Slashdot Mirror


New Jersey Gov. Christie: Parents Should Have Choice In Vaccinations

kwyjibo87 writes: New Jersey Governor and self-appointed public health expert Chris Christie weighed in on the public debate over whether or not parents should have a choice in vaccinating their children, telling reporters in the U.K., "I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that's the balance that the government has to decide." He added, "Not every vaccine is created equal and not every disease type is as great a public health threat as others." These statements from Gov. Christie follow President Obama commenting in an interview with NBC: "There is every reason to get vaccinated — there aren't reasons to not."

Gov. Christie quickly backpedaled on his "vaccine choice" comments, with the Governor's office stating, "The Governor believes vaccines are an important public health protection and with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated," but amending: "At the same time different states require different degrees of vaccination, which is why he was calling for balance in which ones government should mandate."

112 of 740 comments (clear)

  1. Backpedalled? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what happens when you get extreme partisanship - the other side's knee-jerk reaction to anything is to oppose it. Kind of like a rabid animal will bite anything.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Backpedalled? by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I think it has more to do with the state telling parents what shots their kids must receive.
      Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all about vaccinations and feel that anti-vaxers are idiots, but I'm a little leery of government making health decisions for my kids. If the government can tell your kids what vaccinations they must receive, what's next? Can they tell parents what to feed them? Can the government mandate what TV shows kids are allowed to or must watch? Can government force kids to read certain books or attend certain functions? Where do you draw the line? Once you draw that line, why can't it be crossed or moved?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:Backpedalled? by DrGamez · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I draw the line when a TV show your child is forced to watch can infect and kill my child who cannot watch the show.

    3. Re:Backpedalled? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If vaccinations aren't mandatory for a fairly large proportion of the population, herd immunity is compromised and then not only do you get the poor children of anti-vaccine types getting diseases like measles, but those children who cannot, for health reasons, receive the vaccine, are put at substantial risk.

      I'm willing to compromise, however. Don't vaccinate your kids, and they are not allowed in a school, daycare, public park or anywhere else where they may come into contact with other children.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Backpedalled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some kids have legitimate health reasons for why they cannot receive vaccinations. Children who could be vaccinated but dont put those kids at a higher risk.

    5. Re:Backpedalled? by kogut · · Score: 5, Informative

      How can an unvaccinated kid infect and kill your child if your child was vaccinated?

      No vaccine is 100% effective. So "herd immunity" still marginally benefits the vaccinated.

    6. Re:Backpedalled? by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You premise is flawed. Not everyone can get vaccinated, due to allergies, surgeries, and other conditions. This is why vaccinations are so important: to protect those who can't get them.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    7. Re:Backpedalled? by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because not everyone can get vaccinated, for health reasons. For instance, a child that is too young to receive the vaccine can still contract, and die from, a disease like measles. Others have weakened immune systems, or medical allergies, that may make it difficult to immunize them. These people rely on herd immunity, where enough other people are immunized that the disease can't gain a foothold and spread. If one child in a classroom isn't vaccinated, they're not going to catch it from their classmates, but when 5 or even ten children in a classroom aren't vaccinated, the risk increases dramatically.

    8. Re:Backpedalled? by sabri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't vaccinate your kids, and they are not allowed in a school, daycare, public park or anywhere else where they may come into contact with other children who cannot be vaccinated due to medical reasons and rely on herd immunity for their safety, or infants who are to young to be vaccinated..

      Fixed it a little bit for you, but I agree with you so much. Choose not to vaccinate your kids and face the consequences: I don't want unvaccinated kids in my child's daycare, preschool or school. The government mandates that I take my child to school, and I have every right to expect that her safety is taken care of. That includes the threat of unvaccinated children.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    9. Re:Backpedalled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You aren't mandated to attend a public school. You can home school if you wish, and no, your taxes don't follow you, just as they don't only get applied to the streets you drive on.

    10. Re:Backpedalled? by kwyjibo87 · · Score: 2

      If the government can tell your kids what vaccinations they must receive, what's next? Can they tell parents what to feed them? Can the government mandate what TV shows kids are allowed to or must watch? Can government force kids to read certain books or attend certain functions? Where do you draw the line? Once you draw that line, why can't it be crossed or moved?

      I understand the sentiment, but the major issue with vaccines, with respect to "parental choice", is that it is not a child-autonomous choice. Not vaccinating your child places others in danger. This is why we cannot have large numbers of people, children or otherwise, exempt themselves from vaccination that otherwise could receive it* without imposing a great danger to public health. Also, as a matter of fact, while we** don't mandate that children read particular books (that's religion's job), we do mandate that they, at least to a certain age, attend school - public, private, or home, so long as they are educated (again, for the betterment of society). And as a last point, we do have laws which set standards for how parents raise children; adding vaccinations to that list would not be a huge alteration of this societal notion.

      * Exempting those who cannot have vaccinations for health-related reasons

      ** In the US

    11. Re:Backpedalled? by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In addition to the other responses - every non-vaccinated person who contracts the disease increases the chance that said disease mutates into a form the vaccine can no longer protect against.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    12. Re: Backpedalled? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most of the parents claiming allergies are full of shit, the majority of these so-called allergies are in the parent's mind and not supported by a diagnosis from a legitimate unbiased medical professional.

      Not all, but certainly most of these people are full of it.

      It's almost like Christian Science.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    13. Re:Backpedalled? by NoKaOi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all about vaccinations and feel that anti-vaxers are idiots, but I'm a little leery of government making health decisions for my kids.

      The exact same arguments could be used against hitting your children. Some parents would say it's good for them - they need to learn not to act up and it builds character, if they are allowed to go without proper punishment they'll grow up to be spoiled brats. However, the government makes the decision that it's unhealthy to beat up your children, and makes it illegal, if you do it your kids will be taken away by CPS and you may go to jail.

      Can they tell parents what to feed them?

      No, but the government does tell you that you do have to feed your kids. If you don't CPS will take them away and you may be charged with neglect.

      So you see...the slippery slope argument is complete logical fallacy. The government already has lines. With EVERYTHING. Like, once you allow interracial and homosexual marriage, what's next? People having sex in the street in front of children? Don't allow people to drive drunk? What's next?

    14. Re:Backpedalled? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can they tell parents what to feed them? Can the government mandate what TV shows kids are allowed to or must watch? Can government force kids to read certain books or attend certain functions? Where do you draw the line? Once you draw that line, why can't it be crossed or moved?

      You may not be aware of this, but that line has been drawn, and moved. The government does mandate you provide good nutrition for your kids. They can take your kids away and put them in foster homes.

      Things that were allowed a few decades ago are not allowed now. When I was eight, I rode all over the place on my bicycle. When I was in first grade, I walked to school by myself. Now you can't let them walk around the block. CPS can take your kids for giving them that kind of freedom, even though it's probably safer now than when I was a kid (crime rates are down).

