Slashdot Mirror


Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

mpicpp sends the latest news on California legislation that would eliminate exemptions for vaccinating school children. A bill that would require nearly all children in California to be vaccinated by eliminating "personal belief" exemptions advanced through the State Legislature on Wednesday, though it still has several hurdles to clear. If approved, California would become one of only three states that require all parents to vaccinate their children as a condition of going to school, unless there is a medical reason not to do so. Under the bill, introduced after a measles outbreak that began at Disneyland, parents who refuse vaccines for philosophical or religious reasons would have to educate their children at home. The legislation prompted a roiling debate in Sacramento, and last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools. Last Wednesday, the legislation stalled in the Senate Education Committee as lawmakers said they were concerned that too many students would be forced into home schooling. This Wednesday, however, the bill passed that committee after its authors tweaked it, adding amendments that would expand the definition of home schooling to allow multiple families to join together to teach their children or participate in independent study programs run by public school systems.

616 comments

  1. It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    How dare you tell me that I have to actually take care of my kid! It's my kid, and my choice not to feed it!

    1. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Nicopa · · Score: 1

      I know you are joking. But the real problem is that you would probably kill other kids as well, not just your own.

    2. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's also my choice to give loaded handguns to my 3 year old, because freedom and all that stuff.

    3. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by taustin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The issue isn't whether or not you risk your kid's life, it's whether or not you risk the lives of other people's kids, and others who can't be vaccinated, and whether or not the taxpayer is going to foot the bill when you kid's sick.

    4. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's total BS. There's always some small portion of the population who can't handle the vaccine (like the egg-allergic guy above), or for whom the vaccine just plain doesn't work. They do just fine in school. Being allergic to eggs is not a major problem for a schoolkid, and doesn't make them more susceptible to other diseases. None of this was a problem in years past, thanks to herd immunity: with ~97% of the kids immunized, the disease just never popped up in civilized society, and everything was great. We almost forgot about measles until recently because of the effectiveness of these immunizations, even though not 100% of kids were immunized. But now, with all the idiotic anti-vaxxers, measles is back.

    5. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by taustin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, that's not really the way it is. There are many reasons why someone can't be vaccinated. Being immunosuppressed is only one of them. Egg allergies are rather more common, and school represents little danger to a kid who is allergic to eggs.

      Plus, the number of kids who can't safely be vaccinated is small enough to not break herd immunity. The number of kids whose parents are idiots is much, much larger. As the recent measles (and whooping cough) outbreaks have shown.

    6. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Hussman32 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The point is to have enough people inoculated such that herd immunity takes effect. There will always be a few people that can't take the vaccine. As long as they are few, the rest are safe.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    7. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you are joking. But the real problem is that you would probably kill other kids as well, not just your own.

      The real problem is that that jerk would end up killing his kids.
      This personal freedom bullshit has gone too far in the US of A. I'm happy to see the state of California having sentient beings in the legislature.

    8. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      using the R0 value for measles and pertussis (the two most highly infectious diseases presently known), the threshold of herd immunity requires about 95% compliance in the population. polio is less contagious and the herd immunity threshold is at about 83% compliance.

      the student immunization compliance rate for the 2014-2015 school year in CA is 87% at private schools and 91% at public schools.

      the good news here is the funds to accommodate iron lungs, add wheelchair ramps and crutch stands in the wake of a polio outbreak will be needed first at private schools. they're nearly at the threshold - cheer them on ...

    9. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just a reminder about constitution and the rights that provide for citizens, the catch here, ALL CITIZENS, including the wee ones. Children are not pets and most certainly are not the possessions of parents. Children are citizens with the full right of protection of all other citizens (just not all of the responsibilities), including protection from those people recognised as the guardians of those children. So yeah, just like all other citizens expect to be protected from the bad decisions of others so children are entitled to that same right.

      If you personally want to decide whether some one else gets an inoculation or not based upon beliefs, get a pet and not a child. As it stands the whole community decides for the benefit of not only the community but the individuals within that community who gets inoculated, when those individuals have the right of protection but not the mature responsibility to decide for themselves.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    10. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 3, Insightful

      multiple families to join together to teach their [unvaccinated] children or participate in independent study programs

      a.k.a. "agar dishes for childhood diseases".

    11. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by twitnutttt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bravo, California! This state led the way in recognizing the second hand harm of cigarette smoke. Hope they do the same with antivaxer idiots.

      ...last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools.

      Cry me a river, you morons. Your stupidity in unfairly infringing on the rights of others to not die of completely preventable diseases.

    12. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by ZeroInt · · Score: 0

      You seem to be getting -1 unpopular truth mod. For the record I am of the persuasion that if you desire to attend public school you must have proof of vaccinations.

    13. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      There are people who are not immune suppressed that are not protected, even if they were vaccinated. The number of immune suppressed people is small and tolerable, just like the people for whom the vaccine was ineffective. It is only when we start adding all the kids of people that have philosophical objections to the list that we get into the unacceptable risk territory.

      1. We don't know whose vaccines were ineffective until the actually contract the disease.

      2. While the number of people whose vaccines were ineffective and the number of immune suppressed people is known, the number of people with philosophical objections is a cultural phenomenon and can vary wildly.

      3. The number of people with suppressed immune systems is small enough not to put us over the tipping point. We could ban them from schools too, but we don't have to.

      4. If we could guarantee that the number of people with philosophical objections would be small enough, it would also be fine. We could implement a lottery for stupid people to try to be exempted and still keep numbers of unvaccinated people small, but it's just easier to remove this exemption for people who don't need it, and ultimately better for them.

    14. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So get your kid vaccinated, then they are safe. Why are you worried about my kid's health?

      The CDC's safety data is exactly what you would expect from a government corrupted top to bottom by oligarchy, and the medical cartel needs your $, whether you want to deliver it or not.

      To say that the science is settled is ignorant. The vaccines change and our understanding of the human immune system changes, so the best-judgment answer may vary every few years.

      Vaccine insiders have solid facts on their side when they criticize the CDC and its approach to vaccine safety. Deal with those, not from the point of view an ideology in support of a cartel.

    15. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      #4 is why the anti-vaccine movement was able to grow. The anti-vaxxers said "You don't really need the vaccines. Just wash your hands real well or take HOMEOPATHIC REMEDY and you'll never get whooping cough," Sure enough, they didn't get whooping cough, but the reason wasn't washing hands (though that is important) or homeopathic remedies (which isn't good for anything). It was because the anti-vaxxers were few enough that they were protected by herd immunity. Even though they weren't getting the vaccines, they were still enjoying vaccines' protection.

      But then the anti-vaxxer ranks grew and herd immunity began to break down. Now we're starting to see outbreaks of diseases that, by all rights, should be lining up behind smallpox for inclusion in the "wiped out" club.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    16. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      And what about kids who are exposed to vaccine preventable diseases before they are old enough to get the vaccine?

      And what about the kids who have medical conditions (allergies, immune system issues) that mean they can't be vaccinated?

      And what about kids who are vaccinated but whose vaccines don't "take"? (The vast majority do work, but some don't.)

      If all other kids are vaccinated? These kids will be fine because herd immunity will protect them. There will be so many vaccinated kids that diseases won't be able to find their way to the vulnerable ones.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    17. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Yes, but allowing the anti-vax community to grow beyond the acceptable threshold is exactly the opposite of what my #4 was describing (i.e. limiting the number of philosophical exemptions).

      I'm not saying we should do #4. All I am saying is that if we did #4 (allow anti-vaxers to exist but not flourish), it would have still been ok.

    18. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      In the Army, you didn't have to get all of those shots, but if you didn't get the shots, and contracted an illness those shots would have prevented there would have been a Courts Martial for you. I'd be open to anti-vaxers being criminally liable for harm done to their children by neglecting their vaccinations.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    19. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by turkeyfish · · Score: 0, Troll

      This bill will impinge on no one's freedom, since anyone who objects is free to move to a Red State where giving other people communicable diseases is perfectly OK and a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

    20. Re: It's my choice to kill my kid! by jd2112 · · Score: 2

      It's not a liberal / conservative thing. My observations are that anti-vaxers are more likely to be either ultra-liberal hippie types or ultra-conservative 'anything the government does is bad' types.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    21. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It is really quite problematic, the difference in rights between children and adults, who gets to decide for whom, how does the opinion of professionals weigh against the opinions of people with no specialist knowledge. Who holds sway over the decisions with regard to children, trained professionals in specific areas only or an amateur parent in all areas. Parent decides, difficult, because their decision will likely be based upon ignorance or falsehoods propagated by others with vested interests in those falsehoods.

      Solution might well be something parents could hate even worse, compulsory parent hood training and evaluation. Probably made a little bit easier to become accustomed to if it started in high school as part of sex education, not just how to make babies and avoid disease and unwanted pregnancy but how to bring them up and the important decisions a parent needs to make and why the correct answers are the correct answers, fail and you can not finish high school (there could be an alternate to that penalty but I am not going there). High school should cover more citizenship training, justice system, politics, social services and parenting. Better to convince people than force them.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    22. Re: It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which PR firm to show for, and how much do they pay? I'm in the mood to make the world a worse place and would like to make some money while doing it!

      Or do you just have religious faith and whatever the official media tell you?

    23. Re: It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * which PR firm do you shill for

      Damned autotypos

    24. Re: It's my choice to kill my kid! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The crazy anti-vaxxer bitch that you Americans exported to Australia is ultra-conservative with extra Ann Rand "bring back the Russian nobility" on top. The cancer spread from one to thousands within five years.

    25. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you and your kids are vaccinated, then why do you care?

    26. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but it's only back for the anti-vaxxers so who gives a fuck?

    27. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did you not read my post? It isn't just anti-vaxxers, there's other people who are susceptible to these diseases: people who can't take the vaccine (allergic or immune-compromised), and also the unlucky 1-2% who *did* get the vaccine, and it simply didn't work for them.

      Also, we're talking about kids here; the anti-vaxxers' kids don't deserve to catch diseases. If it were just anti-vax parents catching diseases themselves because of their stupid choice to not vaccinate, then yeah, who cares? Hoist by their own petard and all that. But this isn't the case; it's innocent people, mainly kids (both theirs and other peoples'), who are suffering because of these idiots.

    28. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      I guess I'll have to vaccinate my kid, but as a protest I'll give him a spray bottle with measles virus to go spraying around the school.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    29. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you have a pet, such as a dog, in many you are required to register that pet, and registration requires proof immunization against various diseases, such as rabies. This is the protect the community as well.

    30. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like it's very important for the child to learn to protect him/herself from you ASAP, so....good job!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    31. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by dwillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because not all can be vaccinated. How many times does this need to be explained. Your choice not to vaccinate put's others at risk. It is not just a choice for your family, but for the immuno-compromised and the very young in our society as well. We all rely on the herd immunity and if you compromise it your choice then affects others and your rights end when they start harming others.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    32. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus vaccinations aren't 100% effective, so the safest choice is to give it to everyone (who can receive it) and hope it's enough.

    33. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Herd immunity from vaccines is a myth. http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/

    34. Re: It's my choice to kill my kid! by djdarko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Parents of kids in group 1 are making smart choices and doing their best to participate in a social society. They deserve to be protected, despite their body's immunity-compromised state. Parents of kids in Group 2 have made a selfish, uneducated choice that puts society at risk and that must be dis-incentivized. This proposed law is an excellent way to better align the interests of the parent with the interests of the child.

    35. Re: It's my choice to kill my kid! by djdarko · · Score: 1

      Correction: ...with the interests of *SOCIETY*.

    36. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no evidence second hand smoke causes harm. In a recent large scale study (76,000 participants), "only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as `borderline statistical significance'.”

      So what you mean to say is that "California leads the way in removing people's rights and liberties for no good reason whatsoever".

    37. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      The real problem is that the medical community has done a lot over the years to make people justifiably hesitant to blindly trust their every whim.

      That said this headline is misleading, immunization is a requirement to use public schools, but public schooling is not required.

    38. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      The issue is also whether you allow society to dicatate what medical procedures are performed on your body.

      Lets not forget the fine history of unethical human medical experimentation in the United States. And people think we should just give the government carte blanche to dicate medical procedures?

      Unbelievable. Something about history, and being doomed to repeat it...

    39. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >December 15th, 2009 | Tags: Eugenics, Rockefeller, Vaccines | Category: Babylon-Globalism, Fascism-NWO, Health

      >Recent Posts

      > Beware of Obama, Israel!
      > VACCINE VICTIM HANNAH POLING
      > Fake News; Fake Science
      > Gutting the Middle Class
      > Racist Democratic Party

      A blogpost by a random dude with no sources and Comic Sans. Yeah, I'm going to trust that.

    40. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you do realize that, for once, Mississippi and Alabama lead the way here, right? In those two states it is MANDATORY for your child to be vaccinated to attend a public school.

    41. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/86-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link

    42. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > rights of others to not die of completely preventable diseases.

      You have no such natural rights. My kids do however have the right to not be forcibly injected with anything I don't approve of.

    43. Re: It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The local family center sells nearly every vaccine for $5. I could go to the hospital, but they charged about $20, but at least insurance covers all vaccines 100%. If you have low income, you can get vaccines for your kids for free.

    44. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #4 is why the anti-vaccine movement was able to grow. The anti-vaxxers said "You don't really need the vaccines. Just wash your hands real well or take HOMEOPATHIC REMEDY and you'll never get whooping cough,"

      The anti-vaxxer movement grew from a distrust of government and the powers that be. Making it a legal requirement that the government has rights over your body (and your child's body) and can inject whatever it chooses to recommend into you, on pain of exclusion, probably won't do much to fix that trust issue. Vaccination rates have been high enough in the past without needing the government to regulate your body -- if the goal is to raise vaccination rates, then clearly it is possible to do that without this legislation.

      The problem is that's not where this measure's popularity stems from -- though "think of the children" is the pretext, it's popular just because we want to have power over our enemies -- "Haha, you hated anti-vaxxers, now our right-thinking society even has power over your bodies!"

    45. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

      I was going to say something similar. This may be a self-regulating problem since getting all the unvaccinated kids together is a recipe for a guaranteed mini-epidemic.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    46. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by rhazz · · Score: 1

      Yep, and they already exist up here: http://news.nationalpost.com/n...

    47. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and also the unlucky 1-2% who *did* get the vaccine, and it simply didn't work for them."
      It can be a lot more than that, chance of immunity from some vaccines is as low as ~70%. That's why you have to get multiple doses.

    48. Re: It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Let me repeat my question, since you DIDN'T ANSWER IT:

      "Please explain why group 1 isn't a risk to your children, but group 2 is."

      You idiot. You don't even understand WHY you support 'vaccination'.
      You say that "Parents of kids in group 1... deserve to be protected, despite their body's immunity-compromised state" - but THEY are exactly the same risk as children who aren't 'vaccinated' because their parents know it's a fraud! You fucking idiot. You can't even understand basic logic, nor what you are saying. Unbelievable.

      The Myth of 'Herd Immunity':
      http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/

    49. Re: It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if it did'n't kill me, can't I breathe fresh air once in a while or does your need for a drug step on my rights?

    50. Re: It's my choice to kill my kid! by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't be obtuse. Overwhelming majority of vaccines are well out of patent protection date and as such exceptionally cheap. As a result, instead of "big pharma", they're typically produced by copy drug makers around the world, both large and small.

    51. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      The issue is also whether you allow society to dictate what medical procedures are performed on your body.

      Lets not forget the fine history of unethical human medical experimentation in the United States. And people think we should just give the government carte blanche to dictate medical procedures?

      Unbelievable. Something about history, and being doomed to repeat it...

      Nice false dichotomy there.

      Nobody is dictating what medical procedures you can perform on your (childrens') bodies. Rather, the law prevents them from performing medical procedures (i.e. uncontrolled exposure to dangerous diseases) on unsuspecting victims (i.e. those who can't get vaccinated) in public schools. If you want to perform such experiments, you will now have to do it in the privacy of your own home on victims (i.e. children of other anti-vaxxers) who have consented in some form (i.e. by being ignorant.)

      Somehow I find your willingness to subject innocents to known dangers via your private medical experimentation far more disturbing than a slippery slope argument about the government possibly doing so in the future.

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    52. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by operagost · · Score: 1

      Since you appear to love straw men and slippery slopes, I'll point out that if the government can force you to vaccinate your children due to potential future harm to others, then they can order you to do just about anything in regards to raising them:

      - What hobbies they have
      - What toys they play with
      - Who they associate with
      - What clothes they wear
      - What food they eat

      So, basically, what anyone who has an open case with their state's child/family services department goes through right now. Except EVERY FAMILY will be under close scrutiny. Not just gun-lovin', Bible-bangin' nut cases like you detest. And since the state has royal immunity, I guess when stuff like this happens we can all just suck it up and deal.

      THAT is why I oppose the authoritarian state.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    53. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      vaccines are not unethical
      vaccines are not human medical experimentation

      your not vaccinating is unethical human medical experimentation

    54. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'd be curious to know how many in favor of mandatory vaccinations are pro-life... and the converse. Apparently, whatever happens to my baby is up to me.. until it's born. Then, the government takes over.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    55. Re: It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's Mississippi and West Virginia that don't have the personal exemption for childhood vaccinations.

    56. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ntelligent questions -- which the vaccine industry characterizes as "dangerous" -- are the greatest threat to the vaccine delusions still being played out across the world today, which is precisely why such questions are not allowed to be asked. Those daring to ask such questions are now being threatened with mass arrest and imprisonment -- that's how vulnerable the fraudulent vaccine industry has now become. It can be brought down by mere words if only those words are allowed to be circulated.

      What sort of questions are we not allowed to ask? Here are 21 censored questions the obedient, pharma-controlled mainstream media will never dare ask:

      Question #1) If measles vaccines confer measles immunity, then why do already-vaccinated children have anything to fear from a measles outbreak?

      Question #2) If vaccines work so well, then why did Merck virologists file a False Claims Act with the U.S. government, describing the astonishing scientific fraud of how Merck faked its vaccine results to trick the FDA?

      Question #3) If vaccines don't have any links to autism, then why did a top CDC scientist openly confess to the CDC committing scientific fraud by selectively omitting clinical trial data after the fact in order to obscure an existing link between vaccines and autism?

      His exact statement, published on the website of his legal counsel:

      My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998. I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.

      Question #4) If mercury is a neurotoxic chemical (which it is), then why is it still being injected into children and pregnant women via vaccines? Why does the vaccine industry refuse to remove all the mercury from vaccines in the interests of protecting children from mercury?

      The U.S. government tells us that lead in water is BAD, but mercury in vaccines is GOOD!

      Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/048467_vaccine_industry_intelligent_questions_scientific_principles.html#ixzz3Y3rWbtU3

    57. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but unvaccinated people are also a vector for disease mutation. They present the opportunity for the disease to become a new strain that can now infect the originally protected population.

    58. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on. Why are you so upset? The unlucky 1-2% of people in the United States that didn't have the vaccine work is _only_ 3 million people.

    59. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by rochrist · · Score: 1

      Why are you anonymous, Coward?

    60. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My concern is.

      Some unscrupulous, unethical, eugenic minded scientist, develops a vaccine which kills some illlness, but is genetically engineered to somehow identify by genome a partiuclar type of person and kill them. Noone knows about the hidden zero day vulnerability, it gets added to a mandatory list. 'to protect the kids' and tragedy happens.

      But this is how freedom dies a little each day, passed from committee through the floor our legislatures.

    61. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      I'd be there with you, but the trouble is most anti-vaxers are so because of a belief - the same belief that assures them that their child won't get sick. By the time the kids gets sick, it's too late. There is no deterrent if they believe they are safe (regardless of how rooted in reality their belief actually is).

      While personally I am ok with punishing them after the fact (a little more ok that I want to admit ;)), if it stands an equal to zero chance of working as a deterrent, I can't think it's a good idea politically.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    62. Re: It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no such thing as society.
      --
      roman_mirgaret_thatcher

    63. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      An excellent site, and very well balanced.

      It has this kind of nutters, that kind of nutters, and a sprinkling of other kinds of nutter.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    64. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I guess that doesn't Include your dick?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    65. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most PETS have to get shots too! Most dog owners take better care of their pets than anti-vaxers take care of children.

    66. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to your hole.

    67. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Wow, thanks for the correction, I wasn't sure about the exact numbers, but that's even worse, and shows how critical herd immunity is.

    68. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's scary that Mississippi and Alabama are leading anything. But OK, kudos to them!

    69. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't be bother to repeat refuting all of this crap that has is essentially a bunch of half-truths, so I'll just mark it troll.

    70. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

    71. Re: It's my choice to kill my kid! by djdarko · · Score: 1

      Coward: despite your merit-less claim to the contrary, herd immunity is the ONLY reason that anti-vaxxers have the luxury of electively not vaccinating their kids while still having a reasonable chance of them staying healthy. They are getting a free ride from herd immunity without contributing to it and they should be thanking all of the responsible parents out there whose good decision-making is protecting the AVs' kids from the irresponsible choices of their parents. The degree of herd immunity in a population is massively sensitive to the vaccination rate of that population and the herd immunity threshold (HIT) for a particular disease. For example, with measles we can support ~5% of the population being unvaccinated (or not successfully immunized due to poor response to the vaccine) without substantially compromising herd immunity. In general, that's enough to allow for all of those who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons to remain so without adverse social impact. Add-in the anti-vaxxer dummies, bringing the unvaccinated fraction of the population to ~10% or greater, and suddenly the herd immunity is massively compromised and all non-immunized individuals are put at risk. As a society, we cannot afford to allow the selfish and uninformed to put others at unnecessary risk with absolutely NO benefit. Read the Wikipedia article on herd immunity, particularly the section on "free riding": http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...

    72. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Nothing to do with any of that at all. Simply letter of the law stuff and children's rights versus parent's rights under a countries constitution, yep, they are equal. So I am male and these is only one answer for a male when it comes to abortion, I do not support it but it is the women's right to choose. Basically, pretty much I am male and hence abortion, it is most definitely not my right to choose, one way or the other. When you carry the burden and you take the physical health risk, then you get to choose. Now to take the idea beyond birth, would be to get the male to take full legal responsibility and risk for all the child's future behaviour including and especially that child's criminal behaviour, then and only then could the male be considered to have a say in abortion or not.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    73. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Group 1 is a risk, but it's not something they can change. They are usually a small enough percentage that they won't compromise herd immunity (which, if you had any understanding of epidemiology or well, anything that would qualify you to contribute to this conversation, you'd understand that it does exist), but the same can't be said for you and your children. We don't want to exclude group 1 because they did nothing wrong. You, on the other hand, have.

    74. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by blackpig · · Score: 1

      That kist has been thoroughly debunked here... http://lizditz.typepad.com/fil...

  2. Dummies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What a bunch of dummies. We require that they send their kids to school in shoes, some sort of shirt type thing, and pants too. Oh noes, we are discriminating against the nudists! Wah! Now we plan to require that be vaccinated against certain preventable diseases and not bring down herd immunity to levels where disease can spread. Oh noes, we are discriminating against the stupid! Wah! Bunch of idiots. If you think your kid is going to "catch autism" from an immunization I guess you have to pass your idiocy on to your kid through home schooling. Seems fair. Oh, BTW, keep them out of sports leagues because they better not get my kids sick...

  3. Fascists by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is what happens when one berserk political party controls your state.

  4. Seems to be OK all around then by dissy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The legislation prompted a roiling debate in Sacramento, and last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools

    For the moment let's set aside fair vs unfair, and just take their claim at face value. This action is unfair for the purpose of argument.

    That said... I fail to see what exactly their problem or complaint actually is.

    This small group of people are arguing for the legal right to unfairly engage in germ warfare while attempting to murder other school children and even some adults. The argument is this is perfectly acceptable and should be a protected right.

    So with that, these people clearly have NO problems with unfair choices being forced on everyone else, as that is the legal right they are demanding.

    So why complain when they get their wish, and we "unfairly" shut their children out of school?

    If they have no moral or even legal issues with (their) unfair choices being forced on people (us), why do they complain why the court states there is no moral or legal issues with (our) unfair choices being forced on people (them)?

    It has already been established that unfairly infecting other children at school is not only acceptable but should be a legal right, so clearly it is also both acceptable and should be a legal right to unfairly kick their children out of school, exactly as these parents are marching at the capitol to demand.

    Obviously the correct answer is that the hypocrisy is strong in these people - it just still somehow amazes me to this day such people don't realize that hypocrites are exactly what they are being.

    1. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What about the rights of the children? Is it okay for patents to force their views on their children and stop them being vaccinated? Parents can't deny their children an education, so why should they be able to deny them this protection?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no vaccine against ignorance, stupidity and the disability to recognize hypocrisy.

    3. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That being said, why should parents be allowed to force anything on their children? We should come up with a long list of everything that it is okay for your children to know and learn and you are required as a parent to teach them only those things. Every year all the scientists and politicians can get together and determine what our children can learn and believe and what they cannot. And any parents that "force" beliefs or ideas on their children different from the approved ones can be locked up and the children sent to better families.

    4. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That said... I fail to see what exactly their problem or complaint actually is.

      In this last week an anti-vaxxer group in Australia put out a post on their FB page likening forced vaccination to rape (penetration without consent). They even illustrated it with a photo of a guy standing over a women in a menacing pose and holding his hand over her mouth.

      So at this point I have no clue what some of them are thinking, and wouldn't even know how to communicate with them. (Although this particular message was so off that even a lot of the anti-vaxxers who were members of that group were decrying how bad it was.)

      But what is even scarier is that I saw on CNN yesterday that even ISIS is keeping up vaccinations in the territory that it controls.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    5. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0, Troll

      Slippery slopes are logical fallacies, not because they don't sometimes work, they are logical fallacies because they sometimes fail. That being said ...

      At what point can the state compel people to have medical procedures done? Pregnant at 15, forced abortion? Take kids away from parents the state doesn't like how they are being raised?

      Additionally, THIS kind of ruling / law doesn't really bode well with Abortion. The line is "My body, my choice" is completely done away with.

      And what happens when we actually prove that Autism disorder is caused by bad vaccines? We already know some vaccines have really bad adverse problems, and kill. And if Vaccines are completely safe, why do they hide the data regarding adverse reactions with structured settlements?

      The fact is, FORCING vaccines doesn't protect ANYONE from ANYTHING. Those people at risk, are still at risk. Those people who have been vaccinated are still protected. In fact, the Measles outbreak at Disneyland had almost nothing to do with the no-vaccine advocates, but was due to a strain that the American Vaccine doesn't fully protected against, and many of the victims were simply too young to have been through the fully regime.

      But Facts don't matter when you have government FUD on your side.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by spire3661 · · Score: 0

      "This small group of people are arguing for the legal right to unfairly engage in germ warfare while attempting to murder other school children and even some adults."

      Unhelpful rhetoric.

      --
      Good-bye
    7. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by SmaryJerry · · Score: 1

      Your saying that some vaccines might kill? Maybe if someone is allergic to them. But these diseases ACTUALLY kill babies and old. These shots are proven to be completely harmless and have no long term effect whatsoever. I bet these are the same people who think cell phone towers cause cancer, which also had to have a federal law made stating no one can refuse to have a cell phone tower installed near them because they believe it harms health. Have you ever heard a single actual doctor of medicine, not a corny herb doctor, say these could be harmful? Sometimes laws are required to protect people from their own stupidity, in fact i'd say most laws are for this purpose.

    8. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't be vaccinated, so I need to rely on herd immunity instead. So at what point does your right to avoid vaccinations end, and my right to avoid the unvaccinated begin?

    9. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by NoKaOi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The legislation prompted a roiling debate in Sacramento, and last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools

      For the moment let's set aside fair vs unfair, and just take their claim at face value...

      Okay, setting aside that claim...the law isn't actually saying that you have to vaccinate your children (personally I think it should, but it doesn't). It merely says you have to vaccinate your kids in order to allow them to expose other children in public school. If you want to homeschool your children, you don't have to vaccinate. You're kids also aren't allowed to bring a gun to public school, but if you want your kids to have access to a gun while they are learning, then again, you can homeschool them. Same fucking thing.

    10. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Vaccination without consent is an assault. There is NO OTHER way to describe it.

      Except that it is not happening. If you don't want your kids vaccinated, then that is your choice. Have at it. You just can't send them to school where other kids are endangered by your choice.

    11. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by PraiseBob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And what happens when we actually prove that Autism disorder is caused by bad vaccines?

      Did you pay any attention to the news this week? The study that took years and years, involving almost 100,000 kids, conclusively showing that there is no link? Even if there is a link, its statistically so tiny as to be irrelevant.

      And yes, the state can and does take away children from parents if the state doesn't like how they are being raised. It happens daily. Parenthood isn't some right that supercedes other individuals safety.

      The fact is, FORCING vaccines doesn't protect ANYONE from ANYTHING.

      I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point, since I didn't catch polio, or measles, or a wide variety of other diseases, and that is almost entirely due to the state forcing vaccinations on other people.

      In fact, the Measles outbreak at Disneyland had almost nothing to do with the no-vaccine advocates

      So you are saying there is no connection between a low vaccination rate, and outbreaks of disease? You can make that claim, but the CDC, the AMA, and most reputable doctors, strongly disagree with that notion. Not just in general, but in this specific outbreak where a study found that the low vaccination rate was responsible.

    12. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The fact is, FORCING vaccines doesn't protect ANYONE from ANYTHING.

      But it doesn't dooooooooooooo anything. Fucking derp on a rope.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    13. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I like vaccinations, but i love Liberty more.

      Do you agree with the philosophy that my freedom to swing my fists ends at your nose?

      How about my freedom to spread dangerous germs?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    14. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by bobbied · · Score: 0

      Man you started out so well... Then slam, you dove into the deep end with all that "Vaccines are dangerous" tripe. All that junk about vaccines being bad is mostly just junk with very little fact and even less science to back it up. Vaccines are safe and effective if given properly to as many people as possible. They prevent sickness, pain and death. Don't fall for the people who are selling you a different story.

      Look, the reason to reject such fascist like rules like mandated vaccinations is quite simply freedom. Religious and personal freedom. If a parent has a religious belief (and many religions hold just such views) that say no vaccinations, in a country where religions freedom is a fundamental right, the government simply cannot side step that, even if the future health and welfare of children is at stake. Unless the parenting is an immediate danger to the children (they are being abused or refused necessary medical treatment) the parents must have the right to do what they see fit. It's called freedom, and in this case religious freedom trumps the CDC's wish to vaccinate. Sorry, it just has to. Unless you ascribe to a fascist view, where government rules everything.

      That being said, I strongly recommend that parents follow their kid's doctor's advice and vaccinate their children unless they really feel they shouldn't for religious reasons. Vaccinations are safe and effective and prevent much pain and suffering, not just for your child but for other people in the world. They are not without their risk, some do have adverse reactions to them (and I personally know one little girl who will suffer her whole life from having a vaccination), but in the over all accounting they PREVENT pain and death and therefore should be taken.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    15. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by bobbied · · Score: 1

      No but there is an award for those who are stupid enough...

      http://www.darwinawards.com/

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    16. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by spire3661 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      My right to refuse supersedes your right to live. Welcome to living in a Republic.

