound originally found in nature. Some of these plant medications contain compounds which we can see at a glance (using chemistry, science works) could and probably are active in the body, but whose action we don't yet comprehend. But until we understand them we omit them. In some cases, these other compounds may act as limiting factors which have the effect of preventing overdose, or in others they may have a synergistic effect. We've certainly discovered that with the poster child for a medical plant, cannabis.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    248. Re:Good. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Only if you use newspeak definitions of parasitism.

      Because I was sure you were wrong, I looked up parasite in webster1913 and got back "An animal which lives during the whole or part of its existence on or in the body of some other animal, feeding upon its food, blood, or tissues, as lice, tapeworms, etc." Checkmate, coward.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    249. Re:Good. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Do you get a refund on you fir insurance is there is no fire?

      I personally have never insured my Christmas tree, I wasn't aware of such a policy.

      And now I'm wondering if my renter's insurance covers damages due to failed christmas lights.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    250. Re:Good. by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Also because if a group of people does become unimmunized, they're unlikely to geographically dispersed such that herd immunity will be effective. In fact, schools and other social events concentrate vulnerable pretty easily contagious groups (like children) so you need a lot of dispersal in order for it to work. The recent case with the American megachurch is going to be the textbook example here.

      It's also possible for immunized people to contract much less severe forms of a disease (you can still get measles if you're immunized - but it's a lot less severe). So an unimmunized person can contract a serious illness from someone who may not even realize what they have because it's scarcely symptomatic.

    251. Re:Good. by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Even were there any scientific validity in that line of reasoning, do these people have any idea how selfish they're being?

    252. Re: Good. by tolkienfan · · Score: 2

      You didn't actually counter any of my points. I never said it didn't change the odds. My point is is doesn't change them by much, except in some cases and most of those are known ahead of time. Also, no one is forcing these women to stay home... I completely agree with the woman having a choice. If you were to mandate hospital births I would oppose that. All my kids were born in hospitals. Two of them were considered high risk and one had an emergency c section. But I also understand probabilities. Better than most, apparently.

    253. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this. Either that or tell the parents to bog off to private education or homeschooling, or force them to wear a mask and have 0 contact with anyone or be suspended.
      Public school, public rules.

      The link between MMR and Autism is non-existent and fabricated on total lies and plagiarism.
      People should be more worried about the reckless abuse of the term "autism" more than MMR! (and I don't mean just to jokingly refer to people that play Minecraft and similar games!)

      Infecting others or making others open to infection should be a serious crime.
      This shouldn't be any less of a crime than that one website with people that had HIV wanting to spread it to other people on purpose. (god that was a messed up site, even 4chan is PC compared to it)
      This is borderline child abuse just as you mentioned since it could lead to endangerment of them in the future, as well as others if something mutates, which then becomes child abuse against OTHERs if it infects an entire classroom.
      Indirect or direct doesn't matter, they are still forms of abuse.
      It is basically one step down from biological warfare.
      And it isn't just these people that are the problem, it is also people that abuse antibiotics by other throwing them out with no regard for their use, not finishing a full course, or not taking them at all.
      Luckily the hospital abuses of giving antibiotics as a precaution will die out in the coming decade for most cases as there is new hardware that can detect whether infections are virus or bacteria insanely quickly compared to current techniques and isn't all that expensive either.
      Unfortunately it won't do much for the countless other abuses of them all over the place, especially farming, WASHING UP LIQUIDS (WHY) and many others that simply DO NOT require it. The things antibiotics are in is absolutely insane, sickens me.
      No wonder half the damn planet is ill with so many different diseases and autoimmune, such abuse of antibiotics has ruined 3 generations.
      The immune system NEEDs to feel that push, if it doesn't, it will increase its sensitivity, over-cleanliness is just as bad as rolling in shit, they are both 2 sides of the same coin of illness.
      And I have to suffer every damn day because of this abuse. Wonderful.

    254. Re:Good. by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      My 13 year old step-son likes getting shots. It's fucking unnerving.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    255. Re:Good. by jambox · · Score: 1

      Sorry I wasn't making a serious suggestion that you shouldn't get the shot. I just thought that "you weren't there, man!" logic of the previous posts was a bit spurious.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    256. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the odds of an adult in the modern world not ever having had the flu? 10%? Between 5-20% of the US population is infected every year: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/disease.htm

      If he's one of those Slashdot permanent basement dwellers he's doesn't need vaccines anyway if he takes certain precautions with his food and drink. ;)

    257. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should you or anyone who's had their vaccinations care what I do with my own fucking body? It's not your right to decide nor is it the court's or the government's. SPECIALLY when you've had your vaccinations and can't catch it if they work, right? right? How dare you presume to have any say at all in the matter. Seriously. You and people like you are a disease. I wish there was a vaccination for /that/.

      AS long we get to slap a big black dot on your front door and then seal it and the windows/chimneys and all other exits - with you and anyone else you infected, sealed inside - then sure I'm fine with you doing what you want with your body.

      But as long as you keep wandering back into polite society with your diseases, we are going to have to come to some sort of compromise.

      You may feel that since we have the problem it should be us to compromise - but you may not like the solution either... I'm imagining you waking up in your town one morning to find a very high wall around it and all your neighbours living out their lives safe and far away from you and you 'personal freedom'.

    258. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flamebait

    259. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was common knowledge that life is a terminal, sexually transmitted disease.

      I thought it was common knowledge that that's not common knowledge.

    260. Re:Good. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The US's healthcare is worst among industrialized nations (not "in the world") because of the lack of free medical care. People here wait until they're really sick before they go to the doctor or hospital to have a problem investigated,

      You were so close. The US' healthcare is worst among industrialized nations because of the nature of our free health care. Only emergency services have been free until now. That is what leads to the situation you describe. If there were no free health care here you'd have what we had before we made ER visits free for people with no money. Well, you can still be charged and such, but so far you can't be imprisoned for failing to pay.

      Like so many of our institutions, it seems designed to maintain the populace in a state of poverty. Most of our entitlement programs are like that. If you start to save money to get yourself out of your situation, you won't be eligible for assistance any longer. That's why poverty is a trap. Even worse, it is functionally illegal to be poor in the USA. It's functionally illegal to be homeless. Some people up in my corner of the world have made the BLM land their home, and they just sorta roam around shooting pigs, which are always in season because they are a sort of plague. They cause damage to basically everything; crops, livestock, whole ecosystems as they root around killing plants, increasing erosion. Unfortunately, the shutdown meant a lot of people kicked off of those properties, which supposedly belong to all of us...

      Also, for-profit & pseudo-"non-profit" hospitals cut corners to the very edge of endangering patient care -- having far more patients per nurse than is wise, relying too heavily on student nurses and LVNs, having them work extra-long hours, nurse practitioners taking the place of doctors for stuff beyond vaccines & standard mild illness, and so forth.

      The biggest problem in medicine is capitalism. Charging whatever the market will bear, in this case, means endangering the health of everyone below the baseline.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    261. Re: Good. by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Also because people in a position of power over others will use that power to also put them at risk - i.e. parents not vaccinating a child, as is the case here.

      And then of course, because you can't trust anti-vaxxers to actually act sensibly - like say, not form groups and meet up with other anti-vaxxers.

    262. Re:Good. by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Maybe not by 11 but I'm pretty sure that by 15 I would take any vaccination I could get as that is plenty old enough to understand that a moment's needle prick is much better than getting sick. Actually, I may have gone for it at 11 even. Maybe I wasn't a very normal child though...

    263. Re:Good. by chowdahhead · · Score: 1

      This is absolutely not true. The varicella vaccine was developed in the last 20 years, with widespread vaccination occuring in the last 10 years. The vast majority of patients suffering from shingles are patients over the age of 55. Chickenpox is the acute infection caused by the initial exposure, and shingles occurs as the flareup of the latent virus, caused by the natural weakening of the aging immune system. The pediatric varicella vaccines have significantly decreased mortality rates--by something like 95%, decreased missing days of school, scarring, and secondary infections. The shingles vaccine prevents the debilitating and potentially permanent neuropathy--which requires lifelong treatment with medications to control symptoms. These vaccines have provided an immeasurable benefit to public health, and one which you will eventually gain an appreciation for.

    264. Re:Good. by jambox · · Score: 1

      I just assumed it was covered under contents! I'll call my insurer right away to check.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    265. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone can be vaccinated, even if they want to be. Some people have immune system issues which prevent vaccination

      Not an excuse arount here. Recently a child with allergy against the vaccination was forced to get the vaccination anyway, and ended up hospitalized because of it. Three vaccinations were required (this case wasn't MMR), and her parents were afraid that they would kill her. Her parents were against vaccinating her in the first place, because her mother, who had the same allergy, knew the risks.

      The only reason she got out of it, was that the court date for the suit to prevent the vaccination got delayed until after it was too late to give the second vaccination.

    266. Re:Good. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      No, OP is correct. Most people who think they've had the flu have actually only had a cold. They're different types of viruses which just share some similar symptoms.

      The flu tends to be much worse. One key difference is that whereas a cold will just stuff up your nose and make your head feel miserable, the flu will make you feel like you just ran a marathon and then a truck ran over you. It also tends to last a lot longer. I was bedridden for 10 days, and it was 3 weeks before I felt normal again. It was so bad that even though I wanted to go back to work, I was afraid to because I didn't want to pass it on to a coworker and make them go through the same misery I had just been through. Totally the opposite of the guy who's only had a cold and thinks you should just tough it out and come to work.

      I get my flu shot every year now.

      Your definitions and mine differ. When I have a "cold", I spend serveral days - up to a week - with clogged sinuses, low-grade fever, sometimes a cough, often a sore throat. Then generally another week trying to evict the remnants, for a total of about 14 days.

      My "flu" is generally something that spends about 1 day building up, builds into a higher-grade fever, aches, chills, and so forth, more rarely coughing. And is usually history after 3-4 days.

    267. Re:Good. by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      I really don't like the way these issues are presented.
      Vaccination is a PROCESS. Like eating.
      Vaccination is good? yes, as a discovery.
      Injecting whatever kind of vaccine for whatever kind of illness is good? Entirely different problem.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    268. Re:Good. by marauder · · Score: 2

      He's not "Dr" Wakefield. He's just Andrew Wakefield, fraudster and disgrace to science. From the article: "On 24 May 2010, the GMC panel found Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct on four counts of dishonesty and 12 involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children, and ordered that he be struck off the medical register."

    269. Re:Good. by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      I have done this - several times. Once - ironically, getting a vaccination, another time when I was diagnosed with a disease (went out while speaking with the doctor), and another time right before I was about to be put under anesthesia for a wisdom tooth removal (its really odd to faint, regain consciousness, and then be immediately put back out).

      Even with that, I still say you can get over your fear. Such responses are generally triggered by stress and/or fear. You simply need to learn to not fear the needle so much. I'm at the point now where while I still don't like it, I'm generally OK if I don't watch it go in.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    270. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people don't know what the flu really is like - they get a winter cold and call it "the flu", or they get some gastrointestinal bug and call it "the stomach flu". My ex-boss was notorious for the former... he'd have the sniffles but it was "a touch of the flu". Then when a coworker was out for two weeks with the real thing, ex-boss made a lot of derogatory comments because of course HE always came to work, even with "the flu".

      The real flu lays most people out flat - congested lungs, bad sore throat, temps well above 100, a feeling like a truck ran over you. The increased mucus production can make you queasy when it ends up in your stomach, but it's not a stomach bug.

      BTW I'm not intending to take sides - just making a comment.

      No the real flu kills a huge chunk of the population. Only being laid up for a week is just a bad cold, even if it's caused by the influenza virus. But only true Scotsmen have immune systems that work well enough to vary the symptoms person to person.

    271. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's this? Actual solid, useable advice on raising kids on slashdot? What will they come up with next?!

    272. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can drop the paternalistic and ill educated attitude. Most adults are well aware of the difference between flu and the common cold, especially the ones that don't get vaccinated. Here's some facts you seem to have missed in your background research before you posted this nonsense:

      - stomach problems like vomiting and diarrhea are not at all common symptoms of the flu, and in fact past the child years extremely rare. If you have stomach problems, you probably have gastroenteritis, often called stomach flu, but nonetheless completely unrelated to the influenza virus.
      - in 1 in 3 cases of flu, people have no symptoms whatsoever. That's right, they don't even know they are sick.
      - another roughly one out of 3 will have symptoms that are indistinguishable from the common cold and these people will not be able to tell what they have either way without consulting a doctor (which most people won't do when the symptoms are like this).
      - In adults the common cold rarely leads to a fever. If people have a fever, they will usually (correctly) assume they have the flu. If they don't have a fever, they will usually assume they have the common cold, and they will be wrong about that more often than the other assumption.

    273. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok. Now try giving blood, and the idiot tech forgetting to hook up the bag. I couldn't see it, because the bag was hung behind/below me, but apparently I started bleeding out onto the floor. Not something I want to do again, and one of the reasons I stopped giving blood.

    274. Re:Good. by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      I was talking about vaccines. But irradiated or superheated food is sterile - e.g. freeze dried and some canned goods. They're not unsafe but they are sterile as they don't contain microorganisms.

    275. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the problem with this world. You are just sitting on here espousing the same lies Ob students are fed in school today. Human secularism at its best. Some of the things you list are reasons to have Ob/hospital care; not all of them. Most, if not all, are easily detectable in advance by a proper midwife or doula. I don't know any witchdoctors so I cannot comment on their practices, training, and knowledge.
      And no, I am not a trained doctor. I am not a midwife, nor a doula. However, I have more experience that any Ob just out of school, which vastly surpasses their knowledge. I have 10 children. Today, the medical community pushes, and pushes hard, for women to have C-sections. Not out of any concern for mother or child. It's about convenience for the doctor. And C-sections are extremely dangerous. Especially repeat C-sections. My wife has had 5 now. Vaginal birth is vastly superior to C-section delivery. It is better for mother and child. Woman were designed to have babies naturally. Sure, there can be complications. Most of them can be overcome with natural methods.

      Oh, whatever. I should just delete this. Slashdot has no interest in the truth. Only spouting the lies of this world.

    276. Re:Good. by The_Noid · · Score: 1

      Even cooler, when you donate plasma, they hook you up to a machine, your blood goes through a filter, and when the vessel is full, it gets pumped back into you :D
      It usually takes about 6 or 7 of these passes and about 45 minutes.

    277. Re:Good. by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're right.

    278. Re:Good. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Driving at night with headlights doesn't offer a 100% guarantee of avoiding an accident but it certainly lowers the chances of having one. Wearing a seat belt doesn't offer a 100% guarantee you'll survive an accident but it certainly increases the chances of survivability . So I would hope most people would exercise common sense and do both things.

      Given that seatbelt alarm apparently saves enough people to be worthwhile, I think it's rather irrational to assume people are rational.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    279. Re:Good. by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I never knew it had a medical name/reason ... I just have always fainted at the sight of human gore (ie: someone who has stitches exposed or blood) or someone in speech class describing their motorcycle accident.

      I volunteered for a blood drive once... never again.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    280. Re:Good. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Even were there any scientific validity in that line of reasoning, do these people have any idea how selfish they're being?

      Hey, selfishness is good, Ayn Rand said so and rich people believe it so it's gotta be alright.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    281. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda makes you wonder whose having to pay the doctors salaries then, huh? Oh wait we're not supposed to ask that as doing do would be "selfish".

    282. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She asked for it! If only she had handled food the way everyone else does we wouldnt have been forced to lock her away! Cant any of you see? It was her own fault! There was no choice left us!

    283. Re: Good. by Adriax · · Score: 1

      Insurance wouldn't cover gas and the dentist refused to go with pills. Probably fearful me being 13 would send me down a road of drug abuse.
      Kinda amusing that the guy was caught a decade later selling prescriptions to junkies.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    284. Re: Good. by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      No. The reason why no one wanted to go to the hospital in 18th century was because that was the time when scientific medicine didn't really exist yet, and hospital mortality was actually higher than going without treatment.

      It was the age when stuff like homeopathic hospitals had lower mortality rates than medical hospitals, not because homeopathy worked but because it didn't do anything - which was better than harmful procedures that religion and belief based medicine of the time did.

    285. Re:Good. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Explain the rights of an animal in animal society please if they do in fact "predate" humanity.

    286. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "The reason that most kids and later adults who are afraid of needles is because they were lied to when they got their first injection/venipuncture."

      Really? I would have thought it was because I am adverse to being stabbed with things.

      Stepping on lego's in the middle of the night hurts worse than a needle. Hitting your thumb with a hammer hurts worse. There are tons of normal, everyday pains which are far more painful than a needle. But most people aren't familiar with the specific sensation of a needle, and that's why it bothers them... it's not really about the intensity of the pain.

      A flu shot feels a lot like a bee sting, or getting punched in the arm. It's a very different feeling than the novocaine shot in your gums at the dentist, which is a very different feeling from having an IV run (or blood draw, etc.)

    287. Re: Good. by Adriax · · Score: 1

      Wait, there was a fad of dentistry without anesthesia a few years back?
      Because this was 20 years ago, quite a bit longer than "a few".
      Unless you're trying to look old and wise by referring to the 1800s as "a few years back".

      13 year old + sensitive teeth + water temperature in the upper 30s = railroad spike of ice through the brain.
      I don't know about you but to me that pain ranked up there with my kidney stones 6 years later.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    288. Re:Good. by unitron · · Score: 1

      Well, that particular time the smartest physician I know assured me it was influenza, and fortunately the stomach part only lasted a couple of days out of the week I spent in bed with my eyelids hot enough to fry eggs on.

      The time before that, when my stomach was reasonably well behaved during the week I was only semi-conscious, he was still in med school, but the doc I saw the first day when I could still manage to stagger into the ER assured me it was the flu.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    289. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only that worked with dogs, too.

    290. Re:Good. by pentadecagon · · Score: 1

      This is a very selfish view. Sure, you probably won't be harmed if you don't vaccinate against chicken pox, but only because everybody else does. We already do have a high degree of herd immunity and this is the only reason for the very low risk here. Before widespread vaccination we had 4 million cases each year, with 100..150 dead in the USA. In other words, more than half the population was affected. So this is the deal: either vaccinate, or take a 50% risk of being knocked out for a week, maybe hospitalized or even dead.

    291. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir, are a good man. I wish someone would have done that to me when I was a kid--I would have handled shots with a lot more grace. Thank you for treating that kid with grace and understanding.

    292. Re:Good. by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Children are STDs that talk back.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    293. Re: Good. by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      OK sorry, didn't see that bit.
      Still, if you have weighed up the risk and benefit, and realise that vaccinations are good. Why not want as many people as possible to have them?
      Do you know any young, old, immunosuppressed people, or anyone allergic to the vaccine?
      Wouldn't you want them to have the best chance of not catching deadly diseases because people who could be vaccinated were?
      Why should irrational people who cant judge for themselves get to opt out and not do the right thing for society as a whole? Isn't it more like a fad of irrational people jumping on the bandwagon because its fashionable, and choosing to remain unvaccinated?

    294. Re:Good. by Xicor · · Score: 1

      generally speaking, healthy young adults dont die of the flu. generally speaking, those numbers of deaths and hospitalizations are children and elderly, or people with compromised immune systems.

    295. Re: Good. by Kavafy · · Score: 1

      Again with the hyperbole.. It's not everyone. It's not even remotely close to everyone. And for the third time now I'm not against vaccinations - I've had them and will have my children have them. That's not the point. Please learn to read and stop regurgitating rote-taught indoctrination k thx.

      It's not whether you're personally against them or not. It's whether everyone else has the right to demand that you have them. The GP's post goes exactly to that question. He correctly makes the point that your refusal of the vaccine constitutes a risk to everyone that you come in contact with, since not everyone can safely have the vaccine and there is not 100% protection even for those that do.

    296. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had to have a bunch of blood taken for testing and I know very well what it's like. Especially since in my case I had to sit in the waiting room for about a half hour and they kept it freezing cold for some reason (honestly, I think they must have been trying to stave off decomposition in their elderly patients or something). By the time the pretty nurse tried to stab me, she wasn't able to find any of my veins and she stood there wiggling the needle around trying to fish for a vein in 3 different spots before she managed to puncture one and start drawing blood. Not a pleasant experience. Now I usually just look away and (with the flu shot at least) the injection hurts worse than the needle (since they're pushing fluid into your muscle where it doesn't belong).

    297. Re:Good. by tgibbs · · Score: 2

      Technically, being "struck off" the medical register means the loss of your license to practice medicine. It does not mean the loss of your medical degree.

    298. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best trick with kids, especially boys, is to take a friend of theirs when it's time to get a shot. They'll want to look tough in front of the friend, so no freaking out, no crying.