      So yeah, the whole debate has moved on from whether government should be involved in raising kids, and now the only question is how much.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:Backpedalled? by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      The reason that it's reasonable for the government to mandate what shots your child gets is because your choice does not affect only your child. It affects every child out there that for some reason can not be vaccinated.

    16. Re:Backpedalled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      RE: #1 Government mandates that children must attend school

      But, government does not mandate that it must be public school.
      There are private schools in every state.
      There are home schooling provisions in the laws of most states.
      In some states, home schools are chartered under the same laws as, or are otherwise considered equivalent to, a private school.
      There are also private tutors.
      The status of private tutors under the law as either a private school or a home school vary from state to state.

      RE: #2 Government mandates that all children who attend a school must meet certain health requirements.

      Private and home schools may or may not require vaccinations.
      Most states have no provisions under the law that make vaccination mandatory for private schools.
      Those states that do have such a provision for private schools only make it mandatory if the private school receives public funds or state accreditation.
      I know of no state that makes any mandatory vaccination demands on home schools.
      Even for public schools, alll states provide vaccination exemptions on medical grounds, most states provide exemptions on religious grounds, and some states even provide exemptions on non-religious philosophical grounds.
      There are also some public school districts and/or states as a whole that use rated vaccination schedules where they only make mandatory vaccines against high risk communicable diseases in the top tier of that schedule.

      RE: #3 If children do not meet those health requirements, See #1

      More like see the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
      Vaccination mandates only apply to attending public schools.
      If such a mandate conflicts with your religious beliefs or conscience, that is why you have private schooling, home schooling, and tutoring options.

      All of that being said, if your religious or philosophical beliefs allow it, as a parent, you should consider the risks an benefits of each an every vaccine separately. Weight any risk of harm you may potentially see in a particular vaccine against the harm the disease would cause if contracted.
      In almost all cases, the potential negative interactions of a particular vaccine are known.
      Also, consider that there are a large number of horrific diseases for which nearly any vaccine side-effect is preferable to the risk of contracting or spreading the disease.
      In short, do your homework and make the prudent judgement for each vaccination individually.
      You will find that, in manyt cases, getting yourself and your children the vaccination is justifiable on its face.

    17. Re: Backpedalled? by AchilleTalon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gluten allergies, for example. Only a very small fraction of all these people claiming they are allergic to gluten are really allergic to it. These days, if you don't have at least one allergy, you don't exist. So, I'm allergic to allergies.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    18. Re:Backpedalled? by mjwx · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't vaccinate your kids, and they are not allowed in a school, daycare, public park or anywhere else where they may come into contact with other children who cannot be vaccinated due to medical reasons and rely on herd immunity for their safety, or infants who are to young to be vaccinated..

      Fixed it a little bit for you, but I agree with you so much. Choose not to vaccinate your kids and face the consequences: I don't want unvaccinated kids in my child's daycare, preschool or school. The government mandates that I take my child to school, and I have every right to expect that her safety is taken care of. That includes the threat of unvaccinated children.

      No vaccine is 100% effective. Even vaccinated kids can contract a disease they've been vaccinated against. The risk is much lower (vaccines are over 99.9% effective) but its still a risk. In the recent measles outbreak at Disney that had 95 confirmed cases, at least 6 were confirmed to be vaccinated against measles.

      This is one reason I'm glad that in my country, Australia, an MMR vaccination (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) is mandatory unless you have a damn good reason not to get one (and being an idiot isn't good enough).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    19. Re:Backpedalled? by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      In addition to the other responses - every non-vaccinated person who contracts the disease increases the chance that said disease mutates into a form the vaccine can no longer protect against.

      And one more: Not everyone who is vaccinated actually becomes immune. Vaccines are highly effective, but they're not 100%.

      There are lots of reasons that herd immunity is really important.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    20. Re: Backpedalled? by gumbi+west · · Score: 2

      I would hope that claim of an allergy would have to be backed by a doctor to be viewed as worth anything. That said, I had one doctor tell me that my child was allergic to penicillin only to have another say that the presentation was all wrong and that he wasn't. The second was so sure he put my child right back on penicillin and he was, apparently, correct. Good thing too, you can get into taking some really nasty drugs (in terms of side effects / mortality rates) if you are allergic to penicillin.

    21. Re:Backpedalled? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Nothing is ever settled in politics, there is no issue we can't re-open if we can convince enough people to talk about it. However these issues have been decided, which means if you want to have that conversation, you'll need to convince people that we should.

      For the record, when I've talked to people about leaving your kids outside unsupervised, usually I've gotten people looking at me like I was weird, then saying, "well yeah, of course that's a safety issue."

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    22. Re:Backpedalled? by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not sure why you are being a dick. The guy asked a question and nothing more.

      Or are you upset over his concept of freedom and asking how far can the government intrude?

      Personally, i think kids not vaccinated for deadly or dehabilitating diseases should be bared from attending public schools. But i do not support the government forcing anyone to take any medication.

    23. Re:Backpedalled? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. If the consequences of the decision not to vaccinate ended with your child, I'd be supporting choice in vaccination. I'd still question the judgement of those who didn't vaccinate, but I'd fight for their right to make that choice. However, not vaccinating your child doesn't just mean your child can get sick. It means your child can pass vaccine-preventable diseases to other people who are too young to be vaccinated, can't due to valid medical reasons, or were vaccinated but whose vaccine didn't "take" (even if a vaccine is 99.9% effective, there will be a lot of people who get the shot but don't get immunity).

      When the anti-vax movement started, they were able to not vaccinate without major negative repercussions because (perhaps ironically), they were actually relying on herd immunity of the vaccinated. Now, though, we're getting large enough pockets of anti-vax that herd immunity is breaking down and we're getting vaccine-preventable disease outbreak.

      Choosing not to vaccinate means someone else's child might get sick and/or die. You might have many freedoms to choose how you raise your child, but your freedom to raise your child ends at another child's well being.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    24. Re:Backpedalled? by Bengie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not sending your children to school can land you in jail or have them taken from you for neglect. Why not vaccines.

    25. Re:Backpedalled? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Not vaccinating your child just because you don't feel like it is almost child abuse

      How is it only "almost." Causing the death of your child by refusing to get them vaccinated against measles is, at the least, criminal negligence leading to death. Lets take it further - manslaughter.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    26. Re: Backpedalled? by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder how quickly allergies to vaccination would miraculously improve, and religious objections to vaccines magically evaporate, if there were a "liability" section on your health insurance.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    27. Re: Backpedalled? by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Informative
      You mean like the way Christie is referred to as a "self-appointed public health expert", and then his opinion is shown to be wrong by quoting Obama -- another self-appointed public health expert?

      I'm used to finding hidden biases in summaries (and articles they are quoted verbatim from), but this one is pretty obvious.

