Slashdot Mirror
Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?
An anonymous reader writes: Michigan has a problem. Over the past decade, the number of unvaccinated kindergartners has spiked. "Nearly half of the state's population lives in counties with kindergarten vaccination rates below the level needed for "herd immunity," the public health concept that when at least 93 percent of people are vaccinated, their immunity protects the vulnerable and prevents the most contagious diseases from spreading." Surprise, surprise, the state is now in the midst of a whooping cough outbreak. How do these kids get into public schools without being vaccinated? Well, Michigan is among the 19 U.S. states that allow "philosophical" objections to the vaccine requirements for schoolchildren. (And one of the 46 states allowing religious exemption.) A new editorial is now calling for an end to the "philosophical" exemption.
The article says, "Those who choose not to be vaccinated and who choose not to vaccinate their children allow a breeding ground for diseases to grow and spread to others. They put healthy, vaccinated adults at risk because no vaccine is 100 percent effective. They especially put the most vulnerable at risk — infants too young to be vaccinated, the elderly, people with medical conditions that prevent vaccination, and those undergoing cancer treatments or whose immune systems have been weakened." They also encourage tightening the restrictions on religious and medical waivers so that people don't just check a different box on the exemption form to get the same result. "They are free to continue believing vaccines are harmful, even as the entire medical and scientific communities try in vain to tell them otherwise. But they should not be free to endanger the lives of everyone else with their views."
The article says, "Those who choose not to be vaccinated and who choose not to vaccinate their children allow a breeding ground for diseases to grow and spread to others. They put healthy, vaccinated adults at risk because no vaccine is 100 percent effective. They especially put the most vulnerable at risk — infants too young to be vaccinated, the elderly, people with medical conditions that prevent vaccination, and those undergoing cancer treatments or whose immune systems have been weakened." They also encourage tightening the restrictions on religious and medical waivers so that people don't just check a different box on the exemption form to get the same result. "They are free to continue believing vaccines are harmful, even as the entire medical and scientific communities try in vain to tell them otherwise. But they should not be free to endanger the lives of everyone else with their views."
Stupidity and fear.
I think the big mistake is that nobody put down the money to get that number back down to 5% who don't vaccinate. It's not hard to do. 95% of people either believe in the vaccine or are easily swayed.
as a parent myself, i am sympathetic to parents' rights, but if someone refuses to vaccinate their children, schools should refuse to allow them in.
Don't remove the exemption, just exempt the people using the exemption from being able to frequent public areas without protective clothing (protective as in protecting others from them, not protective as in protecting them from everyone else).
Its illegal to be naked in most public places, its illegal to knowingly infect others with dangerous illnesses, so why shouldn't it be illegal to knowingly be in a public place when you are much more open to infection from dangerous illnesses and thus to infect others with them...?
We have the ability to trace an infection back to whomever infected you. If you come down with something, the person who infected you is liable for your costs.
While I think not getting vaccinated is incredibly stupid, I also worry about setting a standard of the government being able to force things in to your body.
Doesn't get much more safe than this
I come here for the love
Government forcing medical procedures on anyone is really not something we want, especially since government won't take responsibility for the (admittedly unlikely) consequences of a bad result. We need better education to counteract the Jenny McCarthys. Slashdotters seem to be quick to berate the "thinkofthechildren" types, until it comes to medicine. I am sorry if this sounds callous to you, but maintaining our personal freedoms from government tyranny is more important than making sure a few children don't get sick.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
So if you don't want it because you have an invisible friend, then that's ok. If you don't want it because you have a supposedly reasoned and cogent objection, that's not ok?
It is my right to decide what is the best for my child.
Not a big pharma corp, that makes 2 billion dollars a year in vaccine sales
and pushes them as mandatory for everyone.
This is vaccine fascism, to force everyone, regardless whether they want it or not.
This is supposed to be a free country.
It will predominately affect the non-vaccinated ones. This should help remove this particular type of person from the gene pool.
I have a friend who is one, and no matter how hard you try to get them to see reason, you know you're talking to a brick wall, because their wall of ignorance will never allow for rational discourse. Their belief has only been amplified by all the media on new/old age of holistic medicines, aroma therapy, acupuncture, food alergies, etc. etc.. some may actually have some practical benefits for some illnesses, but that just reinforces the belief that a scorched earth approach to diet, medication, etc... are somehow better for themselves / children. I fear for those people, and apparently from the article, those around them.
Bye!
Here we have the problem. You are a drooling, neanderthal idiot motherfucker and are very much part of the problem. Go kill yourself promptly before you or any of your larvae infect the rest of the general population.
Maybe we can cordon off Texas and quarantine all these redneck and red-state fucktards all together there and let "God" sort 'em out.
It's considered a universal human right to be secure in your own body.
Mass. Gen Laws ch.76, Â 15:
"In the absence of an emergency or epidemic of disease declared by the department of public health, no child whose parent or guardian states in writing that vaccination or immunization conflicts with his sincere religious beliefs shall be required to present said physicianâ(TM)s certificate in order to be admitted to school."
So there's broad religious exemptions such that anyone willing to claim them can skip the process, but if there is a serious outbreak, then suddenly the exemption goes away. That's not a bad compromise.
I haven't heard of the state ever declaring such an emergency, but I hope they are ready to do so before an outbreak becomes a full epidemic.
If we all got vaccinated, at least we'd have a measure of "nerd immunity".
I cannot hide my incredulity over the fact that Mississippi is one of one only two states that do not permit religious or philosophical exemptions. The other is West Virginia.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
You'd be amazed what stupid people will agree to do for a tenner.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
How far are you willing to go to enforce this?
Before you suggest using the law to force anyone to do anything, ask yourself just how far you are willing to go, and if you're okay with the gruesome outcome when someone refuses.
In the case of forced vaccination, will you be okay with police officers breaking into someone's (possibly barricaded) house to make way for a paramedic squad from the local hospital to physically restrain the occupants (including, and probably especially, young children) and then, if they resist, inject them with sedatives to ensure nobody gets hurt (which may have already happened if the occupants are militant). At that point you can give them the vaccinations by force and exit.
If you feel comfortable with that (and the likely outcome of mentally scarred children, and likely to be in the future physically violent against authority adults), then the answer is yes. If you find that an uncomfortable scene to imagine, then the answer is no.
There is always someone who will take whatever law you have to its ultimate conclusion. In the case of certain laws, it ends at a fine (and whatever fallout comes from refusal to pay it out). In the case of something like this, the ultimate conclusion from forced vaccination is going to be physical violence from the government--there's no way around it.
"I am so glad I didn't get my little Johnny vaccinated. Sure, he died of Measles when he was 3, but at least he didn't catch the autism!"
The few nut jobs who are against vaccinations aren't the real problem. A shit ton of non-vaccinated illegals flooding into the public schools is driving the spread of whopping cough and EV-D68.
I'd even have sympathy for this argument if it were anything but ignorant of how the world works.
If the government wants you to have something injected into your body for a public health reason, laws already exist requiring quarantine and treatment. What this means is that in practice, people with guns will come in moon suits and escort you away to be dealt with as they please.
The only illusion here is your illusion that you have a choice.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Let's be clear here. What we're talking about is the extermination of whole species of pathogens.
Won't somebody think of the pathogens?
This message brought to your by PETP.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Citation needed.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
The articles cites a list of diseases on the rise, like whooping cough. None of these disease have required vaccinations. There was no increase in deseases related to the vaccinations so this looks like more healthcare industry propaganda.
A recent outbreak in Texas (last year, in fact) should have given these folks a heads up! http://www.forbes.com/sites/em...
Four of my co-workers have kids who turned autistic within a day of taking the MMR vaccine. There is no way that particular vaccine is not tied to autism.
We *need* the ability to object to government intrusion on philosophical (or any) grounds in the general case. Attacking that premise just because of these anti-vaccine nutjobs is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The problem isn't actually "philosophical objection", it's ignorance. If the government needs to take a stand on something here, how about taking a stand for improving the public state of scientific understanding and reducing ignorance? Let's start with not letting FDA-regulated things put words like "Homeopathy" on the label as if homeopathy were a real thing. Let's call the Chiropractics out for the fact that their field (and its exemption from most Medical regulation) is based on whacked-out semi-spiritual anti-science voodoo stuff that denies that Viruses actually exist as a real physical thing, instead of endorsing them and paying for them with state-mandated health programs. I could go on. You reap what you sow, and we allow a lot of bullshit to pervade our society that we could be preventing. It's no wonder at the end of the day that a bunch of people are confused and just believe whatever counterfactual pseudo-science bullshit some popular personality told them to believe.
11*43+456^2
whether they want to or not. Any information about the substance injected is classified and highly sensitive information - you'll just have to trust us.
If those that do not get vaccinated die off, then those that get vaccinated, or have strong enough immunity, get to survive.
Evolution, correct?
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
Freedom is a reasonable argument, if not always persuasive.
Drugs to treat sick people are an order of magnitude more profitable than vaccines. Mentioning your misunderstanding of the economics dilutes your argument by making it appear that you are misinformed.
Stick to the freedom argument . It's like pointing out all of Obama's policy failures, then also claiming he was born in Kenya. The part you're completely wrong about makes you look silly and distracts from the strong part.
Yeah, there is. Your sources are highly suspect. Source: I've had the MMR. Also every MD ever.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
I've been going to an acupuncturist for over ten years, and I can tell you without any hesitation it has helped me tremendously. My main reason to go is back problems, but he has helped me with shoulder/elbow injuries as well as stress and allergies.
With that being said, I wholeheartedly support vaccinations, and modern medicine. If I were in need of help, regardless of illness, and "Western" medicine could help me you're damn right I would take advantage of that. TCM(Traditional Chinese Medicine) is just another tool to use for health, along with Yoga, diet, etc;
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Logically, if the vaccine really does cure the virus, then the only people affected by an outbreak would be the unvaccinated. But that's clearly not the case. So we can't really know that it works as intended. We may have evidence that it sometimes works, but it certainly isn't a slam dunk of a technological advancement (as so many here imply every time it comes up) -- and yet we hear calls to force it on others as if it IS a slam dunk. What we also don't have is long-term data on the side effects -- only an arrogant display of superiority. You people aren't using logic to support your position. You're using intimidation.
What I see here is hardly a noble call for the betterment of society. What I see is an arrogant, selfish display of superiority, and an utter disrespect for the basic human right of free choice. Instead of demonizing the innocent, why not make an honest donation to the multi-billion dollar businesses that produce and promote these vaccines? Put your money where your arrogant mouth is.
I am vaccinated, and my child is vaccinated, and overall I am in favor of vaccinations. What I am not in favor of is having the government require me to get vaccinated, specifically because of the chance of foul play. Corruption and greed are gaining a larger and larger hold on the US, and where there is money to be made, pharmaceutical companies will stop at nothing. I fear that doctors will start being bribed to push for untested and unproven vaccinations just because some drug company paid them a boat load of money to push the drug. Vaccines are great and have helped reduce/eradicate many diseases, but there is also a huge possibility for abuse.
"You need to be vaccinated!"
Yep, which is why the current anti-flu shot is TOTALLY FUCKING USELESS because the influenza virus mutated and made it completely fucking ineffective.
Go ahead, keep giving your immune system that shitty exercise that only puts on 'water weight.'
Mean while, I got that mutated flu, and was done with it in two days. My immune system got exercise and a protein diet, and has REAL MUSCLE to show.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
While I think not getting vaccinated is incredibly stupid, I also worry about setting a standard of the government being able to force things in to your body.
Which vaccine? Polio or Mumps which have a pretty long history, high rate of effectiveness, and low chance for complications? or influenza which has a very poor rate of effectiveness, short history, and an extremely high number of complications for a large percentage of people? You should not lump all vaccines into a single category because they are all quite different in just about every way. Lumping everything into a single category is ludicrous, yet we can't have a rational dialogue because that is exactly what people do.
I have spoken at length with numerous medical doctors, and their opinions of vaccines is not the same as what we see in media. Vaccines in their opinion are a medical procedure. If you are ill you should not get a vaccine until you are well, and you should only get what you need for vaccines. It's the former that gives medical professionals pause when looking at the massive increase in childhood illnesses that result in permanent damage over the last couple of decades. As we have increased the number of vaccines being given to children, we have also seen an increase in debilitating illnesses. Yeah yeah, correlation does not prove causation but we can't even study at this point because anyone questioning is an "Anti Vac Whacko".