      --
      Good-bye
    17. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by spire3661 · · Score: 0

      Germs i may or may not get.... You have no right to force people into your idea of safety on the chance i might become a carrier. As i said im all for immunizations, i just realize that forcing it is VERY wrong.

      --
      Good-bye
    18. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vaccination without consent is an assault. There is NO OTHER way to describe it. Its pure, full on tyranny of the masses. I like vaccinations, but i love Liberty more.

      If you love Liberty I have news for you : you cannot live in a civil society.
      Tough luck living in the wilderness. No laws, no nothing. You're totally unconstrained, free to live to the fullest of your existence.

    19. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by cheesybagel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fine. Pay for a private school which accepts unvaccinated children or home school them.

    20. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      That is fine, then give me the money that would otherwise be given to the school so I can pay for another option.

      School vouchers fixes this problem instantly. Give us that option and you'll have no problems.

    21. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vaccination without consent is an assault.

      If I set my apartment on fire, and you live just above me, is it assault for the fire department to put out the fire even if I forbid them to do so?

      If you want to live among other people, those people can and will make up rules that prevent you from harming them. You can exercise your liberty by moving into a cabin in the mountains.

    22. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religious beliefs should always be subordinated to the law of the land. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion the people who are asking to be governed by the Sharia law should have their way. Do you really want that?

    23. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by lgw · · Score: 1

      Vaccination without consent is an assault. There is NO OTHER way to describe it. Its pure, full on tyranny of the masses. I like vaccinations, but i love Liberty more.

      This is bullshit, but it's not flamebait, and shouldn't be modded down. Slashdot doesn't have an "idiot" mod, nor should it. We discuss ontopic ideas here, we don't censor.

      BTW, I totally agree that "Vaccination without consent is an assault". Almost all medical procedures are considered assault in law, usually felonies, if a competent adult doesn't consent to the procedure. It works differently for kids, though, and parents don't always have to consent. Further, I'm totally OK with the police assaulting citizens in some circumstances - mostly those involving said citizen putting my life at risk. So, maybe to to make things clear, we should couple the forced vaccination of the kid with a police beatdown of the parent.

      Liberty is not license, and while I think we're usually far too quick these days to say "you can't do that! it makes me uncomfortable, or hurt me in some trivial way!", this isn't one of those cases. You just don't have the right to spread contagious diseases.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    24. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes the government does, I'm guessing you also stopped drinking tap water once the government starting adding fluoride to it.

    25. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by sexconker · · Score: 1

      What about the rights of the children? Is it okay for patents to force their views on their children and stop them being vaccinated? Parents can't deny their children an education, so why should they be able to deny them this protection?

      What about the rights of the children? Is it okay for patents to force their views on their children and vaccinate them? Parents can't deny their children an education, so why should they be able to deny them this protection?

      Your "argument" is "think of the children" but without the "think".
      You are fucking arguing that children shouldn't have views (against vaccination) pushed on them, so you should push your views (for vaccination) on them.

    26. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by sexconker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You don't have a right to not catch diseases from infected people.
      People do have a right to not submit themselves to injections they don't agree with.

    27. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its pure, full on tyranny of the masses.

      So you prefer a tyranny of a minority? That is your only other choice you know.

      In this case a minority medically endangering the entire community.

    28. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      That is fine, then give me the money that would otherwise be given to the school so I can pay for another option.

      No. Choices can have consequences. Your choice to not vaccinate, you get to pay. Why should I pay for your decision to not vaccinate?

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    29. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by hondo77 · · Score: 3, Funny

      My right to refuse supersedes your right to live. Welcome to living in a Republic.

      The Republic has decided otherwise. Welcome to the real world.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    30. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "...You have no right to force people into your idea of safety..."

      You have a decent view on vaccination in general, but a _zero_ conception of The Social Contract.
      We all live under Social Contracts. It begins with Potty Training, and pretty much ends when our Last Will And Testaments are finally read.
      Many of these Contracts involve a certain level of Force. These Forces are codified by what we call Laws. You do obey (Most...) Laws? If you decide that you will no longer obey any Laws except for those you make for yourself, you will find the remainder of your life Expensive, Restrained, and with any luck, Short.
      Laws are generally based on Ethical considerations; those that are based on Moral considerations generally tend to have problems in Execution. (Take that last word both ways.) Making Law is dull work, as anybody who has attended our weekly "Let's discuss what we should regulate next, why we are still awake." meetings can attest. (Note- there are no such meetings, but hinting that there are does tend to make Right-Wing nutjobs foam at either end.)
      But we have long ago agreed that restricting Liberties for some to ensure Life and Happiness for the rest makes this thing called Society, and yes, Force needs to be applied to _all_ to make it work.

      Pure Freedom and Pure Liberties are illusional. They don't now exist, and they never have existed. In fact, this concept is the very basis of what some may call "Free Markets". Bargain some of your illusional Rights away for no doubt equally delusional Guarantees began long before the Trading in chunks of Mammoth started.

      If you are sending your nasty little Monsters to School, you are already Forcing them to do something. Even if you are Home Schooling, you are Forcing them to learn whatever weird concept of Education you endorse. By Force, you Endorse.
      Our Society has determined that Vaccinating Kids before Schooling is a _very_ Good Idea. Sort of like forcing Kids to wear clothing and shoes, to have them show up on time, to agree to not beat other Kids up, and to not bringing Daddy's Glock in for Show And Tell. (Unless Tell involves explaining just why Mommy hasn't been seen recently.)

      As has been exhaustively explained, there are (A Few) good reasons for not having your Kids Vaccinated, (I still remember that first intramuscular Polio Shot...), but there are _no_ legitimate Religious, Political, or Philosophical Reasons. None whatsoever.
      Unless you and your dirty, ill-mannered, frequently ill, and terminally Stupid kid decide to live in a Cave together, far, far, away from any other People.
      BTW, watch out for Bears.

    31. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by EmeraldBot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My right to refuse supersedes your right to live. Welcome to living in a Republic.

      Everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice, how life comes first.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    32. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somewhere around 20,000 children die of poverty every day. At what point does your right to spend your money on frivolous luxury items end and their right to not die of poverty begin? How much should we force people to do things they don't want to do solely for the benefit of others?

      As something of a socialist, I tend to believe that the capitalist economies are mostly unfair - that most rich people don't deserve to be rich and that most poor people don't deserve to be poor. So I'm broadly in favor of taking money from rich people to provide basic necessities for poor people.

      But I also believe in freedom: you try to accommodate people's preferences and quirks where possible. At the moment in the USA, the rate of vaccination seems high enough to keep the targeted infectious disease under control. A few minor outbreaks here and there - that are easily contained - aren't really a big deal.

      It's not clear to me that anything needs to be done increase the rates of vaccination. But if that starts to change then there are lots of incentive programs that allow for individual quirks and preferences. For example, people could be allowed to opt out of vaccinations by paying a $10,000 fee or doing 100 hours of community service if they couldn't afford the fee.

    33. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      How about my freedom to spread dangerous germs?

      So should it be illegal to go out in public if you have a cold? People with weaker immune systems, such as the elderly, could die if they caught your cold.

      A better law to fix this problem would be to allow kids to consent to having vaccinations without parental knowledge. As it is this law will encourage anti-vaxxers to home school and spread their ignorance to the next generation. Allowing kids to consent once they are, say 10, would let you educate them about the advantages of vaccines and then let them have the benefits without their idiot parents getting in the way. It also means that there is no need to force anyone to undergo a medical procedure which they do not want.

    34. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      This is a might vs right argument.

      --
      Good-bye
    35. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by One+With+Whisp · · Score: 2

      Your choice to not vaccinate, you get to pay.

      And that's why there's opposition from people. Anti-vaxxers are dumb as shit, but they have rights. If they're paying for schools (through taxes) then they get a say in how the schools operate.

      No taxation without representation.

    36. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by One+With+Whisp · · Score: 1

      This is a mere strawman, and a poor one at that.

    37. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why should parents be allowed to force anything on their children?

      Answering as a parent: Because young kids are really bad at making long term choices. If I let my 2nd grader decide all the foods he ate, he would live on a diet of pizza, cookies, McDonald's chicken nuggets*, and macaroni and cheese. Perhaps he would occasionally eat a piece of fruit. Instead, I prompt him to eat veggies that he declares gross before even trying them - but which he'll often love after eating them. If it were solely up to him, my 2nd grader would grow up with horrible eating habits. It's my job as a parent to force good eating habits on him in the near-term, teach him why good eating habits are important, so in the long term - when he's old enough to make these decisions himself - he'll eat healthy.

      * We have McDonald's on an extremely rare basis. One meal from there a month is a lot for us. I have no problem with the occasional fast food meal, but it definitely shouldn't be a regular part of your diet.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    38. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not being denied the right to vote, thus, they still have representation.

    39. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ultimately, all arguments regarding government can be reduced to the willingness of society to tolerate violence being done on its behalf. If you persist in your desire to cause harm to society, the pretty ideas that couch our way of life like liberty, rights, and security will fall away society will use force to protect itself.

      Rapists and murderers feel just as good and justified as you and society neutralizes them to protect itself. Your decision to become (or force your children to become) a carrier of infectious disease is not respected by society at large.

    40. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, you don't have the right to spread germs around willy-nilly because you don't feel like taking basic precautions. Look up the tale of Typhoid Mary. Despite being a carrier of Typhoid, she refused to take basic steps to stop spreading the disease (since she didn't agree with those steps). After people died, she was locked up so she couldn't infect anyone else.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    41. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by flopsquad · · Score: 1

      If they're paying for schools (through taxes) then they get a say in how the schools operate. No taxation without representation.

      +1 well-played snark. Anti-vaxxers are exactly the type of people who would take that "no taxation" line they read in a grade school textbook and misapply it to their own imagined plight.

      Of course they have representation at all levels of government, and their property taxes no more give them the right to put other kids at risk than to dictate the Bible as the official history textbook.

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    42. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      You are using de-humanization to drive your point. I am an equal human to you. You have no right to force stuff into my body as we are equals. You may not like my position, but you havee to respect my right to that position or we will come to blows. You have no right to ask this, and i will fight you to the death if you try. There are limits to how far government can limit Liberty for Safety.

      --
      Good-bye
    43. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason it's flamebait is that it's twisting "you can't send your kids to school if they are not vaccinated" into "the government is going to hold you down and push a needle into you" for the sake of illiciting an emotional response. No one is forcing anyone to get vaccinated.

    44. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      If a person has a religious objection to having their kids vaccinated, they can simply move to another state. As Ronald Reagan said, people should be able to vote with the feet. Besides, they will probably feel more comfortable going back in time to a Red State, where vaccinations are less and less common, except for the wealthy.

    45. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      Obviously, it depends upon whose children you are talking about. The ones getting infected or the ones doing the infecting. The reality is that quarantines have long been upheld in the courts and in the area of public health as an effective means of controlling communicable disease. If people don't want their kids quarantined, they can always move to a Red State like Texas, where your kid will soon even be able to bring a handgun to class and clearly, where communicable disease will be the least of their worries.

    46. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Trogre · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Disclaimer: I am pro-vax.

      It has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that current MMR, DTaP, etc, vaccines are harmless except to those with specific medical conditions, and are effective against the diseases they target.

      Current vaccines.

      I think, however, that giving the government power to mandate vaccincations in this manner could lead to serious problems in future.

      While today's vaccines are fine, there is the possibility that one day a vaccination will be produced that will not be desirable by the people. The NSA for example has proven itself to be insidious and virtually untouchable. At some point in the future they could introduce tracking nano-devices or a behaviour modifying cocktail to some otherwise innocuous vaccine, and the populace would have no legal standing to object. Another possibility is a product being introduced that may not have gone through sufficient testing due to some failure in due process. While the government launches inquiries and debates matters, people who refuse it are subsequently refused healthcare and die.

      Vaccines for other conditions exist that have raised legitimate safety concerns: look up the current HPV vaccine for example.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    47. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you aren't as special as you think. Just deal with it.

    48. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Then you arent presenting an honest choice among equals.

      --
      Good-bye
    49. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Forcing the choice is using force.

      --
      Good-bye
    50. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      No. Choices can have consequences. Your choice to not vaccinate, you get to pay. Why should I pay for your decision to not vaccinate?

      Because that is my right, which clearly you don't respect. You only respect rights of those who agree with you.

      You're lucky to be able to be so selfish and stupid and get away with it, in most places in the world, you'd be killed for your beliefs.

    51. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You don't have a right to not catch diseases from infected people.

      In my state, knowingly spreading disease (e.g. by going to the crowds) if you know that you're infected is against the law.

      People do have a right to not submit themselves to injections they don't agree with.

      No-one has an absolute right to anything. All rights are ultimately balanced against the good of society. That's why free speech does not preclude libel & slander laws, for example, and why RKBA doesn't mean that you have a right to own a cruise missile.

      In this particular case, your right to control your body is overridden by the extreme degree of common good that results from mandatory vaccinations, combined with a very low degree of personal invasion that such a vaccination actually entails.

    52. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Just as we can compel you to pay your income tax by force if needed, so we can compel you to get yourself vaccinated. You can protest as much as you want, and you're welcome to "fight us to the death", but judging by the fact that you're still alive, it seems that you have diligently filed your tax returns so far, so I'm going to file it as "just talk".

    53. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've got the right to not vaccinate your kids and still send them to public school, then I have the right to spread smallpox through the school vents. After all, it's just a germ; your kids should build up a natural immunity to it in no time.

      I think we should start using that argument and see how long it takes before they start saying that measles, polio, etc. are nothing at all like smallpox because smallpox isn't naturally occurring anymore...

    54. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by dbIII · · Score: 1

      And what happens when we actually prove that Autism disorder is caused by bad vaccines?

      Considering the "proof" was an outright and obvious fraud by someone who had taken out a patent on a "good" vaccine that's pretty unlikely isn't it?

    55. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by dbIII · · Score: 1

      So at this point I have no clue what some of them are thinking,

      They want to be special and want to be listened to, so they started their own group to be in charge of so where they can watch people react when they yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.

    56. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it okay for patents to force their views on their children and stop them being vaccinated?

      I don't know - is it okay for parents to force their views on children and get them vaccinated? Because nobody's suggesting that children should be allowed to make the choice here, only that parents should be forced to vaccinate their children, even if it's against their will. You lot who are whining about the rights of children here are really arguing for "the right to tell other people how to raise their children."

      Since you think the government has the right to tell every individual what they may and may not do with their bodies, I presume you're completely fine with outlawing abortion and overturning Roe v. Wade, as well? After all, individuals have no ownership of their own body - it's public property, subject to whatever whim anybody elected to power gets into their head.

      Also, I hope you don't like smoking, or the occasional soda - because pretty soon, people will be telling you what food you can & can't put in your bodies. Because that's where this is going - and in fact, already has started going, if you look at the bans on soft drinks, smoking, and other similar activities enacted over the last few years.

      I can't wait to hear the people arguing for this law turning around and shouting about abortion rights and drug decriminalization. Don't change, you guys.

    57. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but at what point does your inability to be vaccinated abrogate your responsibility to engage your fellow citizens in constructive debate and convince them of the righteousness of your opinions?

      All I'm seeing here is "some people don't behave in a way I want them to, and so I will use the blunt tools of government power to force them to behave the way I think they should."

      Note that the anti-vaxxers aren't trying to outlaw anybody being vaccinated - they're simply arguing for their own right to avoid vaccines. You're perfectly free to engage with them, discuss the issue, and try to convince them of their error - but you don't seem to be doing that at all. I guess it's easier to go the fascist route and hold a gun to people's heads, since you can rationalize it as "for their own good, since I know better."

    58. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are endangering other people, and you don't care. Thus proving that you are an ass, to put it mildly.

    59. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should I pay for your decision not to save for retirement?

      Why should I pay for your decision not to go to college?

      Why should I pay for your decision to smoke, eat shitty food, and not exercise?

      Why should I pay for your inability to abstain from having sex?

      Why should I pay for your inability to secure appropriate health insurance for yourself?

      You see where this is going? If you want to subvert fundamental liberties "for the children" or "because common good," then you should CERTAINLY get ready to have that argument turned on you the next time someone with different ideas than you gets elected to power. And don't expect any appeal to "rights" or "liberties" will mean much to them, since you're now setting the precedent that those rights and liberties are negligible.

    60. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rapists and murderers feel just as good and justified as you and society neutralizes them to protect itself.

      It's funny that you talk about rape in trying to draw the parallel between the rapist and the person refusing to get vaccinated. In FACT, society is behaving as the rapist in this case, as they are the ones forcing citizens to have particular procedures performed on their body against their will - this is, practically, equivalent to state-sanctioned rape.

      No friend, if you're not *extremely* uncomfortable about forcing people to do certain things with their bodies that you've determined are "required," then you have no business dictating health policy for society.

    61. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DTaP vaccine causes convulsions at a rate of ~ 1 per 1750 doses administered. Same rate of "high fever" (105F or higher) which can be extremely harmful.

      Harmless? Not quite. Low rate of harm? Certainly - but if we're saying it's completely okay for half a percent of the children vaccinated (that's 50,000 incidents out of 10 million vaccinated), then we have different definitions of "harmless."

      And your point about "future vaccines" is also quite important.

    62. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Fine. Pay for a private school which accepts unvaccinated children or home school them.

      Okay. Can I have a refund on my taxes which paid for the public school that I can no longer use? See how that works?

      The problem, as I see it, is that the "my body, my right" ideology is clashing with the "your rights end where my nose begins" ideology which is turning into a real problem for those people who have enshrined both ideologies in their heads as gospel. One right trumps the other and different people have different ideas about which right trumps the other one.

      For example (using my question above), many people would respond that taxes are not opt-out and if you choose not to use a school it's YOUR choice and you do not deserve a rebate. Other people would respond that you should not have to pay twice to educate one child - once to a public school that your child does not attend and again to a private school that they do attend.

      TLDR - the sides are not anti-vaxxer vs vaxxer, it's "get tax rebate for not using school" vs "pay twice for schooling".

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    63. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by suutar · · Score: 2

      They do get a say. They just don't have attending students. I don't either. Can I get my money back?

    64. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this bill forbids you from sending your kids to ANY school. You have to home school them. You don't need a voucher.
      And you can consider the money you are paying in taxes for the schools you are not using your penalty for failing to understand epidemiology.

    65. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Germs i may or may not get.... You have no right to force people into your idea of safety on the chance i might become a carrier. As i said im all for immunizations, i just realize that forcing it is VERY wrong.

      I absolutely have a right to stop you punching me in the face. If you catch ebola I absolutely have the right to have you locked into a very, very secure quarantine facility until you either die or get better. So instead of pretending it's an entirely black and white issue, why don't you actually read my post and let me know where you draw the line?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    66. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by mjwx · · Score: 1

      That said... I fail to see what exactly their problem or complaint actually is.

      In this last week an anti-vaxxer group in Australia put out a post on their FB page likening forced vaccination to rape (penetration without consent). They even illustrated it with a photo of a guy standing over a women in a menacing pose and holding his hand over her mouth.

      So at this point I have no clue what some of them are thinking, and wouldn't even know how to communicate with them.

      Anti-Vaxxers know their message will never be taken seriously unless they use ridiculous amounts of hyperbole. This is why they never rely on actual science and fall back on nebulous threats to other things (freedom, sexual assault, your daughters virginity). They need people to associate vaccinations with something else bad without thinking. Standard operating procedure for almost all extremist groups really.

      it also demonstrates to the rest of us how out of touch with reality they are... But thats the kind of follower they want to attract.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    67. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most parents are no better. Seriously.

      Your kids will get YOUR religion.According to the vast majority of the rest of the world, a choice that will either be wrong or condemn them to the firey pits of hell for eternal torture. A seriously dumb idea. If ANY of the religions were correct, you would be best off leaving your religion out of the child's life entirely, then God would be able to speak above their wish to please their parents or social stigma and lead them to the true path. Or if there is no god, then left alone in peace to find themselves.

      In this case, since your child gets NO choice as to whether the infectious agent is allowed in, YOU cannot choose to give it a leg up.

      The problem isn't that parents should not choose anything for their kids, as you imply in your fallacy of the excluded middle, but that most parental rights are actually child abuse. You try doing what you do with your kid to someone else's and their parents would go ballistic.

    68. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      you have no right to shoot and kill someone unless they represent a mortal threat to you

      likewise, government has no right to use force against anyone unless that person represents a clear threat to society

      if you do not get vaccinated, you are a clear threat to society as a disease vector

      therefore, society has the right to protect itself from your irresponsibility of exposing people to danger, by authorizing government to force you to vaccinate

      it's exactly the same as protecting yourself from a home invader. you can get shot for invading a home, because you are an unknown mortal threat to the home's occupant. in the same way, if you don't vaccinate, you are a threat that society must neutralize with use of force

      the words in your comment are written as if government and society are forcing you to do something against your will for no good reason

      but society has a very good reason

      you are a threat to us if you do not get vaccinated

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    69. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that line of logic, you also have the right to grab random people off the street and remove one of their kidneys for transplant. After all, they can live with just one kidney, they'll only be less happy about it, and your right to live trumps their right to happiness, doesn't it?

    70. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      could you cite the HPV vaccine concerns? i remember some fearmongering from the right during the last election

      you need clear and present proof, not "maybe possibly could"

      your concerns are empty and pointless fear about hypotheticals that don't exist. therefore they are of no value

      vaccines work. we should mandate them

      someday they might not work you say? someday they could be a danger you say? what does that even mean? every fucking thing we make in the world can fuck up. maybe someday the AI of self-driving cars will screw up and drive people off bridges, so we should never have self-driving cars. what? this is just unfounded fear

      your position is nonsense

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    71. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Okay. Can I have a refund on my taxes which paid for the public school that I can no longer use? See how that works?

      That sounds fair as long as you also pay a large excess tax that covers the host of setting up quarantine zones, emergency medical care and lifelong disability benefits when "Private School for anti-vaxxers" is inevitably swallowed by a full blown measles outbreak. The costs of this are likely to far, far outstrip the value of the school vouchers.

      In practice though the amount of accounting that it'd take to make this kind of opt out system perfectly fair is so large that it'd be better to just force people to take the vaccines. I guess like many on this site I'm not a huge fan of governments forcing people to do things against their will, but there are cases where it's clearly the best path forward, like obeying speed limits, paying taxes .... and being vaccinated.

    72. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Okay. Can I have a refund on my taxes which paid for the public school that I can no longer use? See how that works?

      That sounds fair as long as you also pay a large excess tax that covers the host of setting up quarantine zones, emergency medical care and lifelong disability benefits

      Why should I? Other people aren't billed in advance for engaging in expensive-to-treat behaviour, like starting wars.

      (I'm not really an anti-vaxxer, I vaccinate and encourage vaccination and, for my own kid(s), I am prepared to go to court to force the other parent to vaccinate my kid(s). I'm just the devils advocate here)

      I guess like many on this site I'm not a huge fan of governments forcing people to do things against their will, but there are cases where it's clearly the best path forward, like obeying speed limits, paying taxes .... and being vaccinated.

      There's a big difference between speeding, paying taxes and being compelled against your will to bodily penetration. There's a whole slew of laws that are specifically on the books just for those who want to refuse medical intervention of any sort - 'My body, My right."

      Maybe the only solution is to physically separate the vaccinated from the unvaccinated AND refuse taxes from those you do not provide services to... i.e. offer a rebate. It's totally unethical to accept payment for something (access to school) and then refuse to provide the something. Much better ethically to simply give them back their money.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    73. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Trogre · · Score: 1

      This is not about vaccines, it's about making them mandatory.

      Look I'm sure you're comfortable with having such naive trust in anything that has the word "vaccine" attached to it. I choose to be a bit more cautious. Before something is injected into your bloodstream you'd better be damn well sure that it is safe. Because a lot can go wrong with human chemistry. A lot.

      You said it yourself in another post:

      the greatest authoritarian government, run by the most fascist, megalomaniacal, sadistic person who has ever lived, would find no better tool of absolute control than mandatory hard drug use like meth, cocaine, or especially heroin

      Can you not see how such a megalomaniac would use a mandatory vaccination programme to their advantage?

      Of course current vaccines are perfectly safe, as they have undergone rigorous testing and refining. Why did they undergo such a process? Because of people who don't think like you do. My point was that at some point malice or error could very easily cause something undesirable to enter your bloodstream.

      Blind trust is seldom a good thing. I'm sorry that you don't seem to grasp that, and from your post it doesn't look as if you will be receptive to anything I say here - I just leave this here for the benefit of anyone else following this thread.

      tl;dr: Trust, but verify

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    74. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by dave420 · · Score: 1

      A republic is a country with no dynastic leader. It has absolutely nothing to do with the laws or rights present in such a country.

    75. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You don't have a right to not catch diseases from infected people.

      Actually you are very wrong about that. See the many cases where people were locked up because they knew they had diseases and spread them around by not taking basic precautions. Someone already linked you to Typoid Mary, but what about the constant cases of people being jailed for unsafe sex while knowingly carrying HIV.

      We have a right not be infected due to stupidity / malicious intent; anti-vaxxers fall under both.

    76. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You're lucky to be able to be so selfish and stupid and get away with it, in most places in the world, you'd be killed by your own beliefs.

    77. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You pay for schools because everyone in society benefits from having schools. A society of poorly-educated people is not successful and won't last for long. You don't pay for schools in case you need to send your kid there. The world is bigger than you, and you really should brush up on your logic, as the only way your crippled arguments make sense is if they are viewed through the prism of a toddler's reasoning skills.

    78. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I'm in the same boat with my children (6 and 4 years old), the older one is really good about trying new things, but the younger one not so much. I think what I hat most about the youngest ones eating habits is that he will declare food he has eaten hand over fist previously disgusting when served to him again and insist that he has never eaten it before. One you get him to actually take a bite he remember he likes it and will then eat it hand over fist again but it gets old fast.

      For us fast food happens at very regular intervals, on the first Tuesday of the month and that is it. The Lego stores offer a free little mini model to build every month on the first Tuesday and we go and do that then I let them pick what we have for dinner. I don't understand children's love of cheap food stuffs like what is at McDonalds, White Castle, Taco Johns, or Panda Express, but it is a treat for them and the one day a month that they really look forward to is worth consuming some crappy food on my part.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    79. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      But what is even scarier is that I saw on CNN yesterday that even ISIS is keeping up vaccinations in the territory that it controls.

      Don't bring that up. Now you have just exposed that vaccines are an evil ISIS / IS / ISIL plot to kill innocents and infect the west to convert them to Islam. [/sarcasm]

      --
      Time to offend someone
    80. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by houghi · · Score: 1

      Not good enough. They will meet the other kids at Disney World and other (semi-)public places like public transport and the park.

      I would say: If you don't want your kids vaccinated, they won't be your kids anymore. Problem solved. (We could give them to the gay community)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    81. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by houghi · · Score: 1

      What about the kids in a public park? Or when to walk into MacDonalds? Or Disney? Are they allowed to kill the other kids them?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    82. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by goose-incarnated · · Score: 0

      You pay for schools because everyone in society benefits from having schools. A society of poorly-educated people is not successful and won't last for long. You don't pay for schools in case you need to send your kid there. The world is bigger than you, and you really should brush up on your logic, as the only way your crippled arguments make sense is if they are viewed through the prism of a toddler's reasoning skills.

      Ah yes, the old standby of the religious right - insults! In light of your cogent arguments that anyone concerned about forcefully compelled medical procedures, a decision that has never turned out well in the history of mankind, I must indeed concede the point that this time forcefully compelled medical procedures could very well turn out okay because obviously anyone other than a toddler can see it. It's so obvious... we'd just need to break a few laws first, of course.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    83. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by daedalus2097 · · Score: 1

      Well you're clearly way off the mark here. In what world of mathematics is 1 out of 1,750 equal to 0.5%? Even 2 out of 1,750 is far lower than 0.5%, and that's assuming that nobody gets both side-effects. It makes me wonder where those numbers came from in the first place. Anyway, given that it's vaccinating against a number of diseases that can be fatal (pertussis alone has a mortality rate somewhere above 4%, and that's just one component of the vaccine and not counting any other effects of the disease on survivors), it seems obvious that there's a far greater risk of harm to my child from not being vaccinated than from being vaccinated.

    84. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the children are the right PC melanin content transgendered pre-op? Then you better not say shit motherfucker!!!!!!!!!!!

    85. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have had all my MMR, HepB etc etc. I believe vaccines are very useful.

      But I hate how people automatically call anti-vax people 'idiots.' That's group think.

      Keep in mind, many of them do support the MMR and basic proven vaccines. But we know that pharma is based on money. They keep pushing anti-cholesterol drugs even though all the research that's come out in the past five years shows that cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease (cholesterol fixes damage caused by sugars. Sugars in excess damage arteries. Want to not get heart disease? Stop eating so much bread!)

      They are legit reasons not to trust the industry and the FDA (remember DDT? It's safe!)

      I don't get flu shots. Every other vaccine I'm fine with, but fly shots make my arm hurt for 3 or 4 days and I run a low fever. It's just a reaction and may not technically qualify as a medical allergy. Would I not be able to attend a public University if I refuse? Would I have to go through feeling like shit for several days just to attend each year?

    86. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Untrue. You can be forced to eat food and take drugs/medicines at the point of violence under court orders. You might want to research this Liberty you hallucinate about.

    87. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They even illustrated it with a photo of a guy standing over a women in a menacing pose and holding his hand over her mouth."

      You forgot to mention "again". This isn't the first time they've done this, and they alienated a bunch of their anti-vaxxer supporters last time as well. These people are fanatics. Any means is justified by the cause.

    88. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And given that vaccines aren't exactly 100% safe, we could argue that requiring them, and if they die, that the government is responsible for killing someone who had a right to life.

      Maybe a compromise is in order.
      1. Require schools to post the statistics in a visible area as you enter the school. Such as,
      "X1 percent of student, faculty and staff are vaccinated against Y1.
      X2 percent of student, faculty and staff are vaccinated against Y2.
      etc..."
      Updated annually. Require this by law at all public k-12 schools and daycares in which 15+ children attend regularly.

      2. Require students to stay home when outbreaks happen.

      3. Require parents and children to sit down with a doctor before being exempt from immunizations. For each individual one that one wants exempt from. Education is the key.

    89. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I can't be vaccinated, so I need to rely on herd immunity instead. "

      Hate to tell you this, but a lot of the modern vaccines don't prevent transmission, they're mostly for personal protection.
      Inactivated Polio, DPTa, and a bunch of others I can't remember off the top of my head don't actually prevent transmission (no herd immunity).

      The older less safe vaccines do though (eg Oral Polio, DPT (whole cell)).

    90. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by jittles · · Score: 1

      That is fine, then give me the money that would otherwise be given to the school so I can pay for another option.