      Didn't work for me. When they were doing the MMR booster campaign back in the late 80's, we were all being run through in my elementary school gymnasium. It was the first shot that I was old enough to remember and I flat out screamed. Later in life I learned the great irony of shots. The more nervous and tense you are, the more it hurts like a ******.

    299. Re: Good. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

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

      There are people who genuinely can't take certain vaccines due to allergic reactions. If everyone around them has been vaccinated, they're protected by the fact that they won't get exposed to what they aren't vaccinated against.

      When idiots with no sense of social responsibility refuse to be vaccinated, it increases the chance that those who can't be vaccinated will be exposed to a serious disease.

      In short, it fucking well is society's right to have a say in the matter of whether someone is allowed to endanger other members of that society.

    300. Re: Good. by bob_super · · Score: 1

      My low-risk second kid was born a bit blueish and sluggish. I was very glad that the NICU guys were 25 yards away.

      They didn't have to do anything beyond an oxygen mask, but since the OB was still repairing my wife, I can't imagine having to jump into a car to get that diagnostic 30 minutes later, or a different one because I don't have pure oxygen at home

      The problem I have with home birth it is that you're not risking your own life (well, mommy is, but there are no mommies on slashdot :o) )

    301. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sexist pig

    302. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure as hell didn't work with me one time. It took 3 corpmen, 2 docs and my dad to hold me down long enough to get my shots for 2nd grade. I hate needles though as a diabetic, I no longer freak out around them.

    303. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mumps and rubella is no problem - if you're still a child when you get them. I know, I have had both. (And I saw siblings and friends get them at the same time. A few days taking it easy at home.) They don't vaccinate everyone against mumps/rubella where I live, although I guess you can get such shots for a child that approach puberty without having been through them. Instead we have epidemies every fifth year or so, when the new kids goes thorugh it. These are considered harmless, a bad influenza is certainly much worse.

      Measles is different, a serious disease that sometime kills. So there is mandatory vaccination. I still managed to get measles anyway, as I got it before the vaccine took full effect. But it was a very light case - probably because of the vaccine.

    304. Re: Good. by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      I inject my dog every few weeks. He freaks if he sees the needle, he freaks when you bunch up the skin on the back of his neck. But if keep the syringe hidden and bunch up the skin on his neck a few times and let him freak out, he gets it out out his system and I can administer the shot with no fuss from him. The actual shot is not the big deal.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    305. Re:Good. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      I think the "semi" in that situation drops out around the 15th stab or so.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    306. Re:Good. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Brainwashing your kids into believing that the state should rule over personal freedom is far more evil.

      "Hive immunity" is insufficient to overrule individual choice.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    307. Re:Good. by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      ...and because vaccination and resultant herd immunity effectively wiped many of the most dangerous diseases out of our everyday lives.

      One of the most retarded "reasons" I've ever heard from a mother for not having her children immunized is was something along the lines of "I don't want to teach my children that they have to do things because the 'herd' does" ::facepalm::

    308. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess that would work with really old, the bunching of neck skin.

    309. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does MRSA count as a 21st century outcome?

    310. Re: Good. by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      if they form a group and meet frequently, the problem may go away by itself.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    311. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you don't have kids because if so you should be reported for child abuse and thrown in jail.

      You are a horribly ill-informed waste of everything. Please get polio.

    312. Re:Good. by PRMan · · Score: 1

      The two worst flus I have ever had were within a week of getting a flu vaccine. Makes sense. Your resistance is down because you are fighting a different dead flu than the live one that comes along at the wrong time.

      So, I no longer get the flu vaccine. I keep warm and rested and wash my hands often, especially after touching things that a co-worker has recently touched. And I use the paper towel to open the bathroom door (and if there isn't a trash can there I throw it on the ground so they'll get the hint, most places where I have done that have). And I haven't had a serious cold or flu since (no more than 24 hours). And this has been for over 10 years now.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    313. Re:Good. by PRMan · · Score: 1

      The symptoms vary greatly depending on the victim. Some people will get more respiratory issues, some get headaches, some get nausea. The same bug causes different symptoms in different people.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    314. Re:Good. by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      I just got a tetanus and whooping cough booster and I didn't get any gd jelly bean!!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    315. Re:Good. by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Vaccinations CAN'T be a personal decision, because the lack of vaccination harms all of society. The moment that your inaction on a simple matter takes someone else's life makes it no longer a personal decision.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    316. Re:Good. by a_mari_usque_ad_mare · · Score: 1

      Oops, accidental mod. Good point. In Canada flu shots are convenient and free, and most people still do not get them.

      --
      The map is not the territory.
    317. Re:Good. by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      You are more likely to die by being burned to death from a home cooked meal than you are from chicken pox. If your goal is to protect children, your efforts would be better spent having kitchens banned from homes, as well as the cooking that happens in them.

      What an idiotic comparison. If I could be protected from getting burned in the kitchen by a simple vaccine, I'd take that too.

      We don't know whether getting vaccinated against chicken pox protects against children, because the varicella vaccine was introduced in 1995, so nobody vaccinated against chicken pox as a child has yet reached the age of high risk to shingles.

      Prior to vaccination, there were thousands of hospitalizations and over a hundred deaths yearly from chicken pox. There is not a single documented death from the vaccination, and serious reactions are extraordinarily rare.

      There is no actual evidence to support the notion that vaccination pushes infection off to adulthood, when it is more severe. In fact, the statistics show a precipitous fall in hospitalizations and deaths from chicken pox since the vaccine's introduction.

      If you are concerned about vaccine protection wearing off, the solution is give everybody a booster, not to skip vaccination. Boosters probably aren't necessary so long as the great mass of the population is vaccinated at birth, since herd immunity makes it unlikely that adults will ever encounter the virus.

    318. Re:Good. by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      While I don't think that the mortality/morbidity rate is high enough for varicella to warrant worrying about a vaccine, (You are after all, more likely to die from a home cooked meal than chicken pox) it should be noted that the mortality rate of chicken pox is 10x higher in adults than it is in children. So, the herd immunity through universal vaccination that helps us with diseases like polio are likely dramatically increasing the risk of death from chicken pox.

      Show me a vaccine against dying from a home cooked meal, and I'll take that too.
      It sounds like you don't understand herd immunity. When there is herd immunity, the disease can't propagate, so if everybody is vaccinated, chances are that you'll never come into contact with the virus. But if you are worried about declining immunity, get a booster.
      Notably, deaths from chicken pox have drastically declined since the vaccine was introduced. So the notion that it is simply postponing the disease to adulthood when it is more hazardous does not hold water.

    319. Re:Good. by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Two counterpoints:

      #1 - The suit to force the vaccination was brought by the father of the children. Society may be encouraging them to vaccinate, but it's a parent that forced it. I'd want a sane parent to win in a square-off against a crazy parent every single time.

      #2 - Societies can and regularly do step in when parents are failing in their fairly fundamental *responsibility* to parent their kids.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    320. Re:Good. by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Correct. Unfortunately, different people have different ideas about what constitutes "reasonable" parenting.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    321. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once had a food poisoning and had to crawl to the bathroom to urinate. I never made to the toilet, relieved myself on the floor, where I passed out due the pain, which was so bad I wanted to die. That incident topped shingles, which was the second worst.

    322. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make it sound incredible that our genus survived for over two million years without such indispensable medical intervention.

      Enjoy being right.

    323. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She was told she was a carrier for typhoid and would keep infecting others if she carried on working as a cook. Then after the authorities stopped keeping track of what she was doing she went and got another job as a cook, which was discovered after a typhoid outbreak. As she was a danger to other people and knowingly took actions which put others at risk of catching a serious disease, what exactly would you do in this situation?

    324. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the misguided belief that they'll relax so it'll hurt less

      As someone who has had literally thousands of shots, that's not misguided. If you tense up, it hurts lots more. If you relax, you might not even feel it.

    325. Re:Good. by sts2nihon · · Score: 1

      Hear hear.

    326. Re:Good. by DrXym · · Score: 1

      I never said everyone was rational (hence "most people"), just pointing out that something doesn't have to be 100% effective to have a beneficial effect. Though IMO failing to vaccinate a child should be grounds to prosecute the parents if that decision causes harm to the child or others.

    327. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most importantly the fetus is helping her spread her genes, which, by very definition, is increasing the parent organism's fitness.

    328. Re:Good. by Belial6 · · Score: 1
      The societal benefit of not getting the chicken pox vaccine is that the you don't push the disease into adulthood where it is 10x more dangerous. You also don't increase the rates of shingles.

      On the other hand, you do not need to cook at home to eat.

      Be prepared however to defend against the "but one child saved" groups.

      And that is what we are seeing with the majority of posters here. Think of the children'ers who would happily see two people die at 25 if it saved one child. Even if that one child saved is also one of those that die at 25.

    329. Re:Good. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      You have the right to parent your kid as long as you do so responsibly.

      Yeah, so who decides 'responsible' and what limits are there?

      Let's say there was a cure for heart disease that would eliminate the possibility of it in later life, but the treatment had to be done before puberty. The cost savings were enormous for a socialized healthcare system and it would extend life an average of 20 years. It would also make the person much stronger and healthier for the rest of their lives. It would save lives of others by eliminating on-the-road and on-the-job heart failure (think truckers, crane operators, etc.).

      Would a parent be reasonable to refuse such treatment? Would a government have the right to demand it?

      What if this treatment was a mechanical heart (assuming they've been perfected)? What if the treatment consisted of removing the heart of every eight year old (100% success rate procedure) and replacing it with that mechanical heart?

      By what criteria can medical treatments be imposed?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    330. Re:Good. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Do you realize how low of a risk 100 to 150 out of 314 million is? Again, you have a greater chance of dieing do to a home cooked meal. Over half of those deaths were in adults. The chicken pox vaccine does not protect for life. It has a limited lifespan. The death rate of adults who catch chicken pox is 10x that of children. So, skipping the vaccine isn't the selfish view. GETTING the vaccine is the selfish thing to do. Getting the vaccine means that you are trading the hassle of taking a week off work to care for a generally mild childhood illness in exchange for putting your child at 10x the risk when they become adults. Not to mention the large number of people you are causing shingles in.

      The chicken pox vaccine doesn't create herd immunity. It prevents it. All so that parents don't have to take a week off work.

    331. Re:Good. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You don't even need a vaccine to stop from being burned to death in the kitchen. (or worse yet, burning one of those innocent children to death) Just don't cook in your home. Clearly, you feel that your convince is worth killing children for.

      You are wrong that there is no evidence to support the notion that vaccination pushes infection off to adulthood. The vaccine was introduced in 1995, and by 2000/2001 we were already seeing serious failures. While the medical industry has taken your approach of boosters, you are now condemning people to requiring life long medical treatments to avoid a minor childhood illness.

    332. Re: Good. by anomaly256 · · Score: 1

      Because no person or group of people have any right at all to dictate what another person or group of people do with their own bodies. EVER. History has proven that this ALWAYS ends in disaster. Why? Because people are people. You might know better today but you're still a person and will still take that precedent as license to push your control even further until someone ends up oppressed and enslaved. And if not you then your successor. Or theirs.

      Society is free to expel people, sure. But it is not free to violate their bodies, the only thing an individual can truly own. Why is this fine line so hard for all the 'pro-vaxers' to discriminate. (I quote that to highlight the difference between those who are merely pro-vaccination and the zealout group 'pro-vaxers' who keep insisting that any talk against an overly-reaching government makes you an 'anti-vaxer')

    333. Re:Good. by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Up here, the entire donation pack, needle, tubing, and bags, is one pre-assembled unit. There's nothing to hook up, beyond putting the bag on the tilting thing and the needle in your vein.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    334. Re: Good. by anomaly256 · · Score: 1
      because, as I've stated in another post:

      Because no person or group of people have any right at all to dictate what another person or group of people do with their own bodies. EVER. History has proven that this ALWAYS ends in disaster. Why? Because people are people. You might know better today but you're still a person and will still take that precedent as license to push your control even further until someone ends up oppressed and enslaved. And if not you then your successor. Or theirs.

      Society is free to expel people, sure. But it is not free to violate their bodies, the only thing an individual can truly own. Why is this fine line so hard for all the 'pro-vaxers' to discriminate. (I quote that to highlight the difference between those who are merely pro-vaccination and the zealout group 'pro-vaxers' who keep insisting that any talk against an overly-reaching government makes you an 'anti-vaxer')

    335. Re: Good. by anomaly256 · · Score: 1
      I'll respond to this with what I've said in another post already:

      Because no person or group of people have any right at all to dictate what another person or group of people do with their own bodies. EVER. History has proven that this ALWAYS ends in disaster. Why? Because people are people. You might know better today but you're still a person and will still take that precedent as license to push your control even further until someone ends up oppressed and enslaved. And if not you then your successor. Or theirs.

      Society is free to expel people, sure. But it is not free to violate their bodies, the only thing an individual can truly own. Why is this fine line so hard for all the 'pro-vaxers' to discriminate. (I quote that to highlight the difference between those who are merely pro-vaccination and the zealout group 'pro-vaxers' who keep insisting that any talk against an overly-reaching government makes you an 'anti-vaxer')

    336. Re: Good. by anomaly256 · · Score: 1

      Society's right includes 'kick you out', but ends before 'penetrate your body'

    337. Re:Good. by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      You don't even need a vaccine to stop from being burned to death in the kitchen. (or worse yet, burning one of those innocent children to death) Just don't cook in your home.

      And you can avoid catching chicken pox by avoiding all contact with other people, which is about equally practical.

      Fortunately, there is an effective vaccine for one of these problems.

      You are wrong that there is no evidence to support the notion that vaccination pushes infection off to adulthood. The vaccine was introduced in 1995, and by 2000/2001 we were already seeing serious failures.

      So if vaccination were just pushing infection off to adulthood, we should be seeing a big spike in deaths and hospitalization from chicken pox in adults. Except we aren't

    338. Re:Good. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Mandatory XKCD moment:
      https://xkcd.com/1170/

    339. Re:Good. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      And you can avoid catching chicken pox by avoiding all contact with other people, which is about equally practical.

      No. It isn't. You know it isn't, but you don't care.

      So if vaccination were just pushing infection off to adulthood, we should be seeing a big spike in deaths and hospitalization from chicken pox in adults. Except we aren't [nih.gov]

      Yet.

    340. Re:Good. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Show me a vaccine against dying from a home cooked meal, and I'll take that too.

      It's called not cooking at home. It doesn't even require a needle. You actively have to, and do, take act to increase risk of death to yourself, and those around you. Fire safety also relies on the equivalent of herd immunity to prevent death.

    341. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've been brainwashed as well.

      Oh, and you're obviously a tool.

    342. Re:Good. by oag2 · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the part where he said "I went and had a blood test done which gave the same results as my sister."

    343. Re: Good. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      There was not a "fad", and I did have mine done a bit over 20 years ago. In my case it was done by a suitably qualified sibling for free and was told I was "tough enough" to not need injections. I'm not suggesting that some fillings wouldn't hurt a lot but instead dismissing the blanket case that it always hurts.

    344. Re:Good. by bmo · · Score: 1

      You've been brainwashed as well.

      Yes, because the co-worker I knew who had polio because he wasn't vaccinated in time surely didn't have polio.

      It's funny how most of you idiots are "Anonymous"

      Go back to 4chan /b/.

      --
      BMO

    345. Re:Good. by Trogre · · Score: 1

      It is possible if you happen to fall into a vat of boiling water.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    346. Re:Good. by r1348 · · Score: 1

      Fish embryos grow in eggs provided by the parent. While there's no direct connection between parent and child, the resources the child uses for developing still come from the parent.

    347. Re: Good. by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not the one with the problem with needles. Getting them in the palette is crazy uncomfortable, but in the arm is fine.

    348. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhhh the slippery slope argument.

      Most societies are getting better and better. Yours may be the exception though.

    349. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well statistically you would expect the deaths to go way down, as modern hospitals have far higher rates of child and mother mortality than non hospital deliveries.

      Apples and oranges.

      With a few unfortunate exceptions, home births are low risk births which are really pretty safe with routine medical care (that can be delivered at home). So you don't expect any deaths / bad outcomes (but they happen).

      Hospital births include low risk and high risk deliveries. Some of the latter don't do well even with the best medical care. So, no you cannot statistically compare the two unless you are very careful to tell us just what exactly you are comparing.

      Not to mention that a home birth going bad tends to result in a "conversion" to a hospital, which greatly skews the "healthy home birth" numbers, if one was inclined to "interpret" the data literally.

    350. Re: Good. by Adriax · · Score: 1

      You getting a family member to do the procedure for free and cutting costs by forgoing one of the two major consumables of the operation is hardly "typical".

      No, fillings aren't 100% guaranteed to be painful. But the vast majority of experiences are very much situated in the "dear lord the drill has gone through the tooth and is making its way to my brain" range of the pain spectrum when modern anesthetics aren't applied.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    351. Re:Good. by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      Pregnancy isn't an illness.

      How can you say that? Pregnancy is OBVIOUSLY a Sexually Transmitted Disease.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    352. Re:Good. by Avalanche_Joe · · Score: 1

      I was going for incredulous, but apparently missed the mark. I found it to be quite the stretch to say that a person should stay in their home their entire life if they don't get immunized.

    353. Re:Good. by Avalanche_Joe · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Dave's world, where an opinion can be wrong!

    354. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a moot point
      Anyone who consciously decides to be removed from all society rather than have a vaccination, would be declared insane. Placed in an asylum and vaccinated anyway as they are no longer fit to decide for themselves.

    355. Re:Good. by GNious · · Score: 1

      Very!
      If they don't hit a vein properly, but start to "hunt" for one inside your arm (or other bodypart), it will hurt...

    356. Re:Good. by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      You have the right to parent your kid as long as you do so responsibly.

      Yeah, so who decides 'responsible' and what limits are there?

      Let's say there was a cure for heart disease that would eliminate the possibility of it in later life, but the treatment had to be done before puberty. The cost savings were enormous for a socialized healthcare system and it would extend life an average of 20 years. It would also make the person much stronger and healthier for the rest of their lives. It would save lives of others by eliminating on-the-road and on-the-job heart failure (think truckers, crane operators, etc.).

      Would a parent be reasonable to refuse such treatment? Would a government have the right to demand it?

      What if this treatment was a mechanical heart (assuming they've been perfected)? What if the treatment consisted of removing the heart of every eight year old (100% success rate procedure) and replacing it with that mechanical heart?

      By what criteria can medical treatments be imposed?

      Who decides? Experts. Lawmakers. Will they get it right all of the time? Hell no. But they are better qualified than parents in some fields.
      As much as I adore your little thought experiment it has got nothing to do with the case in question. The case in question is about the discredited MMR hysteria and a mother who only read the headlines in the tabloids and not about the ugly aftermath that involved exposure of scientific fraud for financial gain. This is an open and shut case. In other cases the courts will rule in favour of the child on a case by case basis.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    357. Re: Good. by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      No, no one is forcing anyone. But they are giving them very bad advice.

      You're also applying probabilities badly.

      The probability of complications in a pregnancy might be very low. But what matters is the probability of negative outcomes once you have a complication.

      Home birthing is already biased against problems because generally people are advised not to do it, people who are likely to have complications are strongly advised not to do it. But all that is ignoring the actual, pertinent issue: if something goes wrong what have you changed about the ability to respond to it?

      The types of risks we don't worry about are the ones where if they are realized we can do very little about normally. Everything else, we take every step possible to manage how we'll react to a problem when it happens, not if it happens.

    358. Re: Good. by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      In the process killing a whole bunch of people who were never given the chance to know better, and also endangering a whole bunch of other people who for whatever reason aren't as responsive to the vaccination.

      "Everyone dies" isn't the solution any moral person should accept.

    359. Re: Good. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Apparently if it's shallow enough that it won't hurt much it wasn't considered worth using at the time expensive anesthetics. Now they are nowhere near as expensive. That's what I was told anyway.

    360. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Society is free to expel people

      And create places like Mad Max and Somalia, where most people will almost certainly die.
      This is better than having a vaccination how?

    361. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me put it this way from anecdotal evidence:
      My family in Canada all got flu shots, and they all got sick anyway.
      I didn't get flu shots, and was the only one in the house who didn't get sick.
      So I really don't see the point of getting flu shots in the future.
      If I was out twice a year for a week with the flu, then maybe I'd be worried.
      But being sick once every couple of years for a couple of days is something I can deal with.

      It's not just about the vaccine helping prevent flu.
      If I have a 10% chance of getting the flu, and the shot reduces that to 5%, but also gives me a 10% chance of other symptoms than that's not something I consider advantageous.

    362. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless he had a PhD in medicine he was never a doctor.