You can do the work to find statistics on vaccines and illnesses, there is enough there to at least start forming an opinion. You can also do the work to find the problems with the reporting system, and that very few cases of complications from a vaccine ever get into the system. You can further talk to doctors who are not pro-vaccine, though you will have to do so off the record because they can lose their licenses for being against "vaccines" (even though they may only be against _some_ vaccines) or simply blackballed out of their jobs.
One day I hope we can have rational dialogue on the subject, but if you read the posts here you will see it's quite impossible at present.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I recognize that vaccinations save tens of thousands of lives every year: 100 deaths prevented from chicken pox; 400-500 deaths from measles; 1,000 from polio; over 15,000 from diphtheria. And let's not forget the millions of others who suffered from these diseases without dying. Without a doubt, vaccines have been one of the most brilliant inventions that have made an incredible positive improvement to the quality of life in our society.
But our body is our own. Period. We cannot cross this line. If someone conscientiously objects to a treatment, it is their natural right to decline it.
And if we violate this tenant even in the name of vaccinations, it can be violated any other way "for the greater good." And that's a very, very dangerous precedent to make.
Outbreak? Epidemic? HA! Here in Michigan they've been covering the story for the past month and it's your typical rash of kids with the holiday crud while one or two of them has something more series like the measles. This is the media fear mongering again, thank goodness our kids are sick because they were out having fun in the fresh air and sunshine. Treatment is working and life goes on.
Now, to stay on topic for the rest of you nerds here....
What if the virus was a digital one and you had the decision to push obtrusive malware ridden anti-virals onto your live server in order to keep the "herd" of users from being infected while everyone else suffers with the bad anti-viral software... Would you?
As I would for any anti-technology personal objection that endangers public health or the environment. One example: we need to get rid of that "Wild Caught" label on fish. If fish depletion threatens the oceans, we need to eat more farmed fish. Maintaining standards for farm quality is just as vital, but is a separate issue.
This year a CDC whistleblower came forward about covering up data that showed the causal link between The MMR vaccine and autism.
Vaccines contain extremly neurotoxic compounds, and to suggest otherwise demonstrates ignorance.
Court cases, backed by evidence and science have showed that cancer viruses and other contaminated host material have knowingly be present in vaccines in the past.
Herd immunity is a lie created by big pharma BECAUSE vaccines do not work as well as claimed BY THE PEOPLE SELLING THEM TO YOU.
Law suits have been won in several countries, because vaccines frequently cause life long disabilities.
The same people spreading propaganda about "anti vaxers", are the same people who want to make vitamins illegal (codex elementarius).
VACCINES ARE A PRODUCT CREATED BY MULTINATIONAL COPORATIONS THAT DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU.
THESE ARE ALL FACTS. If you have a problem with facts, then you have a problem indeed!
You are all free to be a statist idiot (in poor health), but do not force your poor choices on others.
If we do not have the freedom to decide what harmful viruses and chemicals are put into our bodies, we have freedom at all.
How can you be so stupid? Why would you trust known liars with your health? You trust the same government who nuked Japan, and burned Dresden to the ground to care about you? Stupid is as stupid does........
It sounds an awful lot like elected representatives, providing their friends in big pharma a helping hand. Why I'm concerned?
Over the last decade, evidence about toxicity of vaccines and side effects has come about that puts a serious question on the 'health' benefit of vaccinations especially on kids. If the question is between whooping cough for a kid and the possibility of autism (as examples) then I have some hard thinking and weighing to do. Do the benefits outweigh the costs in this?
I'm not even touching the aspect that vaccinations have only worked because we've also improved our nutrition. It's a different flame bate for a different forum.
Can the same elected officials provide controls and oversight of said vaccines and hold the pharma industry liable to their actions? So far doe snot look like it. Some yeah, this is not as simple as the above is claiming. The 'ludites' who avoid vaccines may have good cause and better information than what is otherwise provided...
ok - here come the downvotes. whatever. but the extent to which people buy the whole 'these anti-vaccers are crazy!' line is astonishing.
/. can't stop talking and agreeing with each other about how much the government, police, corporate industry, media, lie, manipulate data, and propagandize (is this a word?). On the other hand, when an actual issue comes up that doesn't 110% smack you in the face of blatant, obvious, incontrovertible evidence that even a 3 year old can see, you are only too quick to lap up the stories that are fed to you like thirsty puppies.
on the one hand, people here on
STOP. THINK. data and questions are out there. remember the george carlin line - "The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out."
ok. now downvote me.
How about we segregate out the non-vaccinated kids and send them all to separate schools that are just for un-vaccinated kids? The teachers can teach in full PPE to protect them, or maybe teach from behind a plexiglass wall. Maybe have a special fee to cover the hazard pay needed to outfit the teachers and retain them at the school to keep it revenue neutral for the community.
It would satisfy the right to an education, and not step on a parents right to be choosy about vaccines. It would satisfy my rights as a parent of a vaccinated kid to go to school where his odds of getting something really nasty are no higher than they should be.
Vaccines nearly killed my child.
Like I'd even FOR ONE FUCKING MINUTE, entertain the idea of injecting them with MORE lethal shit. Fuck You! Vaccines are shit and these 'outbreaks' have everything to do with the FDA approved "Kill You" diet. People who eat real fucking food and avoid the Federal Death Administration approved poisons, they live healthy fucking lives.
Talk about ignorance and fear. You're all ignorant of the cause and fearful of the truth. Fuck you.
Instead of trying to make this be regulated and overtly forcing people to get vaccinated, it could be much more effective to try to address this via social pressure.
Somehow in some places getting vaccinated has fallen out of favor - or at least not vaccinating is no longer seen as being a really bad idea. A coordinated campaign to change public opinion could do the trick, a combination of celebrity endorsements, news reports on how lack of vaccination is hurting the children, social media campaigns that get people to brag that their kids are vaccinated, etc.
If you make it cool/positive to be vaccinated and backwards/dumb to not be vaccinated, the majority of this problem will go away. You'll always have the exceptions, sure, but I'd bet that with them you'd still be well above the herd immunity threshold, so who cares.
We try to solve too many problems via regulation, and having the government force stuff on people comes with its own set of downsides, not the least of which is that people naturally resist anything you try to force them to do.
With a child with allergies (including an egg allergy) and another that requires specialized formula because of allergies, vaccines are a touchy subject for me. I don't mind vaccines, but I do have issues with the rate and ingredients of the vaccines that our state requires us to give our children. We were fortunate to find a doctor's office that was willing to work with us and use a modified schedule (there are many practices that will not even see your child or believe it's okay to treat my child like a pariah when visiting for care) versus the multiple vaccines at a time schedule our state wants to force on everyone. That is a big deal, because any of those vaccines can cause an allergic reaction and most cause both of my sons problems that can last up to a week.
I also have sympathy for those that do have philosophical objections to vaccines. It does greatly bother me that the source of some vaccines are aborted fetuses. Now I will never know the events that led to nor can I fully comprehend the difficulty of such a decision that led to them becoming aborted fetuses, but that is still a life lost in my eyes and I am not comfortable in benefiting from it. The only way I came to terms with that fact is that at least those unfortunate souls that were considered as little more than an inconvenience to others have been able to do great good in spite of the horrible wrong done to them. And this is something that I don't ever want to treat lightly of flippantly. I think how we as a society deal with these issues speaks volumes about who we are collectively.
So please try to remember this as you comment. It isn't a lack of knowledge necessarily, and in at least my case it was a decision that me and my wife still struggle with as we see it effect our children everytime they get a shot.
Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
This is nothing but a trick question. The question that really needs to be asked is whether an "exemption" should have been offered in the first place.
In this country, adults have a great number of responsibilities both for themselves and their families. Their choices are (or should be) based on the associated risks and rewards. For example: If I decided to drink alcohol and drive, there is a chance I might get pulled over and arrested, cause an accident, or worse. If I drink alcohol but do not drive, I might get a buzz but I also might kill my liver. These are the choices that mature adults make every day.
With regards to vaccination, checking a box should not grant you a free pass from your obligations as a parent. If you don't want your child vaccinated, I don't want your child in school with mine. Thanks.
One thing to consider is when a refusal happens. A family member of mine was given 14 shots totalling well over 30 vaccines at the age of 2. Tragically, she has autism. While it is controversial to conclude that the vaccines caused the condition, I don't believe it is controversial to consider vaccination 14 shots at 2 years old extreme.
I agree that vaccination is a good thing, at the same time, the schedule of these vaccines should be considerate of the child's development. The same goes for categorizing what vaccinations are required. When I was kid we didn't have a chickenpox vaccine and most people my age ended up getting at some point. Refusing a child at a school because they lack a chickenpox vaccine seems silly in my eyes.
What a perfect term... One of the attractions of American way of life, in my opinion, is our tendency to value the Individual (however unreasonable) above the Herd (also known as Collective, however glorious).
Yes, some times this approach fails — as seems to be the case now. But I'd rather we continued to err on the Individual's side — because the (glorious) Collective and The Greater Good cause much bigger problems of their own...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Every MD had it as a child? I am not agreeing with the parent's premise, just saying that your example doesn't contradict the statement that the MMR causes autism in a certain percentage of children.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
No, they didn't. At our current level of understanding, you can't even test for autism at the ages when the MMR vaccine is typically administered, so there is frankly no way to trace the date that quickly.
But even if you could trace the date, it wouldn't matter, because autism simply does not develop that quickly. If these children did indeed "turn autistic" within a day of receiving MMR, then the cause must have occurred weeks or even months prior: in other words, long before MMR was ever administered. There is no link here.
The articles cites a list of diseases on the rise, like whooping cough. None of these disease have required vaccinations.
Whooping cough (pertussis, included in the Tdap vaccine) is a normal part of a rational vaccination program. My kids got the vaccine, which was required for entry into kindergarten*, and MD schools now require the booster for all 7th graders. So I think you're misinformed.
*There is a religious exemption. Fortunately not too many nutjobs here.
Passing laws to take away freedom is not the answer. Educate people and present solid non-biased analysis. Do you think those parents really understood the problems that could happen. Michigan has had poisoning(ddt), failed fluoride water, Nuke plants that disappeared(north of detroit), a new invasive species every week killing everything, massive poisoning of the water, Canadian Trash/medical waste that can't be stopped from coming in, self insured insurance laws(lobbies), and all other types of fun crazy things going on. In the mean time the state isn't exactly great when it comes to funding schools.
I'm from Michigan and education in real analytical thinking for everyone is the big problem. Religions do not want it(what), certain political parties do not want it(guess), manufacturers do not want it(cheap labor), and many sellers of goods don't want it(profits).
Teach them how to think and make their own choices based on facts and rational thinking. Right now you should all be saying where is the real education and why are we not informing them? Not new laws to take away more freedom.
I'm starting to wonder if perhaps the best thing we could do for the public health is to start a project analogous to Apollo, but for autism: massively fund studies to nail down what causes autism (and, ideally, how to cure it) within ten years.
My reasoning here has very little to do with autism itself, though finding the cause and (if possible) a cure would certainly be nice. My reasoning is that even though most antivaxxers don't find the no-proof argument ("there is literally no reason to believe that vaccines cause autism") to be compelling, most of them should find a counter-proof argument ("vaccines don't cause autism, because this other thing causes it") satisfying enough.
The nice version of the consequences of this is that most antivaxxers should finally accept that they have been duped, which should boost the voluntary vaccination rate. The not-so-nice version is that with a counter-proof in hand, it should be possible to take those parents who still believe, deem them incompetent to decide on this issue, and administer the vaccinations anyway. Either way, the vaccination rate goes back up.
If you want to remain unvaccinated, do so in your own backwoods shack, away from us.
If you're vaccinated, then what the fuck are you worried about catching?
... a religious exemption because You at least need to demonstrate/articulate some semblance of religious belief and the basis for it in order to obtain the exemption and courts also have long held such claims can be challenged if insincere. Philosophical exemptions, however, have never had such requirements.
A vaccine does not "cure" a virus. It allows your body to efficiently fight infections due to building of antibodies for that particular strain of infection.
And we do have evidence that it WORKS. Measles, Chickenpox, SMALLPOX (worked so damn well that it is only existing in laboratory environments), polio (which is resurging due to not vaccinating). All of those are controllable, measurably so.
We do have long-term data on vaccination side effects.
Otherwise [home schooling is] legal everywhere in the US.
It's illegal in many countries outside the US, such as Germany, and US courts don't consider that reason enough for asylum.