    28. Re:Backpedalled? by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all about vaccinations and feel that anti-vaxers are idiots, but I'm a little leery of government making health decisions for my kids.

      You are also making health decisions for the kids around your kids.

      If the government can tell your kids what vaccinations they must receive, what's next?

      The things you mention are just unrealistic. Any government who tried any of thet would be out of office next election. The thing is that if a small percentage of the kids who can be vaccinated do not it increases the danger to those who can not be vaccinated. Most people understand that and no government would be voted out of office for requiring vaccines in schools. The government can mandate what is required for your kids to go to school. If you don't vaccinate you need to school your kids elsewhere. You have that choice.

      Where do you draw the line?

      The line is easy to draw. It is where your health choices effect other children who do not have that choice. Those children being the ones who can not be vaccinated. It is similar to the peanut ban in most schools. It is a choice whether or not to bring peanuts but it is not a choice to be allergic to peanuts.

      Once you draw that line, why can't it be crossed or moved?

      It can be moved by more information. If crossed the consequences are not being allowed in schools, daycares, etc.

    29. Re: Backpedalled? by compro01 · · Score: 4, Informative

      A couple of studies presented last year at the annual meeting of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology suggest that the vast majority (361 out of 384 in one study, and 38 out of 38 in a second) of people who think they're allergic to penicillin aren't actually allergic to it.

      Granted, both are small samples and it's hardly a look at allergies in general, but it does raise questions about the actual incidence of allergies.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    30. Re:Backpedalled? by jklovanc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You cannot eliminate all risk in life.

      True but you can control some of it. Vaccines and herd immunity have been shown time and time again to reduce the spread of certain diseases and save people's lives.

      Where are we gonna draw the line?

      Where a few small acts have been proven to save the child's and/or someone else's life.

      Some kids have legitimate health reasons why they can't survive cancer.

      Cancer is not a communicable disease and it has not been proven that throwing money at it will ever make it so.

      A lot of kids injure themselves tripping over their own shoelaces.

      Injury is not death. Another issue is that lack of safety equipment does not put other kids at risk of death.

      Vaccinations are a great thing, but this argument sticks in my craw.

      You whole argument seems to be about where to draw the line. Sure they are arbitrary but it is a decision based on science, the ability to do it and the impact it has on society. The only negative impact I can see to vaccination is taking away the ability of a parent to send an un-vaccinated child to school. That is a very small price to pay for herd immunity.

    31. Re:Backpedalled? by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      force people to take actions that are detrimental to themselves but beneficial to others.

      Getting one's kid vaccinated is not detrimental to themselves or their kids. It has been proven many times that the total risk for required vaccinations is far below the risk of dying for one of the diseases.

      But can we force people to pay more taxes for biomedical research into infectious disease?

      No because there is no proof that throwing money at diseases will cure them while there is profe that immunizing will save lives.

      The consensus view on Slashdot seems to be that vaccines are good and that taxes are bad. But, to me, at least, such views seem inconsistent.

      It is not inconsistent because vaccines have been proven to save lives while higher taxes have not.

    32. Re:Backpedalled? by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Informative

      "I'm a little leery of government making health decisions for my kids"

      The point is that vaccination is as much an individual health issue as an epidemiologic one. And government _is_ the entity we citizenship use for that kind of global decisions.

    33. Re:Backpedalled? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Can they tell parents what to feed them?

      To an extent, yes. If you consistently feed your children, say, grass and naught else, I don't see why it wouldn't be immoral for the society to intervene.

    34. Re: Backpedalled? by thegarbz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting study. I fall into both categories. One doctor tells me I'm allergic, another tells me I'm not.
      I don't have a potentially lethal reaction to it.
      In fact in history I have not had a reaction to all forms of it.

      However if I swallow a penicillin tablet I will end up with severe and violent vomiting. Now I ask you, is it relevant or not if I am not considered allergic because I don't have the correct response to the drug if I can't take it due to extreme vomiting?

      I had this discussion with my doctor. He suggested I take it anyway. I suggested what is the point of a drug if almost the entire dose will end up flushed down the toilet and leave me sore and dehydrated?

      I put down penicillin allergy on all my paperwork.

    35. Re: Backpedalled? by tpjunkie · · Score: 3, Informative

      People conflate "side effect" with allergy. Urticaria (hives) is an allergy to penicillin. Nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting is a side effect

    36. Re:Backpedalled? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Informative

      While there are some legitimate reasons for homeschooling, the homeschool movement in the US is composed mostly of religious nutters who are afraid public school will make their children realise a man cannot survive inside a fish's stomach for three days.

    37. Re: Backpedalled? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      People who claim a penicillin allergy typically had a reaction during childhood and have since then had it drummed into them by their parents. However, paediatric medicine is so different to adult medicine that non-specialised doctors have to tread very carefully when treating children - you can easily have a reaction to something as a child but grow out of it in your teens or immediate pre-teen years. I had a severe reaction to penicillin as a child, but I've had it as a treatment many times since with no negative effect.

    38. Re: Backpedalled? by Demena · · Score: 2

      That turns out not to be the case. Few vaccines are perfectly effective. The reduce the chances of contagion not eliminate it. When there are few sources of contagion then it is eliminated before the contagion spreads. Thereby providing the misnamed herd immunity for both vaccinated and unvaccinated. Herd immunity is not actually an immunity at all. It is just that you cannot catch what is no longer there to be caught.

    39. Re:Backpedalled? by N1AK · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So are you suggesting there is no line?

      Should the state stay uninvolved if a parent sexually interferes with their child, or does that interference not count as drawing a line? How about allowing the beating of children badly enough to break bones when they misbehave, or does saying they can't do that not count as drawing a line? Refusing to feed their children must be ok by your logic, otherwise it'd be the state telling parents what to feed their children which you explicitly use as an example of bad state interference.

      The issue with vaccinations and freedom is that it isn't about what is best for that individual child, it is about what is best for society and children as a whole. I'm fine with parents having the choice not to vaccinate their children, as long as schools/scout groups/theme parks/sports stadiums etc can all require proof of vaccination or a medical exemption, and that public venues that allow un-vaccinated children in and don't warn people about that can be sued for the damage caused.

    40. Re: Backpedalled? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, anecdotal data. Every parent I've met who claimed their little angel was allergic or sensitive to something had never actually had any tests done to verify that. So I'll presume a self-diagnosis to be wrong, until proven otherwise.

    41. Re: Backpedalled? by N1AK · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that something very strange happening with allergies. I've just hit 30 and when I was a kid nut allergies were virtually unheard of, nothing was done by society to control the risks, nut free food plants didn't exist (or were at best vanishingly rare). Now ~20 years later nut warning information is everywhere, nut free plants are common, schools and other institutes have policies and processes in place, airlines have nut allergy policies etc.

      Either nut allergies are a lot more common, or its become a lot more common to think you have an allergy.