    363. Re: Good. by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      My use of probabilities is perfectly correct. You're introducing bias by throwing out data based on the result. When making the decision you only have the prior, so the probability cannot take into account future information. As to whether that small additional risk should be taken, that's the parents' choice.

    364. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except of course parasitic worms.

    365. Re:Good. by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      Ah...so it would make sense not to get MMR, because not that many people have had it.
      That logic doesn't really work. If you prevent something, so it doesn't happen, then would it have made sense for you not to have expended the effort to prevent it, because it would not have happened? No, you have to look at the costs and benefits, along with the probability, and then consider if everyone does the same thing.
      Herd immunity only works if a sufficient amount of the herd has been innoculated.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    366. Re:Good. by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      The flu may tend to be much worse, but it doesn't have to be much worse.

      You can have a bad cold. You can have a not so bad flu. Without testing you have no way to tell the difference.

    367. Re:Good. by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      So you're the one who gave me those wolf-chewing-my-arm-off nightmares I've had ever since I was a kid. You bastard !

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    368. Re: Good. by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Please explain the risk of seasonal vaccines.

    369. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is fear-mongering at its worst - THAT alone causes me to seriously question motivations behind compulsory vaccination.

      Let's not mince words. This is precisely what this is about.

      The issue of how sound the science is, well, not getting into that. People's concerns shouldn't be disregarded and ridiculed, as it only serves to cause people to wonder exactly what is it that you're so afraid of openly discussing.

    370. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have an immune system.

      i trust it.

      ill be a bitch when im sick but it wont last long.

      new vaccine every year, when do they get proven or are we all labrats?

      capatcha : endeavor

    371. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making choices and assertions based exclusively on extremes are hardly rational or intelligent.

      No, not everyone who is not vaccinated is a massive threat to the all of society, and the all of vaccinated society is not the perfect "shield" that you claim, not by a LONG shot.

      Vaccines fail. It's a fact. SOME people ARE naturally immune, and natural immunity is conferred immunity. If you don't know what that is, and I wouldn't be surprised that you do not, look it up.

      Both extreme views are wrong; and both extreme views are right. Neither are helpful or rational. One extreme view opens the door to granting the state authority to forcibly medicate people. I don't trust you and I don't see any reason to trust the government, when you both rely on fear-mongering, force, and extremes to compel people.

    372. Re:Good. by goozer321 · · Score: 1

      Good grief, this isn't a story about trypanophobia - as BMO says, it's about the sort of madness that drives some parenting decisions particularly in the context of.divorce and separation - thankfully with a sensible ending. There was a time not too long ago where the wants and needs of the mother were paramount. Good day for justice and common sense.

    373. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      homeopathic

      homeopathy =/= naturopathic medicine

      PLANTS BE GOOOOOOD BRO

      allopathy not so good.

      homeopathy is like quantum water medicine.

      capatcha : bastions

    374. Re:Good. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Who decides? Experts. Lawmakers. Will they get it right all of the time? Hell no. But they are better qualified than parents in some fields.

      Your response assumes people do not have the freedom to be wrong, or to fail.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    375. Re:Good. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Me, the moment I made the association between "shots" and "not getting sick". I was probably about 7 or 8 at the time, when some new vaccine against common childhood diseases came out. No fair, I already had the disease, next time I want the shot instead!

      And I'm one of those weirdos who's fascinated by watching the needle disappear into my arm when the nurse is so good at the job that you can't feel it go in.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    376. Re:Good. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Most years that's so, but not always. A few years ago the most-common influenza DID cause major gastrointestinal distress, and it was indeed flu, one of the HxNx viruses.

      http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/symptoms.htm
      lists vomiting and diarrhea as possible symptoms.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    377. Re:Good. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I figured it out when I was a kid. I had German measles; my sister had a rubella vaccination (new at the time). The merits of immunization were thus flamingly obvious, even to a kid.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    378. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, if you are going to argue that for an assertion to stand there is obligation for the claim to be proven, you have no standing to claim your view has anything to do with science.

    379. Re:Good. by CHIT2ME · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the poor kids who will have "crater faces" for the rest of their lives after a bad bout of chicken pox. A vaccination with periodic boosters would have been far more beneficial to them. I grew up long before chicken pox vaccine was even dreamed about. I have seen the life long scars on the face and body that it can leave. So, if I were you, I would be a bit careful when advising people..."Sure, go ahead and contract chicken pox"!!!

      --
      My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
    380. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making choices and assertions based exclusively on extremes are hardly rational or intelligent.

      No, not everyone who is not vaccinated is a massive threat to the all of society, and the all of vaccinated society is not the perfect "shield" that you claim, not by a LONG shot.

      You contradicted yourself in the very next sentence...

      Vaccines fail. It's a fact. SOME people ARE naturally immune, and natural immunity is conferred immunity. If you don't know what that is, and I wouldn't be surprised that you do not, look it up.

      Most things aren't 100% but we still use them, its hardly rational or intelligent not to.

      Both extreme views are wrong; and both extreme views are right. Neither are helpful or rational. One extreme view opens the door to granting the state authority to forcibly medicate people. I don't trust you and I don't see any reason to trust the government, when you both rely on fear-mongering, force, and extremes to compel people.

      Maybe you should get a better government then.

    381. Re:Good. by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Your anecdotes are just that - anecdotes. I may as well claim I wore a seatbelt and turn my car lights on and I still crashed my car whereas my (idiot) buddy who never wears a seatbelt and drives without lights has never crashed. Perhaps that is the case, but it says nothing of the underlying statistics when measured as a whole.

      And as it happens, a simple search on "flu jab effectiveness" will yield the information you seek and shows flu vaccine effectiveness is around 60%. In other words you more than halve your chances of getting the flu and gain partial resistance for other strains which reduce symptoms and recovery time.

    382. Re:Good. by DrXym · · Score: 1

      I think you will find that lots of people have a functioning immune system and still managed to die or suffer serious lifelong harm from infectious diseases. And of course many people don't have the luxury of a functioning immune system and rely on herd immunity to shield them from infection. In summary, you are a moron.

    383. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      forced medication is evil, especially if it's state-sanctioned.

    384. Re:Good. by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      I bet they said the same in the days when they'd saw your leg off with no anaesthetic.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    385. Re:Good. by dobbshead · · Score: 0

      Technically, being "struck off" the medical register means the loss of your license to practice medicine. It does not mean the loss of your medical degree.

      In the UK, surgeons go by "Mr./Mrs./Miss" rather than "Dr." so, ironically, referring to him as Dr. Wakefield counts as a loss of status.

    386. Re:Good. by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sorry about that.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    387. Re:Good. by oreiasecaman · · Score: 1

      A virus is a virus.

      And a tautology is a tautology!!
      Heh sorry couldn't resist :)

      --
      This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
    388. Re:Good. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Further, by vaccinating children against chicken pox, adults suffer a greater risk of shingles due to not having their immunity boosted by incidental exposure through their lives. The children are at risk for developing full chicken pox as adults when it actually does present a risk.

    389. Re:Good. by sjames · · Score: 1

      See my reply above. There IS a benefit to not vaccinating against chicken pox.

    390. Re: Good. by sjames · · Score: 1

      And the inability to determine the need for a non-existent hospital in advance. I'll bet (if it had been available), a simple ultrasound and ambulance service alone would have averted most of those deaths.

    391. Re:Good. by sjames · · Score: 1

      These days, hospital acquired antibiotic resistant infections are on the rise.

  2. Finally killed that autism theory? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hope so, I don't know why so many people heard of one study, which was proved false, and not the others which disproved it.

    1. Re:Finally killed that autism theory? by felixrising · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is because rumours only spread when they are in the affirmation, not a negation, ie.. "someone said 'x' is related to 'y'" will spread word of mouth, whilst "someone said 'x' is NOT related to 'y'" will not spread.

    2. Re:Finally killed that autism theory? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One side of the story has a spokesidiot who is blond with big tits. Apparently that supersedes scientific study.

      .
      PS. Firefox underlined 'spokesidiot' with a red squiggly line. So I added the word to the dictionary.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:Finally killed that autism theory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hope so, I don't know why so many people heard of one study, which was proved false, and not the others which disproved it.

      Welcome to Planet Earth, you must be new here.

      Extravagant simplistic lies make for a better (more memorable and interesting) story than a boring or complex truth.

      This truth is amplified by the echo chamber of the media (fear sells because it is more 'interesting' than mundane realities).

    4. Re:Finally killed that autism theory? by bunratty · · Score: 0

      People tend to perceive only information that fits their preconceptions. It's called cognitive dissonance.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    5. Re:Finally killed that autism theory? by bunratty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The rumor X is not related to Y will spread if there is people get emotional gratification out of it. If people believe they need to change their lifestyle to prevent global warming, then they are very eager to believe that "the warming is not related to burning fossil fuels."

      Ironically, changing our lifestyle is one of the least effective ways to reduce use of fossil fuels. We just need to get our energy from other sources and we can keep our comfy lifestyle.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    6. Re:Finally killed that autism theory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One side of the story has a spokesidiot who is blond with big tits.

      Pictures?

    7. Re:Finally killed that autism theory? by kipling · · Score: 3, Informative

      s/cognitive dissonance/confirmation bias/

      --
      -- open source? sounds like the real book --
    8. Re:Finally killed that autism theory? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Funny
      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    9. Re:Finally killed that autism theory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      come on, it should be NSFL

    10. Re:Finally killed that autism theory? by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      Confirmation bias may be a form of cognitive dissonance, making both correct.

    11. Re:Finally killed that autism theory? by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      Spokesbunny sums it up in one word :)

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    12. Re:Finally killed that autism theory? by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "I hope so, I don't know why so many people heard of one study, which was proved false, and not the others which disproved it."

      This is what Marc-Auguste Pictet called "a secret taste for marvels" (~1800)

      "So-called extraordinary events always split into two extremes naturalists who have not witnessed them: those who believe blindly and those who do not believe at all. The latter have always in mind the story of the golden goose; if the facts lie slightly beyond the limits of their knowledge, they relegate them immediately to fables. The former have a secret taste for marvels because they seem to expand Nature; they use their imagination with pleasure to find explanations. To remain doubtful is given to naturalists who keep a middle path between the two extremes. They calmly examine facts; they refer to logic for help; they discuss probabilities; they do not scoff at anything, not even errors, because they serve at least the history of the human mind; finally, they report rather than judge; they rarely decide unless they have good evidence." [link]

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    13. Re:Finally killed that autism theory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PS. Firefox underlined 'spokesidiot' with a red squiggly line. So I added the word to the dictionary.

      Thanks! Could you add it to my Google Chrome dictionary, too?

    14. Re:Finally killed that autism theory? by isorox · · Score: 1

      http://www.foxnews.com/images/385241/3_21_ape450.jpg

      NSFW: Shows nipplage.

      NSFW, is fox "news"

    15. Re:Finally killed that autism theory? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'd have gone with "Spokestits".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:Finally killed that autism theory? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that link. I just posted it to Facebook to see if they would censor it, since it apparently shows unnatural behavior for primates

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Finally killed that autism theory? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I was intrigued enough to click, even at work. I am no less intrigued having seen it.

    18. Re:Finally killed that autism theory? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      One side of the story has a spokesidiot who is blond with big tits.

      Pictures?

      Miss October, 1993.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  3. my wife works as a medical technician by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    and she has seen perfectly healthy people die solely as a result of receiving the vaccine.

    in this case if adverse effects happen to these girls, the judge needs to be prosecuted.

    1. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you will find that more people die from the preventable disease than die from the vaccine.

    2. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by csumpi · · Score: 2

      bullshit. thanks for kindling the fud and feeding the idiots.

    3. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using the same logic, should anyone that these three un-vaccinated people come remotely close to have adverse health effects, all three should be prosecuted. The needs of the many outweigh the wishes of the few.

    4. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by bunratty · · Score: 2

      Ah, the perfect is the enemy of the good. Thousands die and are injured in traffic accidents every day, and yet I bet you ride in a car or other form of transportation regularly anyway.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    5. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and she has seen perfectly healthy people die solely as a result of receiving the vaccine.

      in this case if adverse effects happen to these girls, the judge needs to be prosecuted.

      If she isn't doing anything to get this out, she will be responsible for more. If you're not advising she does something then you will be responsible as well.

    6. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      References? What was the rate? Also perfectly healthy people have died after contracting measles, mumps or rubella.

    7. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The needs of the many outweigh the wishes of the few.

      aka Tyranny

    8. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The only link that I found between the NNR vaccine and death is in Japan. The issue is that they administered expired vaccines and their vaccine used the Urabe strain which is not used in the UK.

    9. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      aka Democracy. Why do you hate democracy?

    10. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      References? What was the rate? Also perfectly healthy people have died after contracting measles, mumps or rubella.

      There's also measurement uncertainty to consider (have a look at this introductory physics lecture if you haven't thought about such things before).

      But it's a bit more subtle than that. In certain sense, it's easy to measure whether someone is alive or dead. And sometimes it's easy to say why they died (e.g. hit by a bus). But suppose some kid gets vaccinated and then gets sick and dies a few weeks later. Even if you happen to identify a particular causative pathogen - are you going to able to determine whether the infection happened in the clinic during vaccination. And what if the kid was already very fragile (e.g. with a severe inherited genetic condition). Do you blame the vaccine or the genetic condition or whatever other pathogens were present in the clinic?

      Certainly it's true that the vast majority of people who get vaccinitated grow up to be normal (at least within the limits of our ability to measure normality). But, whenever I hear the claim that absolutely no one has ever died from being vaccinitated, I cringe a bit and think of measurement uncertainty (and also true Scotsman - just a bad batch of vaccine - no true vaccine would ever cause any problems).

    11. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally it is the doctor that has knowledge of the full case history, not the medical technician. I doubt that your wife was in a position to say what killed anyone.

    12. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Certainly people have adverse reactions to vaccines, as with any medication; I had a penicillin allergy when I was very young that meant I couldn't get certain standard shots, including (I think) MMR. Fortunately medicine is improving so the likelihood of preventable medication-caused harm is reducing. Here is an article on what we know and what alarmists assume.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    13. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

      (Apologies if you were joking and I took it seriously)

    14. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you will find that more people die from the preventable disease than die from the vaccine.

      Depends on how you define "death" when there are no more cures developed anymore, and patients are left with only expensive treatments that are designed to be never-ending to ensure maximum profits.

      Financial death can be sometimes worse than physical death. You may stop beating your Modern Medicine drum. No one gives a fuck when they can't afford to take advantage of it.

    15. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by Belial6 · · Score: 0

      Or... More people die of home cooked meals than die form chicken pox. My guess is that most parents here have both vaccinated their children with the chicken pox vaccine, yet keep the kitchen in their home for convenience. Many probably even think that kitchen is healthy.

    16. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      why does David Cameron hate democracy? We're still waiting for our fucking in/out referendum on Europe!

      Why do family court judges in England hate democracy? There's usually only the one on the bench, and he makes ALL the decisions. Often based on *his uninformed and unqualified opinion* rather than *established fact* and *uncontested truth*!

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    17. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      and she has seen perfectly healthy people die solely as a result of receiving the vaccine.

      in this case if adverse effects happen to these girls, the judge needs to be prosecuted.

      If the judge made the opposite decision and ordered that the kids *not* be vaccinated, and then one of them caught measles and died, what would your attitude to the judge be then? Prosecute him for endangering their lives?

    18. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they died then they weren't perfectly healthy.
      QED

    19. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Just because two wolves and a sheep had a democratic vote concerning dinner.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      I think you will find that more people die from the preventable disease than die from the vaccine.

      Depends on how you define "death" when there are no more cures developed anymore, and patients are left with only expensive treatments that are designed to be never-ending to ensure maximum profits.

      Financial death can be sometimes worse than physical death. You may stop beating your Modern Medicine drum. No one gives a fuck when they can't afford to take advantage of it.

      Yeah America should really get on and implement an Australian style public health system. Or...well pretty much anywhere in the modern world except America really. But I like our one.

    21. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      When they gave it to me when I was little, it literally almost killed me. I'm a carrier*. If I were to receive an MMR again it would likely render me extraordinarily ill. She's probably seen the same thing, except in that case the child didn't survive.

      * - this means from my understanding that the virus is prevalent in my system but is dormant/inactive. it does not shed, so I am not contagious, but a high dose of whatever it is exactly in that vaccine will "jump-start" it, leading to a massive infection everywhere all at once. Bad juju.

      All of this has absolutely nothing with autism though, nor does it have anything to do with the vaccine itself.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    22. Re:my wife works as a medical technician by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll see your medical technician and raise you a surgeon (me). I have seen perfectly healthy people die of car accidents. Are you suggesting we should just give up on monocoque chassis with crumple zones, airbags, seatbelts, side-impact intrusion beams, ABS and other measures just because they aren't flawlessly safe? I get sick of morons like you that spout garbage like that - and you are probably of an age where you don'r remember serious disease (I had a school friend crippled by polio). If a vaccine were to save 95% of humanity, impossible to use on 4% and perhaps dangerous to the remaining 1% (who would die of the disease anyway) - would you deny the vaccine the the other 95% (and many of the 4% who would benfit from herd immunity)?

      Life is FULL of risk, ideally you take the path of least risk. Immunisation is less risky to the population as a whole than not, that's why we do it and quite frankly, you know damn well if it comes down to the species or the individual, we will chose the species every damned time. (Not a lot of point saving an individual if we end up extinct now is there...?)

  4. Too old for autism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Aren't they too old to become autistic from a vaccine?

  5. Sensible decision by mynamestolen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You don't drive through red traffic lights. You don't spread your stupid diseases to innocent Children who for GOOD reasons can't be vaccinated. And you don't waste my taxes trying to treat your sick kids because you're too stupid to understand some basic science.

    --
    work in progress
    1. Re:Sensible decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot to add, and people who refuse MMR vaccination should get a free two week vacation to India

    2. Re:Sensible decision by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      You don't drive through red traffic lights.

      Where I live, a red light apparently means "only three more get to go".

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Sensible decision by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      You don't drive through red traffic lights. You don't spread your stupid diseases to innocent Children who for GOOD reasons can't be vaccinated. And you don't waste my taxes trying to treat your sick kids because you're too stupid to understand some basic science.

      You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger and you don't mess around with Jim.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    4. Re:Sensible decision by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      Who needs India? For many of those who disagree with the vaccination theory, they WANT to get the disease in controlled circumstances. Thus, mumps parties, chicken pox parties, etc.

      This is important to them, because they are concerned about the vaccination wearing off right when the disease can do the most damage.

      Rather important to me, was th lawyers' statement that there is no longer any debate, not that there is no longer any disagreement. In other words, science has lost, politics has won.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    5. Re:Sensible decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't drive through red traffic lights.

      Where I live, a red light apparently means "only three more get to go".

      Where I live it means "stop, unless you drive a BMW, Audi or Mercedes"

    6. Re:Sensible decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't drive through red traffic lights. You don't spread your stupid diseases to innocent Children who for GOOD reasons can't be vaccinated. And you don't waste my taxes trying to treat your sick kids because you're too stupid to understand some basic science.

      Modeling this off how we manage traffic risks would probably be more fair. Don't want to vaccinate your child? Sure, but you should have to buy liability insurance in case someone can prove your negligence led to them (or their child) becoming sick. You pay all costs for your own child; if you didn't buy additional insurance or save some money to pay for these costs, your child is left to die.

      I know this sounds cold-hearted, but to me it seems far more cruel to force a medical procedure on any unwilling family. There will always be uncertainty in medical procedures; just because we're really sure and the parents are really stupid does not change the ethics of the situation. IMHO governments should be internalizing economic costs but not enforcing good choices beyond that.

  6. Actually sensable.... by MasseKid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dad and mom do not agree, kids are minors and thus unable to decide for themselves in the eyes of the law, and thus medical evidence breaks the tie. I really don't see the problem here...

    IF mom and dad and kids didn't want it and courts were ordering something, then that would be a different story.

    1. Re:Actually sensable.... by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      Your right. The fact that this is a custody case, not a medical case is lost on most people.

    2. Re:Actually sensable.... by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      Dad and mom do not agree, kids are minors and thus unable to decide for themselves in the eyes of the law, and thus medical evidence breaks the tie. I really don't see the problem here...

      IF mom and dad and kids didn't want it and courts were ordering something, then that would be a different story.

      Maybe, maybe not. You could argue that it would be considered child neglect, because it is "failure to protect" them from physical harm. If both parents agree, and have conditioned their children to agree, that does not in itself mean it's not child abuse.

    3. Re:Actually sensable.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your right. The fact that this is a custody case, not a medical case is lost on most people.

      This is /. The fact that this isn't the evil UK government surveillance police state socialist death panels forcing vaccinations onto people is lost on most people.