My son has had whooping cough twice in the past, two years in a row. He was vaccinated against it. As was most of the schools that were sent home for a week because of it. Clearly the vaccinations against it don't work.
Along with the right to make choices, we need to emphasize the obligation to take responsibility for the consequences of those choices. You can choose not to vaccinate, but the consequence is you can't send your child to public school (or ideally to any public location, such as the library, though that would be difficult to enforce; hmm, no library card without an immunization form?). If you are willing to accept that consequence then go ahead and choose not to vaccinate.
When you actually look into the details of some of these outbreaks it isn't what it is sold as. In past outbreaks of whooping cough, most of the people getting sick and spreading it around were vaccinated. So the spread this news that there is an outbreak and we need more vaccination when the vaccination we already have isn't working anyway. It's just another ploy to take more freedoms away and force you to receive and pay for things whether you want them on not.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Did you bother to read the article? The outbreak occurred there because a member of the congregation took a trip outside of the US, was infected, and brought it back to the US. While about 12 of those infected were not "fully immunized" (whatever that means) they weren't sure about the other 9. There is little evidence that the situation would be significantly different in any randomly chosen community in the US. Even the CDC only claims that a "majority" of those infected with measles are non-vaccinated. I have no doubt that vaccines have been a benefit to society, but when dealing with such small numbers (600 infections in 2014?) its hard to make a case for a national vaccination campaign and its impacts on millions (cost, time, side effects(headaches (1 in 3), stuffy nose, sore throat, joint pain (1 in 6), abdominal pain, cough, nausea (1 in 7), diarrhea (1 in 10), fever (1 in 100)).
Why not allow all schools, daycares, babysitters, etc. to require up to date vaccinations before providing services?
You're an idiot, and for proof, Mexico's vaccination rates are at the same level as USA.
Who are the big three actually pushing the anti-vax message?
Wakefield, a disgraced con-artist doctor.
McCarthy, a former playboy model.
Carrey, a formerly big comic actor.
It's not exactly the A-list of public thinkers.
The only reason they're successful is because they're the only ones willing to pull out the rhetorical big guns (think of the children! big bad pharma!), and everyone on the side of science is so damn respectful.
It's time to start calling them out. Wakefield is a fraud who not only experimented on children and fabricated evidence for money but continues to build a career based on lying to keep people away from life-saving medicine.
Carrey and McCarthy are the pinnacle of arrogance and ignorance. So confident in their own brilliance that they're willing to ignore thousands and thousands of scientists who are doing nothing but trying to help people.
Things should be nasty, they should be treated with open and consistent scorn and mockery in the media every time they poke their heads up.
Do that and this anti-vax BS goes away very quickly.
I stole this Sig
Your kid is unfortunately a statistical outlier with bad reactions to the vaccines. Shit happens. It is unfortunate. Fortunately, if everyone that does not react badly gets vaccinated, your kid will be protected by herd immunity.
Vaccines protect even those that cannot (NOT WILL NOT) get vaccinated.
Your reaction is idiotic, fear-based, and paranoid. If you cannot (or your kid cannot) get vaccinated, you should be trying your damnedest to protect said kid by getting everyone protected before, but no, you went the other way. You are extremely silly, and if it weren't due to vaccines being so goddamn important, I would laugh instead of be sad.
Especially because 93% of illegal immigrants are adults.
They didn't "turn" autistic. They were always autistic, probably unpreventably so, and they just happened to start showing symptoms (as their brains kept developing, as brains are wont to do in early childhood) at the same age when kids are recommended to receive the MMR vaccine. Have you done an investigation into children whose parents opt out of the vaccine, to see what percentage develop autism symptoms anyway?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/6/diseases-still-problem-illegal-immigrant-families/?page=all
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/07/illegal-alien-minors-spreading-tb-ebola-dengue-swine-flu/
Most of the citations, alas, are in the right wing media, but the left wing media mostly buries the story.
It does make perfect sense, many illegal aliens come from countries without mandatory vaccination, many come from countries with exotic tropical diseases. Diseases are popping up where there are concentrations of illegal aliens: big cities, border towns, and places where the Obama administration has shipped bunches of new arrivals.
****** It takes 2 things for an attack against the United States to be successful: disarmament and an attacker. This applies both to warfare and disease. *******
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Yeah, but the vaccinated people can carry the bacteria and spread it to others without even knowing. The people who don't get vaccinated know they have it and can stop spreading it around. Also, once you get sick for real, you are immune for life. The vaccine wears off after ten years and you can get sick anyway.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
as in forcing children to get the vaccines or incur penalties are the same ones who are demanding we leave our borders completely unchecked. As in allowing unvaccinated people to walk in unregistered and do as they please in our our country. So it's okay to force our own people to do it, but it's racist to expect other people in our borders to do it.
Time to learn some objectivity here!
Slashdot used to be a nice place to discuss technical things, it's slowly started taking on a pro-big-brother attitude.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
If we are going to legally mandate vaccinations, it seems that vaccinations should be absolutely free as well as the checkups that go along with them.
That is not how viruses work. If you are immunized the virus gets killed by your immune system and you do not become a "carrier".
Also, yeah, a lot of vaccines need boosters or reapplied. It isn't a conspiracy, it just needs updated. If you don't get the booster, you run the risk of getting the disease and dying.
So you are saying, what, because some vaccines Are not permanent, why bother getting it?
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Surprise, surprise, the state is now in the midst of a whooping cough outbreak.
Surprise, surprise, the resurgence of whooping cough isn't due to anti-vaxxers ... yet. It's due to acellular pertusis vaccine losing its effectiveness with time and not stopping those infected from transmitting the virus. But, by all means, go on with the alarmism so that when the cause really needs to be taken seriously no one will believe it.
This debate isn't about health or religion, it's about power. You can see this by noting that the debate isn't weighing the cost and benefits for specific vaccines, it's about vaccine requirements in general, requirements that can likely be increased simply through regulation based on the vote of some panel. It's about whether society can force you to have substances injected into every citizen because a few government experts decide that it's the right thing to do.
Sometimes we don't have a choice to force people to do things with their body against their will, but that is an extreme measure. A much simpler way of achieving the same goal is to give individual employers, schools, towns, and communities the right and ability to require documentation of vaccination to allow your presence on premises. That achieves pretty much the same goal as a universal vaccination requirement, but it is far less draconian.
Although such restrictions achieve pretty much the same goal, they are rooted in the principle of freedom of association. Freedom of association is a good principle that we should uphold because it's a democratic and distributed principle of government. The principle that government can inject stuff into anybody's body at any time because some panel says it's a good thing to do is a bad principle, because it is centralized and prone to abuse.
(Forced vaccination is also not all that effective in achieving what its proponents claim. If you are in a population with a suppressed immune system, widespread vaccination will not protect you from disease, for the reason the article mentions: vaccinations are not completely effective anyway, and outbreaks happen even in completely vaccinated populations. In addition, there are many other diseases we can't vaccinated against. So, anybody at risk needs to control their exposure to other people anyway and no vaccination mandate is going to change that.)
Just as if your child was born with Spina Bifida or was hit by lightning.
But if you have a predeliction for bad reaction, then you DO NOT want others who have NO problem with taking the vaccine (biologically speaking) not being immunised because "they don't want to". Because those people can be carriers of the disease and thereby give it to you or your child and kill them.
The percent of people who have a bad reaction is in the few percent AT MOST, and likely in the fractions of a percent. At that rate, the herd immunity almost guarantees the extinction of the disease.
More than a few percent is enough to keep the problem around.
And kill your children.
I am vaccinated, and believe it to be the best course of action, but that is hardly the point.
There is no way in hell that any government is going to demand that I stick anything into my body, let alone my child's body. And, if anyone were to try to pierce my skin, or the skin of my loved one, self-defense will cover my tearing them limb from limb.
Make no mistake, these people do not "endanger the lives of everyone else with their views". The virus endangers lives. These people's views merely inhibit everyone else from benefiting from currently-available medical prevention opportunities, which apparently aren't even "100 percent effective".
If you don't support someone else having control over their own blood, and the blood of their children, then you're for slavery, imprisonment, unlawful confinement, the crusade, and forced conversions of all kinds.
If you're upset with the promotion of mis-information, then stop its publication. Let me know how that goes for you.
You don't get to tell me what to put into my blood, and you don't get to tell me what I can say to my friends. Welcome to freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
You want to split public schools into two buildings, that's cool. You want to restrict some children from public school, that's no longer public.
I'm so sorry; but you don't get to solve your problems by piercing someone else's skin. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if that's what will work. It doesn't matter if that's the only thing that will work. You just don't get to do it. It's physical assault. It's bodily mutilation. You need permission.
"Philosophical" exemptions are, in effect, no different from religious exemptions, it simply words things to be more understanding of non-"religious" beliefs. To target philosophical exemptions is to hold supernatural philosophies higher than naturalistic philosophies, a road we should probably avoid.
In this day and age where you pretty much need to be living in a hole in the ground, without internet access, to not know what sininster sort of stuff your government gets up to, this argument is ridiculous. We know that the government us not above secret medical testing on its own citizens, we know they are not above breaking every one of your legal rights if they can get away with it, we know they care more about maintaining their own power than your life or liberty. So why would anyone willingly give up the legal right to refuse an injection?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Home School Legal Defense is working on fixing that. in fact if you do not at least monitor the HSLDA website and you homeschool (in the US) then YOU ARE A MORON
I was thinking if you take the exemption and subsequently infect someone you have liability for medical expenses, or criminal liability in the case of death.
I want my kids to live --- not compensation for their death.
Which, by the way, would be almost impossible to link to any single individual ---
even given the relatively simple and modest demands a plaintiff must meet in order to win in a civil case.
If you don't get the booster, you run the risk of getting the disease and dying.
Nice way to fall for the lies. Everything is just soo dangerous and trying to kill you. The terrorists are full of these diseases and we must let the TSA inject shit into everybody who walks down the sidewalk.
So you are saying, what, because some vaccines Are not permanent, why bother getting it?
According to the CDC's site: Even though children who haven't received DTaP vaccines are at least 8 times more likely to get pertussis than children who received all 5 recommended doses of DTaP, they are not the driving force behind the large scale outbreaks or epidemics. However, their parents are putting them at greater risk of getting a serious pertussis infection and then possibly spreading it to other family or community members. So it isn't the unvaccinated that are the problem.
In a study done by Oxford University for all pertussis outbreaks in San Rafael California between March and October 2010, 81% were completely up to date on their vaccinations, 8% were unvaccinated, and 11% were partially vaccinated. So people are hyping up the fear for something that isn't even the problem. If you want a prevention, then you need to focus on making a better vaccine, not forcing more people to take risks for something that is ineffective.
That is not how viruses work. If you are immunized the virus gets killed by your immune system and you do not become a "carrier".
And here we have a completely ignorant statement from someone who wants to tell me what to put into my body. Here are some links to the evidence that you do become an unknown carrier after getting the pertussis vaccine. Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model and Whooping Cough Study May Offer Clue on Surge
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Some, everyone should get, MMR, Polio, Hepatitis where it's needed, etc. Maybe HPV now too. What I'll call "real" vaccines.
Then there's the flu. It's a bloody crapshoot. Seems very hit and miss. I'd rather get sick once in a blue moon and let the antibodies build naturally than buy into that crap....
Then there's the bits that are obviously just pharma trying to get rich. Chicken Pox?! Are you fucking kidding me? Fun fact, kids have started getting shingles on a much more frequent basis since that nonsense came about. No I'm not going to play war of the sources on this... plenty on each side of the argument. (Know several toddlers who've had to endure this now...)
Asinine black and white thinking in either posture gets us nowhere. Like the OP, like McCarthy... two sides of the same coin I'm afraid.
The exclusions would include those who DO NOT refuse because of religious or personal preference but those who cannot safely use the immunisation process. E.g. the very young and those with a genetic problem in dealing with the shot (which can merely be because they are so virulently affected by the real virus that the neutered form is dangerous).
In other words, those who merely DECIDE they won't take it are killing those who HAVE NO CHOICE.
I'm all for processing facts to form a rational opinion and it seems on the face of it that vaccination is the only rational answer. I'm a new parent as of 2 years ago and prior to that, I'd have agreed with the general consensus that we all need to be vaccinated for the benefit of the community. But I'm now firmly in the camp of "Whoa, whoa. Please explain to me why I need to pump all these foreign agents into my child's body."
I have a BS in math and an MS in financial engineering and I'd like to think that I respect the scientific method and think and act rationally.