    42. Re: Backpedalled? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obama -- another self-appointed public health expert

      You are confised. Obama is not (and never claimed to be) a public health expert. But He would claim to be a spokesperson for his advisors who are certified public health experts.

    43. Re:Backpedalled? by ranton · · Score: 2

      It is not a false dichotomy. He states the most extreme solution (taking a child away from its parent) so you know how far he would go to protect children from crazy parents. That way he shows he would obviously be okay with less drastic options (mandating vaccinations) and prevents someone else from needing to ask how far he would go or insinuating the potential for a slippery slope.

      Every time someone offers two possible options it is not automatically a false dichotomy.

      It also is not reductio ad absurdum because he is not even claiming taking children from their parents is an absurd response. He is stating he finds it to be appropriate. Reductio ad absurdum would be if someone said "if you are okay with mandating vaccinations, why not just take away their children instead?" The parent poster goes all the way to the most extreme possible response and clearly states he finds it to be acceptable.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    44. Re:Backpedalled? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      You may have missed the AC the GP is responding to. The AC stated that more people die from the flue vaccine than from the flu. That's what (I presume) the source is being asked for.

    45. Re:Backpedalled? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not sure why you are being a dick. The guy asked a question and nothing more.

      It was a dumb question. The answer is easily found on the Internet. It also implies an anti-vaccine stance. If he (and you) are too dumb to recognize that, then he's worthy of the abuse for that alone.

    46. Re:Backpedalled? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Then they can just join Christian Scientists, or similar, if available. There are multiple religions that refuse modern medical care.

    47. Re: Backpedalled? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that something very strange happening with allergies. I've just hit 30 and when I was a kid nut allergies were virtually unheard of, nothing was done by society to control the risks, nut free food plants didn't exist (or were at best vanishingly rare). Now ~20 years later nut warning information is everywhere, nut free plants are common, schools and other institutes have policies and processes in place, airlines have nut allergy policies etc.

      Either nut allergies are a lot more common, or its become a lot more common to think you have an allergy.

      The latter, I think... but I really have no idea, so I make no claims...

      What I WILL say is that I think this is turning back the other way... My kid's private school has reintroduced peanut butter, a totally forbidden food up until this school year. They sent letters home letting parents know and that for any kids who really do have an allergy, precautions would be taken, but since peanut butter is high in protein and a generally healthy food, it was considered a good way to bring more nutrition back into school.

      I wrote the school back a letter and thanked them for doing so and being brave enough to take it on. Several other parents did as well.

    48. Re: Backpedalled? by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      Gluten allergies, for example. Only a very small fraction of all these people claiming they are allergic to gluten are really allergic to it. These days, if you don't have at least one allergy, you don't exist. So, I'm allergic to allergies.

      Claiming that you have gluten allergy when you don't seems to be harmless. You just pay more for food that doesn't taste as good; hurts nobody but your wallet and your taste buds.

    49. Re:Backpedalled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But we all pay taxes to have a public education system, and that system has to accommodate all sorts of kids, including those from parents who don't want to vaccinate their kids.

      No that system doesn't have to accommodate them.
      Un-vaccinated kids that can be vaccinated but the parents refuse are a public safety hazard for kids who cannot be vaccinated due to allergies.

      maybe a bad analogy: But do you want to send your kid to a school where one kid is carrying a loaded handgun, all the other kids have kevlar protection and your kid due to allergies cannot wear the kevlar.

    50. Re: Backpedalled? by MMC+Monster · · Score: 2

      In your case, the issue is this: If you have an allergy listed to an antibiotic, the treating physician will put it into the electronic medical record. The next time you get an infection, the computer will cross check your allergies before allowing the physician to prescribe an antibiotic to you. The computer will not just disallow penicillin, but also all penicillin analogues (ie: amoxicillin, ampicillin, etc), and all cephalasporins (there's probably twenty or more of them) since they cross-react with penicillin allergies.

      The one allergy will knock out two entire classes of antibiotics.

      On the other side, when you have a documented infection with a bacterial agent, the laboratory will take the particular strain you are infected with and see which all antibiotics the strain is sensitive to. The physician will then prescribe the antibiotic which the strain is most susceptable to, thereby giving you the best chance of beating the infection.

      Obviously if you cannot take that particular antibiotic due to a documented allergy (or potential cross-reaction), the physician will have to prescribe something not quite as effective.

      There's another problem. People who are intollerant to one medication are generally intollerant to many medications. You have to make sure you don't have a lot of allergies listed or you will end up being treated for an infection with 'big gun' antibiotics with more serious side effects.

      Most of the time the physician will not even tell you how potentially toxic the antibiotic is, as it's generally not a detail physicians talk about. I've had a couple patients with dimished hearing for several months (at least!) as they were prescribed gentamycin for a simple infection because they were allergic to simpler antibiotics.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    51. Re: Backpedalled? by khallow · · Score: 3, Informative

      The quotes posted above show that this can plausibly account for up to 99% reduction in diagnosed measles cases.

      That's not good enough. You need to explain three orders of magnitude reduction in measles cases not two. Introduction of the measles vaccine explains the actual reduction of cases seen.

      a blinded RCT is missing

      In other words, let's deliberately infect a lot of unimmunized children with measles just so we can get another significant digit on our knowledge of how effective the measles vaccine is.

      We ran through this argument before (caution this thread is infinitely deep, it just keeps going and going). The only difference is that now your collection of imaginary reasons why the vaccine doesn't work now stretches to cover two orders of magnitude rather than one order of magnitude. It however needs to cover more than three orders of magnitude.

    52. Re:Backpedalled? by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You may have missed the AC the GP is responding to. The AC stated that more people die from the flue vaccine than from the flu. That's what (I presume) the source is being asked for.

      That's entirely possible and no reason to stop vaccinating. We could have an illness that kills 10,000 a year without vaccination. And with proper vaccination, we have 100 deaths per year from the illness, and 1,000 deaths a year from the vaccination. Deaths from vaccination outnumber deaths from the illness 10 to one, but still we should vaccinate.

    53. Re:Backpedalled? by Dan1701 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would contend that a person's freedom to be an idiot starts and ends with themselves, and does not extend to endangering the life of their child, or indeed the lives of other children damaged in an epidemic of a preventable disease.

      This is one of those cases where science and state really do know better than a Bronze Age religion. One of the many, many cases.

    54. Re: Backpedalled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, let's bring back crippling polio, and measles epidemics that killed thousands of people, all because your special snowflake should be able to carry infectious diseases if you want them to.

    55. Re:Backpedalled? by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's because the phrase "draw the line" should NEVER be used in a scientific discussion.
      It is exactly how science NEVER works.

      Because the universe does NOT - ever - draw lines.