  7. It's unfortunate. by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's unfortunate they made the issue out to be the efficacy of the vaccine and not the moral implications about forcing medication on people against their will. I, like most, believe the autism-MMR link is pure nonsense, but I do believe it must be every person's right to refuse medical treatment, including vaccines. (In the case of children, parents sometimes need to make decisions on their behalf, of course, but it shouldn't be the government making those decisions.) Of course, an exception to that rule can be made if people want the privilege of traveling to certain foreign countries which are known to harbor specific diseases, but otherwise, it should be up to parents, or adults to make these decisions, wrong though they may be.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re:It's unfortunate. by bunratty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You may want to read about herd immunity. We need a certain percentage of the population to be vaccinated to protect everyone against the disease, including those who cannot have the vaccination. Leaving it up to everyone to decide for themselves what they want to do won't work. We don't let people decide what side of the road to drive on, now do we?

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    2. Re:It's unfortunate. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Parents do not have absolute rights over their children's treatment. I imagine every court in the industrialized world has had to deal with Jehovah's Witnesses who don't meant their child to have blood transfusions. A strong argument can similarily made for vaccines, in that the child's wellbeing overrides the parents' wishes our beliefs.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:It's unfortunate. by avandesande · · Score: 5, Informative

      You missed the part about the father wanting the kids vaccinated.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    4. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just like it's illegal to drive on the wrong side of the road, sodomy must be criminalized to vastly decrease the herd prevalence of HIV. Winner of the Nobel Prize in medicine: the Bible.

    5. Re:It's unfortunate. by jhealy1024 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What about the case of public health? Vaccines rely on "herd immunity" to be effective, so letting everyone pick and choose leads to a situation where not enough people are vaccinated to protect the population as a whole (as seen by outbreaks of measles in pockets of the country over the last year). There was an article written on this (which I can't find now) that was a great overview of the tension between one's individual rights to liberty and one's societal obligations not to kill people by willfully refusing something that has been demonstrated to work.

      What if, for example, we found the "typhoid mary" for measles (someone who was asymptomatic, but carried the disease and spread it to others). They could be cured with the vaccine, but refuse to take it. Should the interest of the public health outweigh the individual right to refuse treatment in this case? If not, why should others perish? If so, then why not force vaccines on everyone? Where should the line be drawn?

      Here in the US, we typically coerce vaccination by making it a prerequisite for public school (some states allow "personal" or "religious" exemptions, though). That way, people aren't "forced" to do it; life is just more unpleasant if they insist on skipping vaccines. Not sure if the UK has a similar system to encourage vaccination.

    6. Re:It's unfortunate. by rollingcalf · · Score: 1

      In this case, the father wanted them to get the vaccine but the mother didn't. The parents disagreed, the court broke the tie, it didn't impose its will against both parents.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
    7. Re:It's unfortunate. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      In the case of children, parents sometimes need to make decisions on their behalf,

      The parents are making the decision. The problem is that the parents are split on that decision and the court weighed in to break the tie.

    8. Re:It's unfortunate. by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Informative

      But that was not the issue here.
      Half of their legal guardians wanted them to get the vaccine, and the other half did not want it. The kids had picked a side, but were too young for their opinion to matter.
      So, in the end either the court could of just said, "well we cannot decide for you", or it could take the role of a third child guardian, and base their decision on the medical science.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    9. Re:It's unfortunate. by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's unfortunate they made the issue out to be the efficacy of the vaccine and not the moral implications about forcing medication on people against their will. I, like most, believe the autism-MMR link is pure nonsense, but I do believe it must be every person's right to refuse medical treatment, including vaccines

      I agree that there must be some limited right for an individual to refuse a medical treatment that might be harmful to them.

      However: the parents have the authority to force their children to undergo medical operations for the benefit of the child; their child not being of sound mind, is deemed incapable of refusing treatment for themself.

      The two parents are in disagreement ---- think of this as more a parental rights issue; one of the parents demands their child be vaccinated for their protection and long life; the other parent has decided they object to their child receiving the vaccine based on some bogus hearsay about vaccines causing autism or other bad things.

      The parents cannot resolve the matter amongst their selves, therefore: the court has to step in to settle the dispute between the two parents, and ensure the child's welfare is protected.

    10. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try to keep up. The parents disagreed and children don't get a say. I think this post hit the nail on the head.

    11. Re:It's unfortunate. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      We don't let people decide what side of the road to drive on, now do we?

      Indeed we do not. And we could make a law requiring people carry around proof of the proper immunizations when on public property, or when driving a car.

      Perhaps, that sort of thing would settle this ridiculous anti-vaccine matter:

      In order to obtain a driver's license, you must show proof of MMR vaccination; or proof of a medical condition contraindicating vaccination, with a record of vaccination received or condition excluding vaccination beginning at least 10 years before the date of license application.

      Require a similar thing of employers.

      In other words: add lots of "required proof of vaccination" to receive many government and private services, so it would be unthinkable for parents to commit this abuse.

    12. Re:It's unfortunate. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Herd immunity still doesn't trump individual control of their body (at least IMHO). First, herd immunity is imperfect, secondly unvaccinated persons are rare thus making the argument even less cogent.

      It's always about competing rights - your individual right to self determination and society's right to be as safe as possible. It's pretty clear that people driving randomly down a road in both directions causes great harm and offers little individual benefits, but the same cannot be said for vaccinations.

      Personally, I feel that if you don't get vaccinated against pretty much anything you can get vaccinated against, you're an idiot. But I support your right to be an idiot as long as it doesn't interfere with me.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re:It's unfortunate. by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      The father in this case IS making the decision for his kids. He just needed the law on his side because his ex-wife has terrified their kids about what being vaccinated means.

    14. Re:It's unfortunate. by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      You may want to read about herd immunity. We need a certain percentage of the population to be vaccinated to protect everyone against the disease, including those who cannot have the vaccination. Leaving it up to everyone to decide for themselves what they want to do won't work. We don't let people decide what side of the road to drive on, now do we?

      Yes, I've heard of "herd immunity", but I don't believe people should be treated like cattle. And I don't believe it's right to force a medical procedure on someone for the good of someone else. Thank God I live in America. I chose to get vaccinated, but it was MY choice (and my parent's choice when I was a child.)

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    15. Re:It's unfortunate. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's unfortunate they made the issue out to be the efficacy of the vaccine and not the moral implications about forcing medication on people against their will. I, like most, believe the autism-MMR link is pure nonsense, but I do believe it must be every person's right to refuse medical treatment, including vaccines. (In the case of children, parents sometimes need to make decisions on their behalf, of course, but it shouldn't be the government making those decisions.)

      In this case, it is the parents making these decisions. The mother said no. The father said yes. So they went to court and the government was called in solely to mediate the dispute. They decided that it was in the best interests of the children to go with the father's wishes. They are also too old for autism to be an issue. The father made the decision that he wanted his children vaccinated. The court agreed with the father. The children weren't ordered to get the vaccinations against the wishes of their parents, but against the wishes of their mother, who was the only parent who wanted them vaccine-less.

    16. Re:It's unfortunate. by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Herd immunity still doesn't trump individual control of their body (at least IMHO).

      The Father wanted his children immunized. The Mother didn't. The government mediated the dispute with the goal of finding in the girl's best interests.

      I didn't see anything about personal rights in this, unless you are arguing that the age of consent should be under 11 so that the children would be making their own decision independent of their parent's wishes.

    17. Re:It's unfortunate. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Herd immunity still doesn't trump individual control of their body (at least IMHO). First, herd immunity is imperfect, secondly unvaccinated persons are rare thus making the argument even less cogent.

      If unvaccinated people were truly rare and evenly distributed, it wouldn't be a concern. Unfortunately, unvaccinated people tend to come in clusters, usually because one person gets the notion that vaccines are harmful into his/her head and then spreads that to others like a wildfire. Then suddenly you have a community with a significant number of people who aren't immunized, and people die.

      Worse, as I understand it, the more people who, upon exposure to the real virus, don't shut it down hard, the greater the risk of a mutation that reduces the effectiveness of the vaccination for everyone.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    18. Re:It's unfortunate. by blankinthefill · · Score: 2

      Unvaccinated persons WERE rare. The Wakefield paper and the bullshit it has produced has changed that significantly. We are actually seeing the results of that in the outbreaks of measles and mumps in the US and the UK, because of the breakdown in herd immunity in certain areas, due entirely to the anti-vaccine movement. We are talking about serious diseases, that have serious, life long consequences, that were all but eradicated until the anti-vac movement sprang up. Here's a story from the WSJ, not exactly known as a publication that indorses government intervention. They don't here, either... but it's pretty clear that they don't hold the hard line on this issue that they generally do. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323300004578555453881252798.html

    19. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but otherwise, it should be up to parents, or adults to make these decisions, wrong though they may be.

      The parents are disagreeing, which is why the courts are involved.

      This is not a simple self ownership issue, you are letting ideology override reality. It is because of people like you that libertarianism is effectively a joke. And in this case the parents are disagreeing.

    20. Re:It's unfortunate. by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      You missed the part about the father wanting the kids vaccinated.

      You missed the part where most people don't give a shit about the wants of fathers.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    21. Re:It's unfortunate. by YukariHirai · · Score: 1

      secondly unvaccinated persons are rare

      But would be rather less rare if people don't get themselves and their kids vaccinated.

    22. Re:It's unfortunate. by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      Libertarians deny the entire concept of externalities. It makes it easy for them to ignore things like herd effect.

    23. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So my young child who is not old enough to be vaccinated should be placed in danger because of your "right" to be an asshole and spread disease all over the place?

      How about we compromise, and the rest of our right to not die horribly due to preventable disease, overrules your right to leave your hermetically sealed bubble house. You want to live in society with the rest of us, then you can choose to voluntarily give up your right to be a disease factory.

      States override stupid people all the time, why do you think we have laws at all?

    24. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why you're capitalising proper nouns. This is English, not German. Furthermore, in English "The Father" (with a capital F) is generally understood to mean God.

    25. Re:It's unfortunate. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      At least it makes it hard for them to ignore things like personal rights, which are (in theory) the whole reason society exists to begin with.

    26. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like it's illegal to drive on the wrong side of the road, sodomy must be criminalized to vastly decrease the herd prevalence of HIV. Winner of the Nobel Prize in medicine: the Bible.

      I think I'll fuck my wife in the ass tonight, just to spite you.

    27. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nice straw man there. Pity I'm going to tear it down with reality.

      Libertarian principles do not preclude things which are objectively necessary to the populace. This is one of them. It should not be left up to choice. This is an excellent example of one of the FEW places where government oversight/intervention is actually needed.

      Libertarians, generally speaking, aren't anarchists and those who are give the rest a bad reputation. We don't want zero government. We just want the MINIMUM FUNCTIONAL government. In many, many, many cases our current Federal system has massively overstepped this line. It's so bad that to return to what we want feels like such a step that to some it might feel like no government... but that's not the case.

    28. Re:It's unfortunate. by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      That would lead to massive abuses. Get your tiger repelling vaccine on the list, and it becomes a mandatory sale. We are already seeing this kind of behavior as it is. Doctors/the government/schools are telling parents that chicken pox is just as dangerous a polio. Heck, companies with money to be made are telling people that shingles is a life threatening disease. They are telling them that shingles is a deadly disease and that they have a 1 in 3 chance of getting it if they don't get a vaccine.

      The medical industry needs to get it's house in order concerning vaccines, because by stretching the truth and outright lying, they give credence to those that would argue against them. This leads to people skipping important vaccines like those for polio.

    29. Re: It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Societies exist because we have given up certain right to form the very society.

      You don't ran around and claim "this land is mine". You don't kill any animal you find to eat it (cause it could be owned by someone else). You don't hit the next lady with a bat and pull her into your lair.

      We have evolved since the cave age where everyone did what they want.

      We formed societies and by living together we restrained ourselves and formalised this with laws.

      Societies without personal liberty restrictions wouldn't be possible.

    30. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a fantastic world you must live in. Not worried about any of the very real things that will try to kill you every single day, you take umbrage at the thought of someone violating your body when all they're trying to do is give you some medicine.

      Say, I have a 6 year old you can hang out with...

    31. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK not to take issue with your post, but this is the like the 17th time I've seen 'herd immunity' modded up.

      Please people. 'herd immunity' is a term we use to sell vaccination to people who can't understand 'personal immunity' and need some sort of conspiratorial/homeopathic reason to be fucking healthy.

    32. Re:It's unfortunate. by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Herd immunity gets thrown out like a mantra. While it is great, we are now starting to vaccinate against diseases where herd immunity will save fewer lives than the vaccine harms. Herd immunity is not the end all be all answer. To think it is, is to be just as scientifically inclined as Jenny McCarthy.

      OK, to be fair, I only know of one vaccine that poses a real threat, and that is only because it is misused. That would be the chicken pox vaccine. It should not be used on children. The data supplied by virtually every source shows this, even when the sources conclusion recommends the vaccine. The problem is that those who support vaccination rarely if every draw a distinction between a vaccine like the chicken pox vaccine and the polio vaccine. Then the Anti-"Anti-Vaxers" come out and start screaming about how all vaccines are good, and anyone who would question the righteousness of the all mighty vaccine is a murderer who should have their children removed from them.

      When we were fighting polio, there was no question that A vaccine was a good thing. The big killers and maimers are largely gone now. We have had effective vaccines for a long time. Now we are trying to add vaccines that prevent diseases that are less likely to kill or maim than a home cooked meal. That's right. If the chicken pox vaccine were never developed, you would still have a greater chance of being killed or maimed by a home cooked meal than by chicken pox.

      Even worse is that the vaccine is known not to offer life long immunity, so we are very likely just pushing the disease off for a decade or so. This is particularly unfortunate because chicken pox is 10x more deadly for an adult than a child.

    33. Re:It's unfortunate. by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      You mischaracterized the disagreement. In reality, both sides believed themselves scientifically correct. That is the whole point of this, which seems to be further mischaracterized as forcing immunization on the unwilling.

      It is no more than a legal disagreement, in which the court took the side of 10 year old science. Which could be found incorrect tomorrow, although it seems solid today.
      If you lead off with "think of this as" you have to get the basics right.

    34. Re:It's unfortunate. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      They could have also given the father custody. The father could then just take his kids to the doctor for their immunizations.

    35. Re:It's unfortunate. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You are right, the stream of consciousness was such that it was correct in part, but not in whole. "Father" used as a name is capitalized. "A father" isn't. "When I came down to dinner, Father asked me if I washed my hands." That is correct English, and father should be capitalized.

      The father shouldn't ever be, but hey, isn't they're someone using their there losely? Over there, way over there.

    36. Re:It's unfortunate. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      That would lead to massive abuses. Get your tiger repelling vaccine on the list, and it becomes a mandatory sale.

      Subject to the criteria that: (1) The vaccine must be proven to be safe, effective, economical, and addresses a public health problem, so government clinics will administer for free as part of the public immunization programme, (2) The disease must have significant presence and be contagious among the population not vaccinated, and (3) The disease usually results in death or serious persistent damage when caught by young people who are at increased risk.

      Chicken pox fails (3).

    37. Re:It's unfortunate. by sl149q · · Score: 1

      You are ignoring the right of everyone else not to live with you if you refuse to take sensible precautions against disease.

      As is commonly accepted your right to hit me does not prevail over my right not to be hit.

    38. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do believe it must be every person's right to refuse medical treatment, including vaccines. (In the case of children, parents sometimes need to make decisions on their behalf, of course, but it shouldn't be the government making those decisions.)

      How about refusing life-saving treatment and/or opting for euthanasia? Who should get to decide then in the case of children if it's made legal for adults?

    39. Re:It's unfortunate. by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      You mischaracterized the disagreement. In reality, both sides believed themselves scientifically correct.

      No I didn't.

      I am sure both parents believe themselves to have scientifically correct information.

      I am making a value judgement, that one of the parents is off their rocker, and believing bogus hearsay to be scientific fact.

      I contend that neither parent disputes that the vaccine has huge benefits and prevents the disease it is intended to prevent.

      One parent irrationally deems the vaccine unsafe; they believe their point of view is founded in bonafide science, but that belief is false, and without true foundation.

    40. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I'm one of the people who is allergic to a specific vaccine so I can't get it. I rely on others to take the vaccine so my life isn't ruined. I don't really give a shit about their superstitions, they need to take that vaccine so they don't fucking kill me with their selfishness.

    41. Re:It's unfortunate. by wadeal · · Score: 2

      The problem there is the US allowing drug companies to advertise prescription medicine.

      Seriously, how fucking stupid can a country be than to let drug companies tell consumers to ask their doctor for medicine?!? I couldn't believe when I found that out.

    42. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What about the case of public health? Vaccines rely on "herd immunity" to be effective, so letting everyone pick and choose leads to a situation where not enough people are vaccinated to protect the population as a whole (as seen by outbreaks of measles in pockets of the country over the last year)."

      I wonder about the push (in America) for flu shots. Flu shots (societally) benefit those over 70 year old. If I'm under 30 and want to reduce insurance costs for the general population (as would be the case under ACA) isn't it in my interest for the 70+ year olds to die off as soon as possible?

      Shouldn't all adults under 40 eschew the flu shots in the interest of reducing insurance premiums?

    43. Re:It's unfortunate. by ruvablue · · Score: 1

      If you do not like the word "herd"[that was the first place they noticed it] you could call it community immunity. I think we all live in communities [unless you're a hermit I guess]. Nothing wrong with looking out for your brothers and sisters, right? Nothing wrong with helping your community fight disease, right?

    44. Re: It's unfortunate. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      You don't ran around and claim "this land is mine". You don't kill any animal you find to eat it (cause it could be owned by someone else). You don't hit the next lady with a bat and pull her into your lair.

      In each of those instances, society is protecting the rights of others. To some degree you can argue that youre giving up rights (the right to murder etc), but thats a pretty silly argument to make as most people would say there is no right to murder, steal, etc.

    45. Re:It's unfortunate. by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 3, Informative

      The government exists to control externalities. Things like the intrinsic social cost of pollution is borne by everyone (and unequally, by those downriver/downwind), but the person "dumping" waste bears no cost, unless it is enforced upon them by the government. In many cases, it is economically cheaper to proceed doing some business or personal activity without adequate pollution controls. However, cleaning up pollution eventually gets paid for by, for example, a municipality who has a vested interest in having clean beaches, or vibrant wildlife. This company/individual who is polluting, is then "externalizing" their costs to this third party, without consequence. In the same vein, if there is no interested party, the pollution may simply cause biosphere collapse, as happened in several river systems in the United States during the 20th century. The Cuyahoga River is a famous example, where, in the early 18th century, the river is being described as one of the richest rivers in the world, where fish can be found by simply dipping a net over the side of a boat. By the mid 20th century, the number of species of living thing in the river numbered.... one... a pollution-eating algae. The river caught fire a number of times between 1950 and the late 1960s, when the EPA was created to enforce pollution controls in such areas.

      I mention this particular component, because "outlawing the EPA" is one of the more common rallying cries of libertarian political candidates in the USA. Pollution is one isolated example, but it represents a very obvious and easy to illustrate example.

      This is the root of the OPs discussion. So actually, far from being a straw-man, it clearly and accurate criticizes the mainstream view of the majority of libertarians in the USA (at least those associated with the major parties/groups and/or mainstream ideologies.

    46. Re:It's unfortunate. by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Quoth Wikipedia:

      Chickenpox is rarely fatal, although it is generally more severe in adult males than in adult females or children. Non-immune pregnant women and those with a suppressed immune system are at highest risk of serious complications. Chickenpox is believed to be the cause of one third of stroke cases in children.[13] The most common late complication of chickenpox is shingles (herpes zoster), caused by reactivation of the varicella zoster virus decades after the initial episode of chickenpox.

      Or to summarise, it's bad for some people. Particularly pregnant people, and people with immunodeficiency disorders (such as AIDS).

    47. Re:It's unfortunate. by ruvablue · · Score: 1

      "While it is great, we are now starting to vaccinate against diseases where herd immunity will save fewer lives than the vaccine harms." So, you are talking about the chicken pox vaccines "causing more harm"--where can I look to find info about this? And you cannot compare "harms" and "deaths" --it makes not sense. How many harm equals a death? You cannot do that calculation. I want comparing deaths to deaths. When you stop vaccinating the "saving from death stat" will go up automatically. That's why we do it. About critiquing community immunity: So, your solution to protecting 100% everyone from preventable infectious disease is... Community immunity is what helped our species grow to where we are today. This is one of evolution's ways of doing it.