Here are just some of the things I've been contemplating.
1. When ever I've asked one of several doctors (except for one, my kid's current pediatrician) why do I need to do this? The response has been that it is recommended by the American Association of Pediatrics. This tips me off that the dr. doesn't know. They are just following the stock standard recommendations.
2. Why do we vaccinate for Hep-B? Hep-B is primarily a problem for IV drug users and prostitutes. These groups are also among the most difficult to get to volunteer for a vaccination program. The idea was that if we vaccinate everyone at birth then we guarantee to get all future IV drug users and prostitutes. Solid logic and the program was started up. Problem was that the program was started prior to anyone evaluating how long these vaccines lasted. Turns out, the current regimen for Hep-B doesn't protect against Hep-B past adolescence and another round will have to be implemented to protect into adulthood. Why then vaccinate my baby? This is an example of logic and study not being respected prior to implementing a vaccination program.
3. So now I have a solid example of the American Association of Pediatrics recommendation not aligning with what is right and good for my child, not to mention the community. This one example that I can clearly express is one among many examples of the medical community not making sense in their recommendations. I believe the medical community even stated that x-rays were safe for everyone at some point in time. My point is that I have a legitimate reason to doubt the recommendations of the medical community. And when it comes to my children, I have at least a reason to look deeper into why I should or shouldn't vaccinate my children.
4. My child had a reaction to his 2-month vaccination. Severe redness, pigmentation, fever, and behavioral changes. At first, my wife and I doubted ourselves and what we were observing. We pushed forward and got the 4-month vaccinations... same result. We were very concerned. We immediately slowed down the administration of all vaccines and eliminated some of them. In fact, the documentation for the vaccinations everyone receives (but I doubt reads) says that you SHOULD NOT vaccinate your child if they've had a reaction. This simple advice right on the vaccine documentation is missed by most. Sure, there is a small chance that your/my child could have a tragic reaction to a vaccine. But we believe the risks are offset by the benefit of increased immunity to the targeted disease. However, when your/my child has already had a reaction that probability shifts. It shifts to such a degree that the vaccine documentation tells you not to vaccinate your/my child. But the dr.s don't want to hear this or tell you this. You have to do your own homework and look out for yourself. My 2nd child has had no issues because we have been taking vaccinations very slow.
5. The way vaccines are administered are not consistent with how they are studied. Incorrect conclusions are drawn about the risks to your/my children when administering vaccines.
I don't have the time to type everything I want to say. I did just want to point out that there are rational reasons to not trust the scientific and medical communities stock standard recommendations on vaccines. I'm on firm legal footing to not vaccinate my child as he's already had a reaction. But I can appreciate other's mistrust and hesitance. It isn't fair to judge them for being afraid just because they don't have the capacity to articulate why they are afraid.
Yes but I am not a nut, here is why we did it.
We had a foster child and kept his shots up to date.
When adopted, all his medical records were sealed and under his old name
The next year the state would not allow him to start school without the records
His doctor (who had given him the shots and knew he was up to date said we should not just give him a second set)
so we signed the exemption to get him back in school
he was never out of date but on paper he was
Some choose to "solve" their perceived problems and worries by looking to the outside for aid - continuously filling their bodies with chemicals prescribed by those who KNOW not one, as well as one knows oneself. They seek to artificially balance themselves into temporary states of homeostasis, creating fear within - simply by looking outside the present moment into a 'future' world of potential infinity, in order to solve a self-proclaimed problem that hasn't yet arisen... Others choose to look within, to know themselves and remember that they are eternal beings and conscious co-creators - capable of anything they choose to focus their energies upon.
There is no death, only change.
The only fear that exists comes from within.
There is no dis-ease for those who remember their true nature.
It is all but a choice... Do you remember who you are, and why you are here?
The nervous system sometimes groups pain sensations across large parts of the body. Perhaps the accepted points are just points in a particular group that happen to be easy to access.
A shit ton of non-vaccinated illegals flooding into the public schools is driving the spread of whopping cough and EV-D68.
A credible citation is indeed called for. Physicians appear to disagree with you; see, for example, an NBC News article in July, 2014 debunking the idea that immigrants are diseased. With respect to measles - the subject of the parent comment - Mexico vaccinates 99% of children, and the U.S. 92%.
You don't understand what vaccination does. It reduces your chance of contracting a disease, but not (necessarily) to zero. Please Google "herd immunity".
They should be married to men.
You're playing games with words and statistics. To wit:
"children who haven't received DTaP vaccines are at least 8 times more likely to get pertussis"
There, you could stop right there. But your statistics belie the truth. If we expect that 16% of children are only partially vaccinated and 4% are unvaccinated, in a population of 100000 children, in which 0.1% get pertussis you get:
81 children out of 80,000 get pertussis, or a vaccinated infection rate of 0.01%
11 children out of 16,000 get pertussis, or 0.07%
8 children out of 4000 get pertussis, or 0.20%
In other words, it means that your child is 20x more likely to get pertussis in the event of an outbreak if her or she is unvaccinated vs being vaccinated. The linked studies you made actually prove the OP's point - a successful vaccine prevents transmission: you do not become s silent "carrier" unless you suffer from a successful infection. And in the case of the linked studies, the concern is over particular vaccines which are not as effective in producing a robust antibody reaction. They're saying you need more/better vaccines, not fewer.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Proof or GTFO. Another liar AC who thinks BSing anecdotal evidence means a hill of beans.
for being a liar.
Islamic countries routinely murdered polio vaccination teams. So it's a self correcting problem in the long run.
Seriously, they need to create a single school in each district and simply have all those that are not vaccinated because of religious or philosophical reasons to attend it. Those that can not physically take the vaccine would be able to attend the regular schools.
This would limit the exposure and issues.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If vaccines caused no harm, why would a vaccine court be established under the executive branch and not the judicial?
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/vaccine-programoffice-special-masters/
If vaccines caused no harm, why would the US government VAERS system report 5,000+ deaths shortly after the vaccination?
You can avoid posting this.. sure, it is not going to fix the propaganda that brainwashed you
We need a Megan's Law equivalent for people who refuse to be vaccinated. Sure, you can refuse to vaccinate yourself or your child because your skyfairy says so, or for any other reason you like, but you have to be registered like a sex offender and banned from living or going within a thousand feet of any school.
This all boils down to trust and accountability.
Has the US Gov. ever lied to us about drugs or used it's citizens in drug experiments?
Yes
Was anyone held accountable?
No
Is it logical to be skeptical?
Yes
It's understandable that people who don't trust you are not going to do what you want just because you say so, or believe the evidence you provide, even if it's logical because they aren't open to hearing what you have to say no matter what it is. Once trust is broken it's extremely hard to get back. To regain trust actions must be taken that prove you are trust worthy again. My suggestion: start consistently holding people accountable for their actions with real proportional consequences at the top of the food chain in all areas of US society and display it loud and proud in the media and on the net even if it makes the US look bad for a while. Eventually trust is earned and a lot of things are fixed including vaccines being back on the table.
Maybe, instead of forcing them to take a drug at the requirement of the government, there shoudl simply be consequences to not taking the drug?
* disallow attendance at public school
* may them/their insurance pay for the other people's treatment if spread of the disease can be tracked back to them,
* etc
But they should not be free to endanger the lives of everyone else with their views."
That is a dangerous road to take. If people who don't want vaccinations, for whatever reason are forced to have them because they endanger everyone else, what about those communicable diseases? Should everybody with HIV or hepatitis or TB be rounded up and quarantined? After all, they, too, endanger everyone else. Yes, there are vulnerable populations, the elderly and very young to many of the diseases there are vaccinations for, but what is the likelihood they would actually be exposed by a non-vaccinated kindergartner that they were not known to?
Does the government have the right to mandate medical treatment for the public? Vaccinations seem to be a minor thing, but if the government has the right to mandate that, then what about other more invasive things?
It seems a more sensible approach would be for the government to start promoting vaccinations through PSA and other means to educate the public for the need and then trust the public to do the right thing.
The problem with slippery slopes is that they are very easy to go down and next to impossible to climb back out.
tuskegee experiment
These assholes and their religious beliefs. Your religion is a disease once it puts non-practitioners at risk. Quarantine all those who insult science.
Make the vaccination data publicly available or just to the insurance companies.
Once they get a look at those stats, their insurance premiums will skyrocket.
Even idiots understand money.
...another black and white subject..
this is the smartest (and most demonstrative of how NOT black and white this topic is) answer...
While I think not getting vaccinated is incredibly stupid, I also worry about setting a standard of the government being able to force things in to your body.
Which vaccine? Polio or Mumps which have a pretty long history, high rate of effectiveness, and low chance for complications? or influenza which has a very poor rate of effectiveness, short history, and an extremely high number of complications for a large percentage of people? You should not lump all vaccines into a single category because they are all quite different in just about every way. Lumping everything into a single category is ludicrous, yet we can't have a rational dialogue because that is exactly what people do.
I have spoken at length with numerous medical doctors, and their opinions of vaccines is not the same as what we see in media. Vaccines in their opinion are a medical procedure. If you are ill you should not get a vaccine until you are well, and you should only get what you need for vaccines. It's the former that gives medical professionals pause when looking at the massive increase in childhood illnesses that result in permanent damage over the last couple of decades. As we have increased the number of vaccines being given to children, we have also seen an increase in debilitating illnesses. Yeah yeah, correlation does not prove causation but we can't even study at this point because anyone questioning is an "Anti Vac Whacko".
You can do the work to find statistics on vaccines and illnesses, there is enough there to at least start forming an opinion. You can also do the work to find the problems with the reporting system, and that very few cases of complications from a vaccine ever get into the system. You can further talk to doctors who are not pro-vaccine, though you will have to do so off the record because they can lose their licenses for being against "vaccines" (even though they may only be against _some_ vaccines) or simply blackballed out of their jobs.
One day I hope we can have rational dialogue on the subject, but if you read the posts here you will see it's quite impossible at present.
Well - of course we do not, as yet, have a test ( genetic? simple allergy testing? ) to determine who will react
adversely to a vaccine. Just administer to as many as possible and hope the negative effects are minimal
( or, at least of an acceptable level ).
Compare the negative percentages to death or ER visits by kids for Hot Dogs, Fireballs, meatballs, pizza, chicken nuggets, fries and
being driven to school, swimming, bicycling, tree-climbing, and sports. These are documented.
See if the anti-virus parents let their kids have or do any of these things. If they do..... prescribe psychiactric treatment for
neurotic psychoses - at their expanse.
I believe it's foolish and selfish not to get vaccinated, but I don't believe it should be mandatory. Mandatory vaccination = someone puts something into your body by force.
What I see is an ignorant moron talking trash about things before even trying to understand the issue. Vaccines are never 100% effective; there is always people that won't develop immunity to the vaccine and others that can't get vaccinated for valid medic reasons (like allergies, other conditions, etc). The problem is that as long as the amount of unvaccinated individuals in a population remains small, those people benefit from the so called herd immunity (an infected person has a very low chance to infect a vulnerable host, so the chance of contagion for vulnerable people is negligible).
Things change rather quickly when a lot of people opt to not vaccinate their kids and the end result is not only increased risk for them (if that were the case, nobody would give a damn, evolution in action and all that) but for people that did not develop immunity to the vaccine and those who can't be vaccinated at all.
This is a good read for anyone who is honest about wanting to understand why some folks might want to refuse a vaccine:
http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/the-healthiest-children-in-the-future-will-be-unvaccinated-by-dave-mihalovic-naturopathic-doctor/#.VIs6cXr9FfI
If you click on the links you'll end up getting to links to studies that I and many other vaccine skeptics have read. There's certainly enough room in the conversation for both sides.
Vaccines are not 100% effective. Many are only 60-70% effective. Or maybe he's allergic to the vaccine components and can't get vaccinated from the particular virus you're spreading that you could easily have prevented.
John
Have to love watching this post which is neutral and promotes dialogue, research, and education go from +5 insightful to a troll in under 20 minutes. Amazing how easy it is to censor isn't it?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If a rule really is a good idea, then it should apply to everyone. If we can get by with some people not complying, then it doesn't need to be mandatory. Religion has nothing to do with it.
In terms of vaccines, we just need to arrange for consequences. Your kids not vaccinated, and can't demonstrate a medical reason why not? Fine. No public school for them, sorry. Quite probably other benefits are now off-limits, too.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
The vast majority of vaccines are free here in Mexico.
Free/accesible healthcare should be a human right.