      There is a difference between unavoidable risk and reckless endangerment and there is absolutely NO scientific doubt that failure to vaccinate your children recklessly endangers not only them but all other children as well.
      Even those who ARE vaccinated because vaccines aren't 100% effective. But if everybody has them - and you have the one kid who would get pertussis despite the vaccine the odds of that kid being exposed to it is near zero.
      If a lot of people are NOT vaccinated, that kid is all but guaranteed to get exposed.

      It's reckless endangerment through and through. There is no way it should be legal.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    56. Re:Backpedalled? by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      That covers a lot of it in my country too - I'm STILL going to homeschool though, because I can't stand the idea of my child being in a school that will treat "spiritual development" as being on par with learning science, or for that matter, think it's HER responsibility what OTHER people think by making rules about what she's allowed to wear.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    57. Re:Backpedalled? by fche · · Score: 2

      I assume you have a deep well of information to justify that little ditty, but think we just can't handle it. Thank you for protecting us.

    58. Re:Backpedalled? by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact is, you do not want government getting into this... freedom to make your own choices and freedom of religion is FAR more important...

      Freedoms of choice, religion or anything else are only absolute in your own heart and head.

      Once you start to affect other people, your freedom gets limited. You are certainly not free to choose to murder someone without consequences.

      Something like vaccination is a simple utilitarian decision of a society that the good of the majority outweighs the freedom of a few. If you want to live in that society, you have to accept that decision, just like you have to agree not to murder your neighbour.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    59. Re: Backpedalled? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Because the experts are not saying it. They leave it to the professional spokespeople to say it.

      Are you saying you don't believe the President of the United States has competent advisors?

    60. Re:Backpedalled? by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's a very libertarian approach - never be preventative, only punish when something inevitably goes wrong.
      The trouble with that approach is, that in the real world, proving guilt is very nearly impossible.
      If there are 5 unvaccinated kids in school and all five get sick - how do you win a case against any of their parents - each can say beyond a reasonable doubt that it could have been one of the others.

      They are all guilty, and you can't prove it for any of them. That's exactly where preventative behaviour regulation IS justified.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    61. Re:Backpedalled? by Shortguy881 · · Score: 2

      Vaccinations shouldn't be mandatory, however, they only work if the group as a whole is vaccinated. How do you propose we solve this paradox?

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    62. Re:Backpedalled? by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Right there with you. I cannot condone the government forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure, even something as obviously beneficial as a vaccine. You own your meat. If the government can force you to inject something into it you don't want, then you don't own it. If you don't own your body, what exactly the fuck do you own?

      This is the same argument with abortion. "My body, my choice." I'm Catholic, believe life begins at conception, and abortion is little better than murder. But I don't believe the government should force you to undergo a medical procedure (a birth) if you don't want to. Even in life or death situations. If only my blood can cure your disease, I'll gladly you give you some. But if I say "no," for any reason, you may not take it from me, nor may the state do so on your behalf. So even though removing the fetus from the mother kills it, I cannot force her to save the life of the child using her meat against her will.

      So no, I can't condone the government forcing you to vaccinate your child. But I can insist your plague-bearer stays the hell away from my kids. No vaccine without a valid medical reason, as assessed by a state board (to prevent gaming the system by having Dr. Spaceman write a note for cash)? No school. And Wal-Mart and Disneyland should be allowed to ban unvaccinated people from their properties. They ban guns. A plague-bearer is carrying a biological weapon.

      I am still bothered by the fact that the parent can make this decision on behalf of the child without the child's consent. If a child wants to be vaccinated and their parent doesn't want them to, I think the kid's opinion should override the parents (but not the other way around). Perhaps there should be an education program for kids (and parents)? My wife and I had a baby last week (well, she had the baby, I stood by her head and tried to avoid fainting from the whole "sight of blood" thing) and there are a dozen education programs the hospital goes through about breastfeeding and infant care. We expressed no objection to vaccination, naturally, but I wonder if we had? Do they have a program in place to educate the parents? Show them pictures from the good old days before vaccines ruined our kids? And perhaps make this program available to children? Bring your kid to a pediatrician and he's required by law to show the program to your child? They're required by law to report child abuse, after all, which results in your child being taken from you. Having CPS come by and show your kid a 30 minute video about vaccines is certainly less invasive than that.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  2. Oh God, not again by halivar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet again, we get a GOP primary debate circus solely around Tardisil and the merits of encephalitis over autism. Fuck this party, I'll go Liberta--what's that, Mr. Paul? Oh. You're one of them, too. Shit.

    1. Re:Oh God, not again by poity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here's the quote with the context that was omitted by Salon and by the submitter

      “We vaccinate ours, and so, you know that’s the best expression I can give you of my opinion. You know it’s much more important what you think as a parent than what you think as a public official. And that’s what we do. But I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that’s the balance that the government has to decide.”

      So it seems it's not so much an issue of scientific illiteracy as it is one of political hedging and cowardice.
      That the media chose to run with the former as its narrative is revealing, both of the political allegiances of those media outlets and of Christie's complete naivete.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    2. Re:Oh God, not again by silfen · · Score: 3, Informative

      The libertarian answer is pretty clear: nobody has a right to force you to inject stuff into your body. However, people of course have the right to exclude you from their private property (including schools, private roads, private developments, etc.) if you aren't vaccinated. That approach gets the government out of deciding which vaccines you should take and which you shouldn't.

    3. Re:Oh God, not again by spongman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      actually, the small-l libertarian view is more nuanced. refusal to vaccinate your kids can easily be seen as an act of negligent violence against others (me).

      do libertarians believe that you shouldn't be forced to correct your eyesight before being granted a license to drive? vaccinations can be considered a similar public-health measure affording you the right to enter public spaces.

      stay in Galt's gulch if you want, but if you have the measles, keep the fuck away from me and my kids.

    4. Re:Oh God, not again by silfen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      actually, the small-l libertarian view is more nuanced. refusal to vaccinate your kids can easily be seen as an act of negligent violence against others (me).

      Libertarianism (or classical liberalism) doesn't recognize "negligent violence". You're simply playing word games in an attempt to justify positive rights.

      do libertarians believe that you shouldn't be forced to correct your eyesight before being granted a license to drive?

      I think whether I drive on a road and what the conditions are under which I do so should be a voluntary agreement between the road owner and myself. Right now, it is not, since I am forced to pay for the roads and then forced to comply with often arbitrary and corrupt rules for using them. You may think that that's the only way of having roads, but it clearly isn't if you look at history.

      stay in Galt's gulch if you want, but if you have the measles, keep the fuck away from me and my kids

      I think that's a perfectly fine attitude to have, and in fact I am vaccinated. But you may be forced for your kids to associate with unvaccinated kids because you are forced to pay for public school, your school choices are limited both by money and by location, and public schools have to cater to religious objections. So now you are fighting with religious nuts over which vaccinations should be mandatory. If schools were privatized, private schools would have no problem imposing vaccine requirements, and you could send your kids to schools that require measles vaccines. Religious nuts could send their kids to schools for religious nuts and get wiped out by a measles epidemic.