      School vouchers fixes this problem instantly. Give us that option and you'll have no problems.

      Is your school voucher program going to give me back the money I have paid in taxes for things like welfare, unemployment, medicaid, school districts, universities, medical research, and other programs I am not taking advantage of at the present moment? No? Oh, that's right, sometimes we pay taxes for things that don't benefit us directly because it makes society a better place.

    91. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by jittles · · Score: 1

      Your choice to not vaccinate, you get to pay.

      And that's why there's opposition from people. Anti-vaxxers are dumb as shit, but they have rights. If they're paying for schools (through taxes) then they get a say in how the schools operate.

      No taxation without representation.

      If I live in State A and own property in State B, I cannot vote in elections in both states. That is taxation without representation as well - assuming I pay taxes in both states (property or income). How is this any different? Plus they can still run for school board, go to district meetings open to the public, and participate in the PTA.

    92. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems someone else decided that long ago. Apparently I was made weak, but you were made weaker.

    93. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except this will be far from over at "homeschooling for the unvaccinated".

    94. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your money (for community education?) keeps young uneducated invading bandits out of your home and your wifes special area. If you don't have kids, or send your kids to private school, or homeschool... there are no rebates that I'm aware of.

    95. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Well if Cali wants to invite a wide segment of their population to leave, then I guess. It's a bad idea on that front then, cause Cali has one foot in the grave financially already. Inviting your tax base to leave is a really bad idea at this point.

      Not that this is a new idea, seems a LOT of companies are abandoning Cali for business reasons.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    96. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Legal does not make it right.....You might want to research that....

      --
      Good-bye
    97. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      Who says you get equal choices?

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    98. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Actually, you don't have the right to spread germs around willy-nilly because you don't feel like taking basic precautions. Look up the tale of Typhoid Mary. Despite being a carrier of Typhoid, she refused to take basic steps to stop spreading the disease (since she didn't agree with those steps). After people died, she was locked up so she couldn't infect anyone else.

      You cite Typhoid Mary as a point FOR your argument? Her rights were violated illegally and the fiasco is a point AGAINST your argument.

    99. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      An unvaccinated person is not a threat to society. Such a person represents a non-malicous possible danger to a very small percentage of the population. We didn't have vaccines for most of our nations history and those diseases never posed more than a passing threat to our society. Sure it sucks when people who can't or weren't vaccinated die from some disease that should have died out by now, but in my opinion it smacks of a "think of the children" argument and isn't worth forcing people into medical treatments they don't want. If we're going to go down that road we should spend our resources on stuff that will likely be more effective, like forced blood, bone marrow, and tissue donations.

    100. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      We didn't have vaccines for most of our nations history and those diseases never posed more than a passing threat to our society.

      go to an old graveyard

      look at the old tombstones

      look at the ages

      you're a pridefully ignorant asshole and your stupidity is dangerous to the rest of us

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    101. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      wait, you're stalking my other posts? and you think heroin is like a vaccine?

      of course any vaccine should be thoroughly tested before they inject it into anyone you raving moron

      it's not like they are grabbing people and injecting them with experimental formulations. the science on this is well-established and there is a rigorous review process before anyone gets injected

      you are a fearmongering, pridefully ignorant wackjob. you need to get and your kids your fucking vaccine and if you do not you ARE a health threat to us so we WILL save your kids and the rest of us from your dangerous ignorance, you irresponsible asshole

      go live in the mountains and never have kids. if you won't do that, do what you have to do to be part of society you dumb fuck

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    102. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Trogre · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot.

      Re-read my first post that you responded to. Is there anything there to suggest that I or anyone I am responsible for has not been vaccinated?

      Again, this post is not for you, since you are clearly unwell and incapable of reason, but anyone else following this thread.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    103. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

      And given that vaccines aren't exactly 100% safe, we could argue that requiring them, and if they die, that the government is responsible for killing someone who had a right to life.

      Maybe a compromise is in order. 1. Require schools to post the statistics in a visible area as you enter the school. Such as, "X1 percent of student, faculty and staff are vaccinated against Y1. X2 percent of student, faculty and staff are vaccinated against Y2. etc..." Updated annually. Require this by law at all public k-12 schools and daycares in which 15+ children attend regularly.

      2. Require students to stay home when outbreaks happen.

      3. Require parents and children to sit down with a doctor before being exempt from immunizations. For each individual one that one wants exempt from. Education is the key.

      Well, someone who has a medical issue with vaccines is obviously exempt from them. Your suggestion is not a bad idea, but I think that requiring minimum vaccination levels to get herd immunity is important - the whole point of vaccines is to be proactive, and waiting until an outbreak occurs kind of defeats the purpose. However, making it lawfully required for those statistics to be published sounds very reasonable to me, as it would allow us to know of weakpoints for outbreaks before they occur.

      Really, it's just trying to save as many lives as possible. Given how effective vaccines are, and how much suffering they can save, I'm not against a fairly aggressive use for them - so much unnecessary pain and death can be prevented.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    104. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      vaccines have to be mandatory as freedom has nothing to do with prideful ignorance that is a threat to safety of and well being others

      get it shitbag?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    105. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      You're lucky to be able to be so selfish and stupid and get away with it, in most places in the world, you'd be killed by your own beliefs.

      The same can be said for you... your beliefs would also get you killed in other places, so that door swings both ways...

    106. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't read the bill, but does it not specify exactly which vaccines are mandated? Think it's fair to assume that no new ones would be added to the list until they have been tried, tested and become 'the norm'.

    107. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      After getting a bunch of people sick, she was given an option: Be free but don't work in food service or at least take some basic precautions to prevent infecting others. She refused and was kept in custody. Finally, she agreed and was released at which point, she quickly moved, changed her name, went back into food service, and got more people sick. At least one person died. So she was taken back into custody again and this time held for the rest of her life.

      You can claim that her rights were violated, but her right to work in the food service industry ends where the patrons' right to live without typhoid begins. She wasn't ignorant of the threat she posed and yet she knowingly exposed other people to a contagious disease, killing some and sickening others.

      What would you have done to balance her rights and their rights when she clearly didn't care about the risks she posed to others and when she demonstrated clear willingness to move/change names/infect more people? Honestly, she should have been charged with murder at that point. (Or at least manslaughter.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    108. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      There is no doubt that those disease have caused a lot of death, but they still don't seriously threaten our society. Just like the terrorists could attack and kill as many people as they did on 9/11 on a quarterly basis and it wouldn't seriously threaten our society. The threat to society is obviously a bogus argument as our society has already weathered that threat and grown very quickly before we developed vaccines. I'm vaccinated, and my family is all vaccinated. I have sympathy for people who can't be vaccinated and so are at greater risk. But I won't force other people to under go vaccination because it is morally bankrupt in my view. I support a woman's right to abortion and a person's right to assisted suicide for much the same reason.

      Do you have an angle regarding how this is a threat to society, that doesn't revolve around an emotional plea like "think of the children"?

    109. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Why would I want to research something that's obvious and common sense within our society? You may want to assess context.

    110. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      but they still don't seriously threaten our society

      exactly because we have vaccines, you fucking moron

      and if not enough vaccinate, the diseases find vectors to proliferate again, AND they have a chance to get lucky and develop new strains that can get around our exisitng vaccines, threatening everyone period

      everyone has to get vaccinated. if not, the person is ignorant, irresponsible and dangerous to all of our health. if you don't agree with that statement, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and/ or you are blindly selfishly irresponsible

      you have no freedom to choose something that threatens other people's lives (nevermind your own)

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    111. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deliberate and willful infection of others is also against the law. As you will see from cases where people deliberately infecting people with HIV were convicted of crimes. IMHO its a very short step from knowingly infecting someone with a disease you have to not taking preventative measures (without a bloody good reason) for diseases and infecting others. Can't wait to see that tested in court.

    112. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone here is advocating abolishing vaccines. And so long as an overwhelming majority of people are being vaccinated then society is relatively safe. The odds of one of these diseases making some fantastic leap in virility bypassing current vaccines is vanishingly small whether or not a few million people in the USA vaccinate. Much of the rest of the world is a petri dish for this sort of thing already. Even if that did happen it'd likely be more of a hiccup in society than a serious danger. Many diseases and illnesses that were once highly lethal are no longer so because we have a much better sense of how to care for sick people. Your hyperbole about not vaccinating every person possible leading to the next super bug is relevant only to apocalyptic movies and video games.

      "you have no freedom to choose something that threatens other people's lives (nevermind your own)" Patently bullshit, sorry. You can choose to smoke tobacco, drive a car, light a cooking grill, go skydiving or any other minor thing that entails some very small to infitesimal risk of danger both to yourself and to others. If you choose not to be vaccinated you then are at risk of contracting some disease, which there is an incredibly tiny chance of you coming in contact with barring unusual circumstances like traveling abroad. In the case that you do become infected there is some fractional risk that you could pass it on to other people who aren't vaccinated, such people make up a very small part of the population so the odds of both events happening, especially once you know you are sick, and so avoid contact with other people, is vanishingly small. Granted that risk goes up the less people vaccinate but it's still fantasy to postulate that we're anywhere near the point that it poses a serious threat to society. So I'll err on the side of personal liberty and continue to insist that everyone should have the right to determine what they do with their own body.

    113. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pharma doesn't really make money from vaccines. Furthermore, your point about cholesterol is completely wrong. Certain forms of cholesterol do increase your risk of heart disease. The mechanism is well-understood and there are excellent epidemiological data to support this. Similarly, the large-scale trials of those drugs show decreased rates of heart disease, and the post-marketing studies also support this.

  5. concerned about **too many** homeschooling?? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    > they were concerned that too many students would be forced into home schooling.

    With the piss poor job schools have been doing lately, that might not be a bad thing for parents to bond and spend more time with their chilldren's investment success for their future.

    Nah, it's easier to pass the job off to someone else who doesn't give a crap about your child's future and is only doing it for the money.

    1. Re:concerned about **too many** homeschooling?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because everyone living in California can afford to quit their job and spend all day teaching their children. Oh, and they all understand fractions and have training in how to educate children in such concepts.

      Yes, you should be involved in your child's education. No, you don't have to quit your job or be a full time educator to do so.

    2. Re:concerned about **too many** homeschooling?? by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Oh, and they all understand fractions

      Well, if they graduated high school and still don't grasp fractions then something is seriously wrong.

    3. Re:concerned about **too many** homeschooling?? by friesofdoom · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because teachers have that whole golden parachute thing going on, along with the billions of dollars they earn...

    4. Re:concerned about **too many** homeschooling?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea that someone needs to be trained in order to communicate elementary concepts to their children is wrong. We don't have public schools because qualified, educated teachers are the only people who can teach, we have public schools as a societal stabilizer to ensure that every child has the opportunity to learn basic concepts if they have parents who are unable or unwilling to teach their own children.

      K-12 teachers receive training to learn about extracting productivity from a herd, and how to best disseminate information to a group of kids with different learning styles. In that environment, the best thing a teacher can achieve is evenly-distributed mediocrity. Teachers are not Gods with special knowledge who hold the only keys to getting information into children's brains.

    5. Re:concerned about **too many** homeschooling?? by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 4, Funny

      > they were concerned that too many students would be forced into home schooling.

      With the piss poor job schools have been doing lately, that might not be a bad thing for parents to bond and spend more time with their chilldren's investment success for their future.

      Nah, it's easier to pass the job off to someone else who doesn't give a crap about your child's future and is only doing it for the money.

      For the money?!?
      WUT?

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    6. Re:concerned about **too many** homeschooling?? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I know plenty of teachers that don't understand 6th grade math. They teach English and Art. And yes, it is seriously wrong.

      I'm in education, and while there are some really fantastic teachers out there, there are some really seriously flawed ones as well. You can't dodge all the raindrops.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:concerned about **too many** homeschooling?? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      It can work, if done intelligently. My daughter was educated in a homeschool consortium for most of grade school, and then applied and was accepted into a private high school. A consortium works by having each parent teach the subject they're qualified to teach. I'm pretty good at math and have teaching experience, but that job (math teacher) was already taken, by a retired nuclear engineer who also had teaching experience, so I ended up being IT for the classrooms instead.

      Side note, you might be surprised by the number of teacher's children who are homeschooled.

      The issue in my case was, the doctors (many doctors over many expensive months of diagnosis) concluded that daughter was severely dyslexic and would never read past a 5th grade level. On the other hand, the school had diagnosed her as ADD and insisted I put her on Ritalin. We could not come to an agreement, and I decided (exercising the parental prerogative that so many people in this thread revile) to believe the doctors rather than the teachers, (I'm funny that way) and pulled her out of school.

      As far as vaccines go, I don't have much to contribute except that daughter got all her childhood shots including the (new at the time) chicken pox vaccine (because it didn't exist when I was growing up, and i got chicken pox in my 20's, and it was really messy) and she got chicken pox anyway.

      I did turn down the gardasil vaccine, after much research. Which I won't bore you with here. Either you're familiar with the controversy, or you can read up on it yourself. Feel free to call me an anti-vaxxer.

      Others have pointed out that vaccines are madated by law in Europe much more strictly than (most places) in the US. That's true. It's also true that Europe was much quicker at banning Thimerosal (a preservative containing mercury) in vaccines, an area where the US is still behind.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    8. Re:concerned about **too many** homeschooling?? by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Because everyone living in California can afford to quit their job and spend all day teaching their children. Oh, and they all understand fractions and have training in how to educate children in such concepts.

      Yes, you should be involved in your child's education. No, you don't have to quit your job or be a full time educator to do so.

      Having homeschooled one college honor student from birth though high school I'd like to weigh in...

      Homeschooling does NOT require any special training or education in education. If you can read and do simple math, all you need is a determination. The hard part is teaching kids to read and despite how daunting that may sound to a new parent, it's really simple. Learn your letters, learn their sounds, then start making words. It just takes repetition and if you keep at it with the kids, reading comes easy once they are old enough. Teaching kids to write is not hard, nor is math. These days there are curriculums that you can buy that will have everything you need which are turn key, just follow the schedule they give you. Some come as video with teachers doing the teaching while your kid watches. It can be as easy or as involved as you want it to be as a parent.

      Neither my wife or I have any formal training in education (I'm an electrical engineer, she has 2 years of college) and we are 2 years from being totally done with our two kids. Both kids will get a better education than the public schools would have provided and our oldest (who was our problem student in the school) is an honor student at a local college working on a STEM degree. If we can do this, almost anybody can, trust me.

      That's not to say homeschooling is easy all the time, I'm saying that it doesn't take special education or training to be effective. But it does take dedication by the parents to make it work. It can be hard work to push kids to do their school work. It's a daily grind that wears you down and it takes year after year. When you are in the mist of it, it can be frustrating not to see the daily progress for all the effort put in. However, your kids will get a better education than the public school could ever hope to provide. The teacher to student ratio is better, you know your kids better than any other adult and they will benefit from all of these things, while learning to teach themselves, a skill that will benefit them for a lifetime.

      For my wife and I the benefits of homeschooling where worth more than she could ever add to our standard of living so she stayed home with the kids. Your mileage may vary of course, but the benefits to children of having a parent at home with them FAR outweigh the benefits of that second income to us. Our kids will be much better off for it.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:concerned about **too many** homeschooling?? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Because everyone living in California can afford to quit their job and spend all day teaching their children. Oh, and they all understand fractions and have training in how to educate children in such concepts.

      Yes, you should be involved in your child's education. No, you don't have to quit your job or be a full time educator to do so.

      If you have to quit your job in order to match a high school education for a single child, then you're not qualified to teach or hold the damned job in the first place.

      School is a fucking joke. Any competent individual can teach a single child an entire day's worth of California public school "education" in an hour or less.

    10. Re:concerned about **too many** homeschooling?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a child in the California public school system, I could only dream of mediocrity. Every single fucking day was a waste of my time.
      Assignments were busy work, the teachers all but gave the kids answers for the standardized tests, and even at 7 years old I recognized the pathetically transparent profiling questions and assignments they used.
      I'm not even claiming to be smart. A fucking chimp could shit fling its way through the California public school system, including graduating from the UC system with some sort of liberal arts degree.

      Posting as AC because I fucking work in the UC and I'm still surrounding by fucking incompetence.

    11. Re:concerned about **too many** homeschooling?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Midst". And how do you know your kid got "a better education than the public school could ever hope to provide"? There are a hell of a lot of good public schools out there, not all are as bad as those the media likes to constantly highlight.

    12. Re:concerned about **too many** homeschooling?? by owenc67202 · · Score: 1

      Others have pointed out that vaccines are madated by law in Europe much more strictly than (most places) in the US. That's true. It's also true that Europe was much quicker at banning Thimerosal (a preservative containing mercury) in vaccines, an area where the US is still behind.

      Thimerosal hasn't been used in the US in more than a decade.

    13. Re:concerned about **too many** homeschooling?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That works with highly educated parents. The vast, VAST majority of homeschooled kids do not have educated parents at all, and they grow up with literally no education. There is a homeschool program in my home state that got shut down recently because they'd had 30 years of graduates who are literally unemployable. Many parents glom onto that kinda thing because it's what their kids want, and they don't know any better. So I would wager that for every success story like yours, there are at least 100+ failures that will never amount to anything, all because of lazy parents trying to homeschool their kids.

    14. Re:concerned about **too many** homeschooling?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, for the money. To keep a roof over their head, acquire food, things like that.

      Nobody's going to get rich teaching schoolchildren, but they also aren't likely to get homeless.

    15. Re:concerned about **too many** homeschooling?? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      You've _completely_ missed the point about money:

      * War on Teacher Tenure

      While the number of bad teachers has dropped you still have 50%people in the system that come from the bottom of academic performance.

      A McKinsey survey of the worldâ(TM)s best schoolsâ"in Finland, South Korea, Singaporeâ"found that they consistently draw 100% of their teachers from the top third of graduates; in the U.S., almost half come from the bottom third. That may explain why our kidsâ(TM) performance falls below that of students in Estonia and why one-third of those who make it to college in the U.S. need remedial education.

      Once people get into a teaching position, getting a bad teacher out is almost impossible.

    16. Re:concerned about **too many** homeschooling?? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The VAST majority of the home schooled kids I know ended up with a better education than they would have received from public schools. Not to mention that it didn't cost the public school system a dime.

      Yes, there are those who homeschool to avoid having to get the kids up for the buss to public school, they don't care. However, given the huge hassle that keeping kids out of the public schools with truancy laws and daytime curfews, this is NOT the norm. It is actually quite the exception to the rule. Because it is simply easier to kick the kids out to the bus stop in the morning than it is to keep up appearances well enough to keep the truancy officers at bay and the parent's butt out of court. So if you are not committed to homeschooling, generally the kids end up in public schools and if you ARE committed, the kids will get a much better education almost without exception.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  6. Darwin by proxy by timholman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This Wednesday, however, the bill passed that committee after its authors tweaked it, adding amendments that would expand the definition of home schooling to allow multiple families to join together to teach their children or participate in independent study programs run by public school systems.

    I hate to say it, but maybe this is for the best. Unfortunately, what may be needed to kill the anti-vaxxer mindset once and for all is for a whole classroom of unvaccinated children to come down with measles or polio or smallpox or whooping cough, and for several of them to die.

    Horrible? Yes, but the parents who have bought into this insanity are endangering everyone, not just their own children. Some of these people are quite literally proclaiming that vaccines have never worked, and that it is only improvements in hygiene that have resulted in the elimination of most deadly childhood diseases. A good cold dash of reality is the only cure. It is just a damned shame that some innocent kids will have to pay the price.

    1. Re:Darwin by proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is just a damned shame that some innocent kids will have to pay the price.

      We are born into sin. There are no innocents. God will smite you all!

    2. Re:Darwin by proxy by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0, Troll

      Some of these people are quite literally proclaiming that vaccines have always work and never harmful

      Always and never.

      I don't understand why people who vaccinate are afraid of those that don't. It is almost like they don't trust vaccines to work or something.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Darwin by proxy by Blue+Stone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If an unvaccinated child dies, can the parent who has denied their child a vaccination be prosecuted for child endangerment?

      Maybe that's what it'll take to end this virus of ignorance.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    4. Re:Darwin by proxy by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      If only it were that simple. Unfortunately, the classroom full of unvaccinated children may contain one of the few unlucky ones who have legitimate medical reasons for not being vaccinated. The fact that there are a small fraction of people like this, dependent on herd immunity for their protection, is one of the reasons for compulsory vaccination.

    5. Re:Darwin by proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sort of thing has happened, and continues to happen today. It has no impact on the anti-vaxxers, because they aren't actually the critical thinkers they purport to be. They are conspiracy theorists, or non-thinkers who think that "common-sense" trumps scientific methodology.

      You can't reach anti-vaxxers on a large scale. You might be able to show a few of them the light of reason, through personal interaction, but apart from that the only way to protect yourself from them is to legislate degrees of separation between them and yourself.

    6. Re:Darwin by proxy by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why people who vaccinate are afraid of those that don't.

      It's not fear, but there are several legitimate reasons to be concerned about people who choose not to vaccinate their children for personal non-medical reasons:

      1) Some people have legitimate medical reasons why they cannot receive vaccines or it is harder for them to get vaccines, e.g. allergies.
      2) Vaccines are not 100% effective but increasing vaccination rate provides greater protection to all.
      3) We still care about kids who are not our own and we don't want them to catch easily preventable diseases like measles.

    7. Re:Darwin by proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then your not smart enough to be apart this conversation

    8. Re:Darwin by proxy by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Troll

      1) is not a reason to force vaccinations on everyone else. It doesn't stop the risk
      2) There is no double blind tests that prove this. This is pure conjecture. The fact that people who have had Measles vaccine, still get measles proves that it is at least partially non-effective.
      3) Measles vaccines do not prevent measles absolutely 100% of the time. In addition, there are vaccines that have been proven deadly (Guardacil) but are still being pushed by the Vaccine producers as being "safe"

      4) THE ONLY effective prevention of Measles is to get measles. The fact that we can TREAT effectively measles and the negative consequences of measles is simple and doesn't involve poisons, namely doses of Vitamin A, is MY choice, not yours, not Government not anyone else. I actually care about my kids that I don't want them injected with poisons with harmful effects, negates the Pro Vaccine people's claim about parents not caring.

      The problem is, I AM informed, and I KNOW the risks of both, it should be MY choice for MY kids, not some mandate by some functionally illiterate politician listening to Big Pharma adverts in Sacrament or DC.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Darwin by proxy by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Jesus christ. How can supposedly technical people be (a) so anti science, (b) so gorssly and intentionally uninformed and (c) so fucking stupid.

      The information is out there in spades. If you're uninformed at this point you're being willfully ignorant.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:Darwin by proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If an unvaccinated child dies, can the parent who has denied their child a vaccination be prosecuted for child endangerment?

      Maybe that's what it'll take to end this virus of ignorance.

      Since denying a child a vaccination on religious grounds is bullshit the correct way is to force vaccination on children.
      The only exemption allowed is medical in nature. As for all the hippies that belive in medical conspiracies and vaccines that never work they can go die in a fucking fire for all that I care. But their children should be protected, yes even against their parents bullshit ideologies.

    11. Re:Darwin by proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We still care about kids who are not our own

      I don't. That said, I've been vaccinated and will take my chances with those who haven't.

    12. Re:Darwin by proxy by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      According to the CDC, they are 93% effective http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vp...

      That's pretty fucking close to 100%.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Darwin by proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you are a misinformed moron spewing unrelenting bullshit. The worst part is, you'll likely never have to deal with the consequences of your idiocy. At least try and find some new Anti-vaccine tropes to trot out.

    14. Re:Darwin by proxy by Chalnoth · · Score: 2

      Vaccines aren't 100% effective, and most people can't know if their vaccine wasn't effective until they come down with the disease.

      Actual effectiveness varies significantly between different vaccines. I believe Measles is in the 90%+ range. So yes, some people depend upon herd immunity without even knowing it.

      This is not even considering the people for whom the vaccine is useless (due to immune system issues), or who can't take the vaccine (e.g. due to an allergy).

    15. Re:Darwin by proxy by Chalnoth · · Score: 1

      It's a very good reason to require that people have vaccines in order to enter public spaces where you have lots of people in close proximity (e.g. school). It's not feasible to require vaccines for all similar public spaces, but for schools it is feasible.

    16. Re:Darwin by proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then let's do it this way you insane asshole. Your kids get another kid sick, that kid dies, you go up before a judge for murder since you knowingly endangered every person around you with your brain dead and downright retarded mindset. Fuck you and fuck everyone like you. You are a true moron. I hope your kids get polio.

    17. Re:Darwin by proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I am very well informed. My information is that the CDC's safety data is extremely poor, the vaccine is measured against pre-vaccine death rates, and the rate of side-effects is completely unknown. SIDS happens shortly after vaccinations, etc. One of the CDC's senior scientists confessed to biasing the tests that supposedly showed there were no CNS effects of the mercury. Jesus Christ, how can supposedly technical people rely on their ignorance like this?

      Go read the actual serious critiques, I saw a nice list of URLs in all this.

      Without real safety data, relative to current outcomes of the diseases to be prevented, it is not possible to make a rational decision. That is a properly scientific and engineering approach to making decisions.

      If you do not grasp this, you are willfully simple.

    18. Re:Darwin by proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snopes disagrees with you and has actual credibility.

      It should be your choice as long you and your kid live alone on a desert island. If you want to be part of our society, you play by our society's rules.

    19. Re:Darwin by proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "few unlucky ones who have legitimate medical reasons for not being vaccinated" will be allowed into the school herd to be protected by their immunity. The bill is only revoking the "personal belief" exemptions for vaccinations.

      Please at least read the summary.

    20. Re: Darwin by proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outbreaks will lead to mutations that render the vaccines ineffective.

    21. Re:Darwin by proxy by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      Jesus christ. How can supposedly technical people be (a) so anti science, (b) so gorssly and intentionally uninformed and (c) so fucking stupid.

      Michael is a Randian, so (d) all of the above. By choice.

    22. Re:Darwin by proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Epidemiology is a hard topic to grasp. They may be willfully ignorant, or they might just be stupid.

    23. Re:Darwin by proxy by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      And that turns the bill into the state compelling parents to vaccinate, Those medical exemptions are just as dangerous as the antivax kids.

      As to medical exemptions I've gotten paperwork from doctors stating a kid had this or that food allergy, the epi pens etc just in case. Only to find the kid eating said allergen. This is not a one time thing but over and over again and were talking in a scout troop, 60 ish kids and one ever other year or so. Oddly these severely allergic kids tend to go yea my parents are crazy by the numbers thats one kid in about 14.

      As a parent it's a numbers game chance of bad outcome from vaccine vs chance of bad outcome coupled with chance of getting disease. Measles is an are you fsking stupid, vacinate my kid do it now do it often hey can I get a booster. Rotavirus 1 in 20-100k side effect requires surgery, the disease requires no treatment 1 in 70 might need iv fluids, why the hell would I give my kid this? Now thats two rather extremely different scenarios, should a parent be forced to vaccinate for the rotavirus the same as measles one kills 1-2 in 1000 the other kills nobody thats otherwise healthy and is a hard transmission path (fecal oral).

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    24. Re:Darwin by proxy by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Actually you are an uninformed twit who has never had measles and has no idea what the complications might be.

      I had the Measles vaccination as a small child and was unlucky enough to come down with full blown measles the week before my final exams at University.

      The disease itself is completely unpleasant and I had it pretty mild due to having at least some protection from the vaccine.

      The lifelong medical side effects are frankly something I could do without.

      The problem is YOU ARE NOT INFORMED and have no idea or comprehension as to what the REAL risks are and are consequently a selfish moron.

    25. Re:Darwin by proxy by dave420 · · Score: 1

      With that one statement you just demonstrated your utter lack of knowledge of immunology. Very efficient! Now everyone knows you have no idea what you're talking about, and can ignore your ramblings on this subject.

    26. Re:Darwin by proxy by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Wish I hadn't commented now. Excellent feedback and commentary on the personal experience of someone having measles. My grand uncle has measles early-on in his life and experience chronic side-effects the rest of his life. It was not pleasant.

    27. Re:Darwin by proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't a science argument because we know the science. Instead, this is a government argument. While it may make sense to some to mandate vaccinations, I'm hesitant because while the vaccines NOW are safe, who's to say down the road there's an unsafe vaccine that's forced onto people? I'm always very hesitant on giving more power to government because we've seen how that works in the past (see NSA spying via patriot act).

    28. Re:Darwin by proxy by dywolf · · Score: 1

      1) Yes it does, that's how herd immunity works.
      2) You're an idiot who doesn't understand risk, or what double blind is even useful for. Probably why you keep trotting it out as your goto science "proof" or lack thereof in areas where it's not applicable.
      3) Guardicil is not deadly, sorry to burst your myth bubble.
      4) Enough stupid in one run on sentence to stock the GOP for years.

      No, you are not informed, and no, you don't the risks. If you did or if you were you wouldn't say the stupid things you say.

      So...lets see. Things Archangel claims to know about but doesn't:
      -Vaccines
      -How to get or not get cancer
      -global warming
      -basic science

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    29. Re:Darwin by proxy by tbannist · · Score: 1

      How can supposedly technical people be (a) so anti science, (b) so gorssly and intentionally uninformed and (c) so fucking stupid.

      Libertarianism.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    30. Re:Darwin by proxy by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      So, you make my case that Measles vaccine doesn't prevent measles. I've been called uninformed because I know this fact.

      Measles is miserable. Never said otherwise. But it also usually doesn't have long term adverse effects, that Vitamin A can't take care of. But Injecting poison into your body does have long term effects, and is actually harmful to about the same percentage of people who get adverse reactions to measles.

      I am informed, you just don't like the information.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    31. Re:Darwin by proxy by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Herd Immunity doesn't apply to Vaccines.

      http://vaccinechoicecanada.com...

      Disease-conferred immunity usually lasted a lifetime. As each new generation of children contracted the infection, the immunity of those previously infected was renewed due to their continual cyclical re-exposure to the disease; except for newly-infected children and the few individuals who’d never had the disease or been exposed to it, the ‘herd immunity’ of the entire population was maintained at all times.

      Since Vaccines actually break "herd immunity", by not allowing natural cyclical re-exposure that is needed to maintain immunity. This is the lie of the Vaccine Big Pharma machine. This is why they are pushing vaccinations to protect against previously vaccinated people from getting the disease.

      The problem is, as we found in the Disneyland case, was the vaccine didn't protect against out of zone (aisian in this case) version of Measles. Go figure, the herd immunity was gone.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    32. Re:Darwin by proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are hilariously misinformed. The safety data is widely tracked through all stages of clinical development (including post-marketing) and you can look it up if you want. The list and rate of side-effects is similarly published, and detailed in the pamphlet they give you before the vaccine.
      Obviously the vaccine is measured against pre-vaccine death rates; we know how lethal the disease used to be, and the vaccine drops that (typically by more than an order of magnitude, sometimes much more). If many people are vaccinated, then there isn't enough good data to use to form a new death rate, so historical controls are the only option. For diseases that have been around for a long time (measles, smallpox, etc.) there's no reason to think that mortality rates would significantly change over a decade, especially because there are very few antiviral drugs that target viruses we have vaccines for (because they aren't needed).
      That "CDC senior scientist" was a psychologist, and his re-analysis of the data (the supposedly unbiased one) is terribly and incompetently done from a statistical standpoint. I think he means well, but his statistics background just isn't good enough to make that call.