    48. Re:It's unfortunate. by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      it also fails (1) since there is no such thing as a perfect vaccine.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    49. Re:It's unfortunate. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Societal responsibility however does trump individual control of their body. When you exist in human society, the price for being allowed to benefit from it is conformity to certain basic rules, such as not actively sabotaging that society by becoming a massive epidemic risk to everyone around.

      Many people like to talk about rights as if they exist without responsibilities.

    50. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you almost sound as if you wish for a bad influenza to kill of those who refused..

    51. Re:It's unfortunate. by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      It's unfortunate they made the issue out to be the efficacy of the vaccine and not the moral implications about forcing medication on people against their will. I, like most, believe the autism-MMR link is pure nonsense, but I do believe it must be every person's right to refuse medical treatment, including vaccines. (In the case of children, parents sometimes need to make decisions on their behalf, of course, but it shouldn't be the government making those decisions.)

      The mother and father disagreed - the mother didn't want the kids to be vaccinated, the father did. If we assume that kids aren't capable of making these sorts of decisions* then who exactly did you want to make the decision? This isn't a court telling a family to get vaccinations against their will, its a court arbitrating a dispute between the two decision makers of the family and supporting one side over the other based on scientific evidence.

      (* I think the capability of the kids to make these decisions would depend on the kids in question - some 15 year olds would be able to make a pretty good educated decision whilst others wouldn't.)

    52. Re:It's unfortunate. by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      you all missed this part: Children Act 1989 Section 2 Paragraph (4): The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished.

      What this means, in case it gave you a haircut, is that the father had to fight his way to get recognised in the first place as a person with parental *responsibility* (nobody has parental *rights* anymore since that was abolished in the Children Act).

      Additionally, this case *does not* engage the Human Rights Act nor the EU Convention on Human Rights, since the contested parties are minors and *minors cannot be made signatories to contracts*.
        - (multiple precedents in Common Law, see BAILII England & Wales High Court cases from the Family Division)

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    53. Re:It's unfortunate. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Your first paragraph is incorrect. Herd immunity is a proven scientific fact. Unless you have revolutionary new information that can prove otherwise, please avoid such sweeping statements.

    54. Re:It's unfortunate. by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Herd immunity still doesn't trump individual control of their body (at least IMHO). First, herd immunity is imperfect, secondly unvaccinated persons are rare thus making the argument even less cogent.

      Unvaccinated persons *used* to be rare. Then this sort of anti-vaccination crazyness started and we had a serious measles outbreak. As a result, many parents in South Wales realised they had made the wrong decision about refusing the vaccine and over 74,000 kids were vaccinated who should have been previously vaccinated but weren't.

      74,000 is a not insignificant number, especially since kids mix with hundreds of other kids in schools, and doesn't include the people who are *still* stubbornly refusing to vaccinate.

    55. Re:It's unfortunate. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      we are now starting to vaccinate against diseases where herd immunity will save fewer lives than the vaccine harms.

      Now where did you get that from? Did it come with a healing crystal or did you make it up yourself.
      Polio, TB and similar are coming back and those other ones you think so little of just because their vaccines are new are causing problems significant enough for cash strapped governments to reach into their pockets.

    56. Re:It's unfortunate. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      They are also too old for autism to be an issue

      Either way autism is not related to the issue in any way due to Wakefield committing fraud for financial gain with the autism link and the preservative that was falsely blamed is no longer used anyway.
      Unfortunately the crystal healing set keep on dragging it out presumably to drum up business for their own scams.

    57. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, interesting comment, you wouldn't have been vaccinated recently by any chance?

      See I'm looking to do a study to prove the link between vaccinations and nutters who make no sense on the Internet.

    58. Re:It's unfortunate. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Personal rights are a very recent invention, most of the time most of the people did not have any. Societies, on the other hand, are much older than even the concept of personal rights.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    59. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Herd immunity doesn't make sense, the vaccine works or doesn't work.

      Why are there some people who cannot have the vaccination? Because it can kill them? So it is true vaccines can kill?

    60. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if, for example, we found the "typhoid mary" for measles (someone who was asymptomatic, but carried the disease and spread it to others). They could be cured with the vaccine, but refuse to take it.

      Vaccines don't "CURE" anything, they give your immune system a heads up to give it a chance to protect you from the virus. Even then it is not 100%.

      If anything you want as much of the population as possible to be "typhoid marys" then you wouldn't have to waste medical treatments on them. Vacines have painted us into a corner where whole swathes of the population have no natural immunity to very common and dangerous viruses, but incorrectly think that those diseases are gone because they have no memory of anyone dying from them. Not taking the vacine is more or less a roll of the dice with the loosers earning a death sentence.

      It's harsh but that is the way the biology works.

    61. Re:It's unfortunate. by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Chicken pox fails (3).

      Depending on how you define "usually", so does polio: 90-95% of the infections are asymptomatic, according to Wikipedia.

    62. Re:It's unfortunate. by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      But I support your right to be an idiot as long as it doesn't interfere with me.

      People who don't vaccinate ARE hurting people. In Australia we are constantly fighting measles, which only exists due to anti-vaxxers. A quick Google search brought up this: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/chief-doctor-writes-to-queensland-parents-urging-measles-vaccination-20131014-2vh8b.html Anti-vaxxers have a lot to answer for.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    63. Re:It's unfortunate. by Goose+In+Orbit · · Score: 1

      I love those adverts...

      15 seconds of "we have a drug to treat xyz"
      30 seconds of "it might help... but then again it might kill you (or have other serious effects)"
      10 seconds of "get your doctor to prescribe it anyway"
      5 seconds of "we'll help you pay for it too"

    64. Re:It's unfortunate. by Golden_Rider · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

      The right to self-determination overrides the state's desire to have total control over public health.

      Period, full stop. Anything else is just oppression and a human rights violation.

      If it's only about things like "I want to eat lots of fat food until I die from a heart attack", you're right. It's your choice. It is a stupid choice, but it only affects your own health.

      Problem is that your choice about not vaccinating your children endangers the health of OTHERS, too. And since there are more of the others than of you, you lose.

    65. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vaccines rely on "herd immunity" to be effective

      Does that not imply that vaccines don't exactly do what they are supposed to? What "herd immunity" means, in practice, is that a vaccination isn't good enough by itself -- it relies on other people not being infected. But if other people aren't infected in the first place, then how can you get the virus? And if the vaccination doesn't prevent you from getting infected when there are other infected people around, then what exactly is the point of the vaccine?

      So the real question is which came first: being virus-free due to the vaccine, or being virus-free due to not being exposed?

    66. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to be so blunt, but the problem with your point of view is that you seriously underestimate the importance of widespread vaccination due to general uninformedness about infectous diseases. Look at the problems that could arise once the number of non-vaccinated people reaches a certain threshold and look at the diseases you've had in the past that were practically eradicated (e.g. smallpox, polio). It's absolutely crazy and irresponsible to allow people not to vaccinate their children.

    67. Re:It's unfortunate. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I would agree with you if it had no effect on the rest of the population, but in this case the benefit of the many outweighs the wishes of the few.

      There are people who cannot be vaccinated for various reasons, be it for their fragile health, be it because they are allergic to certain parts of the vaccine.

      Worse yet, every time the virus can multiply and propagate, it has a chance to mutate into a form that's much worse. Think of it as the difference between H5N1 and H1N1. Every time a virus is allowed to propagate and mutate, we run the risk that the vaccination becomes less reliable because we allow the virus to "get ahead" of us, to mutate out of our grasp. A virus by definition needs a host to multiply and mutate. Without a suitable host, without a way to mutate, our vaccination will stay reliable for everyone. One "virus breeder" may already suffice to create a new strain that is sufficiently different that it can dodge our inoculation.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    68. Re:It's unfortunate. by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Seriously, you think it's okay if parents choose to let their kids become demented or even die because of an infection with measles that could have easily been prevented?

      Smallpox and polio are practically extinct because of mandatory vaccination and tetanus is no longer a problem - do you have any idea what these diseases meant to people before vaccination was available? Please, do me a favor and look them up on Wikipedia to get an idea what you're talking about. You want to allow parents to "choose" that their children don't get a shot against lockjaw? So when they get a little scratch when playing in the garden they might die the most painful and horrible death imaginable?

      What the fuck is wrong with you people?

    69. Re:It's unfortunate. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Care to explain why you put other kids at risk of a mutated virus that dodges their inoculated immune system? Because any not vaccinated person is a potential breeding system to a virus, and especially RNA viruses are very quickly to evolve and mutate. They need a host to do that, though. No host, no virus mutation, no problem.

      If it was just you and your kids, I wouldn't care. Then your right to self determination would certainly trump anything. But in this case your decision has an impact on everyone around you.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    70. Re:It's unfortunate. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You are one of those people who think anything gets cheaper if costs for a company get lower?

      Cute.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    71. Re:It's unfortunate. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That would lead to massive abuses. Get your tiger repelling vaccine on the list, and it becomes a mandatory sale.

      Subject to the criteria that: (1) The vaccine must be proven to be safe, effective, economical, and addresses a public health problem,

      And who's going to make this determination? Will it be the CDC or the FDA? I might be inclined to listen to the CDC. I am not inclined to listen to the FDA.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    72. Re:It's unfortunate. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Either way autism is not related to the issue in any way due to Wakefield committing fraud for financial gain with the autism link and the preservative that was falsely blamed is no longer used anyway.

      The preservative that was falsely blamed (but which may well be dangerous anyway, because there is substantial disagreement about its breakdown products) is still being used for multiple-injection vials, which were used for child flu shots well after the ban citing "necessity", which actually means "cost" and "availability". They had the stuff sitting around and weren't just going to throw it away, so they claimed they couldn't make more in time (or perhaps just delayed until that was true) and then used the old stuff with the thimerosal in.

      If I were less lazy, I would dig up the links. If you search slashdot long enough, you will find a post I made in the past which contains them. They were all links to govermnent sites, mostly CDC.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    73. Re:It's unfortunate. by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Yeah its a good thing that's the only way it spreads oh wai...

    74. Re:It's unfortunate. by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Quoth Wikipedia:

      Chickenpox is rarely fatal, although it is generally more severe in adult males than in adult females or children. Non-immune pregnant women and those with a suppressed immune system are at highest risk of serious complications. Chickenpox is believed to be the cause of one third of stroke cases in children.[13] The most common late complication of chickenpox is shingles (herpes zoster), caused by reactivation of the varicella zoster virus decades after the initial episode of chickenpox.

      Or to summarise, it's bad for some people. Particularly pregnant people, and people with immunodeficiency disorders (such as AIDS).

      This will also include anyone who has an organ transplant (immunosuppressants for the rest of their life), or is presently being treated for cancer by virtually any means.

    75. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you read the article, you may realise that it is more of a custody dispute rather then the government forcing their will on the children. The father wants to immunise the children but the mother does not. It went to court, the father won (apparently using the argument of what is best for the children, ie, being immunised is better for the children then not getting immunised).

      TLDR; Father wants to immunise, mother does not. Went to court, father won and the two kids are getting their immunisations.

    76. Re:It's unfortunate. by lamer01 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but the polluter could be dealt differently. If the polluter's neighbors that are affected by the pollutants could band together and sue him in civil court for polluting then that should take care of the problem. What is the EPA doing that the individuals could not accomplish themselves? The government is still involved in the resolution of the pollution issue but not by instituting many laws and adding bureaucracy and expense for everyone but being the arbitrator through the use of the courts. The reasons that this wasn't done previously are not clear to me, I can only guess at a few reasons.

    77. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for your wonderful comment. You have added immeasurable value to the conversation and your grasp of context is immaculate. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    78. Re:It's unfortunate. by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Parents do not have absolute rights over their children's treatment.

      Actually they do, leading to the kinds of problems we're now discussing.

    79. Re:It's unfortunate. by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Except the high court in the story we're currently discussing.

    80. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who deals with a lot of immigration due to travel (fourth passport in two years), there are already a few situations where having to certify a vaccination is in place. I recall being thermally imaged when arriving at Singapore many years ago, towards the end of the SARS outbreak. Immigration to nations such as Canada already require things like chest X-rays to ensure you don't have TB, I'd say it's not a huge jump to expect a vaccination. Hell, as a frequent-flyer I'd mandate vaccinations for international travel. I'm currently battling (one week & counting) one tenacious cold virus that I picked up either at a conference or while intransit last week. Now while the cold virus cannot be immunised against, there are many communicable diseases that can and given the rapidity with which global air travel can spread disease, I think perhaps requiring a set of immunisations with your passport application might be a good thing, much like having to take an eyesight test for a driving license.

    81. Re:It's unfortunate. by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      OK, to be fair, I only know of one vaccine that poses a real threat, and that is only because it is misused. That would be the chicken pox vaccine. It should not be used on children. The data supplied by virtually every source shows this, even when the sources conclusion recommends the vaccine.

      Utter nonsense. Chicken pox hospitalizations and deaths have drastically declined since introduction of the vaccine. And despite huge numbers of people receiving the vaccine, adverse reactions have remained extraordinarily rare.

    82. Re:It's unfortunate. by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Herd immunity doesn't make sense, the vaccine works or doesn't work.

      Duh. What part of "if you aren't exposed to the disease, you can't catch it" do you find hard to understand.

      Why are there some people who cannot have the vaccination? Because it can kill them? So it is true vaccines can kill?

      Duh again. There are people with damaged immune systems and a few other severe disorders who cannot tolerate vaccines. If you are one of these, you already know about it, because you have been experiencing a host of health problems--which hopefully some jerk won't exacerbate by brining you into contact with his kid who is unvaccinated for no good reason.

    83. Re:It's unfortunate. by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1

      In the case of rivers, a substantial portion of the pollution is unidentifiable after the fact.

      Unless you are, as a part of civil discovery, going to hire an expert to conduct a pollution impact assessment of the past 15-20 years of inputs on the river system (which may cover multiple states and dozens of municipalities), you will not succeed with the lawsuit.

      In addition, since the effect is certainly cumulative, the lawsuit might resemble The Municipality of Elmwood Park vs 185 companies, including 30 multinationals, 85 who are currently out of business, 154 individuals and a multitude of upstream regional governments. The "discovery" phase of the trial, including environmental impacts would be disputed into oblivion and would cost billions to conduct, where it was even possible to determine the source of the pollution. There are about 80 other conditions that would make PROVING someone was a culprit absolutely impossible.

      So sure, in some small fraction of cases (the Exxon Valdez, for example), there is a clear liability case, but in many cases, there is not. Besides, resolving liabilities through settlements is much more often done, and appears cheaper to the board members who are liable for quarterly earnings calls with stockholders, even if they are aware there is a billion dollar liability 50 years in the future, and even if fixing the problem is cheaper than said liability, simply because the time horizon is greater than they are liable to budget for (which is seldom beyond 5 years in modern public companies). For example, the cost of liabilities and cleanup from extra oil spill every other year may have been cheaper than the double-hull ships that are now used, but the environmental impact of those extra oil spills could be catastrophic to fisheries, logging, tourism or any number of other industries, in addition to the irreparable environmental impact and long-term biosphere damage. Not to mention that "cleanup" efforts are incomplete and often don't account for the cumulitive effect on larger species, and the interplay between various issues on longer time scales (the destruction of the Caspian sea being another great example of this).

      All said, threat of civil is a reasonable approach for liabilities that are immediate, direct liabilities within a 3-5 year time horizon, but are a TERRIBLE means of controlling externalities that may be cumulative from multiple sources, are indeterminate in origin (difficult to cite/identify individual sources, especially after the fact) and those that have time horizons of decades, rather than years (as most pollution does).

      So... yes, I think it's a terrible idea you just presented and only works for a small fraction of cases, and even if those fraction of cases, may not help the issue (might just spread money around, with only superficial benefit). :-)

    84. Re:It's unfortunate. by matfud · · Score: 1

      Yet another muppet who does not understand what a vaccine is and how it works. Hint...They do not stop you from getting infected. They do make sure your immune system already knows what the virus is and can start destroying it and infected cells before it gets much chance to reproduce and cause real problems. Without the vaccine the first chance your body gets to respond is when the virus has already replicated by the billion inside your own cells and decides to break out.

      Vaccines allow your immune system to start work immediately rather than there being a delay (time to replicate) before it recognizes the problem. So that vaccinated measles carrier could still sneeze on you and give you measles (although the chances are massively reduced as it is unlikely to be prevalent in them)

      So both are vaccines and wide scale adoption of them are needed.

      P.S. Don't go to Japan without a Measles or Rubella vaccination as they currently have problems (esp Measles) due to many people refusing the MMR vaccine.

    85. Re:It's unfortunate. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      And who's going to make this determination? Will it be the CDC or the FDA? I might be inclined to listen to the CDC. I am not inclined to listen to the FDA.

      Ideally: None of the above and all at the same time. They must both independently reach the same determination, before they get to take the matter to congress for final approval.

      The basic principal being: no executive branch body gets the authority to decide what the law is.

      The legislative power, that is; the power to set regulations, rests with congress alone.

      And adding a new vaccine to the list of required vaccinations would be a change to the regulation.

    86. Re:It's unfortunate. by matfud · · Score: 1

      No the court could not. Custody was not under consideration by the court and as far as I am aware the court cannot jump outside the case at hand.

      Its all a bit of a moot point as the mother has not had the kids vaccinated and the deadline to do so has passed.

    87. Re:It's unfortunate. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You can find info on it at the CDC and NIH. You will have to look at the data instead of the conclusions though. The chicken pox vaccine is a temporary vaccine. It only took 5 years for the NIH to find that the vaccine does not offer life long protection. The chicken pox disease is 10x more likely to kill an adult than a child. Pre-vaccine, 95% of all reported cases of chicken pox were in children, while 55% of all deaths were in adults.

      Given that information, it is completely irresponsible for the CDC and NIH to be recommending vaccination for all children. The responsible thing to do would be to recommend the vaccine around the age of 16 for those that have not caught the disease naturally. By doing this, you would get about the same death rate as we have post vaccine, without the huge increase of risk to people later in life. The fact that shingles rates wouldn't be rising would also be a bonus.

      Of course, this would mean that the parents would make less money because they would have to take a week off work to actually care for their children. It would mean that schools would make less money because the student would be out for a week. The doctors would make less money because it would be one less procedure to perform. The drug companies would make less money because they wouldn't be selling as much of the vaccine. Pretty much everybody wins financially by using the vaccine in childhood except the child.

    88. Re:It's unfortunate. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You need to re-read what I wrote without the Anti-"Anti-Vaxer" glasses on. I never said that Herd immunity didn't exist, and saying that the mantra of "Herd Immunity" isn't an end all be all answer is exactly the opposite of a sweeping statement. You are letting your bias interfere with your reading comprehension.

    89. Re:It's unfortunate. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      What does polio, TB and similar have to do with what I said? Your "Anti-Vaxer" behind every tree mentality is clouding your ability to think rationally.

    90. Re:It's unfortunate. by Belial6 · · Score: 1
      Have you looked at how long the vaccine lasts for and how long the vaccine has been in use? You didn't seem to read the whole one paragraph abstract.

      The main unanticipated result has been a growing number of outbreaks of varicella among immunized children

      The most cited risk factors for breakthrough varicella include the following: (1) 3–5-year interval since immunization

      Given that the vaccine is temporary, it is no surprise that you would have an initial drop in disease cases, followed by an increase.

    91. Re:It's unfortunate. by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      The fact is that there is no increase in varicella hospitalizations in adults. Indeed, varicella complications in adults have decreased since vaccination began. So much for the claim that the vaccination is merely pushing off infections to later in life.

      It is hardly surprising that the risk of "breakthrough" infection rises with time since vaccination. But how much does it rise? The fact that there has been a decrease in varicella complications at all ages tells us that the risk remains low compared to being unvaccinated.

    92. Re:It's unfortunate. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You are looking at too short of a time period given the effective time of the vaccine.

    93. Re:It's unfortunate. by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Hospitalization for varicella complications in adults has decreased steadily since vaccination was introduced, and is well below pre-vaccination levels. You were claiming that there is evidence that vaccination increases complications by merely postponing the disease. When I point out that the actual evidence shows reduced complications, you retreat claiming that the increased complications that you claimed to have evidence of haven't happened yet?

      Really?

      OK, your turn. Show me your evidence that vaccination for chicken pox had led to increased infections and complications in adults.

    94. Re:It's unfortunate. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Did you respond without even reading what it was you were responding to? You do understand how herd immunity works right? The chicken pox vaccine is creating the kind of situation we have been seeing with Measles. You get enough people immune, and it becomes rare that you run into the virus. Then people stop being immune, and it only takes one person to bring the disease into the community to cause huge outbreaks. Chicken pox isn't going away. There is no world wide effort to completely eliminate it. That means that it will periodically show up again. A temporary decrease in cases is exactly what you would suspect when the majority of the population is receiving a temporary vaccine.