Also lots up upper middle-class white families with a good education. Poor tend to be under-vaccinated (poor access). The unvaccinated seem to have bizarre first world fears.
http://pediatrics.aappublicati...
http://vactruth.com/2014/02/19/cdc-and-emory-university/
Seriously... Vaccine damage does not exist just like global warming and government surveillance. It just might take a couple of years for the truth to get out
The problem with your argument is that there is no line.
Your body may be your own, but presumably you recognize that if you use your body in ways that inflict harm, or are reasonably likely to inflict harm on other people, the state has a valid interest in preventing you from doing that. If I decide it would be fun to drop cinderblocks off a highway overpass, you're probably okay with me being depriving of my bodily autonomy to some degree (say, by throwing me in jail), in order to protect the people my ignorance might harm. Note that you don't even need to prove I actually hurt anyone; just the fact I'm putting other people at risk of injury is enough to warrant depriving me of my rights.
Similarly, if you choose not to be vaccinated, that creates a risk of harm to anyone around you who may be unprotected due to immunocompromise or failure of the vaccine. For highly transmissible diseases, it's entirely reasonable to argue that you shouldn't be allowed to behave in a way that risks the health and safety of those around you.
Maybe you could argue that forcing you to accept an injection is qualitatively different from forcing you to be locked up in a way that makes vaccination more objectionable. By all means, have at it.
Then no public school or other public services! I'm 66 years old, and had my polio, DPT, smallpox, and other vaccinations as a kid. I only wish there was a measles vaccine then, or my eyes would probably be better now! And I had the mumps as well - again, no longer necessary! Wake up people! Yes, we need to make sure that these vaccines are safer than they are now, mostly by minimizing the side-effects of some of their components, but by-in-large they do their job. Do some of those components cause autism in children? More research needs to be done in that regard, I would agree. However, the increase in such syndroms in our children may be due to many other environmental or industrial causes, and need to be thoroughly investigated.
So, don't jeapordize the rest of the community by not having your children vaccinated. The effects are WAY worse than then cause!
School children should be required to take simple classes in logic. At least teach them common fallacies like affirming the consequent and the post hoc fallacy ("someone got a flu shot and later developed X disease, so the flu shot causes X disease.")
This kind of training would help them see through irrational anti-vaccination arguments. And if logic is taught and emphasized in school, hopefully the students will learn to prefer logic and facts over touchy-feely "I feel/believe X to be true".
Anybody should be able to avoid vaccination on a philosophical exemption.
And then society should proactively quarantine them in order to protect society.
You have a right to not vaccinate. You do not have a right to endanger everybody else by doing so.
Australia would be a good place. I hear they have some abandoned prison facilities. (They might need some modern updates...) And a government that envies the U.S.'s high incarceration rate. This should give the politicians something to do, rather than further restricting the rights of Australians.
Slashdotters are hopeless imbeciles.
This discussion is, at its essence, not about science. It is about finding the right balance between requiring people to act in ways that benefit the greater good, and in protecting their individual freedom to do what they like for whatever reasons they choose.
We could create a utopian society if we had the right dictator and no freedom at all. But history has shown that people react very badly to a lack of freedom (even when they benefit from it). And of course, finding the right dictator is basically impossible.
So, sometimes allowing people to do things that harm themselves and others (like vote republican) is more important than forcing everyone to do the right thing.
And, when you do choose to respect freedom, you can still use persuasion to guide everyone else's behavior.
" For a large part doctors and biologists have no clue what they are really doing."
Wow, just wow
Yes science is altogether voodoo and black magic.
Indeed these charlatans called "doctors" and "biologists" should have an armchair degree from tin-foil hat websites created by folks with endless anecdotal and conjectural evidence that have spent HOURS "learning" the nuisances of the art of quackery.
And certainly not to kill rats! Any level of arsenic in the water supply that would kill rats would kill every PERSON who drinks it in short order!
In fact, the standard for "potable" water, at least in the USA, says that effort should be made to drive the concentration of arsenic in tap water to ZERO.
--PM
There have been many insiders in the vaccine industry who are clear that the system is flawed, the rate of serious side-effects seriously under-reported.
One of the people in the study that absolved the rubella vaccine from possibly causing autism confessed that they removed data that would have produced a significant result, it was .07 afterwards.
All indications are the CDC is just as corrupt as the FDA, nobody should trust any data coming from either agency nor the drug companies they supervise.
VIOXX, Ron Uns has a nice writeup on the great people who protect us from those evil capitalists. China does better. They execute people who lie and cause deaths by doing so. Ours maybe get fined, after a long time and for a fraction of their profits. Well, their companies get fined.
Your right to refuse a vaccine does not give you the right to harm others.
So when two fundamental rights are at play, which one triumphs?
Let's take your argument to the next extreme possibility. Let's say that science one day invents a chip that, when implanted into the brain, suppresses violent aggression in humans. Implanting it into every human would end murder and war, saving millions of lives every year. Would we as a society require everyone to accept the implant, then subsequently ban from our nations those who refuse it? Would you personally accept such an implant?
In military service. I figure if I can be drafted, and be made to fight and quite possibly die to protect this country, I can be forced to get stuck with a needle to protect this country too!
Military service is FAR more invasive and dangerous, by many orders of magnitude, than a vaccination.
By that standard, forcing EVERYONE in this country to GET VACCINATED for the COMMON GOOD is about the most resounding slam dunk I've ever considered.
--PeterM
So at what age did you expect the babies in question to display symptoms of autism? Before they learned to speak?
What schools are letting them enroll without their shots?
That's the problem right there.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Hate to tell you, but most OTC cough medicines don't really work very well at all, according to some studies that have come out recently.
http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-...
There *is* a study that says that dark chocolate, of all things, is pretty good at suppressing coughs.
http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-...
I welcome it if you cite sources to refute the credibility of either of the links I gave. At least you're thinking about the subject then. Myself, I'm actually not sure that cough medicines DON'T work and I'm not sure that chocolate does. But I sure like chocolate.
--PM
As much as I think these people, for lack of a better term, fucking morons, I'm VERY leery of making this sort of thing "mandatory".
We could all be mentally ill! Let's make Prozac mandatory!
We have a population problem. Let's make injectable birth control mandatory!
Yes, we're not there yet. And YES, there's a BIG difference between chemically sterilizing someone and giving them a vaccine. But the very act of making the putting of a foreign substance in your body COMPULSORY is the big scary issue here. And it SHOULD be scary. You're being told you have no right to control your own body and what goes into it.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Sir,
If I can be made to join the military, be ordered to go fight and die, (for the greater good) by the Government, then I do NOT see why I can't be made to take a shot!
--PeterM
1. About 1% of people injected end up getting the illness because sometimes not all of the virus is killed off when the prepare the vaccine
2. You can get very sick from vaccines. Vaccines are made by infecting live chicken eggs. After the virus has run its course put all of the eggs into a vat (including egg shells and the run it through filters and centrifuges. The cream off the selected product which becomes the vaccine. Basically you get injected with raw egg. Not to meanton any contaminates that make it through the filteration system.
3. The add Thimerosal which contains mercury which is linked to austim:
http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/cdc-whistleblower-comes-forward-admits-coverup-on-vaccine-link-to-autism/
The CDC has sequestered its own doctors to cover up the issue with vaccines and Autism, because they fear that people will stop taking them if the knew the risks, and nor do the Pharmaceutals want to spend the money to replace Thimerosal or reactify the issue and they fear wide spread lawsuits that would bankrupt them.
Sorry, but I can't take your pleas seriously unless they're delivered by an attractive naked (body paint optional) woman in a cadge.
Or it's just a coincidence that they scheduled the autism screening for the day after the vaccines.
No, it wouldn't. You don't know anything about the arsenite toxicity of drinking water. The amount of water you'd have to drink to receive a lethal dose of arsenic from the above treatment would cause fatal hyponatremia long before you had any negative effects from the arsenic. Rats, with a far lower body mass, and which are literally swimming in the stuff 24/7, are far more susceptible to the poison, as administered.
I lived in a town (Linden, Alabama) where daily alerts were issued giving the arsenic (and salt) content of the municipal water supply. There were more days than not that citizens were strongly encouraged to use tap water only for washing clothes/dishes. You could always spot any newcomer... they were the ones with all the dead grass.
They should amend the law so these dolts can still object but not be allowed to run loose and infect everyone else. Send them to Africa!
Current policies are nuts and one day there will be a big enough epidemic of "some old disease" to make these idiots very, very sorry. Too late by that point.
These idiots and their spawn should be completely isolated but since that would never please their huge egos, they can go to Africa and believe they're doing good deeds.
LOL. There is no such thing. It is yet another pathetic attempt by the so-called 'vaccine' companies to FORCE everybody to take their poison, thus maximising profits.
Isn't it strangely convenient that there is no 'vaccine' for the common cold, or the 'flu', you know, diseases that hundreds of millions of people get every year! But wait! The virus 'mutates' by magic, that's it!
Dr Hadwen was right, Jenner was a fraud, and NOBODY has refuted a word Dr Hadwen said...
http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen1.html
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/12/30/dtp-vaccine.aspx
Vaccines don't cause autism.
There are two legal causes I know of where autism was linked with vaccines. In one case, the girl had mitochondrial disorder and was given too many shots at once. In general, doctors don't recommend getting too many shots at once, because it's a burden on the immune system, so if your immune system is compromised, you have to take it easy and spread out the shots.
As for things that MIGHT "cause" autism (or more precisely, some autism-like symptoms that may or may not really put you in the autism spectrum), I think we should reflect on all the other crap we put in our bodies. Pollution in the air and water, pesticides, the really shitty diet Americans eat, and so forth. A highschool in the southeastern US changed its lunch program to include primarly healthy foods: Behaviorial problems and absenteeism were reduced substantially. Eat better, and you'll think more clearly. This works on anyone, and helps alleviate some of the symtoms experienced by people with ASD.
Recently, autism was linked with some neocortical malformations. I'm not sure what is the cause of the malformations. But in some cases of mild autism, dietary changes anecodotally appear to help. Lowered immune system load and toxin load may be associated with some reduction in some autism symptoms. In my case, dietary changes have helped substantially with fatigue, brain fog, and OCD. I haven't narrowed down exactly which changes have helped the most, but I avoid wheat, soy, and dairy, and I take vitamin supplements only in their biologically active forms. My wife has Hashimoto's disease, so she got on the auto-immune SCD diet (similar to paleo), and following that to a degree has helped me too, and I also lost weight. Also, it's good to maintain a good array of intestinal flora, so eat your cultured vegetables, and drink kombucha and kefir. These things don't treat autism, per se; they just mazimize your baseline health, which can help with all sorts of disorders that might otherwise cause you more trouble.
You are fucking mad if you think anybody is adding arsenic to drinking water to kill rats. Arsenic occurs naturally and enters the water supply naturally, and is only considered safe at a concentration at or below 10 parts per billion in drinking water, and even at that level, there are demonstrated negative health effects (increased susceptibility to various viral infections, as an example)
They may be dying from ingesting too much arsenic from the water, but that does not mean the arsenic was "added" to treat the water - in fact, they were probably monitoring and reporting on the water levels because there was a large source of arsenic in the aquifer serving your town.
It wasn't being *added* to kill the occasional mythical Alabama Water Rat.
The purpose of vaccination is herd immunity. Protection of the individual is secondary, and in any case not perfect. So why allow any children to attend school without vaccination? They will be a focal point for the incubation of diseases and give them a chance to evolve to avoid the induced immunity.
It's fine to require that children be educated, but public schools should not allow children to attend without being immunized. If a parent refuses to allow that, then let them make some other arrangement.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Let's make more educated choices. Read this report then make a choice to support more scientific research.
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx
Driven largely by concerns about potential side effects, there has been a shift in some parents’ attitudes toward the child immunization schedule. HHS asked the IOM to identify research approaches, methodologies, and study designs that could address questions about the safety of the current schedule.
This report is the most comprehensive examination of the immunization schedule to date. The IOM committee uncovered no evidence of major safety concerns associated with adherence to the childhood immunization schedule. Should signals arise that there may be need for investigation, however, the report offers a framework for conducting safety research using existing or new data collection systems.
By the time there's an outbreak it's already far too late.
Pen and Teller on Vaccinations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Oh? So, the rats you scooped out of water towers died of natural causes, and you weren't explicitly informed by the water treatment plant what they were adding to the water to mitigate certain regional problems? What's that? You didn't actually work in the industry at all, and you're just talking out of your asshole?