    33. Re:Darwin by proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's (usually) not true, but it can depend on the specific vaccine and disease. The protection from most "natural" infections doesn't actually last a lifetime - in the absence of re-exposure, some "natural" protection goes away faster than the protection from vaccines, while some outlasts it. It really depends on the disease. Your cycle of infections also produces a lot of deaths, permanent illness (and no, you can't counteract that with large doses of Vitamin A - be careful with that, by the way, it's toxic at high doses) and lost productivity. Vaccines confer herd immunity, especially in the more vulnerable populations (you know, the ones who get vaccinated). We can also use booster shots to mimic cyclical re-exposure in a much safer manner. The epidemiological data are available, and you're basically ignoring them.

      Lastly, "Big Pharma" doesn't really make money from vaccines. It's taken a lot of pushing from academia and public health agencies to get them to make the ones they have recently.

  7. Legislate instead of educate by Gary · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate that we have to legislate instead of educate people about vaccinations. Pretty sad that people listen more to Jenny McCarthy than they do medical doctors. I suppose given that, this legislation is a necessary evil.

    1. Re:Legislate instead of educate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad people also let themselves be legislated into more debt every year..

    2. Re:Legislate instead of educate by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I hate that we have to legislate instead of educate people about vaccinations.

      I hate that legislation is allowed to force people into something the state mandates. And it is funny, I remember in the early days of AIDS / GRID when certain people suggested state mandated quarantines, how the same people who are supporting state mandated vaccines said it was unconstitutional. Injecting poison into your body by force of law is legal, to protect the public from disease, but quarantining people to do the same is illegal.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Legislate instead of educate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody is being forced to do anything. If anyone wants to continue living with their idiotic head in the sand they can keep their kids home to teach them themselves.

    4. Re:Legislate instead of educate by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      I hate that legislation is allowed to force people into something the state mandates.

      You mean like an education?

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    5. Re:Legislate instead of educate by Chalnoth · · Score: 1

      Um, this isn't a serious problem. Government debt is money that US citizens owe to themselves. The net balance is close enough to zero to not worth bothering about (some non-US citizens owe bonds, but many US citizens owe foreign bonds....US citizens own somewhat fewer in total dollar count, but tend to receive higher total returns).

    6. Re:Legislate instead of educate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it is funny, I remember in the early days of AIDS / GRID when certain people suggested state mandated quarantines, how the same people who are supporting state mandated vaccines said it was unconstitutional.

      And you do not see the difference between a sexually transmitted disease and one that can infect someone for a half an hour after they left a room.

    7. Re:Legislate instead of educate by rsborg · · Score: 1

      I hate that we have to legislate instead of educate people about vaccinations.

      I hate that legislation is allowed to force people into something the state mandates.

      There's no mandate. Just a removal of bullshit exceptions to an rule preventing unvaccinated children from attending schools.
      Kind of like anti-dumping laws - you don't get to drain your sewer into the streets, just because you don't believe in "government mandated" plumbing.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    8. Re:Legislate instead of educate by itzly · · Score: 1

      I hate that legislation is allowed to force people into something the state mandates

      Where it says 'state', you should read 'other people'.

    9. Re:Legislate instead of educate by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Um, this isn't a serious problem. Government debt is money that US citizens owe to themselves. The net balance is close enough to zero to not worth bothering about (some non-US citizens owe bonds, but many US citizens owe foreign bonds....US citizens own somewhat fewer in total dollar count, but tend to receive higher total returns).

      Well I think owing myself $18 trillion in immediate debt and hundreds of trillions in liabilities is enough.

    10. Re:Legislate instead of educate by Chalnoth · · Score: 1

      Not compared to the size of the economy it isn't.

      Most people wouldn't think it completely out of line, for instance, to have a $500,000 mortgage on a $100,000/year income. Currently, our government debt is less than GDP.

    11. Re:Legislate instead of educate by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Because I can easily believe that $18 trillion equates to a $500K mortgage. You're insane.

      U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

      The Outstanding Public Debt as of 25 Apr 2015 at 12:53:31 AM GMT is:

      $ 1 8 , 1 5 4 , 4 4 9 , 0 3 0 , 3 6 7 . 6 3

      The estimated population of the United States is 320,454,919

      so each citizen's share of this debt is $56,652.12.

      The National Debt has continued to increase an average of

      $2.23 billion per day since September 30, 2012!

      http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

    12. Re:Legislate instead of educate by Chalnoth · · Score: 1

      The debt clock is *not* accurate. It's fundamentally impossible to be that accurate, and very misleading to use that many digits.

      But approximately $57,000 per person isn't that big of a deal, because the interest rates on government debt are quite low. Currently, the interest on the national debt is 6% of the national budget. That means that effectively, 6% of your taxes represents your portion of the national debt that you are paying to fund.

      The median household income in 2013 was approximately $52,000 per year. Assuming a married household with standard deductions, that represents a federal tax burden of about $5500 per year. So this median family pays $331 per year to service the federal debt, which is less than 1% of their income.

      This is not a big deal.

  8. would have to educate their children at home.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and turn the children into morons like their parents. great idea. at least at public school, they have a chance to escape from their parents' misguided beliefs.

    1. Re:would have to educate their children at home.. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      At public school, they also have a chance of causing an outbreak and killing a bunch of innocent kids.

  9. I'm a bit conflicted by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm firmly in the "what the hell is wrong with you anti-vaxxers?!" camp, and almost any of us here could rattle off a laundry list of the ways that these parents are just plain wrong, but this bill would more or less enforce a quarantine for at-risk children, depriving them of access to a state-provided resource (education) that they are entitled to, for reasons that are unrelated to the resource being offered (i.e. the parents don't have a problem with public schooling). I'm tempted to suggest that the "fair" thing to do would be to give the family a refund on the school district's share of their taxes if they've been cut off from that resource, but I also don't like the idea of giving tax breaks for engaging in idiocy.

    As I said, I'm conflicted. I agree that steps need to be taken to disincentivize anti-vaxxing. I like that some doctors are refusing to accept patients who aren't vaccinated, but I'd like to see the deterrents get into the public space somewhere. I'm just not convinced that this is the way to do it.

    1. Re: I'm a bit conflicted by rkcth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally I don't think it goes far enough. Not vaccinating your child is child abuse and attempted murder. I think if a child gets a preventable disease like this for any reason other than the doctor not allowing the vaccination due to health concerns, the print should be charged with child abuse for their own children as well as any child who contracts the disease from this child.

    2. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The evidence for measles vaccines, the only one I actually looked into, sucks. Where is the blinded RCT used to initially establish it's long-term effectiveness (or any)? Where is the paper where they account for the >90% disagreement between clinician diagnosis and lab test? What was the adoption rate of these lab tests over time? Why is it so easily accepted that the different lab tests only agree in the case of null results (which can be due to sample degradation)? Where is the paper where they account for the reduction in popularity of measles parties (if people stop spreading a disease on purpose the incidence rate should drop by some large magnitude...)?

      I don't claim the measles vaccines do not work, only that anyone claiming to know is lying to themselves. The evidence is extremely tenuous. So can I have a "scientific exemption"? Someone with academic training needs to write a proper review of all this measles vaccine stuff, here are some places to start:

      “A likely reason for this is that the case may have been misdiagnosed as a non-specific viral illness. Measles has become relatively uncommon in Singapore with two decades of widespread measles vaccination, and especially after the second dose policy was implemented in 1998. Many primary care doctors may not even see a single case of measles in a year. This makes diagnosis more difficult.”

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17609829

      “This was not a blind study, since the investigators knew which children had received measles vaccine. It seems probable that the occurrence of so much ‘measles-like’ illness in the vaccinated children was a reflexion of the difficulty in making a firm diagnosis of measles in the African child at one visit.”

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2134550/

      “As only approximately 7% of the clinically-diagnosed cases of measles reported locally turned out to be measles by laboratory testing, there is a need for laboratory confirmation of measles to avoid misidentification of cases and improve disease surveillance.(2)”

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17609829

      “Before the introduction of measles vaccines, measles virus infected 95%–98% of children by age 18 years [1–4], and measles was considered an inevitable rite of passage. Exposure was often actively sought for children in early school years because of the greater severity of measles in adults.

      http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.full

      "It is evident from Table IV that many children in all three groups were unwell and that the proportion was greatest in the live-vaccine group (61 %), less in the killed/live-vaccine group (54%), and least in the unvaccinated group (38%)...
      Table VI shows the cases of measles reported by the parents and those seen and diagnosed by the doctor. Of the total cases reported the doctor saw about 60%, and, of these, confirmed the parents' diagnosis in 93 % in the control group, 64% in the killed/live-vaccine group, and 70% in the live vaccine group."

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1843609/

      "Measles
      Evidence from cohort studies
      Effectiveness against measles was investigated in three cohort studies (Marin 2006; Marolla 1998; Ong 2007)...
      There was a lack of adequate description of exposure (vaccine content and schedules) in all cohort studies. Another recurring problem was the failure of any study to provide descriptions of all outcomes monitored. A lack of clarity in reporting and systematic bias made comparability across studies and quantitative synthesis of data impossible."

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22336803

      " Indeed, an average of only 100 cases of measles are confirmed annually [32], despite the f

    3. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Australia has just instituted a policy that if you child is unvaxinated you lose any and all child support and wellfare. Dependent on your income this can be as much as $15k per child per year. This has happened as a response to whooping cough and measles outbreaks because of stupid anti-vax people.

    4. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't have to be a bill. Doesn't have to be state or federal.

      But it's cheaper to announce an umbrella than to see every library office grocery school restaurant hospital studio bar store factory laundromat etc etc etc wasting money on printing "NO LEPERS" signs for each and every one. No shirt? No shoes? No vacs? No service.

      They won't force anyone to immunize. But their middle finger won't be forced away either. Expect more umbrellas.

      PSA: Umbrella has three syllables.

    5. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by taustin · · Score: 2

      The fair thing to do would be to put all the voluntarily unvaccinated children in the same class, with no contact with the ones who can't be vaccinated, to protect the latter. Most schools could probably find unvaccinated teachers to teach them, too.

    6. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by magarity · · Score: 2

      but this bill would more or less enforce a quarantine for at-risk children

      Is a quarantine NOT the sensible response?

    7. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I'm conflicted over its use here. That was kinda the point of my entire comment.

    8. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by tomhath · · Score: 1

      the "fair" thing to do would be to give the family a refund on the school district's share of their taxes

      I would agree, but that opens the debate over vouchers for education. Anyone could claim the refund by stating that their child is not vaccinated.

      However, I do think vouchers are a good idea in general. That would make it easier to ban the unvaccinated from public schools.

    9. Re: I'm a bit conflicted by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmm, remember the measles outbreak earlier this year?

      Remember how many children died during the outbreak?

      Remember how many people got measles in spite of their vaccinations?

      Wait, never mind, the 147 people out of 330 MILLION who got measles included noone who had gotten the vaccine, and NOONE died.

      Since far more people died on the highways during that measles outbreak than even got measles, much less died of it, I suspect strongly that we could find better things to do than waste time fighting over this in the courts.

      And yes, this will be fought over in court. All the way to the Supreme Court...and end up costing CA far more (even if they win) then the measles outbreak cost them....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I would agree, but that opens the debate over vouchers for education.

      Exactly. I'm with you in terms of supporting vouchers, but I agree that tying it to this debate by making anti-vaxxing a means for obtaining vouchers would be a very bad idea. It'd just encourage people wanting vouchers to practice anti-vaxxing, which is the exact opposite of what's in everyone's best interest.

    11. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Medical exemptions are standard practice, and I believe most of us assumed that they weren't even on the table for discussion since they would continue being standard practice. That's why it's so important to get anti-vaxxing out of the picture, since without a well-established herd immunity, people in your shoes are exactly the ones who end up getting hurt unfairly. No one is suggesting we force people who are allergic to the vaccines to take them. We're talking about forcing those who can take the vaccine so that we can all be safe.

    12. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't questioning the efficacy of the vaccine a bit moot at this point? It's well-established that the rate of measles occurrences has declined by more than 99% in the US since the prevaccine era. No doubt, there are several contributing factors (e.g. decrease in measles parties, as you said), but there's no way to account for that change absent the consideration of the vaccine (e.g. measles was endemic before measles parties were a thing, so it likely isn't that measles parties are gone). Suggesting the link is "tenuous" seems rather disingenuous. It's possible the vaccine may not be effective to the degree people claim it's effective, but suggesting there's even a possibility that it's not effective at all is rather absurd.

    13. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by impossiblefork · · Score: 1

      I've argued before in a related discussion elsewhere that people, if they have a right to refuse vaccines shouldn't be deprived of an education, or something else that they are recognized as having a right to, for exercising that right and that the acceptable policy space consists of making vaccination either mandatory or not mandatory.

      While measles vaccines are undoubtedly safe, I am not so opposed to the anti-vaccine people as you are, in part because some novel vaccines have caused injuries; for example, when it was used here in Sweden it was found that the Pandemrix vaccine caused narcolepsy in children and youths (according to wikipedia the increase in incidence was 6.6 times, although it of course still very rare, but it is no longer recommended for children (adults are unaffected)). Considering things like this I think that it reasonable that a paranoid parent who perhaps doesn't weigh risks optimally may be afraid of other vaccines as well, or that someone a bit more sensible than that may be uncertain whether a particular vaccine is acceptable.

      I think that a reasonable policy is to take care that vaccines that are recommended are as safe as they can be, to make them demonstrably so (i.e. no mercury compounds that are scary enough that one might want to see whether or not they are safe), to ensure careful testing, to ensure that the testing can be trusted and to ensure that there is as little profit motive to get around and, if one genuinely believes that it is necessary, to consider mandatory vaccinations.However I suspect that an initiative like this is being considered because it is felt to be less imposing than that.

    14. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, let me emphasize I am only talking about measles here. In that case we suffer from a lack of information. We need an estimate of the "measles party" effect, which could plausibly be very large. We need to know the accuracy of blinded clinicians diagnosing measles both before and during the vaccine age (probably not stationary). We need to know the timecourse of the the transition to confirmation via lab test. If you investigate the sources above you will find that these can plausibly account for >99% reduction in incidence. However, my impression is that the lab test issue did not become important in the US until the late-1980s-1990s, but could find no good data on this. Much of the information telling us to doubt the accepted narrative is found in asides that do not appear to have been properly studied.

      We also know that measles is a one-time event in most cases and the initial vaccines were essentially giving people measles (the higher rate of sick children). The mechanism could be that in the 1960s a large cohort essentially contracted measles all at the same (but were not diagnosed as such since it was due to the vaccine) time which interrupted the transmission of the virus. This has consequences for whether the current practice of vaccinating children as they arrive is actually effective, instead the correct strategy would be to "vaccinate" everyone we can all at once. That would depend on whether the current vaccines are just as effective. To understand what I mean, an equally effective strategy in absence of a vaccine would be to have one huge measles party.

      My assessment is that evidence for measles vaccine effectiveness is very weak. Even if we accept the observational data is all due to the vaccine, I still question whether the current approach to administering it is effective.

    15. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm fine with this as long as I do not have to pay taxes for the schools and public services that I cannot use.

    16. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd better start using your brain. Your right not vaccinate your children puts mine at risk. Try to understand.

    17. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need an estimate of the "measles party" effect, which could plausibly be very large.

      I'm wrong far more often than I'm right. But I'm also a biomedical research scientist. And my fearless prediction is that, sometime in the next decade or two, the official government government recommendations will change to recommend that children not receive the MMR vaccine. But not because of new evidence of harm from MMR vaccination, simply because new technologies will make it possible to control the diseases that MMR protects against - without subjecting people to the harmful effects of the MMR vaccine that we already know about.

      The problem, though, is that we've already got more people trained up with PhDs ready to do science than available jobs. The limiting factor in scientific progress is public (financial) support of science. But if California forces everyone to get vaccinated now and then changes it's recommendation ten years from now there are going to be a lot of people concluding that science is worthless because it's so wrong on important questions.

      Maybe it makes sense to force vaccinations from a purely logical medical perspective. But it's not going to be good PR for scientific research.

    18. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      harm from MMR vaccination

      This may or may not exist, it is not something I have studied. I consider it a moot point with regards to measles, until there is convincing evidence for effectiveness of the vaccine.

      there are going to be a lot of people concluding that science is worthless because it's so wrong on important questions.

      It is not science that would be worthless, it is "other things" presenting themselves as science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatg

    19. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      In Australia your child's vaccinations are tracked by Medicare our centralised medical care provider. There was an error in the paperwork for my youngest which meant they thought she had missed one of her jabs. We were contact via mail and phone to check that this was the case and to see if there was a reason why. The person who called was obviously prepared to shoot down anti-vax arguments, but in our case our daughter had had them, it was an error in reporting by our local GP.

    20. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      The problem with allowing people the right to refuse vaccinations is that it impacts the wider community. Anti-vaccination has become an issue in Australia and the herd immunisation rates are falling. As a result of this there have been outbreaks of measles and whooping cough, the latest whooping cough outbreak being responsible for the death of an infant.

      As for profit incentives and things like that. There is almost no profit in vaccines. It is the reason why governments around the world had to pool money in order to fund their research and manufacture. There is far more money in a margin cancer drug or a fat burning pill.

      In the end we live in societies and being in those societies cost us some personal freedoms for the greater good. We pay taxes for services, we have laws that we must abide by, all of these are in effect giving up personal freedoms and power in return for societies advantages. Having infectious disease vaccines is something that you should do for yourself but also for society.

      The particular vaccine you identified as having issues is a flu vaccine and flu vaccines by their nature are a higher risk vaccine. They have to be developed on short time scales based on which ever flu variant is in existence at that time. There were issues with a flu jab a couple of years ago in Australia that saw a young child die. As a result there is no push for flu vaccines to be mandatory or recommended for younger people. The MMR, Polio, Smallpox, HPV etc vaccines however are long tested, mature and safe. They should not be put into the same category as the flu vaccine.

    21. Re: I'm a bit conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the 147 people out of 330 MILLION who got measles included noone who had gotten the vaccine

      Be careful. The parents bringing in any children to the doctor, the doctor's choosing to test for measles, etc are a biased sample. I'm not saying that is incorrect, only that without further information we must rely upon assumptions. For example, you provide no source so I am assuming your numbers are accurate. How you got modded informative for that I will never know.

    22. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm tempted to suggest that the "fair" thing to do would be to give the family a refund on the school district's share of their taxes if they've been cut off from that resource...

      That is offensively unfair. Everyone pays tax for services they don't or can't use. I don't have kids why should I pay for schools if parents are going to be paid to not use them? Where is my tax credit? Can you imagine how expensive public education would be if it was a user-pays system?

    23. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm all for parents having the choice, when and only when we can tell who a person who either is vaccinated or can't because of a medical reason was infected by, and those parent bear the full legal burden of having caused the infection.

      1) Felony assault if someone is infected by their kid
      2) Premeditated murder if their kid or someone infected by their kid dies from the disease.
      3) Child abuse if their kid catches the disease

      These selfish POS parents are depending on everyone else's immunity for their kid's protection while risking everyone else.

    24. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? We don't give people who don't have kids in school a refund on the school district's share of their taxes.

    25. Re: I'm a bit conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're using the wrong argument. It's extremely hazardous to the herd, but avoiding immunizations can be statistically safer for the individual. Check the CDC stats. There's been no measles deaths in the US in the last decade. But their site shows about 100 deaths from Measles vaccines.

    26. Re: I'm a bit conflicted by readin · · Score: 1

      From the Democratic National Convention: "Government’s the only thing that we all belong to". That counts double for your kids.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    27. Re: I'm a bit conflicted by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Why yes, because herd immunity is still largely intact. This could change if the anti-vaxxer movement keeps going though, which is exactly why it's good to handle this now rather than later, when a new, larger outbreak happens.

      Comparing the 147 who got infected to the entire population of the US is disingenuous and you know it. Might as well compare it to the population of the Earth for how little it matters. What matters is that a significant number of children were infected by a deadly disease. This time around, everyone was safe and nothing bad happened. How many times do you want to roll the wheel of fortune?

    28. Re: I'm a bit conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So its all about money to you? Fuck you and the measly whore you came from.

    29. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      You're conflicted because you're stuck on the idea of public schools. Imagine what outcry there would be, if the government decided that students can only receive financial assistance for state colleges. Why can't they do a similar system with education at the school level?

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    30. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      You pay into the tax system with the promise that your children could take advantage of public schools if you so desired. In this case, that promise is being broken, hence why I mentioned the idea I did. That said, I'm clearly not a fan of my own idea, as I had hoped I made clear.

    31. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bravo Australia!

    32. Re: I'm a bit conflicted by itzly · · Score: 1

      Since far more people died on the highways during that measles outbreak than even got measles

      Just because there are causes of death that are more common doesn't mean we should stop the ones that can be prevented trivially.

    33. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems you do not understand herd immunity and also are ignorant of facts:

      1. A recent outbreak in Canada - where everyone was vaccinated - proves once again that vaccination does nothing to stop viruses (have a look at the lectures from dr Suzanna Humphries and Dr Tetyana Obukhanych, Ph.D.- their scientific lectures - documented with scientific documents clearly show that vaccination is not the solution: boosting and improving the immune system and isolating people that are ill is - google Leicester and vaccination to get an interesting history lesson).

      2. Herd immunity: a misunderstood concept from the 1930s (way before any vaccine was in use):
      * natural herd immunity exists, but only for certain deceases eg not for tetanus - it required about 68% of the people to have natural immunity (see lecture of Dr Tetyana Obukhanych, Ph.D): understand however that vaccination for eg measles is going to interrupt this patern (girls vaccinated and not having had measles have no natural immunity and thus cannot pas this on tpo their offspring)
      * other immunity - through vaccination: vaccination (if effective at all, since e.g. 5-10% of the population reacts very little to any vaccine and the fact that even vaccinated people can be carriers) this is never 100% and has some nasty side effects:
      a. suppression of natural immunity cycle
      b. virus mutations which are more difficult and expensive to treat (experience in eg impoverished regions in India have clearly demonstrated this) - in these regions it is often better not to vaccinate and to treat any outbreak: cheaper, easier and well
      understood
      c. introduction of toxins in an immune system that is poorly understood and actually weakening the immune system
      e.g. autism is no joke: look at eg China, there was virtually no autism until vaccines were introduced and the aluminium in vaccines that goes to your brain (passing the BBB) sets of a great deal of serious activity for which the body was not designed (normal infection goes through different defense systems from the body before reaching the brain normally)
      d. lack of any supporting research for both the working of herde immunity through vaccination - the medical community considers vaccination a common practice, but that does not make it correct: doctors did not use to wash their hands between patients etc - who would even consider questioning these necessary measures today ?)

      Vaccines are not the answer: booting of the immune system is and for this we can use vitamin c.
      They should give all children in school vitamin c every 2-3 hours and adults at work of course: the whole medicare bill would drop like a dead cat.
      If more measures would be taken it should be supplementing with selenium and zinc and vitamin b and in a decade breast (and other main) cancers would be gone ... of course you have to realise that every cancer patient represents about 25 000 USD (or more) in medical treatments, so someone is having a serious conflict of interest (if that was not clear yet for you).

      In addition, if vaccines are to safe and work fine, how come I can't sue the manufacturer ?
      What is wrong with this picture ?

      My opinions are based on science and verifiable proof - not public opinion and common medical practices taught by the pharma industry ...

    34. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 1

      This would have little effect in California since it's wealthy assholes who aren't vaccinating their children.

    35. Re: I'm a bit conflicted by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You also appear to not understand the basic concepts of immunology. It's pretty safe to ignore everything you have to say on the subject, as the subject appears beyond your grasp.

    36. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Your opinions are based on a poor understanding of the science, and a cherry-picking of the cases/incidents which suit your pre-chosen argument.

    37. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pointless - clearly shows they do not understand the current science and only thrive on public emotion.

      Current science: even when vaccinating everyone (100%), will not lead to complete herd immunity or protection:

      1. vaccines only work 2-6 months (best case)
      2. 5-10% of all populations do not respond at all to vaccines (low responders)
      3. even vaccinated people can be carriers
      4. hoskins effect
      5. virusses mutate - so by vaccinating a more dangerous situation is created - instead of a known treatment we go to unknown and to a super bacteria/virus

      Why do we even need this ? Is there an epidemic ? Of is this someones agenda and is there a financial incentive for a certain economic group ?

      What about liability ?
      What about potential risk vs reward ?

    38. Re: I'm a bit conflicted by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Comparing the 147 who got infected to the entire population of the US is disingenuous and you know

      How about if we compare it to the population of CA alone? That would make it 147 cases out of 39 million people. Still hardly a disaster of monumental proportions.

      What matters is that a significant number of children were infected by a deadly disease.

      Significant? Absolute worst case (the measles outbreak covered States having over half the US population, so the 39 million in CA will show a maximum infection rate of 3.75 per million (when you include the populations of all the States that got one or more measles cases, it's close to 1 per million).

      Sorry, I can't see one chance in a million as "significant".

      This time around, everyone was safe and nothing bad happened. How many times do you want to roll the wheel of fortune?

      You'd almost think that getting the measles vaccine would eliminate measles cases. If you didn't know better. Failure rate of the vaccine is over 2%. Which means that the 0.0001% of people who actually got measles this year in the US were a teeny, tiny fraction of those who could have gotten the measles, EVEN IF EVERYONE WERE VACCINATED.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    39. Re: I'm a bit conflicted by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Interesting theory you have.

      So, I gather from your comment that you know that the measles vaccine has about a 2.9% failure rate, that the US average immunization rate is 94.7% (ignoring the failure rate), for an effective immunization rate of 92.0%....

      I also assume that you know that herd immunity is established at 90%+?

      Likewise, I'll assume you know that even 100% immunization will still leave ~10 million people susceptible to measles in the US (that 2.9% failure rate isn't going to go away).

      And I'll further assume that you think that when we enforce mandatory immunization and reach that rockhard MINIMUM of 10 million susceptible people that we'll never, ever have a year when 147 people get sick, right?

      Oh, have I managed to hint strongly enough that you're completely innumerate yet? It's not hard to come up with the numbers, and calculator programs make it pretty easy to put real numbers on things if you're capable of thinking that way.

      Conclusion: by the standards of epidemiologists, we're already pretty much safe from measles, and increasing the uptake rate of the vaccine will have minimal effect on measles outbreaks in the US.

      Oh, an interesting bit I noticed back when this outbreak first occurred is that the fatality rate of measles decline precipitously about thirty years before measles vaccines became standard. No idea why, but we didn't even bother making measles vaccine "mandatory" (to the extent that it is already mandatory) till a generation after measles had declined into a non-issue. And the death rates for measles (in terms of deaths per measles case, NOT deaths per population) has hardly changed since the introduction of the vaccine....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    40. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong on many counts. There are sometimes vaccine failures, it's true. But that's about it.

      Herd immunity absolutely exists. It doesn't require natural infection, but some vaccines aren't as good at inducing it as natural infection is. On the other hand, some are better. Moreover, the maternally transferred antibodies only work for about 6 months at best, don't actually train the infant's immune system to respond, and are also present in mothers who got vaccinated (as long as it worked).

      The failure rate for the measles vaccine is 2-3%, not 5-10%. This "natural immunity cycle" you keep talking about isn't the best thing for us; we had a natural immunity cycle to smallpox too, but I know I'm glad we broke that. High vaccination rates prevent mutations in the viral cycle - hell, if you're worried about immunity causing selection for viral mutations, then you should be worried about that for natural infection too.

      "Weakening the immune system" - what do you mean by this specifically? What cells in the immune system are weakened, and in what way? Can CD8+ T cells no longer respond as strongly to antigens? Is B cell maturation infected? If you can't answer basic immunology questions, why should we believe you over scientists who actually can answer them?

      It looked like there was virtually no autism in China until after vaccines were introduced because they didn't have the health infrastructure in place to detect it before. Once you have the ability to look for something more easily, of course you're going to find it more...

      There is plenty of evidence for herd immunity, you're just ignoring it.

      Vitamin C, in more recent studies, actually appears to not do anything for the immune system. It may actually hard it, since it's an antioxidant, and a crucial part of the innate immune system is the generation of ROS. What form of selenium should we give them? That matters, because it can have wildly different effects. Zinc also doesn't have any good evidence, and what sort of vitamin B do you want? Why do you think any of these would change cancer rates?

      You say your opinion is based on science, but you're wrong.

  10. hey dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I suggest you actually read the constitution. It does not say what you think it does.

    1. Re:hey dumbass by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      The Constitution says "No law". Religious exemption sounds like a law regarding religion.

      A Protestant would be mortified if a known Catholic judge asked them their religion. This is the same thing. Courts are prohibited from inquiries and special treatment based on a person's religion. If a judge can ask a question that can help them, then there's an answer that can hurt them. That's an unconstitutional denial of equal protection of the laws.

    2. Re:hey dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you made it a couple more words, you would have seen it was "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", then goes onto freedom of speech and the press.

    3. Re:hey dumbass by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      And SCOTUS has held that laws permitting inquiries as to a person's religion for the basis of determining guilt violates that.

      Further, equal protection of the laws is the Fourteenth Amendment, and declining to answer such questions is the Fifth Amendment.

      Article VI further prohibits religious tests for holding office. This theme is very well established.

    4. Re:hey dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, I see the problem. You don't speak English. Because your response has nothing to do with creating a law involving religion. Got it. Anyway, back to the first, it deals with establishment of an official religion and limiting practice of a religion. You're whole thing with SCOTUS doesn't deal with any of that and deals with discriminating on the basis of religion. Laws have to be careful when banning religion practices for fear of violation of the 1st.

      Really, since you don't understand English very well, it's probably best you just don't get involved with the discussion, it involves intricacies of the words.

    5. Re:hey dumbass by bobbied · · Score: 1

      And SCOTUS has held that laws permitting inquiries as to a person's religion for the basis of determining guilt violates that.

      Further, equal protection of the laws is the Fourteenth Amendment, and declining to answer such questions is the Fifth Amendment.

      Article VI further prohibits religious tests for holding office. This theme is very well established.

      " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the phrase many miss so readily here. The SCOTUS has made it pretty clear that the MINIUM interference with religion possible by government is what the constitution was driving at. In fact, that's what the Hobby Lobby decision was base on...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:hey dumbass by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      If a judge can lawfully say "What's your religion?" "Catholic" "That's allowed, I find you innocent, you're free to go"
      Then the judge can could say "That's prohibited. Prison time."