      What mechanism do you think is coming into play that would prevent adult chicken pox when the vaccine is temporary?

    95. Re:It's unfortunate. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, amend that to not used any more in the UK then.

    96. Re:It's unfortunate. by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      I don't see any evidence, just handwaving.

      It sounds like you don't understand how herd immunity works. The idea of herd immunity is to reduce the average number of people infected by one infected person to less than 1. If that is achieved, then the disease cannot propagate even if introduced, and peters out. As a result, the chances of anybody coming into contact with the disease become tiny. Note that vaccine protection doesn't have to be perfect for herd immunity to work. The probability of breakthrough infection can rise with time after vaccination, but so long as it remains lower than for an unvaccinated person, it contributes to herd immunity. Moreover, even if a vaccinated person manages to catch the disease, which means that they tend to have a less severe infection of shorter duration, so the likelihood that they will pass on the disease if infected.

      So a decline in serious complications of the disease with time is exactly what I expect, and it's exactly what the statistics show. It's been about 18 years since the vaccine was introduced in the US. So where is that spike in adult hospitalizations and deaths?

      Now where is your evidence? Or is uninformed hand-waving all you've got?

    97. Re:It's unfortunate. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      It might take a second court hearing, but it could be arranged. It will be intersting to see what the courts do about the mother refusing to comply with the court's orders.

    98. Re:It's unfortunate. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You need to understand that maintaining herd immunity is of key importance to the current public health. Consider that we actively manage, control and even forbid biological weapons even though they are typically weakened versions of the actual diseases, programmed to not properly spread.

      Yet you are claiming that it's a good idea to stop inoculating people for diseases that still exist in the world because they have been eradicated in certain areas. And what happens when there's an outbreak in a couple of decades and we lose a third of our population to it like it has happened before in history? Will you, if you survive it, be able to take responsibility for your actions?

      Again: maintaining herd immunity against deadly diseases that pose severe epidemic risk is indeed an end answer to everything, because of the scale of the risk involved.

    99. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other side of that is the FACT that SOME people ARE NATURALLY immune.

      We need a certain percentage of the population NOT vaccinated BECAUSE NATURAL IMMUNITY IS CONFERRED IMMUNITY.

      Why so many medical people seek to obfuscate, and even outright LIE about this fact, and then twist it around to support FORCED vaccination is an issue people SHOULD look at with a healthy degree of skepticism.

      You've lost your credibility and right to be trusted when you deceive people like this, and so has the whole of the medical community.

    100. Re:It's unfortunate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reality is that this is primarily a custodial issue.

      The chances of this case even mattering are very remote. It probably doesn't even matter weather or not the kids are or are not vaccinated. The statistical probabilities either way are, in fact TRIVIAL.

      THAT is the reality. So what is the big controversy here ?

      It's that the medical community as a whole acts like it should have authority to do things it should not, based on claims and assumptions that are not entirely relevant or true.

      I see the "herd immunity" ideal being trotted-out to support the idea that compulsory treatment is a somehow remotely acceptable ideal.

      But "herd immunity" is not just the immunity the herd has acquired via artificial means. "Herd immunity" also comprises the natural immunity some people in the herd have who have not been vaccinated. This is where this issue gets VERY interesting. THAT natural immunity CAN be destroyed by artificial immunity. And vaccine-induced immunity, unlike conferred immunity, can not be passed-on to offspring. Vaccine-immunity wears off. I truly impartial person would look at all this and come to the conclusion that we should certainly not be putting all medical emphasis and research into vaccines, that we should be studying ways to identify natural immunity and ways to assure that this capacity for immunity is not damaged BY medical intervention on a massive scale.

      That would be the responsible thing to do. So far, I've not seen any indication that anybody is interested in this.

      Now fight amongst yourselves and continue to fight for the fake options presented to you that obfuscate what you should really be concerned with, if you were intelligent and rational.

  8. Kids don't like vaccination?! by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    even though they and their mother do not want it

    Well duh. I didn't want shots either, but luckily for me my parents were sane people and didn't let a ten-year-old make medical decisions.

    1. Re:Kids don't like vaccination?! by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Generally true, though the tricky part is that in disagreements between divorced parents, courts sometimes try to take the kids' wishes into account in ways that wouldn't have legal standing outside the divorce context. That's because the court is supposed to do many things in the "interest of the children", and when divorced parents disagree over what that is, they might try to discern from the children what that is (with varying degrees of success).

      Here the court seems to have taken the children's wishes into account, but ultimately decided that, when mom and dad disagreed over what was in the interests of the children, medical science was a better tie-breaker.

    2. Re:Kids don't like vaccination?! by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Generally true, though the tricky part is that in disagreements between divorced parents, courts sometimes try to take the kids' wishes into account in ways that wouldn't have legal standing outside the divorce context.

      Usually the courts are tasked with acting in the "best interests" of the children, regardless of the wishes of the children. When the children are old enough to make an informed decision, their wishes are generally listened to, but that's not the requirement.

    3. Re:Kids don't like vaccination?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally true, though the tricky part is that in disagreements between divorced parents, courts sometimes try to take the kids' wishes into account in ways that wouldn't have legal standing outside the divorce context. That's because the court is supposed to do many things in the "interest of the children", and when divorced parents disagree over what that is, they might try to discern from the children what that is (with varying degrees of success).

      Here the court seems to have taken the children's wishes into account, but ultimately decided that, when mom and dad disagreed over what was in the interests of the children, medical science was a better tie-breaker.

      The problem with taking the children's wishes into account is that more often than not one of the parents can manipulate them more than the other.* It might sound clinical but because of that the children's "opinion" shouldn't carry any weight in this case. The mother's and the father's opinion should carry equal weight and when they contradict each other it thus must be the opinion of experts to decide what's best for the children. In a custody case it's obviously good to have a shrink talk to the children since what they feel about mom and dad matters for their well-being when it comes to whom they're going to live with. However, since the children wouldn't have any say at all if the parents agreed, they shouldn't be in the disadvantaged position of having a say now when their parents disagree. The disadvantage I'm referring to is of course the fact that their ability to make an informed decision is no better than that of children whose parents do agree. I am of course making the assumption here that the parents would get to decide about vaccinations instead of the state even though my own opinion is that the state should decide what vaccinations people should get.

      I view people who think that they should be able to opt out of vaccinations as selfish pricks that are at least as bad violators of the social contract as drunk drivers. My opinion is based on probabilities and fairness (the way I see fair). If in a society with 100 people, 99 get vaccinated the one that doesn't is just as unlikely as the others to get the disease that the vaccination immunizes you against. Thus that one individual gets the same benefit. If we then say that there's a 0.01 % chance of harmful effects from the vaccination it means that the 99 who took it, took a small risk whilst the one prick didn't but still got the same benefit. Thus vaccinations are an either everybody has to get it or nobody does matter since if you change the 1 vs. 99 numbers in my example the fairness doesn't change until you turn it into a situation which in real life only occurs when a a specific minority is identified as a risk group. That is, society could decide that people traveling to a particular risk area must get a vaccination if they wish to be let back into the country. Presumably people with libertarian-leaning views would object to my opinion and say that it's more fair that everybody gets to decide for themselves but libertarianism is such a demonstrably failed ideology that I think it's a waste of time to argue with libertarians.

      *) This is something I have awful personal experiences of. My parents divorced when I was too young to remember it and I lived with my mother who manipulated me to cause my father such pain that I feel some guilt myself even though I try to remind myself that I only did what my mother told me to do. Namely, she always wanted me to praise her new boyfriend and what nice things the boyfriend brought us or the trips he took us on (because he was wealthier than my father) and since I was happy about those experiences, I saw nothing wrong in making long-distance calls to my father to tell him how the boyfriend was "like Santa Claus" - repeating almost verbatim what my mother told me to say. Now it's in many ways too late to set things right with my father since his brain is not what it once was and we never got to be close enough to talk about things so any time I try, it just gets awkward.

    4. Re:Kids don't like vaccination?! by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Hell I'm 33 and I don't want shots now. I don't know that anybody actually likes getting shots, it's just that when we get older most of us at least understand that it's worth the trade-off.

      It's fairly ridiculous to list what the kids want in this article. Kids are not good at making long-term decisions, because they don't really have a long frame of reference, nor fully developed logical reasoning skills. To me, this seems like someone attempting to give weight to the anti-vaccination argument. "Oh the children don't want it, we should think about what they want." No, we shouldn't. They don't want to shot because getting a shot is not a fun thing to do at best, and slightly painful at worst. They are not capable of understanding the consequences that could happen of not getting the shot. As such their opinion on the matter really isn't very relevant.

  9. The needs of the many... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Outweigh the needs of the few.

  10. confirms there is no longer any debate by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

    "confirms there is no longer any debate about the benefits of the vaccine."

    How can anyone be stupid enough to believe that a judge ruling has any effect on medical science?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:confirms there is no longer any debate by mysidia · · Score: 1

      How can anyone be stupid enough to believe that a judge ruling has any effect on medical science?

      It doesn't really matter; as there's no real debate over the benefits in the first place.

      It's like saying "The court says the sky is blue; therefore, this confirms there is no longer any debate that 1 + 1 = 2."

    2. Re:confirms there is no longer any debate by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      "confirms there is no longer any debate about the benefits of the vaccine."

      There's no longer any debate about a lot of things.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:confirms there is no longer any debate by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      How can anyone be stupid enough to believe that a judge ruling has any effect on medical science?

      It doesn't, of course. But when there's a finding like this in a court, it's frequently because there is no real debate in medical science.

      If you ask just about any competent doctor, they'll tell you that MMR vaccine is making everyone healthier. They'd almost definitely argue that even if the completely discredited study about MMR and autism is true, MMR is still worth it because it has saved roughly 500,000 lives a year.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:confirms there is no longer any debate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "confirms there is no longer any debate about the benefits of the vaccine."

      How can anyone be stupid enough to believe that a judge ruling has any effect on medical science?

      I have no idea what rock you just crawled out from under, but logic left the courtroom decades ago. You act like they even acknowledge that thing we call the Constitution.

      And I'd say that corrupt politicians and judges have a rather unique way of effecting sizeable budgets that could result in a large impact on medical science by directly taking it's funding out from under it, so don't be so quick to ah, judge. either way. Corruption has all but guaranteed effect in both directions.

    5. Re:confirms there is no longer any debate by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      If you ask just about any competent doctor, they'll tell you that MMR vaccine is making everyone healthier.

      That is an invalid argument. It is the Emperor's New Clothes argument.

      They'd almost definitely argue that even if the completely discredited study about MMR and autism is true, MMR is still worth it because it has saved roughly 500,000 lives a year.

      THAT is the kind of argument that sane people make when talking about vaccinations. Leave off the part where you make claims that disagreeing with you makes others incompetent.

      On the other hand, the absolute best case scenario for the chicken pox vaccine is that here in the US, even if 100% effective, it could only save about 100 lives a year. Home cooked meals are more dangerous. And, it is known not to be 100% effective. It is also known to not offer permanent immunity. This means that we are likely not only simply delaying the disease, we are delaying it to an age where it becomes 10x more dangerous.

    6. Re:confirms there is no longer any debate by mjwx · · Score: 1

      "confirms there is no longer any debate about the benefits of the vaccine."

      How can anyone be stupid enough to believe that a judge ruling has any effect on medical science?

      The judge was not ruling _ON_ medical science, he was ruling _WITH_ medical science.

      You know, exactly how a judge is meant to work in these cases, examines the evidence and selects the best outcome.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    7. Re:confirms there is no longer any debate by DrXym · · Score: 2

      Chickenpox is an easily prevented communicable disease. While it is rarely fatal it can do great harm to unborn children and it does have complications and it can lead to shingles later in life. It also has an economic impact and routinely disrupts schools when outbreaks occur. Given that there is a safe and effective vaccine, why shouldn't a kid receive a shot for it?

    8. Re:confirms there is no longer any debate by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      How can anyone be stupid enough to think that a medical concept that has eradicated some of the worlds nastiest diseases and yet has had no identifiable or statistically significant negative impact on the population was ever up for debate to begin with?

    9. Re:confirms there is no longer any debate by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It only saves 100 lives because it's being administered. If it was not administered, then that number would increase. And increase. And increase. And increase. When you have a vaccine which saves relatively few lives per year, yet each year people still die from the disease, then it shows that the vaccine is working, and without it, more people would be dying than the number of those who are saved.

    10. Re:confirms there is no longer any debate by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      "confirms there is no longer any debate about the benefits of the vaccine."

      How can anyone be stupid enough to believe that a judge ruling has any effect on medical science?

      Well, there is no debate about the MMR vaccine anymore. Medical science has resolved this and the courts have resolved the fraud cases against Wakefield. His paper was proven to be fraudulent. His financial motivation behind the fraud has been proven. He is no longer allowed to practice medicine. The whole matter has been resolved thouroughly.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    11. Re:confirms there is no longer any debate by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      If you ask just about any competent doctor, they'll tell you that MMR vaccine is making everyone healthier.

      That is an invalid argument. It is the Emperor's New Clothes argument.

      Out of curiosity, if you don't accept a doctor's opinion regarding a medical decision, who's advice do you consider authoritative?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    12. Re:confirms there is no longer any debate by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      As any rational person would do, I listen to the information available, dismiss the outright impossible, and then work with the most likely answer until further information comes along. At that point I do the whole thing over again.

      Of course, that is besides the point on what you said. You said "If you ask and COMPETENT doctor,". In English, that means you don't consider anyone who disagrees with you to be competent. It is a tautology, and thus invalid.

      So, I bring it back to you. Do you really accept every doctor's opinion?

  11. Men's rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is actually a case about father's rights, RTFA

    1. Re:Men's rights by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      what rights??

      Refer CA1989 Section 2 Para. 4: The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    2. Re:Men's rights by matfud · · Score: 1

      Unless it is asserted by the father which the father in this case has. Or unless they where married when they had the children (which they were)

    3. Re:Men's rights by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      there is no such qualifier, exemption or exception. S2P(4) is reproduced in my previous post in its entirety.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    4. Re:Men's rights by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      Addendum: what this means is that the father of his own, legitimate child, has no PR and not even a voice in open hearing unless it suits the court to allow it.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    5. Re:Men's rights by matfud · · Score: 1

      If you read the rest of the document. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/2

      Fathers do have parental rights. they just do not have natural guardienship rights unless asserted.

      read section 2 para 1 and 2

    6. Re:Men's rights by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      BZZT! Try again, he has parental *responsibility*, not parental *rights*. Parental *rights* for both mother and father are in practical terms, abolished under CA1989.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    7. Re:Men's rights by matfud · · Score: 1

      It ties back to Family Law Reform Act 1987 Parental rights and duties.

      You have rights to meet your children (for example). You have responibilities (mostly finacial) to care for them. You do not have automatic guadienship of them. That needs to be asserted in court. You can not give up your Parental rights and responsibilities.

    8. Re:Men's rights by matfud · · Score: 1

      It is complicated. All I can say is that fathers often end up feeling shafted.
      The Acts were made as that was most often happened. So a formalisation of judgements made.

  12. Pubic health by SuperBanana · · Score: 2

    I do believe it must be every person's right to refuse medical treatment, including vaccines.

    If you've got an infectious disease that has outbreak potential, most legal systems allow doctors to detain you for treatment.

    This isn't the same thing, but there's a similar public health factor. It's not a personal decision, given that there are people who CANNOT be vaccinated for whatever reason, and some of these diseases have no "cure" other than prevention.

    Most of these outbreaks happen when unvaccinated people travel to other countries where vaccinations aren't commonplace and the diseases are. And they bring it home. That's half the reason your doctor and the Embassy suggest/strongly recommend getting booster shots before traveling to certain places!

    1. Re:Pubic health by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      I do believe it must be every person's right to refuse medical treatment, including vaccines.

      If you've got an infectious disease that has outbreak potential, most legal systems allow doctors to detain you for treatment.

      But those same legal systems do not allow the doctors to force treatment upon you. It is one thing to restrict a person's liberty for the good of the many, it is something entirely more invasive to intrude upon a person's body against their will. There was an interesting United States case a few years back where the courts refused to compel removal of a bullet from a suspect's body even though it was likely to be evidence because forced removal was too intrusive a procedure.

      Now, none of this applies in the immediate case, because kids are not themselves competent to make medical decisions and the parents were in disagreement. Consensus from the medical community makes sense as a tiebreaker. This is a straight up parental rights case.

  13. Immunization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I auction off the right of a nurse that I work with to finally get the chance to inflict pain upon me in retribution for all of the other times I have made life difficult... There is a lineup every year!

  14. Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its to late for these kids, stupidity is hereditary.

  15. Sometimes vaccines work sometimes they don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Often the stated effectiveness of vaccines is often inflated. Also vaccines are not always as safe as "they" claim them to be either. Do you own research, follow the money, look at who is making the claims. It is just as mindless to say all vaccines are bad as it is to force vaccines on people, anyway i guess that goes back to follow the money. Do your own research instead of believing what "they" tell you.

  16. Outrage? by grasshoppa · · Score: 2

    Given the innuendo of the clip, one might think we're expected to feel outrage about this because the daughters AND mom don't want it. But guess what? Dad gets a say too, and no; that is not outrageous. Mom must have thought he would be a pretty spiffy father because she slept with him at least twice.

    Just because one or both of the parents changed their minds does not mean dad loses his "father" status. His opinion is equal to mom's, and I'm glad the court decision reflected that.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:Outrage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Well put.

  17. Re:Judge is a sexual pervert by Falconhell · · Score: 0

    Nice piece of raving paranoia and utter stupidity, utterly fact free and ludicrous.

  18. Re:Time to seek asylum elsewhere by Falconhell · · Score: 0

    It's about time all exemptions were removed. It's idiotic to allow them. Unfortunately Australia has allowed them, and diseases that were almost eliminated are returning, thanks to idiocy.

  19. Re:Judge is a sexual pervert by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

    The age is undefined, but revolves around an ability to UNDERSTAND the issues of the medication, and is largely assumed to be around 13 years old.

    Although in some cases people never seem to UNDERSTAND....

    How old are you again?

  20. Re:Time to seek asylum elsewhere by Microlith · · Score: 0

    You're doing a wonderful job of talking up New Hampshire as a place to run when you're tired of being sane.

    AN ACT adding an exemption from immunization for conscientious beliefs.

    So instead of having to admit that their opt-out is based on irrationality, they can opt out "just because." Brilliant. Do you have a lot of anti-vaxxers up there?

    Exclusion During Outbreak of Disease. During an outbreak of a communicable disease for which immunization is required under RSA 141-C:20-a, [children] students exempted under RSA 141-C:20-c shall not attend the school or child care agency threatened by the communicable disease.

    But muh liberties! How can I be free if I'm not free to spread disease!

  21. Is there any downside to vaccines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any risks whatsoever to the individual who takes them, or is the risk equal to zero?

    1. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you think of anything that's truly risk free?

    2. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the answer is yes. Good. So there is a finite risk and with some vaccines it is very large. Yet most commenters on this topic want to force people to take on that risk "for the good of the herd". Well, let's just resurrect Stalin and become Commies shall we? Let's just shoot people who disagree with us.

    3. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      There's always a risk. But the risks from getting the vaccine are dramatically lower than the risks from not getting it, and with recent outbreaks of these diseases the risk from not being vaccinated is going up sharply because of the increased risk of exposure. Even if you have a reaction to the vaccine, you're reacting to the disease agent so you'll have an even more severe reaction to actually being exposed to the disease and again your risk of exposure is going up due to an increased risk of exposure caused by people who refused vaccination.

      Mumps, measles and rubella are in a completely different class than say the flu in both severity and ability to target a vaccine.

    4. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are either for or against vaccination as a whole but don't bother to examine each one on its own merits and that includes the doctors. That can't all have the same risks but vaccines advocates talk as though they all have almost zero risk and as though all of the viruses have the same huge risk.

    5. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You walk down the street - risk
      You look out the window - risk
      You take a shower in the morning - risk
      If your not a complete pussy, you take risks all the time.

      Damn right you are forced to take an extremely small risk for the good of the millions of other people who don't want to die from preventable diseases.

      If you don't want to take that risk, then don't live in our society.

      Let's just shoot people who disagree with us.

      I wonder what the risk is of people finding out where people like you live and shooting you in the head? Is it greater or less than the risk of taking the vaccine?

    6. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Show me a vaccine which is part of the regular child schedule where the risk of harm from the shot is even remotely comparable to the risk of harm from the disease it prevents. No doctor or "vaccine advocate" as you put it, would ever claim there is zero risk. In fact the documentation you get with a shot explains the potential side effects complete with their known rates of occurrence.