      The problems you are having aren't with libertarianism, they are with lack of libertarianism.

  3. But Rand Paul says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Rand Paul says vaccines cause mental illnesses! I guess that explains libertarianism.

    1. Re:But Rand Paul says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nixon is a liberal by today's standards.

    2. Re:But Rand Paul says by nbauman · · Score: 2

      Nixon is a liberal by today's standards.

      You laugh, but it's true.

      Nixon's Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare was Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was a Democrat, and went on to become a U.S. Senator.

      Moynihan was liberal by today's standards, and he influenced Nixon on many of his policies. One of them was the guaranteed annual income (which Frederich von Hayeck also believed in).

      Nixon also proposed a health plan which was probably more liberal than Obamacare.

      One of the reasons some liberals hated Nixon was that he threw in his lot with the House Un-American Activities Committee. The story I heard was that he won his Congressional seat against Helen Gahagan Douglas by accusing her of being sympathetic to Communism. But other "liberals" were just as anti-Communist as Nixon.

    3. Re:But Rand Paul says by silfen · · Score: 2

      He said that he has heard of cases. And if you look at the list of side effects on the CDC page, you find that he's right.

      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/va...

      Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
      Deafness
      Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
      Permanent brain damage

      The argument for vaccines is that the benefits outweigh the risks. That's a good argument for taking them. It's questionable that it's a good argument for forcing people to take them.

  4. In defense of Gov Christie by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He was obviously speaking off the cuff. One can't expect a sitting governor to have given any prior thought to controversial public health issues that have been in the news for fricking ever.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    1. Re:In defense of Gov Christie by Phil+Karn · · Score: 2

      Then maybe, as a highly visible public official, he should have kept his mouth shut until he'd consulted the public health people who actually know what they're talking about. I suspect he knows how to use a telephone.

  5. If only by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    If only his comments had clarified anything. After his clarifying statement, I still have no idea what he meant. Typical politician.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  6. Rand Paul said something similar ... by perpenso · · Score: 2

    Don't freak out at the phrase "vaccine choice". The speaker may not mean what you assume.

    Rand Paul said something similar in a TV interview today. The interviewer was shocked and Rand Paul explained that "vaccine choice" does not inherently mean some science denier who does not believe in medicine. What Paul, and probably Christie, mean is that parents can reasonably delay some vaccines. Paul mentioned that children sometimes receive a battery of vaccines at the same time. He said that a small child probably doesn't need to have that Hepatitis vaccination right now since it is a sexually transmitted disease, a parent can reasonably wait many years before such a vaccination.

    So if Christie has a similar point of view then there may actually merely be clarification going on and not so much backpedalling.

    1. Re:Rand Paul said something similar ... by halivar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Vaccination rates are highest in red states. Vaccination exemptions are highest in the west coast, New England, MI, and WI. If he's courting the evangelical vote, he's doing it wrong. But then, Christie has been pretty vocal in his disdain for conservatives.

    2. Re:Rand Paul said something similar ... by kogut · · Score: 2

      Don't freak out at the phrase "vaccine choice". The speaker may not mean what you assume.
       

      First off, hepatitis can certainly be spread through non-sexual contact. So that's out the window.

      It's really unclear what Paul and Christie really mean, if anyone. I think they're waffling now that public opinion is starting to swing against the anti-vax movement.

      In what I think is the same Paul interview you're referring to, he said this, "I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children, who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines." So we have a public figure using the media to further perpetuate nonsense that's been scientifically debunked. Using anecdotal evidence.

      I was warming a bit to Paul due to some of his more rational-sounding moderate positions, but I'm pretty much done with him now.

  7. Mandate by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    Not all vaccines should be mandatory. For example there is an anthrax vaccine. Does everyone need to have it? As Christie said;

    Not every vaccine is created equal and not every disease type is as great a public health threat as others.

    By the way, parents do have a choice. They can have their children get the required vaccines, they can home school or they can create their own school that does not require vaccines. I predict a non-vaccine school will last until everyone gets sick.

  8. What are rights? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

    Rights are there to make sure that people have freedoms. The very idea of limits is part of the idea of rights. The basic idea is you should be free to do what you want to do with the limit that what you want to do doesn't do harm to others.

    A certain segment of society has forgotten this. The most basic and important right is to live. Your rights STOP where you start interfering with others. If you don't want to vaccinate your kids you can do that, but maybe you shouldn't be allowed to send those kids to public school.

    Personally, I think a lot of these people should find a desert island somewhere and live there. That way they can have all the unlimited freedoms they want.

    1. Re:What are rights? by Shados · · Score: 2

      There is the issue that this isn't black and white. There are VERY, VERY few things someone can do that won't affect me. The neighbor letting his kid play outside and screaming passed midnight prevents me from sleeping, which reduce my productivity at work and costs me real dollars.

      The dude who's casually strolling down the sidewalk smoking weed makes my kitchen smell like weed unless I have closed air tight windows (and then I can't enjoy fresh air).

      The guy who's leaving his house's outside go to hell is reducing the value of mine.

      I can keep going all the way down to petty things. Virtually anything someone does affects someone else. So the line has to be drawn somewhere...and very few people agree on where it should be drawn.

  9. Well, he has a point. by sackvillian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Not every vaccine is created equal and not every disease type is as great a public health threat as others... I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things"

    I, for one, proudly agree with the wise governor that some vaccines shouldn't mandatory for children. Like the shingles vaccine -- expensive and marginally effective, and practically useless if you're under the age of 60. I don't know why'd I'd ask my parents to decide on this vaccine call for me when I hit the age of 60 but his point is valid.

    But god, I hope he's not referring to Mumps, Measels, Rubella, and the like!

    --
    Hey mate, spare a sig?
  10. Choice but with consequences by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Chris Christie weighed in on the public debate over whether or not parents should have a choice in vaccinating their children, telling reporters in the U.K., "I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that's the balance that the government has to decide."

    If parents are allowed to choose then that choice should not be without consequences. If these parents decide to not vaccinate their children for diseases like measles for any reason other than a documented medical condition that makes vaccination inadvisable for that specific individual, then those children should not be allowed to attend public school and those parents should be legally liable for that choice. If the child gets the disease then the parents should risk going to jail for child endangerment if there is an unfortunate medical outcome. They have the choice but that choice should not be consequence free because it isn't. They are taking a gamble that their child and those others who cannot get vaccinated will avoid the illness and if that gamble comes up snake-eyes then punishment should follow.

    These statements from Gov. Christie follow President Obama commenting in an interview with NBC: "There is every reason to get vaccinated — there aren't reasons to not."

    So Christie is endangering public health in order to pander to his political base. Make any decision about whether to vote for Christie an easy one for me.

    1. Re:Choice but with consequences by macklin01 · · Score: 3, Informative

      So who goes to jail if there is an unfortunate medical outcome from a vaccine (and there are some)?