    7. Re:hey dumbass by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Um, the religious exemption to vaccination is a law. Did you read TFA? It's talking about repealing said law. You should check your own reading comprehension, Anonymous Coward. (See, I can be condescending too.)

    8. Re:hey dumbass by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Getting back to vaccines, keeping the law from imposing rules upon religions is fine, but when the action (not vaccinating) leads to people dying, then the religion doesn't get to claim freedom of religion. It doesn't hurt anybody if I don't eat ham/bacon because it's not kosher. It's not like I'm banning everyone else from eating it. (In fact, if I'm eating with someone and my food comes with bacon, I might ask that they get my bacon. Win for both of us.) But not vaccinating your child because of "religious reasons" means that you are putting your child and any other child your child comes in contact with in harm's way. You wouldn't get the fire a gun randomly in a crowd and claim "freedom of religion" and you shouldn't get to not vaccinate and claim "religious freedom."

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    9. Re:hey dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The religious exemption should not exist. As you (i think) are saying: if the judge in a case about not vaccinating cannot ask "What religion are you?" then they cannot get information saying that they refused it for religious reasons, therefore by the constitution and legal procedures, the religious exemption is null and void.

      If that is what you're saying, I agree and those arguing with you are either dumbasses or not understanding it, maybe because your opening statements brought up a certain picture of what you mean and they're reforming what you say into what "you mean" based on that interpretation of what you "must be meaning".

      That's why sometimes you need to stop and go back and restate your starting position.

    10. Re:hey dumbass by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The religious exemption of the law does not "establish an official religion" nor does it "prevent the free exercise of religion", therefore it doesn't fall foul of the first amendment religious stuff as that is all that is covered by the first.

      Religious exemptions are all about not preventing the free exercise of religion, which is the heart of the first amendment protections of religion. Asking which religion to determine if the beliefs of that religion are what you say they are doesn't fall foul of that either.

      Perhaps you should go back to social studies class and learn about the establishment clause and the meaning of it.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    11. Re:hey dumbass by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Where I understand your argument, I draw the line a bit further to the right on this in order to error on the side of freedom.

      My line is "immediate danger" and not potential future danger. Unless you are causing immediate harm to your children the government should be hands off. So if your kids are being beaten, neglected or something they can step in to protect the welfare of the child. Not vaccinating is NOT causing immediate harm to children, so if somebody wants to claim a religious exception, it has to be allowed.

      Now if someone wants to claim to have a religious exception that allows them to sexually abuse their kids the government can (and should) step in to stop it because it is immediate harm.

      So, for your shooting into a crowd is posing an immediate danger and should be stopped. But choosing not to vaccinate does not, so the government doesn't get to force it. Of course the government CAN put restrictions on where your kids can go if they are not vaccinated. Say no public school, college or other government services, that's valid, but they simply cannot force the parent to vaccinate their children.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    12. Re:hey dumbass by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Religious exemptions are unconstitutional under the free exercise clause. Perhaps a rephrasing of my original point makes this clearer:

      Judge: "You're being tried for $foo. How do you plead?"
      Defendant: "Not guilty by religious exemption"
      Judge: "What religion is that?"

      If this is indeed a constitutional question, then if the defendant provides the wrong answer, they're guilty. That is an unconstitutional abridgment of the free exercise of religion: It makes certain religious guilty.

    13. Re:hey dumbass by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, this question "What religion are you" violates the equal protection of the laws, that the same law protects everyone equally (and religion is generally subject to strict scrutiny), the Fourteenth Amendment.

      And it violates the Fifth Amendment - that a person cannot be compelled to speak against themselves: Providing the wrong answer would be speech against one's self.

  11. Across the ponds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Europe and Japan has big problem understanding what's going on in the USA? Lack of vaccination is considered horrendous, many kinds of vaccines are even mandated by law in many countries (i.e. police round up people who don't take their kids for vaccination and put the kids into care homes). On the other hand, antibiotics for human and livestock use are strictly controlled on physician / veterinary subscription, for fear of reducing their effectiveness by careless American-style overuse.

    Btw, I think Hungary, in Central Europe has the strictest mandatory vaccination law in the whole world, about 12-14 different shots total. Until about 15 years ago, they even mandated yearly chest X-rays for all 14 to 65, due to extreme high historic prevalence of TB epidemic (and filterless smoking) in the region. That is, they bussed mobile X-rays to even the smallest villages and whoever wouldn't come on one's own, got brough up by the police.

    1. Re:Across the ponds. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Europe has also done a much more thorough job of banning Thimerosal (a preservative containing mercury) in vaccines, an area where the US is still behind. Just sayin'.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Across the ponds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that thimerosal has been out of all vaccines used in the US and Canada since the early 1990's right? Oh wait, you do know and you're just a mindless troll.

      Just sayin'

    3. Re:Across the ponds. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > You do know that thimerosal has been out of all vaccines used in the US and Canada since the early 1990's right? [emphasis mine]

      Apparently not. If you have evidence to the contrary, here's your chance to update a wiki entry.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    4. Re:Across the ponds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      There is plutonium / polonium / arsenic / lead / cadmium / mercury in your body RIGHT NOW.

      Fucking moron. If you had reading comprehension, you'd see that your own link says that the "normal" experience avoids any exposure:

      In the United States, countries in the European Union and a few other affluent countries, thiomersal is no longer used as a preservative in routine childhood vaccination schedules.

      The only spot that they sometimes show up are in necessity-only (not-recommended for normal administration) vaccines:

      Several vaccines that are not routinely recommended for young children do contain thiomersal, including DT (diphtheria and tetanus), Td (tetanus and diphtheria), and TT (tetanus toxoid); other vaccines may contain a trace of thiomersal from steps in manufacture.[8] Also, four rarely used treatments for pit viper, coral snake, and black widow venom still contain thiomersal.

      So unless you are complaining about the minute trace from manufacturing on related equipment, shut the fuck up. If you ARE complaining about the trace amounts, please drink pure distilled water until your body is clear of any and all atoms of plutonium / polonium / arsenic / lead / cadmium / mercury. Then we'll talk.

    5. Re:Across the ponds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe and Japan has big problem understanding what's going on in the USA? Lack of vaccination is considered horrendous, many kinds of vaccines are even mandated by law in many countries

      Yeah, keep living in your fantasy world. Germany just had a huge measles outbreak.

      (i.e. police round up people who don't take their kids for vaccination and put the kids into care homes).

      And that is supposed to be a good thing?

      On the other hand, antibiotics for human and livestock use are strictly controlled on physician / veterinary subscription, for fear of reducing their effectiveness by careless American-style overuse.

      Again: bullshit. Antibiotic overuse is widespread in many European countries.

      Btw, I think Hungary, in Central Europe has the strictest mandatory vaccination law in the whole world,

      So? You hold a shithole like Hungary up as an example to emulate?

      (And, actually, East Germany and Nazi Germany had even stricter mandatory laws on preventative medicine.)

    6. Re:Across the ponds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Germany just had a huge measles outbreak.

      Germany is different. Because of their totalitarian nazi past, they are very afraid of any action under central govt control. But most other european countries are nation states, more or less monarchies without kings, citizens being more or less subjects.

      > Antibiotic overuse is widespread in many European countries.

      Where? Sales without prescription? Well, it does happen, but the only one item I know of, is Dorithricin / Tirotricin 1mg, a kind of candy for throat pain. There was a lot of debate before it was approved for unprescribed sale. But it is not possible to buy e.g. penicillin without dr. med. prescription.

      > You hold a shithole like Hungary up as an example to emulate?

      Hungary is part of the EU, so not exactly Bangladesh (yet). Some health institutions Hungary established during the soviet bloc era are now appreciated even in the free world. Mass X-ray screening against TB and total vaccination, as I mentioned. "Vedono", a more powerful form of "Health visitor" is a kind of nurse with college degree who specializes in care and monitoring the pregnant women and from then on, the child until 16 years of age. They have specific legal powers to intervene in case of neglect and act as a single point of contact. They are important for the ~99,9% vaccination rate. Finland adopted this system from us and now Britain is thinking about reforming their own alongside that method.

      > And, actually, East Germany

      Not just East Germany. Honestly said, post-WW2 communism was instrumental in advancing mass healthcare, due to their propaganda ideology of people being the most valuable thing. E.g. both polio vaccines were developed in the USA, but remained niche until USSR started building factories to make them by the crate load. Without Cuba few people would be alive today in black Africa, they didn't just send troops to stop the apartheid south african invasion of Angola, etc. but also many hundreds of doctors with equipment to stop infant death and epidemics.

      Hungary was the world's leading supplier of poppy derived opiates for medicine until USA mixed up "tiszavasvari Alkaloida" company with the Laden's Al-Kaida and forced closure (no kidding)! A few years later they came back and said please re-start the facility due to supply shotage. Hungary's pharma companies "Richter Gedeon" and "EGIS" are well-know for having perfected low-cost methods of production for several essential medicines.

  12. Re:Religious exemptions are unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If I had a dime for every time I'd had to listen to someone rant about the 1st without having a fucking clue what it means I would have better things to do than read /.

  13. It does not unfairly shut children out of schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It forces people to choose between two very important issues: your child's public education versus the health of your child and all the other children in public school. There's a choice here. You still have the option to home school if your (poorly-founded and exaggerated) fears about vaccination risks outweigh the desire for public schooling. It's a condition of participating in the latter, just like your child being a sufficient age and maturity to attend school. There are other options.

    The worst thing is, if legislators allow some of these (misguided) parents to pool their children together, then you'll still have nice nests of unvaccinated children that can serve as the source for spreading into the population of people who can't take vaccines for legitimate medical reasons or whose vaccines haven't been effective.

    I don't see any reason to make the choice easy.

  14. Mandation of vaccines is not okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Vaccines are great. I won't dispute that. My children are vaccinated, but I have followed a different schedule than the one recommended and I reserve the right to refuse specific vaccines (Because who really needs Varicella vaccination if you were already infected as a child? It's also hardly ever fatal for that matter).

    It is up to parents to decide what is right for their own child with regard to medical decisions. Medical decisions are difficult and not always cut and dry. I refuse to give up the right of anyone deciding what is appropriate for their child in this regard, because medical decisions live with you forever.

    So if a parent doesn't want to have their child vaccinated, that's a-okay with me. My children are vaccinated, so I've done everything that I personally can do to protect them. I can't protect them from everything and I don't expect other parents to protect my children either. I can only do what I can, and the rest is up to chance in the end.

    Giving up freedom because of fear is not the answer. Mandating the "correct" decision is often wrong. Better instead to push education and appropriate information rather than to force others to make the decision you want them to.

    1. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up herd immunity. The problem isn't that your child is vaccinated and theirs isn't. therefore your child is safe and theirs isn't... it doesn't work that way. Vaccines are not 100%. And in fact rely on herd immunity to reach higher numbers. If for some reason a vaccine doesn't work in 1% of children, (maybe a bad batch of the vaccine, or something in that child's chemistry made the vaccine not work or any number of reasons), those 1% are still vulnerable to the disease vaccinated. Now you take that 1% and put it in a (for arguements sake 70% vaccinated) group. 31% of the people they meet have the potential to carry the disease. now insert 1 person with the disease. that person has a 31% chance of interacting with someone who is vulnerable to the disease. and that person has a 31% chance, and so on and so forth. that is how disease spreads. now you have a 95% immunized herd (1% for whom the vaccine doesn't work and another 4% who can't be vaccinated due to comprimized immune system. now that 1 person with the disease only has a 5% chance of getting it, and so on and so forth, greatly reducing the impact of the outbreak.

    2. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      There is a metric ton worth of court rulings that demonstrate that the courts do not recognize that parents have unlimited power over their children's medical needs. Ask any Jehovah's Witness whose minor child needs a blood transfusion. No liberty is absolute, and certainly not the somewhat nebulous semi-liberty of parents to make medical decisions for their children.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Gun control policies are great. I won't dispute that. My children are gun-free, but I have followed a different schedule than the one recommended and I reserve the right to refuse specific gun control policies (Because who really needs shotgun control policies if you were already shot as a child? It's also hardly ever fatal for that matter).

      It is up to parents to decide what is right for their own child with regard to gun control decisions. Gun control decisions are difficult and not always cut and dry. I refuse to give up the right of anyone deciding what is appropriate for their child in this regard, because gun control decisions live with you forever.

      So if a parent wants their child to bring a gun to school, that's a-okay with me. My children are gun-free, so I've done everything that I personally can do to protect them. I can't protect them from everything and I don't expect other parents to protect my children either. I can only do what I can, and the rest is up to chance in the end.

      Fixed that for you.

      Giving up freedom because of fear is not the answer. Mandating the "correct" decision is often wrong. Better instead to push education and appropriate information rather than to force others to make the decision you want them to.

    4. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      Liberty is absolute or it isn't liberty. When a state can define what is liberty, you end up with tyranny. Governance is NOT absolute. Liberty is.

      Yes, I am a libertarian.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You may find your black and white ideological extremism comforting, but in the real world, where real people live, collisions of liberties means there are no absolutes. In general terms, your freedom of action ends at the tip of my nose, so your liberties are not absolute.

      Children have the same fundamental liberties as their parents, but are not deemed to have the emotional or cognitive maturity to exercise those liberties responsibly. The child's guardians is thus given considerable legal and moral authority over the child, but that authority is not absolute, because to make it absolute would essentially render the child's liberties null and void. And thus the courts can force a child to have life-saving procedure like a blood transfusion despite the protestation's of the child's guardian.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by smellsofbikes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Stop signs are great. I won't dispute that. I stop at stop signs, but I have followed a different schedule than the one recommended and I reserve the right to refuse specific stop signs (Because who really needs that stop sign in a construction area where there aren't any other cars? Crashes at stop signs are also hardly ever fatal for that matter)
      It is up to drivers to decide what is right for their own car with regard to stop signs. Driving decisions are difficult and not always cut and dry. I refuse to give up the right of anyone deciding what is appropriate for their car in this regard, because bad driving decisions live with you forever.
      So if a driver doesn't want to have to stop at stop signs, that's a-okay with me. I stop at stop signs, so I've done everything that I personally can do to protect myself. I can't protect everyone from everything and I don't expect other drivers to protect me either. I can only do what I can, and the rest is up to chance in the end.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    7. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      Liberty is absolute or it isn't liberty.

      Really? Libel, slander, inciting a riot, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, false advertising, yadda, yadda, yadda. You're aware these restrictions on your so-called absolute liberty are working out just fine, right? It's called the real world and you actually live in it.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    8. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >

      Yes, I am an Idiot.

      FTFY

      lol Captcha "Corrects"

    9. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Really? Libel, slander, inciting a riot, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, false advertising, yadda, yadda, yadda. You're aware these restrictions on your so-called absolute liberty are working out just fine, right? It's called the real world and you actually live in it.

      Libel, slander, and false advertising can generally be reduced to fraud. It has to be false, and someone's reasonable belief of it has to have caused an injury (in the common law understanding).

      Fire in a theater was a hypothetical in an old SCOTUS case. It's not illegal, and no one has ever been found guilty of it. Penn & Teller yell "Fire! Fire!" in a full theater every night. In the face of real flames. Still waiting for someone to get trampled.

    10. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well played.

    11. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let us know when you next get T-boned, or have run over a bicyclist.

      I got run over (well, run under - I went over his car along with some parts of my bicycle) by a chap who decided that his street's STOP sign could be freely ignored now and then.

      There weren't any other cars around, so it was okay!
      Wasn't fatal either, so that's fine too!

      AC

    12. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by readin · · Score: 1

      As was said at the the Democratic National Convention: "Government’s the only thing that we all belong to". That counts double for your kids.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    13. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depending on how bad the Varicella infection was, you may be at risk for getting it again. It's a myth that you can only get it once, when in fact it is possible to catch it again. Most people won't because they had a strong enough case, but even still, catching it is worse than being inoculated.

    14. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by ThomasBHardy · · Score: 0

      The difference is that Stop Signs have a legal basis and if you fail to stop at them, you can be fined. You want the license to drive, then you agree to play by the rules that keeps everyone safer.

      Same thing with the social contract that makes up your citizenship. You have to obey the rules that keep everyone safer if you want to take advantage of the benefits.

      This part about group family home schooling is frightening for the children. Imagine taking a bunch of weak minded fools who can be sucked into this anti-vac thing with their "I read the internet, so I know better than scientists, doctors and everyone else" mentality and paranoia. Make them responsible for "educating" (see the quotes I put around that?) their kids and kids of other like-minded conspiracy theorists. I can only imagine the insanity that will ferment in these settings. What kinds of freaks will they be raising?

      --
      Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
    15. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      by smellsofbikes

      Username checks out. :D

    16. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by Nemyst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference is that Stop Signs have a legal basis and if you fail to stop at them, you can be fined.

      Yes, the notion of a stop sign is enshrined into law. This proposed law would do the same for vaccines. That's not what I call a difference.

      You want the license to drive, then you agree to play by the rules that keeps everyone safer.

      Yep. And if you want your children to go to school, you agree to play by the rules that keep everyone safer.

    17. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by donkwich · · Score: 1

      You're anti-vaxx and libertarian? Why am I not surprised.

      If it makes you feel better, think of California as a privately-owned club. The club is owned by its citizens who elect board members who can set rules for everyone in the club, such as your kid needing to be vaccinated in order for them to attend one of the club's official educational facilities. Don't like it? Too bad, you can always vote with your dollars/feet and join some other club that enjoys the risks of endangering their children's health.

      Our private club wants to discriminate against those who threaten the health of others in the club, which as a libertarian you should be perfectly fine with. Freedom of association, right?

    18. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The celebrations from the Anti-Antivaxers camp show just how fanatical and blinded they have become.

      Legally enforced vaccinations are not a win for anyone except BigPharma. Do people honestly believe large corporations have people's health as their main priority? No, their obligation like any large corporate is to their shareholders.

      So when Baxter again release large amounts of Bird Flu VIRUS "accidentally" labelled as vaccine (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=aTo3LbhcA75I&pid=newsarchive) , then you can look forward to the government forcing you to have that shoved into your system.

      Or the HPV vaccine for males, who are not at threat at all by it, but hey $$$$!

      Or when they finally create the "Depression" vaccine that many are working on. Government-mandated forced-happiness. What good obedient citizens we will all be then.

      Given the revolving door between the corporations and the supposed governing bodies overseeing their operations, you can guarantee that there's going to be all sorts of wonderful new profit generating products making their way to your system now. Enjoy.

    19. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Liberty is absolute or it isn't liberty. When a state can define what is liberty, you end up with tyranny. Governance is NOT absolute. Liberty is.

      Yes, I am a libertarian.

      Liberty must include the liberty to define what liberty is.
      Uh oh.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    20. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      You may find your black and white ideological extremism comforting, but in the real world, where real people live, collisions of liberties means there are no absolutes. In general terms, your freedom of action ends at the tip of my nose, so your liberties are not absolute.

      Children have the same fundamental liberties as their parents, but are not deemed to have the emotional or cognitive maturity to exercise those liberties responsibly. The child's guardians is thus given considerable legal and moral authority over the child, but that authority is not absolute, because to make it absolute would essentially render the child's liberties null and void. And thus the courts can force a child to have life-saving procedure like a blood transfusion despite the protestation's of the child's guardian.

      Your freedom to have a nose ends at the point where it interferes with my freedom to swing my fist wildly about.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    21. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Vaccines are great. I won't dispute that. My children are vaccinated, but I have followed a different schedule than the one recommended and I reserve the right to refuse specific vaccines (Because who really needs Varicella vaccination if you were already infected as a child? It's also hardly ever fatal for that matter).

      It is up to parents to decide what is right for their own child with regard to medical decisions. Medical decisions are difficult and not always cut and dry. I refuse to give up the right of anyone deciding what is appropriate for their child in this regard, because medical decisions live with you forever.

      So if a parent doesn't want to have their child vaccinated, that's a-okay with me. My children are vaccinated, so I've done everything that I personally can do to protect them. I can't protect them from everything and I don't expect other parents to protect my children either. I can only do what I can, and the rest is up to chance in the end.

      Giving up freedom because of fear is not the answer. Mandating the "correct" decision is often wrong. Better instead to push education and appropriate information rather than to force others to make the decision you want them to.

      varicella can be fatal in infants, and people with weak immune systems who can't be vaccinated. Plus, varicella infection leaves you at risk for shingles, which is not pleasant. Plus, if you've already had varicella, then you're not going to be even mildly affected by the vaccine.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  15. How about every schoolchild gets vaccinated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    unless a panel of independent doctors confirms that they are at a high level of risk for vaccine complications after reviewing medical records. If they don't get the vaccines, then the special snowflakes can be home-schooled by their idiot parents. Society needs a few uneducated people too. Unvaccinated will always accompany uneducated.

  16. Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Execute unvaccinated children. Problem solved.

  17. ...and adults too. by Darth+Muffin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm one of those who is allergic to eggs and have to be very careful about vaccines, so you may be putting me at danger too.
    Many vaccines have egg protein in them, and so do flu shots. Over the years I have managed to get most vaccines, but it's hard. On paper there are egg-free vaccines and it's easy to google up an article announcing the exciting new development of an egg-free vaccine for xxx. But in real life they are expensive, have short shelf lives, a very limited market, and nobody keeps records about where I might find some. Which means they're pretty much not available outside of a major metropolis, and even then it takes luck and a lot of phone calls.

    --
    Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
    1. Re:...and adults too. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The law eliminates religious and philosophical exemptions, not medical exemptions. Unless your allergy to eggs is a philosophical stance, you'll be fine.

    2. Re:...and adults too. by Darth+Muffin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, I know that. The point is that people like me won't be protected by herd immunity, which is why we need the law. So I can go outside without being worried that I'll die because someone's little snowflake couldn't tolerate a needle.

      --
      Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
    3. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The law eliminates religious and philosophical exemptions, not medical exemptions. Unless your allergy to eggs is a philosophical stance, you'll be fine.

      I think you missed his point. There are people who cannot be vaccinated for various reasons, like allergies, immune system disorders, etc. These people therefore are at risk of becoming ill, but only if there is a transmission vector. If everyone who can be is immunized, those who cannot be are highly unlikely to come into contact with someone who can transmit a disease to them.

    4. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You live in this society, you fucking bet it's your job. Either do it or get the fuck out.

    5. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually it is - that's the whole point of herd immunity and was always the intention of vaccination programs sorry you might not like it, just like you don't like paying taxes.

    6. Re:...and adults too. by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, yes it is. There isn't much where I'll agree with claims of "people should sacrifice for the common good", but contagious diseases are damn clear. Plus, the sacrifice is minimal and the benefit huge.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:...and adults too. by twitnutttt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, but the part you're missing is that it is not my job to provide you with herd immunity.

      And that's why, under the law, you and your spawn are free to continue your miserable existences in your own parallel world, ostracized and isolated from the rest of us.

    8. Re:...and adults too. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Is it your job to follow traffic laws? Why should your right to drive how you want in your own car be infringed by the desire of some people for safe roads?

    9. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the job of vaccinated people to give herd immunity to people like you, but it is when it comes to people who can't get vaccinated for medical reasons, no matter how much they want to.

    10. Re: ...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republic.

    11. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's the stance you're taking, you'll find that it's not our job to respect your religious or philosophical objections to vaccination.

    12. Re:...and adults too. by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      That's fine, but the rest of society has no responsibility to provide you with education if you refuse to provide the rest of society with anything ;)

    13. Re:...and adults too. by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it really isn't. You have a warped sense of right and wrong if you feel it is justified to force vaccinations on others for your own health benefit.

      It's part of the social contract. If someone feels that it isn't their civic duty to take the proper vaccinations required and demanded of them for their part in protecting society, Then it's not the community's job to allow these people to live in our cities, hold claims to land, conduct trade, or access or public roads or other venues.

      Such rights only exist under the civilized society, AND if you choose to live in the civilized society, then you MUST take every obligation that comes with that choice --- that choice is only available if you also are to pay your taxes, and respect the well-being of other people, for example: by not killing them, or robbing from them, BUT, also, taking the required steps to see that you are not making them sick or putting their lives at risk through your own negligence.

      Failure to receive the minimal recommended and required vaccinations is negligence.

      It's no different than creating a humongous unreasonable fire hazard in your backyard, and claiming you have no duty to prevent it from catching your neighbor's house on fire; that just aint so..

      Such people who would refuse vaccination for no provable and rationally justifiable medical reason --- can and should then be put into quarantine or deported / removed from civilized areas, with steps taken to ensure they stay out until they agree to vaccination.

    14. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feel free to move to Russia then, snowflake. A nice case of tuberculosis will change your sensitive little mind in a heartbeat.

    15. Re:...and adults too. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Why should your right to drive how you want

      Driving is a highly-regulated activity, and as officials are apt to repeat often: your eligibility for a license to do so is a privilege, not a right.

      The same is true, also... regarding your ability to access public goods in any manner.

      You have the right to equal protection under the law; however, so you have protection from being deprived of the privilege, except if you fail to meet a standard required by the law.

      Disobeying a traffic law can lead to failure to meet the standard: resulting in revocation of any privileges the law sees fit to revoke.

      So vaccination could be the same.....

      It seems like people might have more second thoughts about this whole home schooling thing; if in addition proof of vaccination or medical exemption were required not only to access schools, BUT also for the person to take a GED exam after, to obtain or renew driver's licenses, to board a plane or train, to enter a concert or other public event, to open a bank account, to transfer real property, or to obtain a passport.

    16. Re:...and adults too. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 0

      Yes, yes it is. There isn't much where I'll agree with claims of "people should sacrifice for the common good", but contagious diseases are damn clear. Plus, the sacrifice is minimal and the benefit huge./quote.

      If I actually get Ebola or the Measles, then yes, I should stay away from society until I get better.

      The lack of a vaccine is not a sickness. So with all due respect, you can go pound sand.

      Thankfully I don't live in a state like CA that is so messed up, why don't you try and balance your budget before you tell people how to live their lives.

    17. Re:...and adults too. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Please, please, please stay in that messed up state of California, where you can't balance a budget, manage water resources, or do anything else right...

      > Don't come to Texas, you're not welcome here with your commie views...

      Texans insulting Californians for water management is quite ironic, at least to anyone who ever reviewed the history of the Dust Bowl. Texan mishandling of water and agriculture were key contributors to the Dust Bowl drought and economic and agricultural ruin of the 1930's. I'm afraid that California is headed the same way, but but it seems unfair to castigate other states for a problem Texas has itself had so profoundly.

    18. Re:...and adults too. by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      Slippery slope arguments are a slippery slope to a stagnant and decadent society.

    19. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that you've had your time to rant and vent, feel better? Good. Now bend over and take it.

    20. Re:...and adults too. by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      Sad thing is I know of two kids AND an adult who have come down with Whooping Cough - living in Cali no less. Didn't "believe" in vaccinations but wondered why everyone couldn't shake a cough. Finally dragged them all to the Dr. and found out what it was! Surprise, they are ALL up to date now. All it took was catching a disease that could've been easily prevented to cure this moron of their stupid "beliefs". Damned lucky it wasn't something far worse and crippling.

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    21. Re:...and adults too. by readin · · Score: 0

      Then it's not the community's job to allow these people to live in our cities, hold claims to land, conduct trade, or access or public roads or other venues.

      You're right, it isn't the community's job because it is no job at all. Property rights, living rights, trading rights, and travel rights are all pretty fundamental and it requires no effort to not interfere in them. Where effort is required is when you decide to take away people's fundamental rights. When you claim that interfering in people's rights is a "job" then you turn reality on its head. Protecting a healthy society may require interfering in people's rights - for example we enslaved several million Americans to protect our society during WWII - but don't pretend that you're not doing what you're doing.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    22. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, concentration camp much? Fuck you.

    23. Re:...and adults too. by mysidia · · Score: 2

      It isn't the community's job because it is no job at all. Property rights, living rights, trading rights, and travel rights are all pretty fundamental and it requires no effort to not interfere in them.

      Wrong. It does require efforts to support these legal rights. Property rights require assignment of rights to a scarce public resource (land). Property rights require ownership records, police and courts to protect, and support infrastructure. Travel requires maintenance of roads.

      They are not human rights; or more specifically, they are not among the inalienable rights. They are rights that can be and are withheld, not given to, or taken away from people.

      Property/travel/trade rights are frequently withheld from people who fail to pay taxes, fail to appear when summoned by the court to appear, or who fail to meet other standards or fulfill other duties that have been imposed upon them; Even people travelling in a dangerous manner, can lose travel rights due to DUI, can get fines for speeding --- ultimately resulting in restriction of travel (loss of license), or jail time, in some cases.

      Refusing to take vaccinations is really no different fundamentally from refusing to do other thinks required.

    24. Re:...and adults too. by lgw · · Score: 1

      We already have cases of sex-selection abortions and forced abortions in America - your slippery slope is a rather flat one. But all of that is a distraction from the fact that the freedoms that you must give up to enter a society are those that either directly injure or recklessly endanger your community. Sort of like driving drunk, or firing a gun into the air in a city: the odds you'll actually kill someone are low, sure, but it's just that sort of needless risk that societies form in order to remove. Everything's a trade-off, and some trade-offs are pretty clear.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    25. Re:...and adults too. by donkwich · · Score: 1

      Logan's Run was a documentary, I swear!

    26. Re:...and adults too. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Sort of like driving drunk, or firing a gun into the air in a city: the odds you'll actually kill someone are low, sure, but it's just that sort of needless risk that societies form in order to remove.

      Those are examples of things that I must "NOT" do... not things that I HAVE TO DO.

      That is the key difference.

      You're not telling me that I'm NOT ALLOWED to vaccinate, you're telling me that I HAVE TO DO IT.

      That is the problem.

      Thankfully, I'm secure living here, we are not going to go down that road, so for now I don't have to worry about it.

    27. Re:...and adults too. by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, there are plenty of things you must do as well, from the history of conscription, to jury duty, to paying taxes. Once it was common that you were required to bring your gun to church on Sunday just in case something needed killing. Your required to get the shots for your pets in most places. None of this stuff is crazy (well, bringing back the draft today would be, but only because technology has made it pointless, even harmful).

      We also, of course have crazy stuff like being required to buy health insurance and in some places upgrade existing structures to meet new codes. Not everything is a good tradeoff for liberty, but many things are.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    28. Re:...and adults too. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You probably don't know, but you just embarrassed yourself. Massively.

    29. Re:...and adults too. by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      It's so great that all dangerous diseases are immediately obvious to averyone and the sick person himself. I mean there is no way that you could be sick, but not know that yet and transmit the disease to others. Right?

    30. Re:...and adults too. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So evil you can't enunciate or demonstrate how, and instead resort to logical fallacies and confusing your opinion with fact. Bravo, sir! You're sure making Texas look rational.

    31. Re:...and adults too. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      You have no guarantee of a disease free environment, and it isn't my job to provide it for you.

      You want to mandate that the state should force me to inject myself with stuff that I don't like.

      Frankly, you can take a long walk off a short pier with that attitude.