    7. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what I say to my doctor: You tell me the benefits *to my child* (i.e. not to "the herd") and the risks *to my child*. There was not a single vaccine that he could mention which in the western world had more benefits than risks.

      If you know different then please, go ahead and post data. Because my doctor couldn't.

      Let's start with the Polio Vaccine. Let's stick to a western country like Australia. Per 100,000 pf population, how many of them contracted Polio last year? The year before that? The year before that? (hint, the number is zero). Okay. Excellent. Out of all of the Polio vaccines ever given in the whole world and the whole of history what is the incidence of serious complications per 100,000 of recipients? (hint: it is more than zero but the true number can never be known since there is no proper monitoring and reporting in place - a child gets the shot and the vax team moves on, not to mention that the vaccinators have no incentive to gather evidence that they are causing damage). Excellent.

      Now please explain how the risk of Polio for *my child* is greater than the risk of serious complications from the vaccine?

    8. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      If you believe any of what you wrote then you are a certifiable idiot.

    9. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      They don't?

      Umm... ok, go to your doc and ask him for a malaria shot. Provided you're not living somewhere near the equator, he'll probably ask you whether you plan a trip to the tropics and if you answer in the negative, he will probably at the very least try to talk you out of it, or flat out refuse to do it. If he does not, it's probably time to consider changing your doc.

      I don't know about doctors in your area, but around here they are generally sane and responsible people.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      Except that's because the vast majority of people are vaccinated against polio. That results in an almost negligible number of polio cases, which means nobody's exposed to it so they don't get it. It's called "herd immunity", and it's a direct benefit to your child. But it only works if the vast majority of people consider the consequences to your kid of them not being vaccinated. If the majority of people concentrate only on the risks to their own kid and concluded as you have, herd immunity evaporates and the number of polio cases will start to skyrocket as soon as there's any outbreak. And the risk of complications once your kid has contracted polio are, believe me, a lot worse than any risk from the vaccine, especially considering that there is no cure for polio once contracted.

    11. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by tgibbs · · Score: 0

      Many things that we are required to do entail some small degree of risk. You are required to participate in jury duty. But you could be run down by a car on the way to the courthouse. You are being forced to undertake risk "for the good of the herd." Does that mean that Stalin has been resurrected and we've all become Commies?

      Get a grip.

    12. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that right. It is all about vaccines and nothing to do with hygiene? How does Polio spread? Does hygiene help at all?

        "But it only works if the vast majority of people consider the consequences to your kid of them not being vaccinated." So they have to weigh up the risks to their kids compared to the benefits for my kid? Can we extend that to every situation in life? Why is anybody allowed to have any free choice whatsoever? Why not just always make all decisions "for the good of the herd" and force people to comply. For the good of the herd, of course.

    13. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow u a real gansta wid ya pussy talk! Have you got a small penis? I bet you have!

      Tell you what. You bring your needle and i'll bring my .45 and we'll see who makes the bigger hole.

    14. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your reply does not contain any information. It just makes and ad hominem attack. You are the one who sounds like an idiot!

      Which part of what I wrote there is wrong? I asked you for data. Is it wrong to ask for data? How many people in Australia contracted Polio last year? (none). What is the incidence per 100,000 of severe reactions to Polio vaccine?

      Are you claiming that there is proper monitoring and reporting of every child who receive the Polio vaccine in the world? Are you saying that those reports are never missed? Not in a single case?

      Please explain how the risk of Polio for *my child* is greater than the risk of serious complications from the vaccine?

      If you want to change people's minds then you need to be prepared to stop calling people "idiots" in replies that contain no information. At least write, I think you are an idiot because... [insert your rationale here]

    15. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats not what your sister and your mum said. You already runnin from ma needle homie.

    16. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      So they have to weigh up the risks to their kids compared to the benefits for my kid?

      No. They have to weigh the benefits to their kid vs. the risks to their kid. As do you. If you're short-sighted, you'll look only at the direct risks and benefits of the vaccination and your kid in isolation. But that ignores the fact that your kid isn't in isolation, he's going to be exposed to all the other kids around (and they're going to be exposed to him). If you take that short-sighted approach, and everybody else does too, then the risk to your kid increases, due to increased exposure to the disease and increased susceptibility to the disease, by far more than any risk of reaction to the vaccine that you've avoided.

      If I "save" $20 but it costs me $200 to do so (that I wouldn't have had to spend if I weren't trying to save that $20), I haven't saved anything at all.

    17. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your logic is flawed.

      Let's assume that vaccines work. Just for the sake of argument.

      We live in a society where most people do get the shots. In which case the herd is already "healthy" (cough, cough). Which means that the marginal benefit to the herd of a currently non-vaccinated member, and also to that member, of having a shot is minimal. But the risk to the individual is constant regardless of what proportion of the herd is vaccinated. Of course, the risk to the herd from the individual getting the shot is zero - because it is not the herd who will suffer, it is the individual! So the individual is asked to take on a constant risk, the herd is asked to take zero risk, and all for no benefit to the herd or the individual given the marginal utility of the "last man" receiving his shot.

    18. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct about Malaria vaccine. I don't think a doctor would give it to somebody who was not at risk.

      But with the childhood vaccine schedule things are different. The Doctors want the kids to have every vaccine, and there are so many of them that the doctor cannot enumerate them all without reference to the schedule let alone know the individual risks and rewards. They just receive the ever growing list of vaccines that the vaccine lobby has managed to convince the government to add to the list and are happy to collect their bonus for administering the vaccines.

    19. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If vaccines make you immune then why are you worried whether I take one or not? If you take one then you are immune, right? If you want immunity, take one. If not, don't. But I pose no threat to you just because I haven't had one (apart from I am smarter and healthier) so why do you care whether I have one or not?

      It does not make sense that on the one hand you think that vaccines offer immunity but on the other hand you are worried that people who have had them (the herd) will catch something from those who have not had them. I thought you were immune!

    20. Re:Is there any downside to vaccines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the herd has been vaccinated then how can they catch something from me, who has not? Aren't they vaccinated/immune! There must be some other reason why you are keen to stick me with that needle, it cannot be for your own protection because your protection comes from your vaccination, right?

  22. Re:Time to seek asylum elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What this series of cases confirms is simply that people no longer have a right to opt out of vaccination.

    No, it does not confirm that. You might have had an argument if both parents were refusing the vaccination and the court ordered them to do so anyway, but that's not what happened here.

    Here, one parent agreed with the vaccination and one parent did not. They could not settle the dispute so they turned to the courts to settle it for them. The courts acted in what they believed were in the child's interest and ordered the vaccination. The children get no say because they are children.

    Your entire rant is pointless because you have completely and utterly misunderstood what happened.

  23. Re:Time to seek asylum elsewhere by VortexCortex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's about time all exemptions were removed. It's idiotic to allow them.

    Step right this way citizen for your retroviral DNA tagging. Let's see, you're male, so you get this one. The batches are rotated such that if we need to control the population we can release one or more plagues to achieve the desired ratio of males to females or northerners to southerners, etc.

    Oh, you want to opt out? Too bad. We got you years ago, this is just a patch for a more efficient marker; Your kids? Oh, you don't get to decide what's best for them. We call that child abuse if you refuse their virus cocktail.

    Not saying this shit is going down, but removing exemptions isn't going to limit the spread as much as you think, and the potential cost to freedom is far greater.

    Don't want to be around me? Stay the hell indoors then you scared little moron. I accept that Life is a bit Dangerous, and drive my car every day anyway; I even eat at the occasional fast food joint. When the risk to life gets greater than that of auto accidents, then I'll give a fuck about folks opting out of vaccines, or banishing fast food. This blind devotion to prevention of all danger is how PRISM happened, you twit. Live free or die, I say.

  24. Re: Most vaccines alter your DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Complete and utter bullshit.

    Otherwise resistances would be hereditary and we wouldn't need to vaccinate every new generation of kids.

    Vaccines force the body to produce specific antibodies. Certain lymphocytes can remember the blueprint for these antibodies. But these are not transferred to a fetus or encrypted into the DNA of normal cells (or egg/sperm).

    You fail at biology.

  25. People who don't vaccinate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    their children are either uninformed or just stupid. Not only are you endangering your own child but you're also endangering those who can't get vaccinated like babies or people with an immune system disorder.

    If you don't vaccinate your kids they can stay the fuck away from mine.

  26. Easy solution by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    Just make the vaccinations mandatory under law. If the parents hide the children or otherwise prevent the vaccinations, fine them. If that doesn't help, fine them severely. If that still doesn't work, remove the children for a period. If the situation happens again with another vaccination, go directly to removing the children again, this time permanently.

    It's just like school. It's mandatory and if you try to keep the children at home or otherwise fail to send them to school - you will be punished and the kids will attend school, one way or another.

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  27. Re:Let's take a moment to check the science here.. by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

    The problem there is that the "studies" have been pretty thoroughly discredited. They're in the same category as a "study" that looks at a number of criminals, finds that the majority of them drank coffee within a day or two of committing their crimes, and concludes that drinking coffee causes you to become a criminal. The fallacy becomes obvious when you take a group of people who regularly drink coffee and another similar group who don't, look at how many in each group went on to become criminals and notice that there's no statistical difference between the two.

    A more likely explanation is simply that a) most children get the vaccinations so most children who go on to develop autism will have gotten vaccinations, and b) children are likely to be diagnosed with autism shortly after a visit to the doctor (to, for instance, get vaccinated) who notices indications and recommends further testing resulting in the diagnosis.

  28. No such thing as 'vaccination' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen.html

    Still waiting for ANYBODY to refute ANY of Dr Hadwen's talks...

    1. Re:No such thing as 'vaccination' by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      "During the Gloucester Smallpox Epidemic"

      Smallpox? You mean the disease that disappeared because of world-wide vaccination? Now that's a great argument against it, I'm sure. ;-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:No such thing as 'vaccination' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His first point is invalid, i did not even bother reading further. We cannot cure infectious diseases by getting rid of "filth", although sanitation helps is cannot eradicate a disease. Vaccination can however as the case of smalpox clearly proves, I am glad that this idiot did not manage to prevent the eradication of smalpox.

  29. That's the stupidist thing I've ever heard by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Its not quite as bad as forgetting that society exists for the individual

    So should we all line up to put our heads on the block in front of Charlie Manson with an axe?
    Now do you get how utterly stupid your statement was?

    Society is there precisely because a civilised society can only exist if people band together to protect each other from dangerous individuals.

  30. Re:Time to seek asylum elsewhere by DrXym · · Score: 1

    New Hampshire sounds like a haven for antivaccination nutcases. I wonder if it shows up in their epidemiology studies.

  31. Re:Let's take a moment to check the science here.. by DrXym · · Score: 2

    The supposed link between autism and vaccination has been exhaustively studied and dismissed. There isn't one.

  32. Mecury is bad, but not the primary cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A group of scientists believe they have stumbled upon something very interesting, which seems to me like the closest idea yet.

    http://news.unchealthcare.org/news/2013/august/researchers-discover-a-potential-cause-of-autism

    I'll let you read, but basically they found some strong evidence that it's chemicals that inhibit topoisomerase during pregnancy.

    Like Genistein which is found predominately in soyabean, and antibacterial drugs (those that are used for resistant strains), and chemotherapy drugs.

    All I can say is, GOD I HOPE SO.

    Autism is such a difficult challenge to take on as a family and a society, and rates of 1 in 50 children are staggering.

  33. Re:Let's take a moment to check the science here.. by DrXym · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Exactly. Kids get shots through their infancy and they receive a bunch of screening tests for conditions including autism.

    It just so happens that diagnosis follows vaccination, but why blame vaccination when it might so easily (in the absence of evidence to say otherwise) be - second or first hand smoking during development, or alcohol, or perfume / makeup of the mother, or audio frequencies coming from the TV into the womb, or vibrations during driving, or electro magnetic interference from powerlines, or too much / little sunshine, or vitamin / mineral deficiency, or radon gas, or lack of stimulus or over stimulus etc.

    Anti vaxxers have latched onto vaccination because of Andrew Wakefield. Ironically Wakefield was fraudulently attempting to discredit MMR because he had his own measles vaccine which he hope to cash-in on in the aftermath. The one good thing to come from it is that the supposed link between Autism and vaccination was exhaustively studied and no link was found. It's safe to say there isn't one and never was. It's far more likely that improved diagnosis, earlier screening and a lack of critical thinking has created the link in some people's minds.

  34. Not necessiarly by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    That might be what happens in some cases, but probably not that many. In some cases, it can be due to a bad experience with a needle. That's part of the reason why I still hate needles to this day. When I was a teenager, I had plantar warts. Regular treatments failed to remove or control them, so I had to get them removed by electrolysis. The doctor that did it was "not very skilled" to put it mildly. Having the Novocain putting my feet was the sole most painful thing I've ever had happen. I was literally screaming at the top of my lungs it hurt so much. This is part of the reason why I don't like needles even now. I've never had another experience like that, in fact all my more recent experiences with needles have been incredibly non-painful. However, that still sticks with me and I still hate needles and have to look away.

    In other cases it's a simple phobia, something that doesn't really have a logical reason but you're afraid of it anyway. It probably starts with the fact that having something poked into your skin is normally not a good thing, so you have a natural aversion to it. From that you can develop a full-blown phobia. It isn't based on anything logical, it isn't based on anything that happened to you, that's what a phobia is an irrational fear. You even know it's irrational, but that doesn't make you any less afraid of it. It's like other phobias such as fear of spiders, public speaking, that sort of thing.

    I'm not saying it's useful to lie to kids about the fact that getting a shot might hurt a little, but I don't think that's where it comes from at least not in most cases.

    1. Re:Not necessiarly by Reziac · · Score: 1

      The reason novocain hurts so much isn't the needles; it's because it's acidic, so until it numbs the tissue, it burns like hell. When it's neutralized prior to injection (with simple bicarb of soda solution), it doesn't hurt like that.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  35. Not just those that can't by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Also those for whom the vaccination does not work. It turns out that vaccinations are NOT 100% effective. In some people, the vaccination will not provide immunity for whatever reason. Well, there's not really any good way to test this. It's not like we can go in infect people with potentially deadly diseases, just to see if they in fact are immune to those diseases. However, when a large percentage of the population has been vaccinated, the herd immunity acts such that basically nobody gets it since the disease can't find hosts to spread from.

    However as the term "herd immunity" implies, it requires a large part of the "herd" to be vaccinated. When too few people are vaccinated, diseases can find enough vectors to spread.

    As you note, this isn't just an individual issue this affect society as a whole. There are people who cannot be vaccinated, for various reasons, and there are people who will choose to be vaccinated but the vaccination won't work for, and they don't know. As such is important for as many people as possible to be vaccinated against disease to make sure that it does not spread.

  36. Re:Time to seek asylum elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't want to be around me? Stay the hell indoors then you scared little moron. I accept that Life is a bit Dangerous

    Words to live by.

    Seems people like you are scared of the vaccine, and you're the one being antisocial. So it stands to reason you would be the one to be locked indoors.

  37. Re:Time to seek asylum elsewhere by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    New Hampshire recognizes a right of conscience to opt out of vaccines.

    Yes, except that these children can't give informed consent. Also, does New Hampshire recognize a right of conscience to drive recklessly? Must be a wonderful place (for non-pedestrians).

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  38. EVERYBODY had measles, mumps and chickenpox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...when I was a kid...

    How do you explain that? How did we all survive? Why weren't ANY of our parents concerned? What changed since then?

    I have over ten references to popular 1970s and 1980s T.V. programmes which contain references to various characters 'having had the measles', or 'having had mumps', nobody was bothered back then, why are these diseases so 'deadly' now?

    1. Re:EVERYBODY had measles, mumps and chickenpox by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      If you have the vaccine you can still get the measles, but you get a milder form of it which does not have the same effects. I was vaccinated and did get a mild form in primary school.

      Before the widespread use of a vaccine against measles, its incidence was so high that infection with measles was felt to be "as inevitable as death and taxes."[3] Today, the incidence of measles has fallen to less than 1% of people under the age of 30 in countries with routine childhood vaccination. ...

      The benefit of measles vaccination in preventing illness, disability, and death has been well documented. The first 20 years of licensed measles vaccination in the U.S. prevented an estimated 52 million cases of the disease, 17,400 cases of mental retardation, and 5,200 deaths. ...

      During 1999–2004, a strategy led by the World Health Organization and UNICEF led to improvements in measles vaccination coverage that averted an estimated 1.4 million measles deaths worldwide.

      I like that your concerned enough to ask the question as though its unanswered, but not concerned enough to actually spend 2 minutes to lookup wikipedia.

  39. One kid is vegan by stiggle · · Score: 1

    The vegan child is against the vaccine due to its production using animal product (eggs).
    But admitted they knew nothing about the drugs used to treat the diseases if they contracted them without the vaccine.
    So avoiding the vaccine produced with eggs might result in a greater exposure to animal sourced products.

  40. Well that answers the wrong question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What was asked was who liked getting it?

    PS around 1/6 of mortality was due to those three diseases. Of course, those who survived didn't die from it, but that's rather a pointless statement, so why the fuck did you make it.

  41. It's pretty simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't try to defend your actions, merely own up to them.

    "Dad, for all the trouble I gave you when I was a child and never knew who you were, I'm sorry. I was an asshole and have no defence. All I can say is I'm sorry."

  42. Re:Let's take a moment to check the science here.. by Golden_Rider · · Score: 1

    I am not an expert when it comes to vaccines, so I cannot say for sure whether there is or isn't a relationship between vaccines and autism. But everything I read so far leads me to believe that if there IS a relationship, it is very very small. And I also know that I would rather choose the very small risk of having an autistic child than the LARGE risk of having my child suffer from the serious consequences of not being vaccinated against nasty diseases. Read about the things measles can do to you and then tell me you would prefer that over autism.

  43. Anti-vaccine is intellectual laziness by Theovon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We get all these people who think that vaccines are linked to autism because one discredited scientsts said it was, so we get all this controvercy over vaccines. But what about all the other crap we're putting into our bodies? Hormones in the water supply. Industrial pollutants. Even intentional fluoridation, which has been correlated with lower IQ. But do these people rally against this stuff? No, because it takes too much work. It's easier to go on about government conspiracies and skip going to the doctor.

    1. Re:Anti-vaccine is intellectual laziness by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      It's also hard to fight all those other things because there are people with vested interest in their continuation, and the average person needs something that directly and noticeably endangers their or their family's personal health.

      I have come to terms with the observation that apparently every food ever conceived of raises the risk of some disease or something in me by at least 0.004%. There is just way too much shit out there to be informed about all the time.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    2. Re:Anti-vaccine is intellectual laziness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting.

      The CDC has tons of information on Vaccines and their risks. In case you are hit with a complication, there are (after emergency treatment of course) programs to help, like the National Vaccine Injury Compensation. Why would they setup something like this if there was NO risk??? The issue here is that the risk is minimal (usually lower than 1%, however sometimes they are greater than that). My biggest issue is that the poor quality of the vaccines, and the resultant lack of effectiveness is generally ignored. This is especially true in Flu shots, which recently have shown that >30% of the patients were NOT vaccinated despite having gotten a flu shot!! This was especially true for people most susceptible to the Flu, the elderly. Death rates from vaccinated Seniors has been extremely high lately because of the poor quality of the flu vaccine.

      CDC: The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) is a federal program that was created to compensate people who may have been injured by certain vaccines.Persons who believe they may have been injured by a vaccine can learn about the program and about filing a claim by calling 1-800-338-2382 or visiting the VICP website at www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation.

  44. Thimerosol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I don't know if it's actually linked to anything in reality, but I can say that Thimerosol contains mercury. That cannot possibly be good for you.

    In November 2011, I had a flu shot. The next day, I developed a distilled and horrific form of OCD called Pure-O. I haven't been the same since.

  45. Re:Most vaccines alter your DNA by Opportunist · · Score: 0

    Oh please. If there was anything that could possibly alter DNA in a human being, at the very least we'd have heard about it during a Nobel Prize award.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  46. It works by sociocapitalist · · Score: 0

    This is what happens when ignorant people make poor decisions:
    http://www.nbcnews.com/health/measles-outbreak-tied-texas-megachurch-sickens-21-8C11009315

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    1. Re:It works by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      This is what happens when ignorant people make poor decisions:
      http://www.nbcnews.com/health/measles-outbreak-tied-texas-megachurch-sickens-21-8C11009315

      To the twat who labeled my post offtopic - the link references a measles (thus part of MMR) outbreak in Texas due to people refusing to get immunized.

      Very much on topic.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  47. Jenner was a fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And there is no such thing as 'vaccination', no matter how much you want to BELIEVE there is.