That's what I thought. Shut the fuck up, and let people who know actually dispense facts for a change, you self-righteous man-child.
Except that what's actually happening is that children who would benefit tremendously from vaccination are not objecting to the vaccinations. Their parents are denying it to them. This is not an issue of conscientious objection, but rather one of parents abusing powerless children in order to make a point.
The vaccine companies have OVER sold the value of the vaccines for years. Perhaps they have caught up with their claims, perhaps not.
They have used Africa as a testing ground, hence the hatred of them by the Ebola infected populations.
They have done long term double blind tests on people and denied them treatments in the name of continuing the experiment.
If you think your child is very sensitive to Mercury or Thalidimide or whatever the preservatives they are using, would you give it to them.
If you have seen evidence of a company lying to you, do you believe them the next time?
I and my children have gotten the vaccinations. I do understand the objections can be reasonable and science based.
If you have a sensitive child, and they DIE, who PAYS, someone always has to PAY?
Keep repeating the lie often enough, etc. etc. Must be nice to be a paid fucking shill!
Just look at the URL for that second link "illegal-alien-minors-spreading-tb-ebola-dengue-swine-flu". When you actually look at the article there is no mention of ebola. I bet the original had ebola in there too, but they figured the numbers for that were too readily available for anyone to swallow the bullshit.
Provided the person receiving the placebo is not aware that they are receiving a placebo.
If you are sick, feel the symptoms etc. Prevent the spread. Taking a baby into the public is asking for shit. Bring home strangers, asking for shit. Know who you are around, touch, kiss, etc. Stranger danger exists outside the playground children. Don't touch your nose, mouth eyes sores whilst in public. Shit spreads like butter.
Don't you mean "the common cold and the 'flu", which they rather conveniently can't 'vaccinate' against, because those evil viruses keep 'mutating'? LOL.
You want compulsory 'vaccination' because you're a brainwashed idiot who can't think for themselves. Jenner was a well known fraud!
http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen1.html
Looking at the increasing rate of disorders and other health problems affecting younger and younger children, there is some sort of problem with early life medical policy, but the "You're stupid!", "You're a liar!" screaming match between both sides of this debate is drowning out any civilised dialogue about the problem.
http://www.naturalnews.com/035715_vaccines_history_fraud.html
"A 2012 study led by Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at the San Rafael, California Kaiser Permanente Medical Center concluded that whooping cough occurs more among vaccinated children than children not vaccinated.
In 2010, a mumps outbreak occurred among 1000 children in upper New Jersey and lower New York. Almost 80% of them had been vaccinated with the MMR (measles, mumps & rubella) vaccine.
Throughout the 1980s, official agencies reported several outbreaks of measles occurring among children who had been vaccinated in various locations including an Illinois junior high and high school, a Massachusetts high school, a region in France, and a rural area near Helisinki, Finland.
Both USA schools had well over 90% vaccinated against measles. The vaccinators claim a 90% vaccination rate among any specific population guarantees herd immunity for that population. This bogus claim serves to create more revenue while blaming non-vaccinators for endangering humanity."
Jenner was a fraud, thus the whole premise of 'vaccination' has no basis in reality...
Surely all those people who can't have 'vaccines' because of allergies, etc. are ALSO exactly the same amount of 'threat' (LOL) as those who don't have 'vaccines' because they know they are a fraud? But somehow their germs are less of a risk?
It's like a modern day witch hunt, what a joke Slashdotters are... thinking isn't your strong point.
Paraphrased from a dozen or so people in this thread: "The unvaccinated are a threat to the rest of us! They must be ____ (punished, killed, forced, quarantined, etc.)
Okay.
Does anybody else see the problem with this common logic?
If the vaccines work and you've been medicated with them, then what have you got to worry about? How can anybody but those not vaccinated suffer from their choices?
I see this logical knot constantly. -It leads me to thinking that it's not about medicine and health at all with authoritarian follower types; It's about obedience. Those who think for themselves are threatening to those who choose not to, and this is on a deep level. "How DARE you disobey Father?! You are a BAD person and must be punished! See? I am the Good son!"
There is plenty of evidence that vaccines not only don't work, but that they make people sick. It is, however, very hard to come across because the media programming has been so powerful; ignorance can be forgiven, but with time and research it can be found.
Polio, for instance, was wiped out not by vaccinations. It was stopped by two things: 1. Pulling back on the neuro-toxic pesticide use in and around the epidemic areas, and 2. Re-defining the symptoms used to identify polio victims. The motivation for this came from two camps; leaders seeking to avoid political embarrassment and from the virology establishment which wanted desperately to justify their continued livelihoods and time/ego investments to that point. People lie for a whole lot less.
So they just instructed doctors to use the same symptom list to make a diagnosis of meningitis and other diseases instead of polio. The numbers of afflicted didn't change, but meningitis went from a few hundred to a few hundred thousand, and polio dropped accordingly.
~~~~~
Quoted from "Fear of the Invisible"
Other cases previously diagnosed as polio would in future be classified as 'cerebral palsy', as 'Guillain-Barre syndrome' and even as 'muscular dystrophy.' Some were called 'Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease', which can also cause paralysis. (And recently the Coxsackie virus was found in cases of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), which is also sometimes associated with polio-like symptoms of muscle damage.)
But this reclassification of polio cases seemingly did not satisfy the regulatory authorities. Apparently there were still too many cases of the worst kind of polio,
"The diagnostic guidelines also specified that the patient must have, 'No history of immunisation' if they are to he diagnosed with the illness they were vaccinated against. ('Textbook of Infections Diseases' - University of Colorado School of Medicine. 1982). In other words, if they are vaccinated against an illness, it is presumed they cannot have already had it - so it was finally decided that these cases must also be removed from the polio case registry, thus eliminating nearly all the remaining cases of polio in the world - giving the heath authorities a stunning and utterly fraudulent victory.
This was achieved by instructing doctors that in future they were not to diagnose polio. This decision was to be left to the regulatory authorities. If patients came to them with the classic symptoms of paralytic polio, these were to be diagnosed as 'Acute Flaccid Paralysis' (AFP). The doctors were, and still are, told to send samples of two turds from such a patient to the official laboratories. There these turds are inspected to see if the poliovirus is in them. If signs of its presence are not found, it is declared not to be polio - no matter that the children have all the classic symptoms and distress found in the worst cases of polio during the great US epidemics.
This astonishingly revealed that the 'poliovirus' is rarely to be found in these paralysed children. Logically, one would think that this would force the health authorities to conclude that the virus could not be the cause of polio - but
I'm skeptical of vaccines, but not completely against them. One thing that adds to my skepticism is the same people who recommend vaccines also recommend circumcisions. I am adamantly against circumcisions. I'm willing to bet most /.ers are pro-vaccine and anti-circumcision. How can you trust what the medical community says about one thing while disagreeing with them on another?
The example also doesn't contradict the statement that alien mind probes cause autism, which has precisely as much supporting evidence and a lot less evidence against it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If I can be forced into military service and be made to go fight and die, why can't I be forced, for the greater good, to get a jab in the arm that protects me (and everyone else) from getting some REALLY nasty diseases?
Or would you argue that compulsory military service is unconscionable too?
--PeterM
There is a point when vaccines kill more than the diseases they prevent.
Say, there's a 1:10,000 chance you die from vaccine against disease X, and 1:20,000 chance you contract and die from disease X.
The pleb reaction is an outcry "BAN THE VACCINE".
What they fail to realize is that the chance of death from disease X is so low is only thanks to the prevalence of the vaccine. The disease can't spread, and the chance of contracting it or medication failing is minimal because great most of the population is immune - the disease can't find many viable hosts.
Shortly after you ban the vaccine, number of deaths from disease X will spike, far overshadowing the number of deaths from the vaccine. It won't be 1 in 20,000 or 10,000 but 1 in 100 or so! But that's something ignorant people don't realize. They pick up the numbers "as of now" and claim the medicine is worse than whatever it cures.
I wonder if money would talk. Unvaccinated people simply taxed for extra health insurance for those whom they endanger.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Yeah, but the vaccinated people can carry the bacteria and spread it to others without even knowing.
No shit, Sherlock.
Protip: Vaccines don't protect you from bacteria.
Just require vaccination regardless of religion and/or philosophy.
Also ditch the age requirement for taking the GED. What kind of sense does that make? If a 5 year old can pass the test and get a major head start, LET HIM. A GED is a way to establish you've met the state requirements for a high school diploma, not a last chance for dropouts. People using it to shortcut high school is a good thing and saves tax dollars.
That's fine to end the philosophical objections, but if you think about the real purpose of the First Amendment, then phobosophical objections are still on the table.
You have the right to be stupid. You have the right to let your staggering stupidity and willful ignorance and denial of reality, impact your life and the lives of innocent people around you. You think I'm joking, but if you deny the existence of this right, then you're also denying the very values behind the First Amendment. People simply are wrong, and often. It's normal to be wrong. And part of the point of America is that we've agreed to either smile politely and let them be wrong, or debate them, but you never bring a GUN to a debate! In the end, if they're wrong, you let it go without using force.
It's so easy to be pro-establishment on vaccinations right now, since the establishment happens to be in line with reason and common sense on this particular issue. I wonder, though, how you'd feel about saying this is government's area (as opposed to The Peoples' area) if they were trying to outlaw vaccinations, rather than mandate them.
I'm telling you, government's correctness on this, is just fucking luck and ephemera.
In 2009 we came damn close to having a Surgeon General whose entire "philosophy" about medicine was completely tautological, absolutely anti-science. He had strong opinions about marijuana that he shared with his voice of authority as a doctor, based completely on "the DEA says so, therefore it's true, therefore my professional medical opinion is that it's true, therefore the DEA's statements are supported by expert medical opinion."
I know, you think I'm joking. No, it happened, and it was 2009, not 1909. And to a perhaps less-spectacular (I have to admit, it's hard to match the irony of a Surgeon General candidate being anti-science) it's still happening.
That is the thread supporting the weight over all our heads. Do not grant them more power. Not until they can show themselves to be trusted, and that won't happen until we, as voters, show we can be trusted. And here we are just a little over a month after America just voted a bunch of Republicans into Congress. It might sound excusable to do that, since it was at the expense of Democrats, but it was at everyone else's expense too. America still hasn't won a single election in living memory. And now you want to give the enemy more power. WTF.
Philosophical objections are all we have. And you want to trade it all away, for some mere short-term health.
i was given an iv for a few days ( i don't remember more than that)
i am still alive thankfully
Time to remove all tax exemptions and all tax deductions for all adults in household that don't immunize.
All of them.
(waits for panic as kids suddenly get immunized)
Yeah, I thought so.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
either get the vaccines or find a new country
The day I'm forced to inject mercury and formaldehyde into my kid is they day we have "irreconcilable differences."
I sign all the religious exemption wavers, but my kids are all vaccinated. I just sign the wavers because I don't what to actually show the government/school/scouts my kids records. I'd have to pull them out of the safe and photocopy them.
There would be some level of child endangerment to not get them vaccinated.
However, there are some vaccines that are made against my religious views. Those I would have to exempt from.
New A.C. to the conversation here.
I don't like the government being dictated what they can force us to put into our bodies.
With that being said, the exemption should require that someone sit down with their doctor and listen. The doctor would explain all the associated risks and benefits. Only then, after all is said, should the person be allowed to be exempt if he or she still is willing to be.
Furthermore, regardless of my feelings toward vaccinations, I think they should be free. What is the saying, "Free as in beer"? Yes, free, 100% free. I don't know if any insurance companies charge for it, but if they do, we should amend the law to require that all necessary vaccines should be at zero cost to the patient, regardless of income.
That stuff will drown you. You can DIE! Plus, fish -- and alligators -- have sex in it. Ew. Here, sign my petition against dihydrogen oxide. It agitates for no more imbibing of the stuff unless properly moderated by either the beer-making process, coffee-making process, or the soda-making process, and in any case, buffered by pizza. Or when used as ice. Drink quickly, though.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
While I think not getting vaccinated is incredibly stupid, I also worry about setting a standard of the government being able to force things in to your body.
I agree with you but that standard already exists.
Women are already forced to undergo medically unnecessary, physically invasive, trans-vaginal ultrasounds by lawmakers in 23 states before being allowed to exert their right to an abortion.
Saulk / Sabin polio vacines INFECTED 90MILLION people with cancer.
Merc blood disease vaccines in the 70's INFECTED MILLIONS with AIDS!