      In that exceedingly rare circumstance, there is the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

      --
      OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
    2. Re:Choice but with consequences by meglon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The logic behind it was pretty simple. No company makes money on the vaccinations that are required (for the most part), and a few of those vaccinations are made/provided at a loss. Because there are only a few companies that make them, and because of the vaccines vital importance to society, they developed the program to compensate anyone who did have an adverse reaction in lieu of a handful of lawsuits driving those few companies out of business, thereby depriving society of a critical resource.

      I am very much against government shielding corporations from legal actions, or being used as the muscle behind (bought) laws that strong-arm citizens.... but in this case, this type of program was needed. The only two options would be to nationalize production of vaccinations, or to let all these diseases decimate the human species into eventual extinction.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    3. Re:Choice but with consequences by meglon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have an idea.... lets hire a bunch of doctors to use science to figure all that out. We can name them something like The Center for Disease Control.

      Unless you are a doctor, or epidemiologist, what you're really saying is you want to argue that your uneducated opinion is as valid as centuries of medical knowledge. They have thought about the ramifications.. decades ago (and still do today). They've thought about what vaccines... decade ago (and still do today). The CDC isn't a drug company.. they don't make money by pushing drugs onto people; there job is to keep people alive, to prevent massive outbreaks, and to try to protect people from their own stupidity.

      Sadly, they've sorely underestimated the level of stupidity involved.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    4. Re:Choice but with consequences by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

      Unless you are a doctor, or epidemiologist, what you're really saying is you want to argue that your uneducated opinion is as valid as centuries of medical knowledge.

      I don't, for one second, think my opinions carry the same weight or are as valid as the doctors at the CDC.

      I respect the work they do, I'm quite sure they are no fools.

      But at the end of the day, I have the freedom to choose my own health care, if I don't want to go to the doctor when I'm sick, that is my right.

      Why are all of you in such a hurry to hand more power over to a large government that will just use it against you? Do none of you study history?

  11. Why so eager to give the pharma lobby our kids? by jrhooker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure, there are some things that could be advantageous if they were mandatory, but as soon the lobby dollars get the legal right to force folks to inject their kids with stuff, do you think it will stop anywhere reasonable? If so, you've got a lot more faith in the basic humanity of pharma execs than I do. We can justify anything in the name of enhancing shareholder value.

  12. Re:Citation needed. by Squiddie · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics... I searched your italicized quote there. First result.

  13. Re:Only if they pay for infections this causes by Sowelu · · Score: 2

    Vaccines are not 100% effective. If an average person is in sufficient contact to transmit to ten other people over the span of a disease, and have a 90% chance of passing something to them when they're unvaccinated, you've got an outbreak on your hands. If the transmission rate is 2% for vaccinated people, it might really suck to be in that 2%, but it won't cause an epidemic.

  14. Re:Only if they pay for infections this causes by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about someone else who can't receive the vaccine? The whole point of herd immunity is to protect those who, for health reasons, cannot receive a vaccination. Once that herd immunity is compromised, it's not just the children of evil, repugnant, vile, despicable, moronic parents who deny decades of medical science that can be harmed, but the children of decent rational parents whose children have immunological conditions that prevent them from being immunized.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  15. Re:HPV by ArcherB · · Score: 2

    I'm going to bet he's referring to the HPV vaccine. Because obviously if you vaccinate your kids against an STD (even one that causes cancer!), you're just promoting sex. Never mind that the stats don't back that up at all.

    This pause in Republican bashing brought to you by a mandatory vaccination proposed by Rick Perry, a Republican.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  16. Re:Citation needed. by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 2

    The absurdity of this argument is that even if it were true, is having a mentally ill child worse than death?

    --
    by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
  17. Completely reasonable by roca · · Score: 2

    Even the quote Slate cherry-picked to drive their click-bait headline is innocuous. Parents *do* have a right to decide what's best for their children. That right must be balanced with public health concerns, so it makes sense to make vaccination mandatory (or mandatory-for-public-schoolers) in some cases, but surely not *all* cases as you move down the scale of public health impact. In particular there will be cases where the public interest would be served (a little) by forcing everyone to be vaccinated, but that interest doesn't outweigh the additional dilution of parental rights. That seems to be all Christie said here.

  18. Re:Only if they pay for infections this causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Vaccinations do not prevent you from being infected; They significantly reduce the likelihood of you being infected from any given exposure to the disease. If everyone is vaccinated this results in the disease dying back due to the infection rate being too low to sustain the disease, meaning everyone is less likely to be exposed. However, if there are many who are not vaccinated the dieback doesn't happen because there are enough easily-infected people around to keep the disease alive. Even though you might be vaccinated and more resistant to infection than if you weren't, if you come into contact with infected people over and over you stand a chance of being infected yourself.

  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. Re:HPV by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Informative

    Uhhh, HPV is the cause of huge numbers of deaths each year. A quick google reveals that cervical cancer rates are 2.3 per 100,000 women per year, aka 3500 deaths a year in the US alone. HPV is the root cause of over 90% of those cancers.

  21. Re:Citation needed. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Obviously! Kids dying of disease is all just a natural part of robust biological competition. Allowing the weak and mentally defective to live, on the other hand, inevitably results in some tax-and-spend bleeding heart coming along and demanding to expropriate the wealth creators in order to provide 'humane treatment' to such parasites.

    Really, since parents own their children, they should just be allowed to abandon them in the wilderness to die(as long as they aren't trespassing on somebody else's property, or supporting the socialist national parks by doing so) if they suspect that kiddo's ROI isn't favorable. They shouldn't be allowed to abort them, of course; but postnatal headcount reduction is how freedom works.

  22. Which non-threatening diseases? by wilson_c · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if Gov. Christie could name some of the diseases he thinks we vaccinate for unnecessarily? What are these innocuous infections the government is forcing parents to prevent?

  23. Of course they should have a choice by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 2

    Whether their kid gets the vaccine in the arm or the thigh.

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  24. Re:Only if they pay for infections this causes by ATMAvatar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What valid health concerns are those?

    The only concern of any kind I've ever seen raised is autism, which is based on a report that failed to show a causal link, had too small a sample size, and was thoroughly debunked by peer review. It is not a valid concern.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  25. Gonna take a lot of butter and syrup... by sillivalley · · Score: 2

    ...to cover a waffle that big...

    Talking out of both sides of his mouth -- his kids were vaccinated but parents should have the right to put their kids and others at risk -- oh, state's rights and the GOP party line... The only thing that would have made it better was if he was drinking a glass of water at the same time and spinning a plate on the end of a stick. This guy gives buffoons, clowns, and circus performers a bad name.

    Every once in a while, rarely, a politician actually speaks his mind (McCain for example), and usually catches hell for it, not keeping to the party line.

  26. Thank you. Looks like Reye's Syndrome... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Informative

    I searched your italicized quote there. First result.