    32. Re:...and adults too. by itzly · · Score: 2

      You're not telling me that I'm NOT ALLOWED to vaccinate, you're telling me that I HAVE TO DO IT.

      You also HAVE to pay taxes, HAVE to wear a seatbelt, and HAVE to wear clothes in public, among other things.

    33. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it is. Your right to put your children's lives at risk ends when it puts others at risk as well.

    34. Re:...and adults too. by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      there's always going to be people with legitimate medical reasons like yourself not to get vaccinated

      which is why you should be grateful for laws making vaccines mandatory: herd immunity means you and the few others unvaccinated for valid reasons are protected

      where herd immunity breaks down, such as when not enough people get their vaccinations for fucking retarded reasons, you are at greater risk of getting maiming and hobbling diseases

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    35. Re:...and adults too. by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      That's fine as long as you don't expect to live in or get any of the benefits of society. You are most definitely free to go live in a cave or a jungle on some secluded island.

    36. Re: ...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At my pharmacy, I am able to order that egg-free vaccine for the next day. Just ask your neighborhood pharmacist. If they can't order it, they aren't trying.

    37. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Herd immunity from vaccines is a myth. http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/

    38. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you don't pay any taxes or for any insurances, either, because why would you do anything that could benefit others, right?

    39. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you don't have 'vaccines'? Then according to all the idiots on Slashdot, you're ALSO putting everybody else at risk too, and should be banned from associating with anybody else - especially the 'vaccinated' ones, who are the MAJORITY of those who catch diseases.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3821823

      "An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced. Serum samples from 1806 students at two secondary schools were obtained eight days after the onset of the first case. Only 4.1 percent of these students (74 of 1806) lacked detectable antibody to measles according to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and more than 99 percent had records of vaccination with live measles vaccine. Stratified analysis showed that the number of doses of vaccine received was the most important predictor of antibody response. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals of seronegative rates were 0 to 3.3 percent for students who had received two prior doses of vaccine, as compared with 3.6 to 6.8 percent for students who had received only a single dose. After the survey, none of the 1732 seropositive students contracted measles. Fourteen of 74 seronegative students, all of whom had been vaccinated, contracted measles. In addition, three seronegative students seroconverted without experiencing any symptoms. We conclude that outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune."

      Oh dear... looks like 'vaccination' is a massive fraud, doesn't it. EVERYBODY got measles forty years ago, when I was a child, it's well documented. Nobody thought anything of it.

      The Fraud of Vaccination:
      http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen1.html

    40. Re: ...and adults too. by djdarko · · Score: 1

      Ah, a good old slippery slope argument. A total logical fallacy. One does not lead to the other.

    41. Re: ...and adults too. by djdarko · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's not what the proposed law requires. Are you purposefully creating a straw-man here, or do you genuinely not understand? No one will be forced to be vaccinated. If you want to participate in our social education system, then you must vaccinate or have a legitimate, non-kooky reason for it. If you electively choose not to vaccinate, then fine, but you must find some other way to educate your kids that doesn't risk the health of others. No forced vaccinations, here.

    42. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But YOU'RE just as 'infectious' and 'dangerous' as those who choose not to have 'vaccines' because they know it's a fraud, aren't you? Or does what you THINK make you less of a risk? You can bleat "herd immunity" over and over again, there is no such thing.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3821823

      "An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced. Serum samples from 1806 students at two secondary schools were obtained eight days after the onset of the first case. Only 4.1 percent of these students (74 of 1806) lacked detectable antibody to measles according to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and more than 99 percent had records of vaccination with live measles vaccine. Stratified analysis showed that the number of doses of vaccine received was the most important predictor of antibody response. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals of seronegative rates were 0 to 3.3 percent for students who had received two prior doses of vaccine, as compared with 3.6 to 6.8 percent for students who had received only a single dose. After the survey, none of the 1732 seropositive students contracted measles. Fourteen of 74 seronegative students, all of whom had been vaccinated, contracted measles. In addition, three seronegative students seroconverted without experiencing any symptoms. We conclude that outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune."

    43. Re:...and adults too. by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Its not about someones snowflake not tolerating a needle, its about living in a society where such things as "what medical procedures we perform" are family decisions rather than societal ones.

    44. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still not understanding it are you ?

      Vaccinate 100% of all the people and you will still have outbreaks ...

      Why ?

      1. Low responders ie 5-10% of all people react next to nothing to a vaccine
      2. Vaccinated people can be carriers
      3. Vaccines, if they were to work, only work for 2-6 months max

      What are we trying to do here please?

      Eradicate measles ?
      Wrong approach: when you start vaccinating viruses mutate into new an more virulent versions (think hospital bateria)
      for which treatment is next to impossible ...

      btw Who as died in the US from measles the last 10 years ? No one ! From the measles vaccine: over 100 (yes one hundred) people ... but you can't sue big pharma ... what is wrong with that picture ??

    45. Re:...and adults too. by dywolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Know how I know you don't have a clue what you're talking about?
      Besides the obviously ignorant use of the word "commie" that is.

      California, that liberal hellhole, only had a budget mess because after a shortfall became apparent (caued by the recession), the minority GOP in the state legislature filibustered any tax increases. The only things they allowed through were spending cuts. But as we've seen repeatedly in places like Kansas and Europe, spending cuts to safety net programs in the middle of a recession only make matters WORSE not better.

      By the way, their budget is balanced now, thanks largely to finally tax increases through after kicking out a bunch of republicans from the legislature (which itself only occurred because redistricting was finally taken away from the legislature and put in the hands of an independent citizen commission who undid a lot of gerrymandering.).

      As for water:
      1) they can't control the weather. So when they only get 5% of the usual snowpack this year, even lower than last years 20% (1inch of water, vs 4inches in 2014), there's not much they can do.
      2) the water rights are controlled by farm interests which rural conservative folks and big businesses, who hold a lot of sway in the legislature....not exactly your "commie".

      Oh wait, you did know California is actually a purple state right? And its rural populace, as well as a fair number of its tech moguls, would make the folks in Texas blush with how conservative they are? No, you probably didn't know that.

      After all, you think they cant do anything right, even though they have the largest economy in the country as the same time as having one of the best safety nets for low income and minority citizens in the nation, and buoyed their populace through the recession better than most states. Heck, you probably don't even know that one reason for Texas's success is it -also- has decent (as far as Red controlled Purple states go) safety nets for folks.

      Bugger off loon.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    46. Re:...and adults too. by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Evil?
      Only if you believe in Supply Side Jesus, rather than the things that dirty hippie said about love, compassion, and "whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me".

      You're an idiot.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    47. Re:...and adults too. by dywolf · · Score: 1

      "It's my right to endanger people around me, dangit!"

      Vaccines: partisan topic by 2016, because Obama said antivaxxers are stupid.
      Thanks Obama.

      Oh well.
      Here's hoping he comes out in support of oxygen.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    48. Re:...and adults too. by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Didn't you hear? You control your own body. Well, at least womyn do.

    49. Re:...and adults too. by Shortguy881 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree parents should have the final say, however, unvaccinated children should not be allowed in public schools. Parents should also be held liable if their unvaccinated kid (by choice) is involved in an outbreak that harms others. Yes, the decision is yours but you also need to accept the consequences.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    50. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And all the 'spawn' who happen to be ALLERGIC to 'vaccines' or 'immuno-compromised' - but apparently because they THINK THE RIGHT THOUGHTS, you are happy to have them going to school with your 'vaccinated' (LOL) children. How come?

      The stupidity on this forum is beyond belief, hence you support the fraud of 'vaccination'. Answer my simple question above.

    51. Re:...and adults too. by zildgulf · · Score: 2

      I have egg allergies and I am exempted from the MMR and Flu vaccines in Georgia and Mississippi, which is the most "mandatory" vaccine state, which have stringent laws against belief based exemptions. All states recognize medical exemptions for usual forms of vaccines. I will probably get the MMR under an allergist care in the office anyway since I never got the MMR combo vaccine, I got them one at a time as they came to market in 60's and the mid-60s Measles vaccine is not a effective as it should be.

    52. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh so strong emphasis on "the sacrifice".

      Keep in mind they now want you to take TDAP during 3rd trimester of pregnancy. Well, the CDC does. The manufacturers do the things with their hands like "nonononono" - but more formally, on their package inserts. In the next breath the manufacturers say basically "but if you do happen to use this product on pregnant women, oh man that's fantastic. We sure would like to enter them into our surveillance and monitoring program....you know... to see what happens." I'm not making this up.

    53. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Such people who would refuse vaccination for no provable and rationally justifiable medical reason --- can and should then be put into quarantine or deported / removed from civilized areas, with steps taken to ensure they stay out until they agree to vaccination. "

      Because they are apparently MORE INFECTIOUS than those who 'refuse' vaccination because they are allergic to vaccines, or 'immuno-compromised'. Can you explain why? You idiots haven't thought any of this through, which is why it resembles a witch hunt.

      The Myth of 'Herd Immunity':
      http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/

    54. Re:...and adults too. by operagost · · Score: 1

      It's no different than creating a humongous unreasonable fire hazard in your backyard

      No, that would be like me getting my hands on a sample of a pathogen and purposely releasing it in my neighborhood. Not being vaccinated is more like not digging a fire break around my house.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    55. Re:...and adults too. by werepants · · Score: 2

      Your freedom only extends as far as yourself - when you begin to endanger other people, then society intervenes. Nobody is forcing people to vaccinate their kids - they are just saying you have to meet a minimum level of safety in order to bring them into close and continuing contact with large numbers of other children. Kids aren't allowed to bring weapons to school for the same reason. If you want to keep your kid armed all the time (via infectious disease or any other means) you are welcome to, it just means you'll have to handle education yourself.

    56. Re:...and adults too. by jjo · · Score: 1

      And we all know that the Republicans oppose absolutely everything that Obama supports. For example, now that Obama has come out in favor of free trade, every Republican is utterly opposed to it.

    57. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      admission by the CDC that this year's flu vaccine doesn't work.

      As this story has gone extremely viral, I've also added these additional links to other news stories that report on the CDC's admission that this year's flu shot contains the wrong strain:

      Huffington Post: "Flu Vaccine Doesn't Protect Against This Season's Most Dominant Strain"

      The Seattle Times: "Vaccine problems may signal rocky flu season" - "New evidence shows that FluMist and seasonal shots likely won't protect very well against this year's flu viruses..."

      ABC News: "Flu vaccine may not be effective for this year's strains, CDC says"

      Freedom Outpost: "CDC Health Advisory: Get Your Flu Shot. It "Might" Work This Year. Sort Of"

      Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047890_flu_vaccines_CDC_apology_medical_fraud.html#ixzz3Y3qvR5lI

    58. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doctors and hospitals prescribe dangerous, ineffective drugs for bribe money; also routinely hide unfavorable safety studies
      Ed Kalpas, who studied biochemistry, public health, and epidemiology at some of the top Ivy League universities in the country -- and who also went to medical school -- corroborated this. Doctors and hospitals routinely prescribe drugs, he says, not because they work, but because they make money. Even when better, older drugs would be preferable, many in medicine prescribe newer, less effective drugs instead.

      He also admits that the drug industry regularly engages in publication bias, publishing only those studies that show favorable results for a drug while burying the others -- whatever will get a drug to commercial market the fastest, regardless of its safety or effectiveness.

      "One thing I realized is drugs are marketed... with these little pesky side effects -- but there's really no side effects, they're all effects," he stated.

      "And then the marketing department kind of shapes the market and decides 'oh, this is the side effect that we're going to market this drug for.' So one drug, one day, might be for glaucoma. The next day they might market it for your eyelashes growing longer. And it's the same drug."

      Many doctors don't care one iota about patient health; it's all about money!
      The third whistleblower, who chose to keep her identity a secret, says most of the thousands of doctors she's worked with over the years don't really care about patient health. Heavily influenced by bribes involving cash, hookers and even hard drugs like cocaine, many conventional doctors will prescribe whatever they're told to prescribe by the drug reps that visit them.

      The drug industry also has an extremely close relationship with the federal government, and the revolving door between these two entities is constantly spinning, she says.

      "Even when a drug is not getting good results, it's still pushed to market no matter what," she admitted. "And the highly paid FDA consults know the loopholes for how to do that."

      "People who are in charge of approving drugs then go work for the same companies they were previously supposed to monitor. I truly think it should be illegal for anyone who has ever been employed by the FDA to then consult for a pharmaceutical company, it's such a conflict of interest, it's ridiculous."

      American healthcare is a "disease system" that makes billions for corporate drug cartels
      Wilson, who was fired from Bristol-Myers Squibb in 2004 for raising concerns about corporate drug company corruption, successfully filed a whistleblower suit against his former employer, which settled in 2007 for $515 million. But the racket goes on, with millions of Americans being duped every single day into taking deadly pharmaceuticals that, in many cases, aren't helping them at all.

      "The whole system is really a disease system," said Kalpas.

      "The first thing in medical school you learn is how to diagnose a disease, and then once you have a diagnosis you learn what drug to then give for that diagnosis... and then you have the insurance companies that reimburse based on what diagnosis that patient has, and then they reimburse the drugs -- and it's a whole system, so anything that's outside of that system is frowned upon."

      And it's not about curing people, of course, but rather just treating their symptoms, admitted the anonymous whistleblower. Besides constantly reapplying drugs for new indications or creating new formulations in order to hold on to lucrative drug patents, drug companies care only about commercialization at all costs, regardless of the harm to society.

      "What the pharmaceutical companies are aiming at right now, for example, in cancer -- the goal is not at all to cure the cancer, the goal is to keep the cancer in check only if you're taking their pills," she stated.

      "The term 'FDA-approved' is not synonymous with 'this is safe for you'... When a lot of people start dying, or if a compound is not that efficaciou

    59. Re:...and adults too. by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Not being vaccinated is more like not digging a fire break around my house.

      Your living spaces are right by each other, but you don't want to install the fire barrier required by the building code to stop rapid spread of fire, because you heard it through the grape vine that fire barriers fail catastrophically and cause cancer.

      It doesn't matter what your opinion is; the authority having jurisdiction can deny you the right to occupy that structure, and issue an order that it be remediated into compliance within 10 days or will be demolished.

    60. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We may not notice a difference ... ;)

    61. Re:...and adults too. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Anti-vaxxers are almost all upper-middle-class liberal moms. The saying is "make a heatmap of anti-vaxxers, stick a pin in the middle of a hotspot, and you've found a Whole Foods".

      It's not just the right that has crazy notions, you know. It's pretty much "humans".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    62. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then it's not the community's job to allow these people to live in our cities, hold claims to land, conduct trade, or access or public roads or other venues.

      Protecting a healthy society may require interfering in people's rights - for example we enslaved several million Americans to protect our society during WWII - but don't pretend that you're not doing what you're doing.

      Are you talking about the draft for military service?
      If you are, then you should have said
      "for example we drafted into the military several million Americans to protect our society during WWII"

      I'm well aware that many people equate the draft with enslavement, but there are many important differences between the two. That's why we have different words for the two conditions. Substituting one word for the other is at best sloppy thinking, and at worst, intentionally deceptive.

      Also, speaking as a former draftee, I object to conflating the two words due to the very different conditions experienced by my ancestors who were actual slaves.

    63. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California pays more into the federal coffers than they get back out.
      Texas gets more out of the federal coffers than they pay in.

      California subsidizes Texas.

      Consider that before you start talking shit about balancing budgets, you freeloading redneck.

    64. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sort of like driving drunk, or firing a gun into the air in a city: the odds you'll actually kill someone are low, sure, but it's just that sort of needless risk that societies form in order to remove.

      Those are examples of things that I must "NOT" do... not things that I HAVE TO DO.

      That is the key difference.

      You're not telling me that I'm NOT ALLOWED to vaccinate, you're telling me that I HAVE TO DO IT.

      That is the problem.

      Thankfully, I'm secure living here, we are not going to go down that road, so for now I don't have to worry about it.

      Fine You are NOT ALLOWED to be unvaccinated. Better?

    65. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems like people might have more second thoughts about this whole home schooling thing;
      if in addition proof of vaccination or medical exemption were required not only to access schools,
      BUT also for the person to take a GED exam after, to obtain or renew driver's licenses, to board a plane or train,
      to enter a concert or other public event, to open a bank account, to transfer real property, or
      to obtain a passport.

      I'm not quite sure if you are being sarcastic, but I like your ideas!

    66. Re:...and adults too. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Wrong approach: when you start vaccinating viruses mutate into new an more virulent versions (think hospital bateria)

      One, hospital "superbugs" are caused by antibiotics, which aren't the same thing as vaccines.

      Two, it's bacteria, not bateria.

      Three, bacteria and viruses are not the same thing.

      Four, so why aren't there 27 strains of hyper-virulent smallpox around[1]?

      [1] In the wild I mean. We all know about Porton D0uu@,; 5^ %.,^,;

      no carrier

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    67. Re:...and adults too. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Can you explain why?

      Because there are too few of them to pose a significant risk. There is an acceptable margin of non-vaccinated people.

      And the number of people who are immunocompromised, or cannot have vaccination due to legitimate medical reasons is such a small number, that they fall within the margin of acceptable risk.

      The number of people attempting to avoid vaccination for the sake of convenience, Or based on unqualified hearsay or personal opinion, far exceeds the acceptable margin.

      Therefore, yes, as a whole: this group of people is more infectious and a much more serious public health danger.

    68. Re:...and adults too. by twitnutttt · · Score: 1

      It's called herd immunity. And it only works when few enough people don't participate. Thus, we grant exemptions for people with medical disorders (not including the stupid-enough-to-follow-jenny-mccarthy gene).

    69. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should allow people to not get vaccinated, but if you spread anything to anyone, that's a criminal offense. When your decisions directly harm others, you should take 100% responsibility for your malicious acts.

    70. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't come to Texas, you're not welcome here with your commie views...

      OMFG!
      You think there is anyone in California who wants to come to Texas?! HA ha hahahaha

    71. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, it isn't the community's job because it is no job at all. Property rights, living rights, trading rights, and travel rights are all pretty fundamental and it requires no effort to not interfere in them

      Um, I'm pretty sure that anyone marked by society as having no protection of property, life, trading and travel, etc. would very quickly find themselves without property and either just plain dead or a slave. In our current age, it's more likely than ever before. It would happen without society explicitly taking those things away. Private individuals, still protected by the law themselves, would simply take advantage of the completely unprotected. As soon as someone was ejected from societies protection, they would go into some sort of registry, public or private (no more protection of privacy rights for those people) and the wolves would descend instantaneously. Corporations would form to scoop up their belongings and the people themselves, making banding together for mutual protection virtually impossible. Private individuals who took it upon themselves to try and protect the unprotected would end up going to jail if they actually did anything since using force to try to protect their unprotected neighbor from people coming to harm them would be assault. Even without commercial exploiters, there are enough psychos out there who would jump at the chance to murder/rape/torture if there were no societal/legal consequences.

      You can argue that certain rights are intrinsic and inalienable. It's a very noble idea. It's one of the few shared fictions that I can really get behind. The simple fact is that, if there's no protection provided by society for those inalienable rights, they aren't a barrier to anything by themselves. Just take a look at how the various police agencies and spy agencies operate. The constitution has no teeth, so these agencies can violate your civil rights all day long and face no criminal proceedings

      Of course, there are lots of people in society who don't want anyone to be dropped out of societies protection and who recognize the intrinsic rights of all people and therefore arrange for society to protect those rights. That leads to social compacts like the US Constitution. Of course didn't stop slavery from being legal in the US for about 238 years now and widely practiced for 90 or so of those years. It doesn't stop people from having all kinds of rights permanently taken away after committing a crime, even after their period of punishment is over. It hasn't stopped various societies throughout history, such as the Romans from having infami, people with reduced or completely absent social protection.

    72. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not telling me that I'm NOT ALLOWED to vaccinate, you're telling me that I HAVE TO DO IT.

      Actually, you're being told that you're not allowed to go certain places and do certain things if you haven't been vaccinated.

    73. Re:...and adults too. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Evil?

      Yes, it is.

      You're an idiot.

      I feel the same way about you, so what's your point?

    74. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A link to an article by a conspiracy theorist kook who believes in chemtrails doesn't exactly make your argument.

    75. Re:...and adults too. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Know how I know you don't have a clue what you're talking about?
      Besides the obviously ignorant use of the word "commie" that is.

      You got modded up, but that is no surprise, lots of tech people from California are on this web site, bunch of idiots who would bankrupt the USA if allowed to.

      If you think you're so good, why don't you form your own country, it would be amusing to watch.

      Bugger off loon.

      I could say the same thing to you. You're an idiot, plain and simple.

    76. Re: ...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me summarize your statement:
      Waaaaaaaaaaaa! Bu-bu-waaaaaaaaaaa!
      Sniffle-sniffle-waaaaaaaaaa!

    77. Re:...and adults too. by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      And it's not your job to behave like an arsehole and yet refusing to get your children vaccinated is behaving like an arsehole.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    78. Re:...and adults too. by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Well you should be fine with the California bill then because it is telling you that you are NOT ALLOWED to send unvaccinated children to their schools.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    79. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the part they forget is that the only reason they can enjoy their unvaccinated lives is because of our herd immunity.

      If they don't like our vaccines and our herd immunity, why should they get to enjoy one without the other?

      Build a new school and send all of the unvaccinated kids there. Within a year they'll all be vaccinated or dead. Problem solved.

    80. Re:...and adults too. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      refusing to get your children vaccinated is behaving like an arsehole.

      No, it isn't... you can think it is, you're welcome to that opinion, but you're not welcome to state it as an outright fact...

    81. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...um, actually, I'm telling you that you (and your unfortunate spawn) are NOT ALLOWED to infect others with preventable diseases. This is not about you HAVE TO DO anything.

      IOW, you are completely wrong.

      If you don't like society, leave it. please. I'm begging you. But if you insist, then you can educated your walking petri dishes (aka, kids) by yourself.

    82. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should. Texas is pretty cool, except for people like FlyHelicopters. Austin in particular is awesome (and a lot cheaper).

  18. Re:Easy fix by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    They'll keep at it at least as long as the incubation period.

    You shouldn't release it to the public like that.

    You should infect one of the organisers of these protests. They'll then infect all those they come in to contact with over the next few days.

  19. "forced" by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > Last Wednesday, the legislation stalled in the Senate Education Committee as lawmakers said they were concerned that too many students would be forced into home schooling.

    Or even worse, that they found that they liked it. The problem with making something a condition of participating in a government institution is the risk that significant numbers will discover they do fine without it.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:"forced" by tool462 · · Score: 1

      Why would that be a problem? This doesn't have to be a "punishment" to be effective. Some parents will elect to vaccinate their kids to keep them in public school. This is good. Some parents will choose to home school instead. This is also good, as it removes the unvaccinated from one of the most likely public spaces where these diseases may spread. If these parents are happier with their child's education as a result, so much the better. The important point isn't to coerce parental behavior, but to mitigate the risk of disease.

    2. Re:"forced" by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      I intended that as tongue in cheek. As I said in a different thread, my (vaccinated) daughter was homeschooled through most of grade school, (due to a difference of opinion between her doctors, who diagnosed her as severely dyslexic, and her teachers, who diagnosed her as ADD and prescribed Ritalin) and she later interviewed and got accepted into a somewhat exclusive high school.

      Other members of my family (who happen to live in California -- I live in a different state) were very vocal in their disapproval of my decision to homeschool, saying that "everyone knows homeschooled kids don't have any social skills or any education and they're a burden on society". (Apparently there's a pamphlet I didn't get.) To which I say, anything can be done badly. The trick is to do it well.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:"forced" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem is not whether or not the kids are vaccinated. After all, the first order problem to solve there is that YOUR kid is vaccinated so that YOUR kid doesn't DIE when some OTHER soon to be dead unvaccinated kids bring their cooties around to YOUR kid. If you're suicidal enough to not vaccinate yourself, well fine then, that's on you.

      The REAL problem is the government and school and corporate medical systems YET AGAIN assembling YET ANOTHER massive database of you and your kids.

      This isn't about vaccination, this is about government control over your life, that of your kids, and grandkids and thereafter.

      Everytime you accept government telling you what's good for you, instead of you doing what's right for yourself voluntarily and independantly (like vaccinating yourself to save your own ass), you welcome yourself to the slave state they want you to be.

      Next step, instead of just offering polio vaccine, is that they will forcefully be injecting virus into you to in order to rewire your DNA to serve them better, preferably prenatally.

      Welcome, slave.

    4. Re:"forced" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I choose vaccination.
      I do not choose slavery.

    5. Re:"forced" by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      If they wanted to mitigate the risk of disease the medical exception would not be in there. They are just as dangerous if not more so (often it's compromised immune system as the medical reason so they pick up things easily). This bill is coercion by the state for parents to comply, it has no apparent medical effect if it leaves one class of unvaccinated children in school but not others.

      The bill also breaks the basic compact of required education that will be provided for free, remove the medical exemption and include school vouchers but it's still a bad bill.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    6. Re:"forced" by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      > Last Wednesday, the legislation stalled in the Senate Education Committee as lawmakers said they were concerned that too many students would be forced into home schooling.

      Or even worse, that they found that they liked it. The problem with making something a condition of participating in a government institution is the risk that significant numbers will discover they do fine without it.

      Or, they may realize that the government service they are receiving is beneficial, and that might start them wondering about whether the Tea Party is confused.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    7. Re:"forced" by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > Last Wednesday, the legislation stalled in the Senate Education Committee as lawmakers said they were concerned that too many students would be forced into home schooling.

      Or even worse, that they found that they liked it. The problem with making something a condition of participating in a government institution is the risk that significant numbers will discover they do fine without it.

      Or, they may realize that the government service they are receiving is beneficial, and that might start them wondering about whether the Tea Party is confused.

      Um, this is the California school system we're talking about...

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    8. Re:"forced" by tbannist · · Score: 1

      If they wanted to mitigate the risk of disease the medical exception would not be in there. They are just as dangerous if not more so (often it's compromised immune system as the medical reason so they pick up things easily). This bill is coercion by the state for parents to comply, it has no apparent medical effect if it leaves one class of unvaccinated children in school but not others.

      Just like a $5 dollar discount coupon has no effect, since I still have to pay the rest of the bill?

      The rate of medical exemptions is reasonable stable and small, and as long as the rate of people who had special exemptions was similarly low it was an acceptable risk, however, thanks to vaccine paranoia and the frauds who peddle it, the rate of unvaccinated children with special exemptions has rise dramatically, and no longer falls into "acceptable risk". So the exemptions are going away, and the parents of these children will have to find a different way to be ignorant and dangerous.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    9. Re:"forced" by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Your still having government say it's ok that little Johny gives you measles since his doctor says he might be allergic to the vaccine, but little Jannie is not because she is a hasidic jew. You have the same/similar chance to have either of them infect their classmates. The government has no business forcing people to get any medical treatment or discriminating against those who do not.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    10. Re:"forced" by tbannist · · Score: 1

      The government has no business forcing people to get any medical treatment or discriminating against those who do not.

      Why? Why should you be allowed to endanger the health of your fellow citizens and their families?

      Reasonable precautions to prevent epidemics seems like "promoting the general welfare" which is the very foundation of government.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    11. Re:"forced" by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Please going out of your house in endangering yourself.

      I'll simplify which vaccines, measles high fatality, and transmission rate pretty fsking deadly. HPV might be deadly low risk of transmission through casual contact. Mumps very treatable. Rotavirus a bout of diarrhea, vaccine side effects 1 in 20k-100k (cdc numbers) require hospitalization and possibly surgery, little risk of transmission as it's fecal to mouth.

      Now measles is a are you a fsking idiot the vaccination downsides are nowhere near as bad as not getting it. While Rotavirus is a vaccine looking for a problem, a bout of diarrhea that might need iv fluids vs possibly needing an infant to get sedated and have surgery. Requiring everybody get vaccinated for everything that comes down the pike is a drug makers dream. By that logic teen pregnancy is a medical issue will we vaccinate against it? We have permanent mood altering treatments now, will agression be the next disease? As I said the government has no business requiring people to get a specific medical procedure or discriminating against those that refuse to.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
  20. Live by the largesse of the State, suck by it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want your kids to be enrolled in public (read: "free") school, you need to play by the rules of those who pay for it. Enjoy the bitchslap of reality, Marin County.

    1. Re:Live by the largesse of the State, suck by it by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a free education. The parents of these children pay for the school with their property taxes. You are confusing servants and masters. Citizens are masters, government employees are servants. Since *you* have little say in how *I* raise my kids, neither do *our* hired servants in government. This is how things are in these United States.

  21. Re:It does not unfairly shut children out of schoo by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Surely quarantine laws must still be on the books.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  22. To the parents... by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you don't like it, fucking leave California then. I don't want your retarded ass around me.

    --
    You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
    1. Re:To the parents... by wasteoid · · Score: 1

      Maybe his ass developed retardation from forced vaccinations!

  23. say hello to my firearm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say hello to my firearms when they come to try and take my children.

    1. Re:say hello to my firearm by taustin · · Score: 2

      I'm sure the SWAT team will find you an amusing training exercise.

    2. Re:say hello to my firearm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      give me liberty or give me death

    3. Re:say hello to my firearm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you statist.

    4. Re:say hello to my firearm by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      Say hello to my firearms when they come to try and take my children.

      How ironic! The law isn't saying that they're going to take away your children if you don't vaccinate, it's saying they can't attend public school. It's the exact same thing as how they don't allow your kid to bring a gun to school, so that other kids aren't forced to be exposed to deadly things. If you want your child to have access to guns while learning, you can still homeschool them. If you want your child to be unvaccinated, you can still homeschool them.

    5. Re:say hello to my firearm by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, for you, it will mean exactly what the parent poster said... SWAT will come and drag you away, alive or dead depending on how you behave. Since you have "endangered your children", they will be taken away and given to foster care. Under foster care they will be given medical examinations, which will include any vaccinations they've missed. You'll lose, possibly both your life AND your children.

    6. Re:say hello to my firearm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the government has backed down before. they will this time.

    7. Re:say hello to my firearm by taustin · · Score: 1

      Well, if it's up to me, then swallow this cyanide pill.

    8. Re:say hello to my firearm by taustin · · Score: 1

      You clearly have no idea how crazy the California legislature is.

    9. Re:say hello to my firearm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically you are ostracizing them and taking away any chance they might have for any career etc

      Nice, must be the land of the used-to-be free ...

      btw why don't you educate yourself and read a book:
      1. vaccines do not last
      2. when you vaccinate you cannot achieve 100% herd immunity - this is simply not achievable - and even with 95% you will have outbreaks among vaccinated people and vaccinated people remain carriers in many cases - so what are you trying to achieve ??
      3. More than 100 people in the US died in the last 10 years from the measles vaccine and the there are more side effect with the mmr vaccine that with any other vaccine - so if vaccines work and are safe, how come we can't sue the manufacturer ? What wrong with that picture ?