    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/2013-measles-outbreak-failing-vaccine-not-failure-vaccinate1

  48. The vegan angle here by Kodack · · Score: 0

    So once again we have a story with a vegan angle which seems to be popping up more and more anytime people act stupidly. One of the girls was concerned about 'animal products' in the vaccines.

    Let me just leave this little chestnut there for you all. No matter how much you try to avoid using products with animal derived ingredients, or animal tested products, you will have to use them unless you make every single thing that goes in or on your body by hand and never buy a single thing.

    Some things which contain animal products:
    The color black, used in inks, toners, plastics, is often made from burning animal bones.
    Beer and many other products use ground fish swim bladders as a settling agent, which is later filtered back out.
    Many pills and capsules are coated in gelatin as well as many food products, beauty products, and it's made from ground animal collagen.
    The color red in many products is carmine red, and it's made from ground insects.

    Some thing which everyone uses that are tested on animals.
    Shampoo
    toothpaste
    mouth rinse
    soap
    skin cream
    the perfumes in soaps and shampoos and creams

    Some things we all benefit from that are based on vivisection, killing lab animals, etc
    Most of modern medicine
    vaccines
    insulin (did you know the head of PETA is a diabetic?)
    almost any healthcare you get, medications, treatments, even things like cat scans, are derived from testing and knowledge gained from using animals as human surrogates.

    If you want to live a life that does not benefit from animal products or animal testing, you're talking about walking into the wilderness by yourself with no clothes and no tools and not making use of anything from society, no technology, no products, no knowledge.

    LIFE MEANS KILLING OTHER THINGS EITHER BY DIRECT ACT OR FOR COMMUNAL BENEFIT. THESE ARE LAWS OF NATURE AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. GET USED TO IT IF YOU WISH TO LIVE.

    1. Re:The vegan angle here by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      you make no valid point at all.

      "things which eveyone uses", no not everyone uses commercial versions of those products, and there are plenty that brag about "not using animal testing". and that contain no animal products whatsoever. You've been brainwashed by big corporations is all.

      you list products like beer and inks which not everyone uses, or people can easily make their own without animal products or buy those which do not contain animal products

      clothes can be made without animals, easily bought.

    2. Re:The vegan angle here by Kodack · · Score: 1

      you make no valid point at all.

      "things which eveyone uses", no not everyone uses commercial versions of those products, and there are plenty that brag about "not using animal testing". and that contain no animal products whatsoever. You've been brainwashed by big corporations is all.

      you list products like beer and inks which not everyone uses, or people can easily make their own without animal products or buy those which do not contain animal products

      clothes can be made without animals, easily bought.

      You really have no clue.

      Animal derived products work their way into many other products you wouldn't think to ask about, and they won't tell you, contain animal products. Again, the color black.....Do you use a checkbook? Black ink in it... Do you have ANYTHING in your home that is black plastic or colored black?

      And I said that beer was just one of MANY products in which fish bladders are used as a settling agent. You think beer is the only thing?

      Anyway you have really missed the point here. The point is that products you dont associate with food or animals, often either has animal derived ingredients, or was developed with animal testing.

      Do you really think the FDA will let something designed for human use or conception be released without being tested? What do you think they're testing it on.

      Look it's one thing to say you don't want to wear leather and animal skins and you don't want to eat meat, eggs, fish, or milk products. But complaining about a LIFE SAVING vaccine because it's animal derived (please lookup how vaccines are made if you think there are any other kind) strikes me as being incredibly stupid not to mention naive considering the many other things they already use that has animal products in it.

      If you take one thing away from this conversation let it be this. You do not live by yourself in a sterile world and everything you eat, wear, use, see, came from something else. Every bit of your body came from eating other living things because thats what life does, it re-cycles, and if you think you can re-cycle without animals you're sorely mistaken.

  49. Authoritarian Euro-statist Psuedo Intellectuals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would like all vaccine advocates to read all the horror stories about people who had normal kids, then had brain damaged zombies following vaccination.
    There are lots of extremely toxic and dangerous things in those shots, including formaldehyde, mercury, aluminum, and genetic material left over from the culture medium. The culture medium that can be diseased monkey kidneys, or fetal tissue. If this sounds like a witch's brew; it is.

    Being a computer nerd does qualify you to make decisions regarding other people's health. You are all terrified of nature, and taking the risks inherent in living life.

    Now back to your cages!

  50. Some vaccines rely on herd immunity. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    Vaccines rely on "herd immunity" to be effective,

    Some vaccines rely on herd immunity, others (tetanus vaccine comes to mind) don't.

  51. To all the pro vaccine zealots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last serious research about vaccines was a long time ago, and as it showed to be ineffective, no more serious research about vaccination has been done.

    "In the 1960s, the Indian Research Council and the World Health Organisation carried out a very large, well designed, double-blind controlled trial of 360,000 people in Madras, South India. The results showed that more of those vaccinated with BCG got tuberculosis than those who had not been vaccinated "

    Keep allowing the system to inject toxic stuff to your newborns, sheeps.

  52. VistA will give you the MUMPS by tepples · · Score: 1

    Measles and rubella I'll grant you. But a college kid who wants to get into electronic health records might experiment with mumps in order to gain skills needed to land a job at a company deploying what Vista meant before Microsoft tarnished the brand in 2006.

  53. In (Partial) Defense of the kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, this is the slashdot croud, so I would expect you all to get two things about this discussion:

    1. Vaccines could be used, and indeed have been used, for secret government testing.
    2. The girls have a right to their bodies.

    Now, I'm actually in favor of getting vaccinated. I really am. BUT, I live in the US, and our government has done secret medical testing on us before. I don't know about the UK, but I'm guessing they have too. But don't worry, they have given us their full assurance that they aren't doing that any more. Just trust them.

    See the problem? I don't think the UK or the US is actually up to something with vaccines, but (here's the kicker) - I UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE WOULD WORRY ABOUT THAT. You think the MI5 isn't up to anything similar to our NSA, TSA, IRS, etc etc? Then why are you so defensive of them in other areas?

    And to the second point, these girls would have the right in some places in the US (at least the 15 yro would) to give full consent to an abortion without notifying their parents. Why can they not consent to refuse a vaccine? Is it really "My body, my choice"?

  54. Let them not get vaccinated by realsilly · · Score: 2

    .... and if they get Measles, Mumps, or Rubella while under the age of 18, their mother must pay for all doctors bills 100% out of pocket, including hospital stays.

    Also it if can be proven they they infect anyone else, they must pay the doctor bills of those that can prove it.

    Legal fees alone in the defense will fix that.

    If they get these after the age of 18, then they should face the same expenses as their mother would.

    It's simple repercussions of one's actions.

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
    1. Re:Let them not get vaccinated by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      and if a child dies from allergic reaction to say the egg the virus was grown, we can have you and people who think as you do stung to death by bees?

    2. Re:Let them not get vaccinated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's sensible, because the people concerned here are so good at assessing risk and consequence. Nothing bad could possibly happen if you institute a society based on unlimited liability for mistakes.

      Captcha: "redneck"

    3. Re:Let them not get vaccinated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An allergic reaction is literally your body's own doing.

      Transmission of an infectious agent requires a host, and can't be triggered by your body's own immune system malfunctioning. Yes, it can be as devastating as a very bad allergic reaction (even resulting in death as an allergy might); but, one cannot control whether your body develops an allergy, while they certainly can control whether they decided to harbor a host, for items where immunizations are available.

    4. Re:Let them not get vaccinated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. You can have the doctor who administered the vaccine be stung by bees.
      There is a reason they don't vaccinate people who are allergic.
      Also, it's your own goddamn fault if you tell the doctor no I'm not allergic.

    5. Re:Let them not get vaccinated by realsilly · · Score: 1

      Um, by the ages that these two girls are I'm sure that there has been at least one product in their entire life with eggs in it and if neither has had an " allergic reaction to say the egg the virus was grown" by those ages they will more than likely NEVER have a reaction.

      Now lets consider for one moment all the people that these two could infect if they contracted any of those viruses. And what if one of their victims dies from that said virus that is EASILY preventable? How is that fair?

      It's one thing to be allergic to something and know it will kill you, but an egg virus is rare and these aren't babies who are fresh out of the womb.

      All I've said is that with making a decision and standing firmly behind it, there may be repercussions, and they (mother and daughters) should be ready to face those and accept responsibility for that decision they made.

      --
      Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
    6. Re:Let them not get vaccinated by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      now you're making things up. I know people with such severe egg allergies that viral innoculations which were grown in eggs were contraindicated

    7. Re:Let them not get vaccinated by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      your ignorance is astounding, MMR vaccine is grown in eggs. the list of egg grown vaccination viruses are:

              Influenza Vaccine (Flu Shot)
              Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR)
              Rabies Vaccine
              Yellow Fever Vaccine

      If you read the instructions that come with the vaccine, it will say giving to those with severe egg allergies is contraindicated. The next time you get a flu shot read the paper.

      There are other groups of people who do not get the vaccination for other medical considerations. Guess what, that doesn't affect the overall purpose or efficacy of vaccination of population. there will always be those people unvaccinated, or for whom the vaccine does not work, or who cannot receive the vaccination; doesn't affect the population model.

      In short, it doesnt matter whether these girls were vaccinated or not

    8. Re:Let them not get vaccinated by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      fallacy: some of those who get the vaccination will still get the disease. Immunization doesn't guarentee anything. that's why it doesn't matter for the population whether these two girls get vaccinated or not, there are plenty of other people who will be unprotected anyway, it's part of the model of a vaccinated population

    9. Re:Let them not get vaccinated by realsilly · · Score: 1

      Well. . . based on your expert opinion of "your ignorance is astounding" clearly, there is no point in having a healthy debate. One is not allow to see things from a perspective not your own without being insulted.

      Have a nice day.

      --
      Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  55. Re:Let's take a moment to check the science here.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Science? Money corrupts "science" easily. Maybe thats why the link hasnt been established? Maybe "scientists" also lie? Like read this please and inform yourself ?before spitting nonsense, or maybe your part of the FRAUD? http://www.naturalnews.com/032216_Thorsen_fraud.html

    Or here you can see how mercury kills the brain, this is a good science example, where your actually watching a real experiment taken place, injecting mercury into neurons and seeing how they react? Now thats what i would call SCIENCE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85tgwh3HpsM (by University of Calgary, Canada)

    You will burn in hell forever for enforcing inocent babys being injected with crap directly to their blood.

  56. Title is a bit missleading... by superdave80 · · Score: 2

    The court is not really forcing the girls to get the vaccine. This is a case of the mother not wanting the vaccine for her daughters, and the father wanting the vaccine for them. If the father hadn't wanted the vaccination either, then the girls wouldn't be vaccinated. More of a custody dispute than a vaccination dispute...

  57. Re:Let's take a moment to check the science here.. by DrXym · · Score: 1

    I think see the issue here. You absolutely want vaccines to cause autism. Science says there is no link, but that obviously can't be right (in your mind) so you concoct some vast conspiracy to handwave it all away.

  58. It actually began with a whole lot of parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who saw dramatic changes in their children right after MMR. My wife works with children with autism every day (lots of them) and their parents. The sheer volume of parents who tell her that their children were fine, then got MMR and 2-3 days later lost all of their speech and started flapping their hands and spinning all of the time is shocking. It's possible that it's getting better, but these parents don't know each other. They don't have anything to gain. Most of them are afraid to talk about it because they don't think anybody will believe them.

    The core concern has always been heavy metals, mercury and aluminum. Mercury has been removed. Aluminum hasn't.

    What I find more shocking is the level of outrage and general dismissiveness directed toward these parents. People's systems react badly to things all of the time. Some people can't tolerate milk and everybody is supposed to believe that it is 100% impossible for anybody to react negatively to any of the ingredients used in vaccines? Seriously? That's like a Saddam election where he gets 100% of the vote. How does anybody really believe that with a straight face?

    We're up to 1/50 boys now in the US affected by autism. Supposedly we know enough about biology to accurately predict the origin of all life on the planet without any ability to observe it or or test it...but with all of that sample data there's NOT A SINGLE PUBLIC THEORY ABOUT THE CAUSE OF AUTISM!?! SERIOUSLY?

    At what point do you realize the level of group think and herd fear involved in dismissing that?

     

    1. Re:It actually began with a whole lot of parents by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      What I find more shocking is the level of outrage and general dismissiveness directed toward these parents.

      Ah, but the dismissiveness follows the Cochrane meta-analysis involving 14 million children which found no evidence of a link between MMR and autism: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3/abstract;jsessionid=44093446A596169411BA31145D75B3CA.f02t02 Studies like this are conducted to determine if the anecdotes you allude to have a scientific basis. Turns out they don't seem to.

      NOT A SINGLE PUBLIC THEORY ABOUT THE CAUSE OF AUTISM!?! SERIOUSLY?

      Bollocks. There are lots of theories. All you have to do is look at the WIkipedia to get started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism#Causes I work at an institute which is studying autism: people are working on it and doing real research.

    2. Re:It actually began with a whole lot of parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MMR hasn't been the concern of most, it's been the heavy metals. Also, based on that linked study it does not provide any actual numbers for the "unlikely-hood" nor does it compare the numbers for autism diagnosis in both groups compared to the general population. Additionally, "The methodological quality of many of the included studies made it difficult to generalise their results."

      My wife owns 3 offices and has seen countless children over the last 5 years. The parents are almost always extremely proactive since there are so few known effective treatment options out there, but many of them have shared the results of their tests over the years. The constant that we're seeing in the results is high aluminum levels in both the child AND the mother. Aluminum is everywhere in our environment, from cans to deodorant. The adrenal gland normally regulates the levels in your body and gets them out of your system, unless it's depleted; be it from exhaustion, stress, not getting enough sleep.

      Aluminum is used heavily as a preservative in almost every vaccine AND is a known neurotoxin. Based on the mother & child pattern, personally, I believe that there are a lot of children who are predisposed to be vulnerable to getting too much in their system at one time. Simply having a way to diagnose that and take necessary precautions should be a reasonable step but the second anybody mentions anything regarding doing vaccinations even slightly differently...the world loses it's mind.

  59. Re:Time to seek asylum elsewhere by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    But muh liberties! How can I be free if I'm not free to spread disease!

    Don't forget, the best vaccines are only 90% effective, meaning that the anti-vaxxers are in the same group as the 10%.

    Their numbers are fairly small - it's probably better to fix their misconceptions with education than it is to mount an assault on medical liberties.

    Why is it that we make sure students cover the Peloponesian Wars in school, but not basic immunology?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  60. Re:Most vaccines alter your DNA by matfud · · Score: 1

    viruses do. But that is besides the point. Vaccines do not contain elements capable of replication so vaccines do not change your DNA

  61. Much easier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haha
    You're not doing it right.
    Just secretly put it in the water or food supply. Far simpler.

  62. Re:Let's take a moment to check the science here.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard this one story about a guy traveling to another country and had to have a vaccination.
    Well his plane crashed killing everyone on board.

    We need to stop this vaccination madness now :)

  63. Qualification by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    I'm so glad that the everyday person is so overly qualified to know the benefits / harm of vaccinations. I don't care what your person reasons are for not getting vaccinated, the fact is vaccinations are good and in 99.9999999% of all cases harmless. I keep reading posts on Facebook, ABC News, MSN and etc.... about why parents should be careful about vaccinating there kids. I also read posts about parents who speak to the wealth of incorrect information about the link between vaccinations and autism and other mental disorders. The fact is 99.999% of the parents who decide to not vaccinate are completely and udderly unqualified to make that decision, unqualified from the standpoint of evidence, knowledge, research and intelligence.

    I'm extremely glad that a court stepped in and forced this vaccination, I think more courts need to be stepping in and forcing vaccinations. The point is if you are going to decide not to vaccinate a child then please present your research that will clearly show the negative effects, when you can't do that then please stop playing doctor and listen to the real experts. If a child is hurt from the effects of not being vaccinated then it's child abuse and negligence and I don't see why we should hold the parents responsible.

  64. I had the shot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and i've never had Measles, Mumps, or Rubella. Coincidence?

  65. I tend to look away myself. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I despise needles to no end, but I recognize the value to vaccination and certainly the value to giving blood. I try to think about other things, like how many dots are on the ceiling.

  66. Immunity is not absolute by tgibbs · · Score: 1

    Immunity is not absolute, it's relative. It reduces the probability that you will catch the disease, but not all the way to zero. Much of the benefit of vaccination comes from herd immunity. If the average number of people who catch the disease for an infected person is reduced to less than one, then the disease cannot spread through the population and instead dies out. Of course, herd immunity depends upon enough of the population being vaccinated.

    So yes, if you don't get vaccinated, you are endangering people other than yourself.

    Also, there are some people who cannot be vaccinated, due to immune disorders, for example. The same people are more like to be severely harmed or killed by infections, and their only protection is herd immunity.

    1. Re:Immunity is not absolute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Immunity is not relative. If the vaccine protects you from the virus, then you would not be worried about whether or not I have had a shot. Buried inside of your convoluted explanation is an admission of the ineffectiveness of vaccines. So not only do I put myself at risk by getting a shot, it does not even give me immunity!

      There is no such thing as herd immunity. The only people protected by the immunity of the herd, as you allude to in your comment, about those who cannot get vaccinated due to immune disorders, are those who do not get the vaccine. The herd which is immunized should have nothing to fear from the non-vaccinated members, and the non-vaccinated members are protected by the vaccinated ones (i.e. they are surrounded by folk less likely to be carriers).

      What proportion of people cannot get vaccinated due to immune disorders? Sounds like they are already in a bad way. Besides, to use the common abortionist meme "you can't force me to endanger myself in order to protect somebody else." You are happy for them to not take a shot, be happy for me too. Thanks.

  67. Influenza vs. parainfluenza by zap42hod · · Score: 0

    They are caused by different viruses, both with several subtypes.
    The influenza types usually have much more severe symptoms than parainfluenza.

  68. Horrible forcing it upon the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UK just got added to my list of states violating the human rights that thinks it is Ok.

    1. Re:Horrible forcing it upon the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Addition:
      Seriously, imagine yourself being 11 / 15 year old and not wanting a syringe shot. Suddenly the High Court orders you to take it against your will. It is impossible that it won't be composite of a traumatic event. The benefits of the forced vaccination DOES NOT outweigh the downsides of increased chances of MMR.

      It would be a much better solution to just leave it be and let them decide for themselves when they turn 18.

  69. Head of CDC admits vaccines can trigger autism by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/04/22/head-of-cdc-admits-on-cnn-that-vaccines-can-trigger-autism.aspx
    "Recently Julie Gerberding, the head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), appeared on Dr. Sanjay Gupta's show House Call and explained that vaccines can trigger autism in a vulnerable subset of children. This is the claim that many parents have been making since at least the 1980s, and they have been dismissed and even mocked for making it."

    At three minutes in, specifically, she suggests a stress could trigger autism, and such a stress could be a fever resulting from a vaccination injection, the result of which in children who are predisposed by a mitochondrial disorder could thus set off the symptoms of autism...

    See also though, along the lines you suggest, for other more likely and more frequent causes of autism though, such as vitamin D deficiency and food additives and so on:
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/autism/
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html

    Dr. Julie Gerberding has since left her position as head of the CDC and is now the president of Merck's Vaccine division. As you point out, people against vaccines also may have financial interests at stake (book sales, medical practices, product sales, etc.). Whatever one can say about vaccines, certainly understanding the conflicts of interest and weasel words pervading the whole field seems like a huge job...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Gerberding

    To build on some other suggestions in comments to this article, since getting enough vitamin D, eating more vegetables, avoiding dairy, getting exercise, nursing children past age two, and so on have been proven to often improve health and increase disease resistance in humans, it seems like any family which is not doing all of those things is putting the community at risk. So, the question is, should we legally enforce "BlueZones" and "Nutritarianism" on the world in order to protect those with compromised immune systems because they avoid sunlight, eat poorly, don't exercise, were bottle-fed, and so on?
    http://www.bluezones.com/
    http://www.drfuhrman.com/children/default.aspx

    Maybe we should start by cracking down on luncheonmeat consumers? :-)
    http://www.ehow.com/info_8360513_luncheon-meat-dangers.html
    http://institutefornaturalhealing.com/2012/04/processed-meats-declared-too-dangerous-for-human-consumption/

    At the very least, as a deterrent to creating health hazards for themselves and others, perhaps people who admit to having eaten processed meats (or who otherwise can be identified by credit card purchase records) probably should not have any possibly related medical conditions covered by insurance?

    The medical literature is very messy, for lots of reasons, such as expressed in quotes I've collected here:
    http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science

    It would help to have better tools to use to wade through all the muck (including for detecting statistical fallacies as the grandparent post by "Todd Knarr" points out). Some suggestion

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.