    Thank you.

    It looks like he's talking about Reye's Syndrome, a pathology that can cause substantial brain damage (and/or other things: Liver damage, death, ...) in children - adults generally recover fully after a couple weeks. (I wanted to be sure he hadn't signed on to the immunization/autism claims, which have been thoroughly discredited.)

    Reye/Reye's is a reasonably rare side effect of several viral illnesses, including immunizations for them. Risk of it seems to be multiplied by a factor of something like five if aspirin is taken, but aspirin (or other salicylates) is not necessary for its occurrence. It seems also to be associated with pre-existing metabolic disorders, so some families might be at very high risk while others effectively immune.

    It's clear from even the soundbite posted: Rand's claim is that the decision to risk a child's health is properly the parents', and the government should not be able to force the child's exposure to a series of these risks over the parents' objections - informed or otherwise.

    Immunizations are partly about population immunity - reducing the density of people susceptible to a disease to the point that it peters out in a declining exponential rather than blowing up in an expanding exponential, thus also protecting those not (yet) immunized, for whom the immunization was ineffective, or who were at risk despite the availability of immunization (e.g. AIDS sufferers). So risk/benefit calculations are for populations as well. Accepting the risk of the immunization helps others as well as the immunized person, so being immunized is partly an altruistic act.

    Rand's point is that he believes the government shouldn't have the power to FORCE people to risk their lives for the benefit of others, that these life-critical decisions are personal and should be left up to the people in question (or their guardians if they're too young to make the choice themselves).

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  27. Adult children by mdsolar · · Score: 2

    The kids who were not vaccinated who are grown now should get their shots. It helps with keeping group immunity high and rubella can cause birth defects if caught during pregnancy.

  28. Re:HPV by meglon · · Score: 2

    Not keeping up on even past events, i see:

    http://www.lifenews.com/2011/0...

    "However, pro-life advocates and conservatives reacted strongly to the mandate and said the only way young girls would get the disease is if they engaged in sexual activity — prompting a call for more promotion of abstinence education, which Perry favors, instead. After the outcry, Perry allowed a bill to become law that the Texas legislature approved to backtrack on the decision, making it so young girls are no longer required to get the vaccine."

    Your pause in bashing "stupid fucking partisan idiots," which you mistake as bashing republicans (personally, i can see how those can easily be mistaken for each other), would have been good in ONE solitary instance prior to 4 years ago.... but because the "stupid fucking partisan idiot" caved in to a bunch of other "whiny stupid fucking idiots," your pause is no longer valid. Try to keep up on events.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  29. Re:Only if they pay for infections this causes by meglon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But that is part of the problem... really stupid people who think their ignorant, uneducated opinion is as valid as the accumulation of centuries of medical knowledge. You supposedly have a brain.. use it. Learn. Grow. Become a thinking person.

    If your car breaks down, you take it to a mechanic; if you travel by airplane, you have a pilot fly the plane; if you get sick, you go to a doctor... not a mechanic, or pilot.... and certainly not a blonde brain-dead ex Playboy playmate who's biggest claim to fame is taking off her cloths so a bunch of horny guys can jerk off to pictures of her.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  30. Rabid by Rollgunner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's funny you mention a rabid animal...

    We now live in a country where if I choose not to get my dog vaccinated against rabies, not only am I fined, but am legally responsible for the medical care costs of anyone my dog infects.

    But if I choose not to vaccinate my child and they get someone else sick, then it's OK, because it was my *choice*.

    The inescapable conclusion in my mind is that we care more for the welfare of our dog population than we do our human one.

  31. Re:Only if they pay for infections this causes by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    Mandatory kidney transplants?

    Are you seriously trying to equate being poked in the arm with a small needle a few time with giving up a kidney? They are many orders of magnitude different. Calling it a medical procedure sound ominous but it is a very minor medical procedure.

    Undergoing medical procedures to help other people should be voluntary.

    Vaccines are not required but they are required to attend school. You can refuse to vaccinate your child and educate them somewhere else.

  32. Demagoguery by sycodon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Demagoguery over this issue is breath taking.

    If you recall, Rick Perry mandated HPV vaccinations in 2007.

    Lots of people totally lost their shit over this despite the fact that HPV can cause cancer and the vaccine is effective and not just because of donations. The term parental choice was thrown around a lot.

    Many people in the news on their high horse about Christie 's comments are the same ones who were shitting bricks about Perry''s mandate. Hell, even Obama was on the fence about vaccinations in 2008.

    So file all this under Complete and Utter Presidential Race Bullshit.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  33. Re:Coward by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You have no idea what you are talking about.

    Good health and hygiene is much more effective than any vaccine.

    And we can all avoid cancer, transplants, AIDS, etc that compromise our immune systems. Also the recent outbreaks have occurred in areas where the incidence of non-vaccination has been high but hygiene has been good.

    Remove the vermin which spread disease

    Vermin do not spread measles, mumps or rubella.

    teach people to wash their hands.

    Which has no effect what so ever on the viruses in the air we breathe.

    It was those practices which lead to the decline of infectious disease.

    Possibly a decline but vaccines lead to a much larger decline.

    not some government voodoo.

    Would that be the "vodoo" that eliminated certain diseases from some countries?

    The immunisation program has been quite successful. Cuba declared the disease eliminated in the 1990s, and in 2004 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that both the congenital and acquired forms of rubella had been eliminated from the United States.

    We still get immunized because the disease can be imported from other countries.

  34. The most important vaccine by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No vaccine is 100% effective.

    That's very clearly the case. We used to have a really useful and highly effective vaccine that gave protection against the root cause of the problem we are discussing here: ignorance. The vaccine was education. Sadly as this has been watered down it has become less effective with the result that we now see increasing outbreaks of ignorance worldwide resulting in new symptoms such as intelligent design and not having your kids vaccinated as well as some old symptoms, like astrology, re-emerging.

    Sadly governments have not responded to this by once again strengthening the vaccine, education, that has protected us for so long. Instead they seem to prefer to treat each individual symptom of the disease by passing laws. This is simply not going to work: already new strains of ignorance, such as intelligent design, have proven remarkably resistant to this treatment and have started to attack the education vaccine directly weakening its effectiveness further.

  35. Letter from Roald Dahl by houghi · · Score: 3, Informative

    Olivia, my eldest daughter, caught measles when she was seven years old. As the illness took its usual course I can remember reading to her often in bed and not feeling particularly alarmed about it. Then one morning, when she was well on the road to recovery, I was sitting on her bed showing her how to fashion little animals out of coloured pipe-cleaners, and when it came to her turn to make one herself, I noticed that her fingers and her mind were not working together and she couldn't do anything.

    "Are you feeling all right?" I asked her.

    "I feel all sleepy," she said.

    In an hour, she was unconscious. In twelve hours she was dead.

    Read the rest on https://roalddahl.com/roald-da...

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.