      Why don't you educate yourself and go on youtube and search for e.g. Dr Suzanne Humpries and vaccination and listen to her 4 episode lecture based on scientific date - not on opinion ...

  24. There is no such thing as 'vaccination' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen.html

    Please explain how EVERY kid in my school had measles, mumps, etc. in the 1970s, as PROVED by popular TV programmes (quick, ban them):

    Vaccination in UK TV programmes and books, pre 1980s:
    'The masters or sitcom' by Ray Galton and Alan Simpson, p161:
    BILL: Go round kissing all the babies. That'll get the votes. ...
    ANDREE: How is he doctor?
    KENNETH: Oh, it's nothing to worry about, just a slight case of measles. Plenty of rest, he'll be all right in a week or two. ...
    TONY: (Disgusted) Measles. Whose bright idea was it to go round kissing all the babies?
    BILL: Well, I'm sorry, Tub.
    TONY: 'Don't forget the one with the freckles,' he says. Aaah... If I get half as many votes as I've got spots, I'll sweep the country.

    Doctor at Large, Series 1 Ep. 25, 2:14 Dr. Upton is taken ill and says "Feels like mumps. I had mumps. I had it when I was eight."
    Catweazle, series 1, final part, 'The Trickery Lantern', 2:30 Flo (Mr. Bennett's sister); "You were just like this with chickenpox." Mr. Bennett; "Chickenpox?" Flo; "When you were nine." Mr. Bennett; "When I was? ...Really, Flo, you can't possibly remember that." Flo; "I can! Of course I can, George. Mother let me stay up to read you Treasure Island."
    Catweazle, Series 1, Episode 4, 'The Witching Hour', 22:20, Miss Bonnington says "My arch enemy, Mrs. Willougbhy wasn't there." Mr. Bennett (Carrot's father); "Wasn't there?" Miss Bonnington; "Terribly funny, you'd never believe it. She's suddenly gone down with measles!" Carrot; "Measles?" Miss Bonnington; "Funny that - so sudden - several cases in the village of course, but she was perfectly alright this afternoon in the hairdressers. Hope I don't catch it!" (laughing out loud)
    Steptoe and Son Christmas Special - Chickenpox, last five minutes.
    Robin's Nest, Series 2, Episode 7, 10:10, Robin's brother's got mumps.
    Robin's Nest, Series 3, Episode 4, 18:20 - Mr Nicholls said he hadn't had mumps.
    The Famous Five - Five Go Adventuring Again, 2:00 - George says "And what with that, and my being ill, he thought it would be a good idea if we all have lessons", Anne says "Your spots have all gone", George replies "I know, I was officially de-measled this morning".
    Man About the House - Series 1, Episode 3 - After the Monopoly game, Chrissie says "I haven't had so much fun since I had the mumps".
    Larry Grayson on Pebble Mill said he had measles twice.
    'The Adventures of Tom Sawyer' directed by Selznick. 10:33,
    Tom: Where have you been such a long time. I haven't seen you since we got engaged.
    Girl: I had the chickenpox.
    Tom: You haven't got it now, have you?
    Girl: No, silly, think my ma would let me out if I wasn't all cured?
    Oliver Postgage book "Seeing things", page 12: (When he was six or seven) "but I saw little of the place because I almost immediately came down with measles... a day or two later when Grandad himself turned up, really just to pat me and wish me well because by then I was over the worst of the measles."
    (This was in 1930-1932)

    Measles outbreak in a 98% vaccinated population:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646939/

  25. Legal Challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As far as I know, you have a right to education in California, and you have a right to medical informed consent in California. And before anybody says I'm anti-vax, I'm not. What I'm saying is, there could be unintended consequences of passing a law forcing people to undergo medical treatment or procedures before they can avail themselves of state services to which it is said all residents have a right to access to.

  26. The BORDER! by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If these fascists were so worried about our health, they would enforce our borders and check people for diseases when they enter the country. Allowing unrestricted immigration from the third world puts us at far more risk than lack of immunization of a small percentage of our population. If a poor Mexican gets TB they are encouraged to sneak over the border and show up at a US ER, putting everyone along the way at risk. CA's ERs are the Mexican Universal Healthcare System.

  27. It's routine to cut off services for idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " tempted to suggest that the "fair" thing to do would be to give the family a refund on the school district's share of their taxes if they've been cut off from that resource"

    What about people too stupid (or blind) to pass a driver's test? Should they get a tax rebate for all those roads they're not allowed to use?

    What if you're incarcerated? Then there's *loads* of government services that you've been cut off from, but nobody suggests they should get a tax rebate for that.

    1. Re:It's routine to cut off services for idiots. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Even when "cut off" from the roads, you still benefit from their presence in other ways, such as public transit, postal service, or produce getting delivered to your grocer. Moreover, driving is considered a privilege, not a right. That's why you need training, testing, and a license, rather than being able to just grab a car and get on the road.

      Incarceration is a special case, but it does bear some similarity to the case at hand, since in both cases we're talking about removing from the general population people who are a danger to society. The big difference is, however, is that criminals are responsible for the danger that they themselves present, whereas these children are not. Yet regardless of that, we're talking about stripping them of their rights all the same.

      You can see why I'm conflicted.

  28. Incorrect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    (Because who really needs Varicella vaccination if you were already infected as a child? It's also hardly ever fatal for that matter).

    Your logic is as flawed as, "Who needs a polio vaccination anyway? Hardly anyone ever gets it for that matter."

    It isn't fear, it's science and reason. Vaccinations prevent horrible things. They do not cause autism, crystal children, indigo whatsits or whatever other batshit insanity you subscribe to. They prevent fucking horrible things from laying waste to the populace. And that hardly fatal thing? Congrats, you're a potential reason some kid for whom it will be fatal will get it.

    Your prize is a shut the fuck up about freedom cruise for four, to a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific, where you can live in blissful harmony away from those terrible men in white lab coats who are stealing' err freedoms.

    (Post full of bile because seriously, just no.)

  29. damn it, you're screwing with evolution by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Humankind is devolving! We need to stop enabling stupid people and stop letting them live. Babysitting them like this is only spreading their sub-100 IQ genes to future generations.

    1. Re:damn it, you're screwing with evolution by ThomasBHardy · · Score: 1

      What interests me is why so many people find it so easy to believe this stuff. What fundamental factor is making people so ready to believe any sort of "it's all a lie, protect yourself by doing the opposite of whatever the government says to do" is at play here.

      Really there can't be so many people foolish enough to not understand herd immunity and the studies showing the lack of any connection to autism. What makes them so paranoid that they will follow any bad idea just to stand by a "they are out to get me" principal?

      Sometimes I ponder if this whole thing is the equivalent of a religion to these folks. Have they been indoctrinated so fully that nothing can ever been seen without perceiving it as an evil intent to kill them and steal their playstations?

      --
      Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
    2. Re:damn it, you're screwing with evolution by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      That's funny because IQ is defined according to the population's statistical distribution of intelligence, so in doing so you would effectively cull half the population every generation. I don't think you'd survive very long either with a comment like this.

  30. Re:Religious exemptions are unconstitutional by bobbied · · Score: 1

    You really shouldn't need any law. Religious exemptions are unconstitutional... under the free exercise clause.

    The depth of your misunderstanding of the constitution is breathtaking.... Do you *really* go for all this fascist interpretations of our founding documents? Dang I hope not.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  31. Re:Religious exemptions are unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If I had a dime for every time I'd had to listen to someone say "you don't understand the constitution" and then fail to explain what it really means I'd be much richer than you would ever get with your rule.

  32. Re:Easy fix by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

    And they will get sick, and live. And the tragedy is that you still think that is some how better than injecting poisons in you body, that the EPA says you shouldn't consume in water.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  33. Re:Religious exemptions are unconstitutional by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    "establishment" and "restriction" are actually both very real issues with a good amount of caselaw behind them. The situation is neither simple nor trivial.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  34. Just one step away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh so close to making the use of all public services dependent on the consumption of approved products. Start with something like "no school for you if you don't get vaccinated" and then move on to the other items such as "no school for you if you don't wear brand X shoes" and "no community centre for you unless you can prove you use brand Y product".

    1. Re:Just one step away by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 2

      No tax refund for you if you don't buy a government-approved insurance policy.

    2. Re:Just one step away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make a valid point that I think most don't realize has happened. Right now a law could be made that if you don't donate $1000 to the DNC each year or you can be thrown in Federal Prison, and it would hold up in the Supreme Court using recent rulings as precedent. I figure its only a matter of time before that happens.

      You and I won't be shocked when that happens, but I'm sure a lot of Obama supporters will be.

    3. Re:Just one step away by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      No tax refund for you if you don't buy a government-approved insurance policy.

      Not even vaguely anything like the same thing.

      An Insurance Policy is to protect you, this proposition is to protect EVERYONE ELSE AS WELL.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    4. Re:Just one step away by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      That insurance policy is to protect the insurance companies, not you.

  35. Becaues Slashdotters are qualified for an answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right. Because readers of Slashdot are more than qualified to have views on this subject. Because:

    1. You are married.
    2. You have a child.
    3. You have some religious beliefs.

    I say this because the rational anti-vaxxers are married with children and have religious concerns.

  36. Re:Becaues Slashdotters are qualified for an answe by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    ,,,rational anti-vaxxers...

    What a delightful little oxymoron.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  37. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You are really stupid.

  38. Re:Becaues Slashdotters are qualified for an answe by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

    rational anti-vaxxers

    Assuming you don't mean people with autoimmune disorders or legitimate allergies, I'm really curious to know what exactly falls into this category.

  39. Which vaccines? by Spazmania · · Score: 1

    Which vaccines must parents accept? Measles? Sure, that makes sense. Don't want to spread Measles. Flu? Flu vaccine is really hit or miss and the damage from not getting it is minimal. Requiring that would be less reasonable. HPV Vaccine? Just what is going on at these schools anyway...

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    1. Re:Which vaccines? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      HPV Vaccine? Just what is going on at these schools anyway...

      The same thing that has always gone on. Kids have sex, and the HPV vaccine means that they are protected from a pretty nasty cancer.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Which vaccines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being California, I'm surprised there isn't a warning label that the vaccine may cause cancer!

    3. Re:Which vaccines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid that is simply not true: the vaccine slows down a (limited - 4 I believe) known of strains that have the potential to be cancerous ...

      The reality is that screening - pap smear tests have proven their success for over 20 years.
      If you want to know more I suggest you read the book "The secret history of the war on cancer", very informative, initially about big tobacco and their denials and how the same tactics are being used today by the cancer industry (every cancer patient represents about 25 000 USD in medical income - so that should tell you something).

      In regards to cancer: everyone gets some form of cancer and the body is able to deal with this (cancer cells are most of the time cells that refuse to destroy themselves ie apopthosis gone wrong) - so the real question should not be vaccination or not but how can we improve and support the immune system: the answer is vitamin C (have a look on youtube a lecture on vitamin C by Suzanna Humpmhries - with all the scientific documents - vitamin C improves resistance and survival rates in hospitals, it is in a trail stage now in the US althoug most doctors do not know about this - but you need to build up this resistance ie it cannot come from a single injection).

      I hope this was useful ;-)

      I suggest

    4. Re:Which vaccines? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      No, it wasn't useful. Promoting bullshit pseudo-science "cures" is not useful, it's vile and immoral.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Which vaccines? by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Heck my daughter didn't want to get this when it came out and I argued for her vaccination for HPV. The problem may not be controlling your sex life, it's controlling the sex life of the guy who just lied to get in your pants.

    6. Re:Which vaccines? by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      Makes sense to me and I'd probably make the same case were I in your shoes.

      However, I think it goes -way- beyond what the state should or has a right to mandate. Measles is involuntarily contagious and deadly. HPV is not.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    7. Re:Which vaccines? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      if you were home schooled, you wouldn't know. otherwise, you ought to remember.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    8. Re:Which vaccines? by dmr001 · · Score: 1

      HPV prevalence is about 70% in sexually active young people. HPV causes about 6100 deaths per year, and about 26900 cases of cancer per year in the US. Most deaths, however, occur in low-income countries - about http://www.who.int/mediacentre...">270,000 per year worldwide in 2012 for cervical cancer alone according to the World Health Organization.

      So, I think it's reasonable to conclude HPV is indeed contagious, common and deadly. Also, in my experience (as a primary care physician), most people are enthusiastic about the idea of making Pap smears obsolete, which is a distinct possibility with widespread use of HPV vaccine.

    9. Re:Which vaccines? by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      The wisdom of taking the vaccine is not at issue here. That's obvious and well documented. Your right to compel my behavior is at issue. Unless it poses an imminent threat to your well being, you don't have one.

      If we have to have sex to facilitate contagion, if that's the only way to get it, there can be no imminent threat.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    10. Re:Which vaccines? by dmr001 · · Score: 1

      I didn't (initially) wish to comment on forcing anyone to use a vaccine, only to your contention that HPV is neither contagious or deadly, when it's manifestly both. As to whether sexually transmitted infections don't represent imminent threats, HPV is about as contagious and dangerous as other viral diseases with latent courses, such as hepatitis B (transmitted through sex, vertical transmission from mother to newborn, and shared needles - but not by coughing at Disneyland), vaccination for which has long been required in every state I've worked in.

      Other sexually transmitted viruses (like HIV) can reasonably be construed to present imminent threats in areas and among populations where they are endemic.

      I suppose it's reasonable to argue we should make a list of which vaccines are required for school entry and which aren't. You mentioned flu vaccine above, for example, which has varying efficacy depending on antigenic drift of the virus from year to year, though even in bad years the vaccine seems to be effective at preventing invasive (deadly) disease in high risk populations, which include young children. Should we cross vaccines off the list if they are periodically less effective (but still effective) some years even though the disease is still deadly and manifestly contagious? Should we eliminate hep A because even though it's contagious it's just about never deadly? Or do we keep things simple and state we should vaccinate kids against diseases that are either manifestly contagious and onerous, deadly, or both?

      I've periodically have patients dying of HPV-related cancers - not a lot, but it's out there. I suspect they would have appreciated universal vaccination had it been available for them before their first sexual contact and while they were getting routine childhood doctor visits, after which the utility of the vaccine goes down substantially.

    11. Re:Which vaccines? by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      I made no contention that HPV wasn't contagious. Read the words I actually wrote. What I said was that in a society that respects individual liberty, merely meeting the medical definition of contagious is insufficient to compel a citizen's behavior. It must meet a higher standard which lacking a better phrase I described as "involuntarily contagious." That is, I'll catch it as a stranger just by being near you in ordinary situations.

      HPV does not meet that standard. HEP A/B and HIV don't meet that standard. Measles does.

      As for deadly, cancer is deadly. HPV leads to increase -risk- of cancer. Not a certainty. Maybe I'm picking nits and the comparison to tobacco is more apt. From my point of view, that doesn't matter: regardless of whether its deadly, HPV doesn't meet a sufficient standard of contagion to merit compulsory behavior.

      Now, I had all my vaccination when I was a child and I'm glad of it. But respecting individual liberty means allowing people to do stupid things. Because they have the right.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  40. This is a fundamental violation.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of everything America once stood for. Herd Immunity is a myth. Polio Still Exists. No Vaccine eradicated it like we were all told.
    That was just to get you to continue ingesting mercury. Which even in small doses has hundreds of studies to show that its harmful to early development.
    My Daughter was given the MMR way too early. At the advice of our doctor. Within a week she developed a bald spot that she carries on her head to this day. Months later she started wetting the bed. Seemingly after she was completely potty trained. Little did we know, she would then go on to develop all 4 major types of epilepsy. In a family with no history of it or anything like it on either side, for over 250 years that we were able to research.
    You people need to stop listening to big-pharma funded "Studies" and learn what they did to the Doctor and his colleagues that tried to expose the risks of these vaccines a dozen years ago.... The whole thing just doesn't pass the SNIFF TEST!

    1. Re:This is a fundamental violation.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh and back in the day... Millions and Millions of people lived through things like measles, mumps and rubella... ALL survivable childhood ailments...
      Additionally, many of the natural immunities people and animals have to these ailments can be earned simply through ingesting local RAW HONEY!
      You all do realize that LARGE populations, after the plagues, survived for CENTURIES without vaccines don't you?
       

    2. Re:This is a fundamental violation.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, the schools for the blind & deaf stand empty today. Because while most people lived through measles, mumps and rubella - not everyone came out unscathed. It is extraordinarily telling that an average town can no longer come up with enough students who have been permanently damaged by disease to fill these schools. Many lived through Polio, and many more were crippled and impaired for life by the disease. I'm sure they would appreciate the purity of your anti-vaccine vision.

      Tell you what! Go play on the highway until you find a truck to help you relive the "I-Can't-Use-My-Legs" experience. I'll send you a candy bar (mercury free, of course).

    3. Re:This is a fundamental violation.... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      While I may not agree with your reasoning, the fact is vaccines kill and seriously injure people thats the nature of things. The CDC's own paperwork is clear pick any vaccine and has a change of serious injury and death. The MMRV is rated at fewer than 4 per million, deafness, long term seizures/coma, and brain damage, do the math 300m people or about 1200 people in the us with those issues. That is balanced against a 1-2 in 1k chance of death from getting measles (hard to get exposure rate numbers). In effect yes some people will have there lives adversely affected by these vaccines, the gamble is less people have bad outcomes not that nobody gets hurt.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
  41. Religious clowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's bad enough that you are willing to put your kids' health at risk for the sake of your pathetic superstitions, but you are not going to put MY kids' health at risk. If you don't vaccinate your kids I do NOT want them in my kids' school, or any other public place where my kids go.

  42. Re:Easy fix by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yeah, because no-one every dies from measels. The person who dies every 4 minutes from measels doesn't count.

    Source:
    http://www.who.int/mediacentre...
    145,700 deaths from measels in 2013, one every 3 minutes and 45 seconds.

    in 1980, before mass vaccinations it was killing 2.6 million per year

  43. California Mandates Children Recieve Injections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is only going to make the anti-vaxxers more paranoid. Not that a general fear of consolidated power structures is valid, right guys?

  44. kick out those peanut allergy kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Under that same logic a kid with a severe peanut allergy shouldn't even be anywhere near a school if it's possible they can come in contact with a kid that occasionally has peanut butter on their toast for breakfast (and practices age-typical primary school hygiene). Let's kick out the ADHD kids, or maybe ban boys because they raise their hands too much and demand too much teacher attention and disrupt girl education. Or maybe blacks because a majority of whites don't like them and it disrupts their education.

    Certainly some accommodation is necessary for a truly public education (or we can agree that we shouldn't be doing any publicly funded education unless vouchers are available). Is a vaccination requirement a reasonable accommodation for those with egg-allergies that cannot get vaccinated? Perhaps yes or perhaps no, but nearly everything we do requires some accommodation in a public sphere which makes it a multidimensional optimization problem. Simplistic acceptance or rejection of a resulting position based on one dimension of the trade-off analysis is quite disingenuous.

  45. Re:Religious exemptions are unconstitutional by sexconker · · Score: 1

    "caselaw" is not law. Law is law. And the Constitution (including its amendments) is the highest law in the land.

  46. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which poisons would those be? Please post links to sites with repeatable, linked evidence (no crackpot claims & generalizations only).

  47. So let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want to tell me I have a right concerning what I want to take out of my body (abortion), but no right concerning what I have to put into my body (vaccine).

    I see what you did there.

  48. Can't Outlaw Stupidity by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    I can't be vaccinated, so I need to rely on herd immunity instead. So at what point does your right to avoid vaccinations end, and my right to avoid the unvaccinated begin?

    It ends at the point that you force someone else to have a medical procedure for your benefit. Anti-vaxxers are ignorant idiots but you do not cure ignorance or stupidity by making it illegal (tempting though that is)...you cure it through education. However the ironic thing about this law is that it encourages these idiots to home school their kids where they will be able to propagate their ignorance to the next generation.

    The moment you force people to have medical procedure you are on a very slippery slope. Vaccines are incredibly safe but there is no zero risk medical procedure: one in every N million vaccines will produce severe complications and sometimes even death. So, to flip the argument around, how many people's lives is it fair to risk to reduce the risk to yourself? Now I realize that this is not entirely fair since, by not having the vaccine the risk if they catch the disease it prevents is far higher but the fact that either way there is some risk means that the proper solution is to educate people about the risks and then let them make their own decision which, will hopefully be to get vaccinated. If not then why stop at forcing vaccinations? Think how many lives could be saved by forced live kidney and liver donation!

  49. We're entering science fiction, folks. by Anonanonaon · · Score: 1

    Look up herd immunity. The problem isn't that your child is vaccinated and theirs isn't. therefore your child is safe and theirs isn't... it doesn't work that way. Vaccines are not 100%. And in fact rely on herd immunity to reach higher numbers. If for some reason a vaccine doesn't work in 1% of children, (maybe a bad batch of the vaccine, or something in that child's chemistry made the vaccine not work or any number of reasons), those 1% are still vulnerable to the disease vaccinated. Now you take that 1% and put it in a (for arguements sake 70% vaccinated) group. 31% of the people they meet have the potential to carry the disease. now insert 1 person with the disease. that person has a 31% chance of interacting with someone who is vulnerable to the disease. and that person has a 31% chance, and so on and so forth. that is how disease spreads. now you have a 95% immunized herd (1% for whom the vaccine doesn't work and another 4% who can't be vaccinated due to comprimized immune system. now that 1 person with the disease only has a 5% chance of getting it, and so on and so forth, greatly reducing the impact of the outbreak.

    Your logic works well on paper.

    Problem is, you are trusting psychopaths to do the right thing. They don't. They can't. If you figure into your equations that all of your data is twisted, spun, poorly representative of the actual facts, or just plain old made up, then it stops looking good on paper.

    Real life is full of liars, profiteers, professional peer pressure, overburdened doctors, well-funded public relations experts without ethics, and scientists fully aware that speaking out against the popular trends is professional suicide. -And it is also full of authoritarian zealots who are too afraid to consider the possibility that something might be wrong, or if they do consider, they use every cognitive trick available to downplay the problem and brush it away in favor of some make-believe utopian ideal which does not and cannot exist; zealots so committed to their sacred cows that they threaten to actually BOMB people who do not submit to their beliefs.

    Those are the facts, Jack.

    If you really wanted to know what was going on, you'd explore, dig and learn. And you'd discover that you're currently living in dream where all the authority figures are nice people with no selfish, cowardly agendas and that the science is vetted, safe and effective.

    Nice dream. Looks good on paper. But it's just that. A dream.

    And I am sorry. I really am. The most rabid pro-vaxxers really are terrified; they go white in the face and lose sleep when they consider the horrifying truth.

    It is, (or should be) obvious that every aspect of our world is corrupt and broken, from banking to food and energy production, to education, to law enforcement, to news and media, to the core democratic and bureaucratic processes upon which the country is based. To think that the pharmaceutical industry is exempt from this is evidence of an almost sublime level of denial and/or ignorance. Self-calming.

    And sadly, the problems when you begin to explore and dig, are a *lot* worse than you or most people can even begin to guess. Right back at the very beginning, Edward Jenner was a worthless, lazy, manipulative worm of a sociopath who conned a respected doctor into advancing his career, a little shit who learned how to play the legal system and the base hungers and emotions of the similarly pathological political world into enforcing the sale and application of his snake oil on the population. His legacy lives on today.

    We're living in a world run by pathological leaders and corrupt corporations which is seriously talking about using force to inject people with drugs. Think about that. If you blow off everything else, then at least give a few seconds to that thought please, because yes, you recognize it. It is a plot right out of a sci-fi dystopian novel, and you are supporting it while calling everybody else's judgement into question.

    1. Re:We're entering science fiction, folks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cute rant you got there. Lots of conspiracy, no substance. About par for the course.

    2. Re:We're entering science fiction, folks. by bazorg · · Score: 2

      In other words, you're saying that everyone should be distrusted, except for those who already agree with you. Interesting how the new legislation being considered might satisfy this point of view: by having anti vaccination people all in the same schools their views will be perpetuated no matter what the rest of the people say.

      Recently a mother of 7 in Australia was interviewed after all of her children caught whooping cough. She said that after filtering out all mainstream media and medical advice it made sense to not vaccinate, which was something she ended up regretting. Without perfect quarantine and with more kids in vaccine-optional schools, it will be interesting to find the long term effects of this opting-out and how the broad accusations of government and pharma corruption will fit with the predictable increase in case of avoidable disease.

    3. Re:We're entering science fiction, folks. by Anonanonaon · · Score: 1

      In other words, you're saying that everyone should be distrusted, except for those who already agree with you,

      Well, you did certainly use 'other words', but no. That's not at all what I intended to be conveyed.

      The fact that I have to try again means you're just being deliberately dense. So I won't bother.

    4. Re:We're entering science fiction, folks. by Anonanonaon · · Score: 1

      Sadly, conspiracy is pretty much the only substance you can definitively weigh these days when it comes to any socio-economic-political theory.

      The rest is spin and bullshit.

      At least with conspiracy, we have a reliable starting point; that is, we *know* there are plenty of self-interested shitheads who will happily lie for profit and self-advancement. Somebody is buying those millions of Ayn Rand books. Would you trust those people to inject your baby with untested drugs?

  50. Re:Religious exemptions are unconstitutional by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

    Since when did not letting the government discriminate on the basis of one's religion become fascist?

  51. Empirical Evidence by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    I don't claim the measles vaccines do not work, only that anyone claiming to know is lying to themselves.

    If the measles vaccine does not work then why is the rate of cases so much lower than before the vaccine? At this point the vaccine has been given to so many people the evidence that it works is because nobody worries about their child dying or going blind from measles any more... unless there is some reason why this was due to some other factor?

    1. Re:Empirical Evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be a number of things. My personal assessment is that the people studying measles vaccines have chosen not to, or been unable to, do their jobs as scientists in establishing that the drop in incidence is due to the vaccine. I provide the questions I find necessary to be answered above the statement you quote and starting points to begin research below (in the quotes and sources).

      My position may be made clearer by reading my later response to Anubis IV. In short, pointing at a drop in incidence and automatically attributing it to the vaccine is unscientific. Science cannot prove something, only rule it out (or at least judge it as implausible). Plausible alternative explanations have been left unaddressed in this case.

      The goal of that post is only to get at least one other person with the training and access to journals to spend the necessary time to judge for themselves rather than relying on argument from authority/consensus on this matter of measles vaccines. My concerns are not unreasonable. However, I would not expect, nor advise, someone without the time/background to assess the evidence for themselves to make decisions based off the opinions of an AC slashdot poster. At some point you do need to rely on consensus/authority heuristics.

  52. Before going on a tirade about mercury ... by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 2

    You might want to read about what the FDA says about the mercury concentration in vaccines. I suspect kids may get more mercury in their fish sticks (fish fingers) than in their vaccines.

    1. Re:Before going on a tirade about mercury ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 things: first of all mercury in the digestive track and bloodstream are a bit different: if it is in your bloodstream it can go past the BBB (Brain Blood Barrier) and start of several processes in the brain that lead to uncontrolled activity (free radicals).

      In addition to the mercury, it is mainly the aluminum which is in vaccines (used to force the body into action) which is extremely harmful - and the doses used in any vaccine surpass by large the recommended FDA dose, so saying it is harmless is at the very least disingenuous.

      Have a look at the lectures of Dr Suzanna Humpries on youtube on vaccination - 4 lectures - there are two slides on the aluminum in vaccines and the recommended dose by the FDA

      I hope this was informative ;-)

    2. Re:Before going on a tirade about mercury ... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      You might want to read about what the FDA says about the mercury concentration in vaccines. I suspect kids may get more mercury in their fish sticks (fish fingers) than in their vaccines.

      Major source of mercury in kids these days is emissions from coal burning power plants. But that's OK.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  53. Education cannot cure stupidity by sjbe · · Score: 2

    It ends at the point that you force someone else to have a medical procedure for your benefit.

    They aren't forced to have a medical procedure. They just are forced to stay the hell away from the people they put at risk by electing not to have the procedure. They retain their choice but that choice absolutely should have consequences because it can literally have life and death stakes. If they want to elect to live life as a hermit then they should retain that choice.

    Anti-vaxxers are ignorant idiots but you do not cure ignorance or stupidity by making it illegal (tempting though that is)...you cure it through education.

    You cure ignorance by education if and only if the other party is willing to learn. You cannot cure stupidity through any amount of education.

    However the ironic thing about this law is that it encourages these idiots to home school their kids where they will be able to propagate their ignorance to the next generation.

    I think the horse is already gone from that barn and has run a long way down the road.

    The moment you force people to have medical procedure you are on a very slippery slope.

    Spare me. There is no slippery slope here. We are talking about extraordinarily safe vaccines which are 100% optional. They can choose not to vaccinate their children, just not without consequence. They do not get the right to endanger others needlessly because they want to hold a ridiculous opinion not supported by scientific fact.

  54. No special priviledge for dangerous behavior by sjbe · · Score: 2

    That is fine, then give me the money that would otherwise be given to the school so I can pay for another option.

    No. Your choice, your problem. You don't get special treatment on taxes because you want to engage in demonstrably dangerous behavior.

    1. Re:No special priviledge for dangerous behavior by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 0

      No. Your choice, your problem. You don't get special treatment on taxes because you want to engage in demonstrably dangerous behavior.

      You just love stating opinions as facts, don't you?

      You will find a great deal of resistance to your views, because a great many people don't want the government telling them what they can and cannot do with kids.

      You're probably one of those idiots who supports the one-child policy of China, aren't you? Why don't you go live there if you love heavy handed government so much?

    2. Re:No special priviledge for dangerous behavior by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      In your mind, wanting kids to be vaccinated means being desperate to live in China?

      Children are legally required to go to school. The law cannot legally mandate that children put themselves in undue danger (that's a constitutional right). Therefore, public schools must be provided that are full of children that are reasonably safe for other children to be around.

      If you don't want this situation, then the thing to push back on is the legal requirement for children to be educated. I still wouldn't agree with that position but it's more consistent.

    3. Re:No special priviledge for dangerous behavior by readin · · Score: 1

      He's not asking for special tax treatment. He'll still pay the same amount of taxes. He's asking that the government spend the same amount of money on his kids' educations. He's not asking for a penny more than that, nor is he asking for money for himself.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    4. Re:No special priviledge for dangerous behavior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also your taxes aren't paying for YOUR KID to go to school they're paying for everyone to go to school so you don't live in a country full of fucking idiots. I'm more than happy to pay taxes so I'm not surrounded by people even stupider than the average American.

    5. Re:No special priviledge for dangerous behavior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We let you keep living despite your stupidity, that is special privilege for dangerous behaviour.

  55. Ridiculous arguments by sjbe · · Score: 2

    So should it be illegal to go out in public if you have a cold?

    It's not illegal to go out in public with measles. It's just a really dumb idea. Every physician I know will instruct someone with the measles to stay home in most cases because it is ludicrously infectious. Furthermore "a cold" describes a huge number of pathogens whereas measles is one specific germ. If there were a safe and effective vaccine for more serious strains of "colds" then I would support requiring a vaccine if our medical community determined it to be a good idea.