Safe, not really!
In fact, spreading his nonsense hurts his situation. The greater number of people who do not vaccinate for whatever reason, the more likely a significant outbreak becomes, and as he is without vaccination himself, he is much more likely to be one of the victims. If he can't vaccinate because of allergy, he should be whooping and hollering for everyone else to get vaccinated so they don't bring something horrific and unavoidable directly into his unprotected life.
Sometimes all that runs through my mind is "the stupid, it burns..." but then I remember that some people aren't stupid, they're just ignorant. Then I remember how hard it is to convince the ignorant of the facts when they have already taken a stand against them. Then I quietly despair.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The SAME people who murdered 3 million Humans in Iraq want 'compulsory' vaccinations.
The SAME people who exterminated Africa's most socially enriched and equitable nation, Libya, want 'compulsory' vaccinations.
The SAME people who supported the Jewish Israeli Holocaust in Gaza want 'compulsory' vaccinations.
The SAME people who belong to the US EUGENIC FOUNDATIONS that originally gave Nazi Germany their pseudo-scientific theories of 'racial purity' want 'compulsory' vaccinations.
The SAME people who introduced NSA TOTAL SURVEILLANCE want 'compulsory' vaccinations.
The SAME people who authorised massive acts of TORTURE by US forces, and then gave those same forces TOTAL IMMUNITY form prosecution want 'compulsory' vaccinations.
If I were a Demon, I'd crave nothing more than the power to forcibly introduce into the bloodstream of every sheeple whatever substance I so wished. No bullet, bomb or gas chamber could ever be this efficient.
Originally Vaccines, improvements in hygiene (including access to fresh water), and antibiotics made the most massive difference to the Human condition from the late 19th Century onward. But the present day military industrial complex is as nothing compared to the power of the US pharmaceutical industry. American sheeple- especially betas found on sites like this one- must be presented with endless excuses to introduce ever larger numbers of chemical 'problem solvers' into their bloodstream, using ever more elaborate propaganda campaigns.
In a First World nation today, most vaccines pose more of a risk to the sheeple 'persuaded' to take them than the so-called problem the vaccine is supposed to be preventing. But one CANNOT watch a US film or TV drama without the VERY middle class family having at least one child permanently at DEATH'S DOOR. How can this be- the nation that spends more on 'health care' SATURATED with the meme of EXTREME inherent healthiness in the young of families certainly privileged enough to fill their child full of 'pills and potions'.
Americans are retards- especially American Betas. Not once do you retards (for you form the majority of visitors here) question why American children uniquely need so much more daily medication for so many more 'reasons' than the children in any other first world nation. How do you Yank beta retards- so 'certain' of your 'scientific' understanding- explain this highly non-scientific situation. If you Yank retard betas had ANY proper scientific understanding of the TRUE issues surrounding current vaccination 'science', you wouldn't allow your drug companies to convince you that you children suffer from 'maladies' at a VASTLY greater rate than the children in other similar nations.
60+ years ago, you Yank beta retards were convinced of the medical efficacy of LOBOTOMY and believed in the 'hysterical' illnesses of the female. You Yank beta retards gave the HIGHEST scientific prizes to the frauds that promoted these sickening abuses. Anther 40 years back, and you Yank beta retards were supporting FEMALE genital mutilation 'in the name of science'. Today, you Yank beta retards still mutilate your male children, like the 'primitives' of Africa, and you CLAIM the same medical excuse as do the practitioners of FEMALE genital mutilation in present day, US supported Egypt.
Yet you Yank Beta retards have the damned cheek to suggest you should have the power today (actually it is your masters who crave it) to force other Humans to put chemical substances into their blood stream.
When Bill Gates and Tony Blair meet, and declare you all to be worthless scum, so any means is reasonable in culling the Human Population down to three billion, people like me find it hard to defend you against this fate.
Oh, man, I truly hate to go there, but... at what level of risk, if any, do you feel it is appropriate for society to step in? What if Mom gets her jollies from dangling little Joey over a pit of alligators by a raveled string? What if daddy thinks his little cutie-pie looks best with a mouthful of semen? What if both parents like to hear the kids squeal when they shoot them in the limbs with a .22? Will you still stand up for inviolate parent's rights? What if they just want to pup out kids and sell them to the highest bidder? Personally, I think putting little Joey at intentionally higher, and almost certainly reducible, risk of some kind of horrific plague stands right at the level of selfish, ignorance-driven crazy evident in the preceding examples. Not to mention the increased risk to everyone else.
The only argument along these lines that has any credibility at all is the one that notes the legal and bureaucratic tendency of limited, appropriate interference to become large, inappropriate interference, and suggests that the risk to the relatively small number of kids who have a pair of batshit-crazy parents (perhaps if only one is fucktarded, we can at least hope the other will interfere) does not outweigh the risk to everyone else of the government interfering with, and/or taking their children for what amount to some or all of the wrong reasons.
Do you really mean to say that parents can do anything they want with their kids?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Slippery slope fallacy ahoy! Just because one decision is made for a sound and logical reason of communal good does *NOT* mean that other (unjustified) decisions will be made even if they are promoted on the basis of communal good. Each choice needs to be evaluated on its own merits. Just because some idiots or fraudsters will try to claim that something unwise should be "done for the greater good" doesn't mean doing things for the greater good is invalid as a reason to do things, and the reverse is also true.
Incidentally, did you know that the government is already empowered to arrest you for spreading infectious diseases. If you knowingly infect other people, or if there's an outbreak and you attempt to violate it, you can be prosecuted as a criminal.
Mind you, if you want to withdraw from society and go live in your own little 21st-century equivalent of a leper colony with all the other plague vectors, be my guest. You won't get many visitors - nobody can be 10% sure a vaccine will protect them, so we are all potentially dependent on herd immunity - but you are sure as hell not welcome to freeload on our herd immunity without a valid medical reason!
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
See, here's the problem. When the susceptible, that is, those you consider genetically deficient, engage in a mass die-off, there is a rather immediate and severe problem with bacterial and viral outbreaks that have little directly to do with the initial vector. Disposal of bodies becomes a severe problem (I refer you to Google for massive and unequivocal reams of corroborating evidence), the economy takes it in the shorts as all manner of people in all walks of life fall victim, distribution of necessities are disrupted, water supplies become corrupted, many newly desperate people begin to engage in rapidly upscaled numbers of antisocial acts -- theft, violence, etc. -- basically civilization shits itself and falls in it. Into this uniformly unpleasant and dangerous swamp of defecation you, complete with the pure and holy genes that rendered you immune from the initial outbreak, will almost certainly fall. Along with your spouse, offspring, pets and friends.
So let's not get too excited about letting nature run wild when we have the ability to prevent it, shall we? Life is ever so much more pleasant when you can go outside without a surgical mask, automatic weapons, and night vision equipment.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
When it comes to those folks who have religious objections to vacination we need to be very cautious. There may be those that argue that the scientific mode should dominate law. In a way they are saying that you must prove your religion is correct in order top follow it. I take all the vacinations that are available to me. But I doubt anyone has the right to force others to do the same. Many other issues have similar disputes. For example any use of alcohol or tobacco harms society in many ways. Should society be able to insist at force of law and arms the right to live a life free of the influence of alcohol or smoke? After all some drunk might run over my kids and some smoker can start a fire that wipes out a hotel with me and my family inside.
What's dangerous about slippery soap is that it leads to falls in showers.
It could be that some people that fail to vaccinate are cheating the system, until the point where there is no longer the critical mass to control the diseases. It works like this, the risk to your kid is non zero unless you let the other guy's kid take the risk for you and you do not vaccinate your kid. This is separate from the fear type motives.
All that aside it is a very dangerous thing to think you can ethically impose any medical procedure onto 100% of the population.
Only incentives are both ethical and potentially effective. If the incentive is great enough many people will find it overrides their other motives.
It's not anti-vaxxers responsible for the whooping cough outbreaks. It's the DTaP (the 'aP' is acellular pertussis) vaccine, which just isn't very good. The old DPT vaccine provided very good protection against pertussis. The new DTaP provides weaker protection that doesn't last as long; it can't provide herd immunity in any case.
You don't get a vaccine, you don't get free public education (or a school voucher, which is probably what the idiots refusing vaccines are doing anyway).
How can unvaccinated kids pose a risk to 'healthy vaccinated adults and children'? If they were vaccinated then should be safe.
In this case, patient zero was a teacher:
"Grand Traverse County Health Officer Wendy Trute said last week that a teacher fell ill with whooping cough in October. Some of the teacher's close contacts did not take the antibiotic until they started to show symptoms, which is too late to prevent the disease's spread, Trute said."
The spread of the disease was exacerbated by the fact that this was a charter school, which accepted students from across district lines, and those exposed kids then went home and exposed more kids in their neighborhoods outside the district in which the charter school was located.
Perhaps mandatory vaccinations for teachers traveling abroad, so that they don't bring the disease back with them from their trip, and give it to their students?
You can't have a patient 1 without a patient zero...
I wish everyone who is so smugly sanctimonious on this topic also supported travel bans and enforceable quarantines when it comes to, oh, I don't know, deadly hemorrhagic fever.
Yet it's generally the opposite.
Every time I see an article on the effects of groups of people not vaccinating themselves and/or their kids, I think of natural selection and population control. Nature at work, in other words. I know it sucks, but...well, it's not like it hasn't happened before, and humans still exist. For now, at least.
Pertussis (whooping cough) is caused by a bacterial infection. So is diphtheria, so is tetanus -- all of which the DTaP is made to protect against.
Here we have the problem. You are a drooling, neanderthal idiot motherfucker and are very much part of the problem. Go kill yourself promptly before you or any of your larvae infect the rest of the general population.
Maybe we can cordon off Texas and quarantine all these redneck and red-state fucktards all together there and let "God" sort 'em out.
Dude, he doesn't get a vaccine nor do his children. Ultimately this is a self solving problem.
MONTERREY, MEXICO – If parents here are late getting their child inoculated, a public-health nurse will come to their home, pull down the youngster's pants and give the vaccination right there in the living room. If the parents are away at work, the nurse does not wait for them to come home and give permission. Shots are given anyway, and the paperwork is left with the baby sitter. It is a paternalistic approach almost impossible to imagine in the United States - where privacy rights and other freedoms are highly valued and immunizations are increasingly feared - but it has proved remarkably effective: Mexico has a 96 percent vaccination rate for children ages 1 to 4, compared with an immunization rate of 79 percent for 2-year-olds in the United States.
Where I live, and probably you too, arsenic is found naturally in the soil. It may have been filtered from your water. Or maybe not. Here an annual report is required on certain (but not all) contaminants in the public water supply.
A construction site near me was studied because there seemed to be more arsenic than usual. Eventually they decided that construction could continue- not a problem. Many of us are probably breathing arsenic.
Personally, I've had massive exposure to mercury, asbestos, lead and probably arsenic in the past 70 years and I'm remarkably healthy. I take certain nutrients and I find at least 100 hours/year keeping up with the science of good health is a good investment. Simply turn off your sports channel and spend some time with science. Yeah, that's Science- not some fitness magazine or gym guru! Could be the difference between a short wasted life and a long useful one for you and the people you care about.
...omphaloskepsis often...
The vaccines are NOT working for whooping cough. Kids which have been vaccinated are getting whooping cough. This article is dead wrong on multiple points.
Most of us are rational and accept that science has presented the facts accurately. Yet there is a danger.
In the USA, our Food & Drug Administration has given us the Food Pyramid as a healthy scientific guideline for nutritious eating. They've told us to avoid fats and eat lots of carbohydrates. And they've killed millions with this advice.
When government sticks its nose into science, a bad odor emerges. In this case, the intention seems to have been to support certain commercial food producers (corporations with the ability to influence government decisions). As far as vaccines, nobody is profiting enough to buy congress.
Government decided some years ago that second-hand smoke was dangerous. They commissioned some studies to prove it. But when the studies came back without statistically valid evidence, the government simply redefined the term 'statistically valid' to fit their purpose. When it comes to sin- smoking, drinking, drugs ... the government isn't going to let facts intrude on their moral campaigns.
So science can be wonderful. It's essential for an honest evaluation of such things. But sometimes government trumps science. Here's where we have to be diligent.
Some day we will discover the drug that government dreams of: the brainwash pill. We will hear many lovely stories about how this drug will improve our lives, make us taller and studlier, make us happy and smarter .. We'll see many 'scientific' analyses to prove that it's true. And we'll all become drones, subject to the will of our overlords.
Beware the mix of government and science.
...omphaloskepsis often...
People have no right to question the wisdom of better people. Force them to be vaccinated at gunpoint if necessary. Enough with this "democracy" foolishness: the opinion of an uneducated redneck is not worth the same of a sophisticated, learned academic. Only a technocratic oligarchy can bring real progress to mankind.
Get used to it. Requiring everyone to be injected so you might maybe be safer? That's a No Go. Adding insult to injury, those injections contain known poisons, are of questionable effectiveness, and there exists a substantial body of evidence pointing to collateral damage such as autism.
http://www.collective-evolutio...
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/bl...
NHA
According to the article: "They are free to continue believing vaccines are harmful, even as the entire medical and scientific communities try in vain to tell them otherwise. But they should not be free to endanger the lives of everyone else with their views."
That says that I should be required to inject myself with vaccines which I consider harmful. How goofy is that? With a few minutes searching the internet you'll see that there's plenty of doctors and researchers who consider vaccines dubious at best, especially for children.
NHA
The issue here is whether parents should have control over the lives of their own children.
In Japan, parents do everything they can to ensure that their children catch all the usual childhood diseases. The resulting immunity is better than what vaccines provide. Japan is an advanced industrial nation, and I presume that Japanese parents love their children too.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Frankilin
NHA
I didn't say it wasn't IN the water, I said it wasn't ADDED to city water supplies in order to kill rats.
Please research and think carefully about vioxx.
Even the CDC estimates tens of thousands of people were killed.
Clinical trial results manipulated, adverse events under reported, ubfuscation, . . .
All the major pharmaceutical companies do likewise.
Do we really want to live in a society where they can buy politicians to mandate we inject their toxic sludge into our children?
http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/5881914
vaccines are materials made in factories where cutting cost is paramount.
they can be shipped improperly, left out on loading docks, even left on your pediatricians shelf past expiration, or too warm on a high shelf near a light, or too cold, etc. And don't tell me these things never happen. We live in an imperfect world full of fallible humans. Nothing is risk free. The risks are much higher than your corporate overlord would have you believe.
Ever heard of san francisco and the aids vaccine which the govt and the cdc admitted had really happened? http://www.rense.com/general68...
Former person that did analytical work on that for various government agencies... No, I'm not linking you my papers. Yes, I did have better data than was available to the public. No, I probably wasn't qualified to analyze the data in a PhD sense, but in practice I was more qualified than the scientists that had buggy excel macros that gave them the wrong answers to their questions, and who routinely polluted their data sources because they didn't know the difference between int and floating point. And don't get me started on the researcher that was impressed she had learned enough perl to make a matlab model run by filling in gaps in a statewide sample with a national average because she didn't keep track of filenames...
The law is interpreted as that the reported level must be 0. The law does not specify sensitivity or specificity of monitoring. Or what the report really is.
The EPA actually allows Arsenic at 10 parts per billion. .. AKA 10 micrograms per liter.
The potable standard, at driving concentration to 0 is, as a matter of science, bullshit. But I'm going to assume you really meant potable community water systems so you at least have a plausible leg to stand on. Don't worry, it gets more complicated than that with seasonal systems and distribution networks, where there's even less monitoring, but at least that's not 90% of the population.
Quarterly and annual sampling may occur at various frequencies (non quarterly, non annual), and be reported more often than actually sampled when the water system is in compliance (as of the last sample). Fortunately, they do still have actually sample every few years, but I have seen runs as large as 11 reports with just one sample -- and I strongly suspect, but could not prove it was longer.
You're right, enough Arsenic to kill a rat would cause toxicity in humans over time. But "driving concentration to zero" is a lie. A number of systems already report zero when knowingly reporting at units less granular than lab specificity. DO NOT RELY upon significant digits in government reports.
Beyond that, fairly complex behaviors are routinely engaged in: including obtaining surface or ground water from known contaminated sources, and mixing it with lesser tainted sources -- relying upon mathematic averaging premises to report characteristics of the ultimately consumed water. It is not clear that this ... mixing behavior is actually likely to obtain the desired distribution, particularly in cases where the mixing is temporal instead of physical.
There are however, multiple toxic chemicals actually added to the drinking water supply as a matter of routine fact. Toxicity, like all things... is a matter of dosage. It seems fairly obvious that they are not generally toxic at the concentrations we introduce them -- although there are verified cases of poisoning. Typically (I almost said usually, but this is NOT usual), this is due to something like a failure of a flourine injection pump deciding to empty itself overnight...
First let me say I'm vaccinated and so are my kids against the serious stuff. We will not get the seasonal flu vaccine nor the HPV one. So who decides what kids should be forced to get? The CDC? Ha. Good one. They are bought and paid for. This is what happens when science is for sale.
What about the follow up research that has shown that the outbreaks have occurred in highly vaccinated groups? Most of the kids getting sick are vaccinated. Maybe it doesn't work as well as it's advertised. Maybe there has been genetic drift in the virus (or bacteria in the case of whooping cough)?
Maybe you missed it but one of the 3 doctors involved in the CDC's 2004 study on autism and the MMR vaccine has got a lawyer who specializes in whistleblower cases and is willing to testify before congress. They knowingly took out statistically significant information.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/autism-links-to-vaccines-whistleblower-reveals-evidence-of-criminal-coverup-by-the-centers-for-disease-control-cdc/5397928
So put yourself as the head of the CDC and one of your scientists comes to you and says "we have a 340% increase in autism amongst black males who get the MMR vaccine before the age of 3". What would you do? I'd change the protocol and give the shots later. But that isn't what happened. They withdrew almost half (41%) of the kids from the study so that the rise wouldn't show up. Total fixing of the numbers.
This after the mumps part of the MMR has had scientists who worked for Merck file lawsuits over the spiking of samples
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/47851.htm
Then you have the endless pushing of the seasonal influenza vaccine even though its effectiveness is so limited that the risks outweigh the benefits. Cochrane Review "Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults" shows how close to useless it is
http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001269/vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults-
And of course you also have the work showing that the vast amount of scientific proof for the flu vaccine doesn't hold up when you account for the healthy user effect as shown by Dr Lisa Jackson's out of season influenza vaccine research
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/337.short
So the CDC itself has created a huge problem and now you want to solve that problem by taking away exemptions? How about clean up the CDC and try honesty for a change? People will respect you more and trust your judgement. But hey this is all about money so keep the lies flowing and lets get all the people who think like us to attack all the others so we at the CDC don't have to change our ways.
And you wonder why people don't trust the CDC? The CDC is the problem.
Sorry, the majority of us do want you vaccinated. Take your medicine or go to jail where your medicine will be administered.
" the public health concept that when at least 93 percent of people are vaccinated, their immunity protects the vulnerable"
No it isn't. First it depends on the disease. Second it depends on IMMUNITY not percent vaccinated. Most require 85-90% IMMUNITY. The high end is measles which requires 93% IMMUNITY and the low end is influenza with 75% IMMUNITY. Plus herd immunity is much easier to achieve with natural infection than with vaccinations (measles is 68%). So to get herd immunity for something like measles you need a vaccine that is almost 100% effective and almost 100% implemented.
For influenza you have at best a 65% effective vaccine (much lower this year) so even if 100% are vaccinated you won't get herd immunity because you can't get to the 75% level.
I'm not advocating "measles parties" or anything stupid like that but this concept of herd immunity gets bandied around by people who are very ignorant about the details. A great start are these articles:
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/7/911.full
http://vran.org/about-vaccines/general-issues/herd-immunity/herd-immunity-the-misplaced-driver-of-universal-vaccination/
So in short if you are relying on herd immunity from vaccinations you are as blind as those who condemn all vaccines.
Measles cases imported into North America after the eradication of the endemic virus in the early 2000s had typically resulted in small or no sustained outbreaks in the last decade, in part due to the vigilance of the public-health authorities in quarantine implementation. However, the 2011 imported outbreak of measles in Quebec, Canada, characterized by de Serreset al. (2013), appeared to be ominously different. Strict quarantine measures were not implemented, possibly because of the assumption that the region was well under herd immunity due to an exceptionally high and uniform vaccination compliance for measles (95-97%) in this region. The consequences of relying on non-existent herd immunity as opposed to quarantine in curbing an imported disease outbreak were very telling.
http://www.naturalimmunityfundamentals.com/
With that kind of argument...
The majority of us don't want you to marry outside your race
The majority of us don't want you to have an abortion
The majority of us don't want you working outside the home (sexism)
etc.
I objected to vaccinating my son when he started Kindergarten. Stupid state wanted him vaccinated 6 months earlier than necessary. So I wrote out a nice letter, quotes the legal statues, and objected on philosophical grounds. A few months later he came of age, got his shots, and I gave them an updated medical record.
Stupid laws do not allow for the flexibility needed. They would have had him double-dose within too short a period of time just so they could check their little box off. Even the CDC and the pediatric physicians association said we didn't need that set of 4 shots so early in his life! But whoa. He's in Kindergarten. God forbid you don't get him that 4th or 5th shot in the series right away!
Objecting on philosophical grounds gave us the time we needed.
We statisticians refer to anecdotes as non-random samples of size N=1.
Completely and totally worthless. Actually, not worthless (value 0), they are worth-negative, as they actually prevent good decision making.
And as Kahneman and Tversky discussed, the availability heuristic and the ease of remembering the outliers makes for very bad decision making. This is exacerbated by the modern un-filtered news system (aka, "the web" cross the "infotainment industry"). This warped noise delivery system, masquerading as "news you need to know" results in a really bad decision making process. Modern medicine (where I worked as a statistician) is unable to help with this extra-scientific process.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
What is the autism rate among the non-vaccinated population? The overall autism rate in the USA is 1% plus afaik.
It is my choice to not be vaccinated. I will, however, vaccinate my children, even if there is a small chance it will do any good. Quit trying to control people. I don't see *you* people controlling the people who come here for sanctuary. It's peoples right to choose whether or not they want to be ignorant.
ANONYMOUS ? Or.....?
Not vaccinating your children is putting their lives at risk. I am a perfect example of that. I caught polio in 1942, it effected my left leg. This was before there was any vaccine. I was never able to play any sports and I was on crutches and wore braces up until high school. I relied on my parents entirely until I was 18 years old. Why does a parent want to subject their children themselves to this kind of life????? I have been in a wheelchair for the last 10 years.
You get an awful large dosage of a great many heavy metals just by living in the 21st century. Granted that makes intentionally subjecting yourself to further contamination almost less appealing, but there's a benefit to be weighed against as well. There may indeed be a weak link between vaccines and various health issues - and that may be reason to consider refraining from things like annual flu vaccines, etc. But there is a devastatingly strong link between developing a lot of these serious diseases like mumps, etc. and far more dire consequences. Death or permanent crippling - suffering of a kind rarely seen by modern Americans precisely because we've struggled long and hard to almost eliminate the diseases.
Someone might say: "Hey, we have pretty good herd immunity, why should I subject my child to the risks of vaccination, whatever they may be?" To them I say, "By what right do you claim the benefits of herd immunity for your child without subjecting them to the same risk as all the children who had to be vaccinated in order to provide that immunity?" That is the behavior of a social parasite. My child risked death, however small the chances, to take that vaccine. How *dare* you claim the benefits of herd immunity without subjecting your own child to the same risk. I am not heartless, and I will gladly make allowances if your child would face a substantially higher risk than my own. But because you are a coward? Never. How dare you even suggest such a thing.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You are not allowd to drink and drive either, so why should you be allowed to endanger others by failing to use vaccines.
Bunch of damned sheep in this place. Well I can say almost everyone is just part of the herd. Please give me a pill, I need a pill or pills.
Actually the count of worst diseases around the world strongly reduced with the rise of sanitation and improvements in living condition.
And when it comes to vaccination, most of what you think you know, is just as much religion as what the common doomsdayers and naysayers believe in.
http://www.dissolvingillusions.com/
Go take the time, read the book, do your own research and then tell me again, you believe that it is vaccination that protects us.
I don't think humans are wired to intuit high-risk, high-reward probability spaces very well. There's the lottery, and then this vaccination thing, too (ignoring a few pertinent facets of it, obviously).
Imagine the following game: you roll 2d10 to determine what happens to you. On a roll of...
2-5) You are instantly murdered.
6-95) You receive $100 and are free to go.
96-100) You receive a million bucks and are free to go.
Do you play the game?
What happens if I roll a 1? :-)