    A better law to fix this problem would be to allow kids to consent to having vaccinations without parental knowledge.

    Children are not considered mentally competent to make such decisions. How many toddlers do you know who would volunteer to get a shot?

    As it is this law will encourage anti-vaxxers to home school and spread their ignorance to the next generation.

    They are already doing that AND endangering others in the process.

    It also means that there is no need to force anyone to undergo a medical procedure which they do not want.

    Nobody is being forced to get any vaccine. They can choose not to participate and there should be consequences for that. I have freedom of speech as a guaranteed right but that right has limits and it does not mean I will not suffer consequences for something I say. Same with the right to choose not to vaccinate. They can do it but that doesn't mean they should be able to endanger others without consequence.

  56. Just keep them out of the schools. by Apuleius · · Score: 1

    Have you been to a school lately? Since growing up, that is?

    Have you noticed how children interact with each other?

    they're germ incubators. Everything gets shared. And shared. And shared.

    If you don't want to vaccinate your kids, fine, but at least have the decency not to bring them to the public schools. That's all this bill is asking.

  57. Re:Becaues Slashdotters are qualified for an answe by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

    rational anti-vaxxers

    Assuming you don't mean people with autoimmune disorders or legitimate allergies, I'm really curious to know what exactly falls into this category.

    Just to be clear, people in those groupings you mentioned aren't actually "anti-vaxers" they're just people who cannot take (some/all) vaccinations.

    By this I mean they're not against the principle of vaccination, and they most likely DESPERATELY WISH THEY COULD.

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  58. Duh,ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Herd immunity is made up nonsense, and you are all a bunch of pseudo intellectual nazi zombies.

  59. Military service by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 2

    If I, and other males, can be made to go fight and die at high risk, against my wishes, why can't EVERYONE be made to take a low risk shot?

    The benefit of the shots to society is arguably FAR higher and the risk FAR lower than military service.

    And by the way, I'm in favor of compulsory military service, for myself and everyone else. Just as I'm in favor of compulsory vaccination, for myself and everyone else (medical exceptions allowed for both.)

    --PM

    1. Re:Military service by operagost · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm against both conscription and mandatory vaccinations, and for the same reason.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Military service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you're probably in favor of other things you're OK with being compulsory too.

      Try thinking about things you don't agree with being compulsory. See if that inspires any new thoughts on freedom.

  60. Not sure about cause of whooping cough epidemics by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 2

    Hello,

        While I'm in favor of compulsory vaccination for everyone except medical exceptions, I'm not so sure we can lay whooping cough epidemics at the door of the anti-vaxxers. It seems that the vaccine is not completely effective against currently circulating strains of whooping cough.

        I'm in favor of research dollars being dedicated forthwith to improve the vaccine. I have a friend whose child, too young to be vaccinated, was killed by whooping cough.

    --PeterM

  61. Autism by wasteoid · · Score: 0

    Will the state pay for treatment of my children if they develop autism from the forced vaccinations?

    1. Re:Autism by donkwich · · Score: 1

      Getting autism from vaccinations is Grade A pure bullshit, so sure.

    2. Re:Autism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange because the sigma 6 ie scientific correlation has been proven
      https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Do3P6wVUH0pc&ei=OM44VaH2CYjqaMymgZAO&usg=AFQjCNGFMLWJ38Xe3_NPFAFChCGxNiYSxA&bvm=bv.91427555,d.d2s

      and several courts have already confirmed this eg in Italy and even without proof, if you look at countries like China: virtually no autism, since introduction of vaccines: autism is like in the US an epidemic ... does not take a genius does it to see when you put poison (mercury, aluminium about 10-100 times above FDA approved safety levels with monkey and or bird dna and virusses that have been unfiltered in a childs body that something might go wrong ..)

      btw vaccination is like choosing a color for your umbrella, while you should be fixing the leaking roof !
      Improve immunity and general health by lowering toxicity in life and supplementing with vitamin c (first trial phase has been positive, in the future patients will get this in hospitals) ... of course you have to understand: sick people = more money for some industries
      e.g. an average cancer patient = 25 000 usd (or more) income for a hospital, so very little incentive to finding long term verifiable working and natural cures that cannot be patented ...

      How about educating yourself:
      read The hidden war on cancer and watch the free lectures from dr Suzanna Humpries on youtube: on vaccination and vitamine C - all documented with scientific documents (document IDs on the slides) - so that is science for you and not opinion ...

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

      Very strange as the scientific link has already been proven
      and even courts in e.g. Italy have upheld the research.

      The land of the used-to-be-free must be a bit behind on research ... must be that NWO brain drain ...

    4. Re:Autism by wasteoid · · Score: 1

      I should've included the sarcasm tag.

  62. How about compulsory military service? by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

    Males in USA have to register for the draft. They can be made to fight and die to defend this country whether they want to or not, often at great risk of life and limb.

    Yet I'm supposed to get upset because, to defend this country against disease, people have to get very low risk shots? What's your position on military service?

    --PM

  63. Oliver Wendell Holmes by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

    People would do well to remember Buck v. Bell:

    We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

    No matter how well intentioned, forcing people by law to undergo medical procedures is questionable. Furthermore, for vaccinations, there is very little need for such a heavy-handed approach.

    1. Re:Oliver Wendell Holmes by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Forcing people by law to have any medical procedure is broken period. While I like vaccines but the state should never be requiring medical procedures or medications. This is not better than the broken we think your kid has adhd they have to take these meds to stay in school, sure they are mind altering but they make the test scores better. Mandatory implants for the deaf? Have we forgotten the medical intervention that effectively killed Allen Turning, gotta fix that gay. Were still having courts order ECT treatments, with fun circular logic that ETC treatments means they are not competent to choose whether or not to get more ECT treatments. The state has no business making medical decisions unless it's the absolutely last possible choice.

      This bill would be better if gave them school vouchers, it's still a bad bill though. The deal with compulsory education was that the state would offer a "free" option, it's already turned that free option into an indoctrination camp now it wants to exclude people? Why should medical exempt kids still go to public schools by this logic they should be forced home school just like everybody else, they are just as dangerous after all the reason they did not vaccinate does not alter the danger to the herd after all.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    2. Re:Oliver Wendell Holmes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't being forced. Even if it was a mandatory (it isn't) requirement to live in California, they still can avoid it by leaving the country. Start up your own. Without hookers and blackjack or vaccines. Then die off as you catch horrible diseases and pass them amongst yourselves.

    3. Re:Oliver Wendell Holmes by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      This bill would be better if gave them school vouchers, it's still a bad bill though.

      Yes, that's exactly the issue. Private schools can, of course, exclude people for failure to vaccinate. With private schools, we'd likely have stronger vaccination requirements and higher vaccination rates, without government-mandated medical procedures.

      The deal with compulsory education was that the state would offer a "free" option,

      Not only that, it was also supposed to be rather basic, a fallback and safety net. Like social security and public health insurance. Instead, all these programs have turned into full, publicly subsidized services, but unfortunately pretty inefficient and poor ones.

  64. Re:Easy fix by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because no-one every dies from measels. The person who dies every 4 minutes from measels doesn't count.

    Those deaths are from people who don't have vaccinations available to them, who are weakened by malnutrition, and who lack adequate supportive care.

    In the US, vaccinations are available to everybody and general health and supportive care is so good that your risk of dying from measles is negligible even if you don't get vaccinated.

  65. Personal Belief v Religion by CauseBy · · Score: 1

    I've never understood this and I've never had anyone be able to explain it to me. What the heck could the difference between "personal beliefs" (or "philosophical") and "religion" possibly be? To me that means exactly the same thing. What would stop people from saying "Okay, fine, my religion is to not vaccinate my kids"?

  66. Stupid Shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many Big Pharma shills are there registered on SlashDot?

    I'm not sure where the term 'anti-vaxxer' originated, but I've seen it for the first time this week. It would appear that it has to be proceeded by the word "stupid" or "moron".

    Have a look at the comments on this page - all pro-vaccine comments are modded up, all anti-vaccine comments are modded down. Most of the default visible comments are all pro-vaccine and refer to 'stupid ant-vaxxers'

  67. It's ALL about money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Big Pharma cared about getting everyone vaccinated, they would offer separate vaccinations which is what most anti-vaccination parents want.

    Parents don't want an MMRV vaccine, they have fears about them and would like to give them separately. But they are not offered this choice, instead it's an all or nothing approach which is not helping.

  68. Re:Religious exemptions are unconstitutional by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Do you *really* go for all this fascist interpretations of our founding documents? .

    That's the trendy thing to do these days. Can't run a sporting club without a pile of people getting killed as a side effect of mismanagement and lobbying for stupid exemptions? Then claim it's the fault of a founding document and that every single adult male in the country is automatically part of a well regulated militia.

  69. It's not actually "forced" is it? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    They can choose not to do it and the consequence is not being able to send their kids to a government school - no jail, no fine so not forced.

    Personally I think these anti-vaxxer idiots should sit down with someone old enough to be their grandparents and ask them about polio.

  70. Re:Easy fix by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    In the US, vaccinations are available to everybody and general health and supportive care is so good that your risk of dying from measles is negligible even if you don't get vaccinated.

    Because being rendered deaf or blind is no big deal as long as you don't die? How about the anti-vax trolls piss up a rope instead.

  71. Re:Not sure about cause of whooping cough epidemic by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing no vaccine is ever completely effective. But if everyone is vaccinated then the people whose vaccination didn't work are a lot less likely to ever be exposed to the disease.

  72. Re:Easy fix by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

    Because being rendered deaf or blind is no big deal as long as you don't die?

    Deafness or blindness is even rarer than death from measles. Even in unvaccinated individuals, the risk of disability or death from measles is negligible compared to risks from other diseases that we can't vaccinate against, and other risks parents routinely expose their children to.

    How about the anti-vax trolls piss up a rope instead.

    If you think such tiny risks justify imposing unwanted medical procedures on people, we have to impose a lot more safety regulations and medical procedures on people and we can kiss all our liberties good bye. And if you only limit your fear mongering to measles and ignore the other risks you are as irrational and anti-science as the anti-vax trolls. So how about you just piss up a rope instead?

  73. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it spread by weasles? Idiot.

  74. Bad Example, Maybe by Gazzonyx · · Score: 2

    Take it as you will, but second hand smoke might not be the best example. I'm not a huge fan of Penn Gillette, but at the least I thought this was interesting if the facts are accurate - Penn & Teller - Bullshit :: Second Hand Smoke. It feels to have at least a touch of truthiness to it if you can handle Penn for 15 straight minutes (while I appreciate some of the things he has to say, he's not my cup of tea personality wise).

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    1. Re:Bad Example, Maybe by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      FYI, Penn spells his last name with a J, as in Penn Jillette.

    2. Re:Bad Example, Maybe by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I forgot what an asshole Penn is, despite the apparent lack of cancer risk, smoking indoors is not neutral.
      between 150,000 and 300,000 children under 1-1/2 years of age get bronchitis or pneumonia from breathing secondhand tobacco smoke, resulting in thousands of hospitalizations. In children under 18 years of age, secondhand smoke exposure also results in more coughing and wheezing, a small but significant decrease in lung function, and an increase in fluid in the middle ear. Children with asthma have more frequent and more severe asthma attacks because of exposure to secondhand smoke, which is also a risk factor for the onset of asthma in children who did not previously have symptoms.

      Do you think it's neutral for adults?

    3. Re:Bad Example, Maybe by tbannist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have to be very careful with Penn and Teller, they have a strong libertarian bent and they seem to frequently fail when researching issues that involve their politics. I wouldn't trust them on issues like second hand smoke that they are likely to view as "government interference". It tends to make them derp out and present a weak one-sided case as if there were no valid counter-arguments. Personally, I stopped watching "Bullshit" after a few too many political shows where they left me disappointed with their half-assed, one-sided, "facts".

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    4. Re:Bad Example, Maybe by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      Crap! I _KNEW_ I should have checked. I start to google it and then said, "eh, that's gotta' be it."

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  75. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The person who dies every 4 minutes from measels doesn't count.

    In a world where a child dies every 4 seconds from poverty, measles is a drop in the bucket.

  76. Vaccination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. There is scientific ie double blind proof that vaccins work - no studies on humans and or primates has been done in the last lets say 25 years.
    Vaccination is a theory and a bad one.

    2. Vaccines are not pure and contain and potential deceases and dna of birds and monkeys.

    3. Vaccines contain dangerous levels of aluminium, which passes the BBB, thus affecting your brain.
    There is a very strong link between vaccines and autism: in China autism e.g. only showed up after vaccines and scientific research (not opinion) confirms the link (sigma six ie correlation): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3P6wVUH0pc

    4. Her immunity - a theory of the 1930s, before there were even vaccines is incorrect in the sense that this is not the way forward:
    The truth is that about 5-10% of the population does not respond, or only in a very limited way, to vaccines, thus even vaccinating 100% will only lead to a 95% coverage and vaccines also do not remain active for a long time: after 2-6 months the effect wears of in most people, so herd immunity is not an option !

    Also vaccinated people can also be carriers, depending on the virus.

    5. Big issue is that vaccination breaks the cycle of natural immunity from e.g. breastfeeding: this is the life long protection and immunity you really want.

    6. Hoskins effect - google it - it is real: it is like the effect of diminishing returns for vaccination.

    7. Vaccines do not protect: they actually make it more difficult to treat (as viruses adapt and become stronger) and quarantining is a better option: google Leicester, a city in the UK that in the past used this instead of vaccines: the proof is there that this is a better solution. Cheaper, simpler and effective.
    d
    8. Educate yourself and insist on the right the be informed: forcing by law is not consent, it is force and we all know if you have to use force, you have already lost control ...

    Have a look at this: science, not opinion from people with expertise, not politicians:
    On natural immunity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h66beBrEpk
    On vaccination and its effectiveness (eg vs vitamin C) - 4 lectures by a medical doctor with years of experience in the field:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFQQOv-Oi6U

    Think for yourself

  77. Just ignorance. Really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My ignorant, lazy parents didn't bother to get me vaccinated when I moved between countries. I was too early, then too late for government vaccination programmes, so they would have had to have made a special effort.

    As a result, I caught measles leading to complications, a coma, and (among other problems resulting from the complications) am now partially deaf and partially sighted.

    Personal experience gave me the kick-up-the-arse I needed to be sure my kids got vaccinated.

    Just in case there are any people out there that might benefit from my experience : you now know what I think of my parents. Would you be happy if your kids thought the same of you ?

  78. Re: I'm King Frosty The First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Not believing in the effectiveness of vaccination is insane. That rant more so.

    The legislation does not force anyone to be vaccinated, it just says if you want to participate in the on campus part of the public school system, you need to be vaccinated.

    A perfectly reasonable requirement that will save millions of lives over time. It's no more a matter of personal choice than which side of the road your country drives on - by choosing to ignore the convention you put others lives at risk.

    If you are not vaccinated , then you get to be home schooled, possibly with a small peer group.

    This is the long proven way of dealing with the uncontrolled disease risen.

    They could also probably charter school, and let natural selection sort out the insanity gene.

  79. Re:Religious exemptions are unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a common law system, case law is also law. Think of it as explanatory notes of the law. For example, the constitution only considered arms to be musket. But CASE LAW included semi-automatic rifles and other small munitions, but not full-auto, anti-armour and armoured vehicles.

    Same with free speech. Case law helped define what it means in many more circumstances than are possible to elucidate on in a law statute.

  80. Actually, you have it bass-ackwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's more profit in a separate MMR vaccine. Therefore the companies making them don't want it. But they don't want vaccines either: they don't generate anywhere near the return that treatments do.

    Government wants MMR because it costs less to administer on state healthcare, and because the parent only takes one day off rather than three (and that there's no window of opportunity left open whilst the three are being administered for infection of the one or two yet to go ahead), meaning less reduced productivity, they have ample reason to push for it.

    Or do you want to pay higher taxes so that other people can decide to use a more expensive treatment? Do you want companies made to give time off three times instead of one if their employee has a child and they want separate vaccines? Do you want hospitals you pay for used up for this more, staff use more time and you pay for it for someone else just because they want to use a different sort of treatment?

    If you do, it's only because you think you're not paying others, they're paying for you.

    1. Re:Actually, you have it bass-ackwards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently the pharmaceuticals are worried that people won't get all four, or they may forget to get some.

      Package them all together and that guarantees more injections and more money.

      Doctors probably want this too as it means less appointments.

  81. Hehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "expand the definition of home schooling to allow multiple families to join together to teach their children or participate in independent study programs run by public school systems."

    Put them all into the same room, every day. Bye, bye herd immunity. This is really great as these kids are pretty much guaranteed to get sick..

  82. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bit like choosing the color of your umbrella instead of figuring out how to stop the rain from falling through your roof: it is about the strength of the immune system, that is what the discussion should be about, not a single disease.

    First, when people, far away, certainly not in the US or the West, perish from measles it is because they have a weak immune system because they live in miserable conditions: lack of hygiene and lack proper nutrition (especially vitamin a and c).
    Targeting a single disease is pointless (unless you are a big pharma company of course - I wonder what your interest then would be).

    Don't believe me - read book by Suzanne Humphries on vaccination - or have a look at her 4 part lecturer on vaccination and how the improvements in hygiene and nutrition lead to a decline in almost all deceases in the West.

    And as far as measles is concerned: young children are the most vulnerable, and they should ideally be protected by natural immunity (which lasts a lifetime, no like vaccination which only lasts 3-6 months tops), this would mean breastfeeding and the mothers being naturally immune: this would mean that it is better to improve living conditions and support natural immunity ie people getting measles and isolating them so that the next generation has natural immunity than vaccinating ...

    Btw more than 100 people in the US have died from the measles vaccine (google it - it is in the government database - the facts are not in dispute), number of death by measles in the US (last 10 years): 0 ...

  83. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks, I'm so relived that they aren't really dead.

  84. Re: I'm King Frosty The First by djdarko · · Score: 1

    And to build on your excellent response, there hasn't been mercury in vaccines for over a decade. That straw man is dead.

  85. Bad news for red states by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If California is for it....

  86. Reproducing should not get special tax treatment by sjbe · · Score: 1

    He's not asking for special tax treatment. He'll still pay the same amount of taxes. He's asking that the government spend the same amount of money on his kids' educations.

    Again, no. I don't have children and I don't get special treatment so why should he just because he chose to reproduce? Not my problem. Plenty of people don't have children but still pay taxes to support their local schools because it is a public good. An educated populace benefits us all. My education is long since finished and my parents still have to pay taxes to their local school district. In fact I actually went to a private school for good parts of my education and I can assure you that my parents did not get a tax break.

  87. Pathogens don't care about laws or government by sjbe · · Score: 1

    You just love stating opinions as facts, don't you?

    Sounds like you do too.

    You will find a great deal of resistance to your views, because a great many people don't want the government telling them what they can and cannot do with kids.

    I don't really give a shit about how people raise their kids until it starts to affect others, myself included. Don't want to vaccinate your kids? Fine. Go live in a shack in Montana and home school so you don't endanger the lives of others because you are squeamish about getting a very safe and effective vaccine against a serious and highly contagious pathogen.

    You're probably one of those idiots who supports the one-child policy of China, aren't you?

    I don't care much what China's government does and it's not really clear what they have to do with this discussion. That said if China want to make birth rates fall the best thing they can do is to improve their standard of living. High GDP per capita almost inevitably leads to falling birth rates. Don't take my word for it, the data is easily available to back me up.

    Why don't you go live there if you love heavy handed government so much?

    Tell you what. You explain to me how and why measles cares about a form of government and I'll concede the point. Last I checked, pathogens don't really pay much attention to governments.

  88. Re:Not sure about cause of whooping cough epidemic by jabuzz · · Score: 1

    Yes, but in this particular case the some of the strains of whooping cough that are circulating now appear to have mutated away from those that the vaccine in common use protects against. As such the vaccine has work as described it just provides little to no protection against the circulating strains of whooping cough and out breaks have started occurring.

    To put it another way vaccine resistant strains of whooping cough have developed/appeared.

    The solution is to reformulate the whooping cough vaccine against the strains that are now circulating. Just upping the vaccination rate with the existing vaccine is an exercise in futility and a waste of resources and money.

  89. Re:Not sure about cause of whooping cough epidemic by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

    They're only "completely effective" when so thoroughly and effectively used that the bacteria or virus is completely eliminated. That's why smallpox is believed eradicated, there haven't been any new cases since 1978. Polio has repeatedly been close to eradication, but has failed in countries like Nigeria and Pakistan.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    The vaccine was tied in local political and religious leader's speeches to harassment of Islam, with claims that the vaccine was designed to sterilize them. By the time the vaccine supply could be examined and verified as untainted by local leaders, it was expired and no longer safe to use. This is why polio remains an infectious disease: according to the "Global Polio Eradication Initiative", Nigeria and Pakistan have the last major reservoirs of existing polio cases, and until it's cleared out of those nations, all other nations are at risk and have to spend their limited medical and educational resources on annual vaccination drives to prevent a resurgence, much like that from Pakistan in 2013. And immunization is _banned_ by Islamic militants in parts of Pakistan. And innocent refugees from the fighting there remain a dangerous vector for polio to be brought to other communities.

    Politically, I'd be hard pressed to invent a more dangerous mix of medical issues, religion, and politics if Israel hadn't already been caught forcing refugee women to accept birth control shots, and some of the women injected hadn't thought they were flue vaccines.

                              http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

    Note especially that it was the government of _Israel_ doing this, and Israel is an icon of Western civilization and religious strife for Muslim countries. It lent credence to the most paranoid concerns of the Islamic who've been banning immunization. I admit that it quite incensed me at the time because it discredited the genuine immunization efforts of WHO and helped waste the polio eradication effort in Nigeria.

  90. Re: I'm King Frosty The First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't matter. The mercury used was a type that quickly filtered out of your body. The bad kind is the stuff that sticks with you for life.

  91. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, they most likely WON'T get sick, because their parents had them vaccinated.

  92. Re:Easy fix by dave420 · · Score: 1

    You're not really helping your Libertarian cause by spouting a bunch of nonsense while proudly claiming to be a Libertarian. Either you're a terrible example of a Libertarian, or all Libertarians are idiots. Pick one, please :)

  93. Loner... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I haz the herd immunity!

  94. Re:Reproducing should not get special tax treatmen by readin · · Score: 1
    Exactly, and if the government is going to require everyone to get something, they should fund it either by providing it or by reimbursing the cost.

    In fact I actually went to a private school for good parts of my education and I can assure you that my parents did not get a tax break.

    I'm all for school choice vounchers. I my ideal world your parents wouldn't have gotten a tax break; they would have been given a voucher for purchasing an education, and that voucher would have only been used at places that don't charge a penny more (i.e. schools couldn't charge the voucher prices +$1000 per semester).

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  95. Facts are only facts when you have all of them by redlynx · · Score: 0

    I call this engineering syndrome. I've met a lot of engineers that are good at what they do and automatically assume they understand how everything else works. Most of the people on this board are not medical researchers and are not qualified to make those kinds of decisions. We get "facts" from media, that they want us to see. Well the whole vaccine idea, is not black and white. Not all are bad and not all are good. However, there is evidence that some vaccines are bad for some people. But unfortunately, it's a multi billion dollars industry and a lot of times money takes priority. My wife is a doctor and has encountered numerous research studies that shows opposite of what the media likes to spin. For those of you interested, you can read up on MMR vaccine. http://blog.drbrownstein.com/g... http://blog.drbrownstein.com/g... This one is more technical - https://web.archive.org/web/20.... Remember form you own opinion and not what some newspaper tells you.

  96. Government knows best apparently by Tighe_L · · Score: 1

    My children are vaccinated for almost everything except for chicken pox and one other vaccine. I believe that parents should have that choice and not the government. Regardless of reasons, be it religious or some other reason. But that said all of this is just another political game to polarize the population, those for and those against. The politicians are hoping that this will drive people to the polls.

  97. Censorship slashdot.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot seems to be heavily censoring the reactions: all reactions against vaccination - scientific or not seem to magically removed - shame on you slashdot !!

  98. Re:Religious exemptions are unconstitutional by bobbied · · Score: 1

    When the government tries to make someone do something even though they have a religious objection.

    Fascists believe that the government is entitled to (and should) govern personal behavior, including deciding what a valid religious objection can be. This idea that the government can force people to vaccinate their children over their religious objections is clearly a fascist idea.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  99. Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Proof:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20140824230841/http://www.translationalneurodegeneration.com/content/3/1/16
    also in PDF:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20140826171415/http://www.translationalneurodegeneration.com/content/pdf/2047-9158-3-16.pdf

  100. Read and open your eyes - Dr Brownstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://blog.drbrownstein.com/genocide-against-our-children-continues-the-media-says-nothing-cdc-lies/

  101. Segregated Space Within Schools? by tazbert · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised that there have not yet (to my knowledge) been any school lawsuits from pro-vax families. I know many schools have peanut-free areas. Could a family (or group of families) sue to have the school keep all the unvaccinated kids in a separate part of the school, eating at separate lunch areas, playing at separate playgrounds; in order to reduce the risk to the rest of the school?

  102. Tweakers by lucia-om · · Score: 1

    I'd guess that the "tweaking" of the bill was to find a way for the students to provide money to the education system while being "home-schooled". Multiple-family home school and independent study may both be a way for the system not to lose money from those who defect over the vaccination issue. I think one of the most significant things about this debate is how it has changed views and compliance rates, and likely continues to do so. Vaccination has always been required in order to attend public school, and relatively few have opted out. I think we will see greater numbers of opt-outs because of the tyrannical, offensive nature of those who do not simply support - but insist by force, adherence to their science. It's beyond assault in a supposedly free country. And though I've read to the contrary and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. aside, I think it is the liberals that much more fully support vaccines and lack of choice in the matter of vaccines for self or one's children. Wonder if this will be an issue of interest at election time? Big enough to push people to the Republicans? The horror! (I am not a Repub and voted twice for Obama)

  103. Re: I'm King Frosty The First by rochrist · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure he's in on the whole 'Obama is actually a lizardman' secret cabal too.

  104. Who Decides? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who gets to decide? The bought and paid for government agencies? No that is not a conspiracy, it is a fact. The FDA, USDA, CDC, EPA are all bought and paid for by special interest groups via legal bribery.

    Dr. Marcia Angell, the editor of New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years, wrote the following:

    "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine." (NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009)

    And do they want the seasonal flu vaccine included? It is next to worthless but the pro vax side scream every time you raise issues like these:

    - Cochrane Review - Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults
    http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001269/vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults-

    - Dr Lisa Jackson's out of season influenza vaccine research
    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/337.short

    and of course you have one of the 3 scientists for the CDC now getting whistleblower status and saying the 2004 study was fixed after they knew there was a 340% rise in autism in black males who got the vaccine before the age of 3

    http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/

    and of course you have wonderful quotes from the people in charge saying "no way are their grandkids going to get it" but it's okay to force everyone else to

    - Quotes from Simpsonwood and Puerto Rico Conferences (vaccines & metal toxicity)
    http://www.autismhelpforyou.com/Simpsonwood_And_Puerto%20%20Rico.htm

    So we get back to the question of who decides what shots are required? How do we make sure they are honest and not being legally bribed with high paying jobs once they get decisions that give billions to companies? Those questions all need to be answered BEFORE we even begin to discuss anything else.

  105. dilemma by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    my coporation' religious beliefs don't let me pay for employees' vaccinations

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  106. Benghazi!! by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    Who is Bill and why is he requiring me to get vaccinated? It's not Clinton, is it?

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  107. Beyond herd immunity by AlexEiffel · · Score: 1

    I am not an expert in communicable diseases or genetics, so maybe I am wrong about this, but another issue that I haven't seen brought up much is that anti-vaccination groups endanger not just the small number of people who rely on herd immunity due to medical issues that prevent them from getting vaccinations, but also those of us who already have vaccinations. If nearly eradicated diseases spread through groups of unvaccinated people, it provides more opportunities for the disease to mutate into a form from which our current vaccinations do not protect. Should a person who happens to be immune to the effects of Ebola yet is still contagious be allowed to walk around New York as they please because it is their right not to get it treated?

  108. Where do individual rights end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To people claiming their right to chose whether their children are vaccinated or not super-cedes my right to have my child protected by herd immunity:

    Do you support my right to give my child a gun to take to school then?

  109. Re:Religious exemptions are unconstitutional by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

    I think we have a misunderstanding. I never said anything about forcing people to do anything.

    And if you're going to use the term, at least use it correctly.

  110. Bad parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    antivax==child abuse

  111. available current data overstates non-vaccinated c by call+-151 · · Score: 1

    One of the issues that isn't addressed in these debates is the poor data about truly unvaccinated children. One thing to be aware of is that some of the "personal belief exemption" data may have some flaws related to poorly-interpreted data. In some cases, it may overstate the presence of anti-vaccination communities. That is, some of those listed as PBE are still vaccinated but nevertheless chose the "PBE exemption."

    I know of at least a dozen fully-vaccinated children in public school in an affluent school district in California, whose parents are scientists, engineers, and medical researchers, who have moved to California for work. Enrolling a child in a California public school is a often morass of paperwork. In particular, there needs to be documentation of vaccination or you need to select the "PBE" exemption. (Or other exemptions, including the genuine medical exemptions for compromised immune system, etc.) The requirements of documentation are onerous, particularly for people who are busy getting settled with new housing, new jobs, and many other issues. Vaccination records from an out-of-state doctor are generally not considered sufficient. It is possible, upon moving to CA, to get new primary care physicians for your children, make appointments, and get the proper certification. However, that takes a good deal of time (months in many communities) and is considered by many people a waste of resources. A number of school administrators recommend to arriving parents that rather than deal with the documentation (and keep their children at home until the paperwork is all sorted out), they merely check the "PBE" box on the form, which takes one second and no money. The "personal belief" was simply that the documentation was overly onerous for people who had better things to do than waste time satisfying unusually specific documentation requirements.

    The media reports of "anti-vaccination communities are common in affluent school districts" may instead be merely that a number of affluent school districts have clued in the new arrivals that they can avoid trouble by claiming the PBE. A school district where the enrollment staff informs people about the PBE option as a way to avoid paperwork appears, when looking at the data, to be a school district filled with anti-vaccination morons.

    There is much more reliable data about incoming kindergartners- these children, sometimes new to school of any type, are generally already California residents with California doctors, and the chance that a PBE exemption for them does indicate that their parents are nutballs is much higher. But the overall data needs to be viewed with a more critical eye.

    --
    It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
  112. Home schooling as the solution? Really? by garry_g · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if forcing those nut jobs that defy every decent scientific finding to home-school their children ...
    Why is it children are supposed to be protected are allowed to remain with parents that put their children's life and health in danger? And that based on fear of sicknesses that are genetic and not caused by vaccination?

  113. Bertrand Russell on vaccination programs by PrBr · · Score: 1

    ""Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so." Russell, Bertrand. The Impact of Science on Society. 1951