Slashdot Mirror
California Senate Approves School Vaccine Bill
mpicpp writes: California state senators have passed a controversial bill designed to increase school immunization rates. SB277 would prohibit parents from seeking vaccine exemptions for their children because of religious or personal beliefs. California would join West Virginia and Mississippi as the only states with such requirements if the bill becomes law. "SB 277 is about increasing immunization rates so no one will have to suffer from vaccine-preventable diseases," said Sen. Ben Allen (D- Santa Monica) who coauthored the bill with Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento).
I expect to see a lot of anti vaxx outrage and legal challenges, but this is a good first step.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
Infectious diseases don't pay attention to your religion or any of your other crackpot obsessions about autism or mercury or whatever this week's flavor of craziness is.
So the prevention of said diseases shouldn't either.
Not really considering that California is the very definition of lack of common sense.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
... the constitutional right to freedom of religion. If you are required by law to do something that your religion actually prohibits, then you are not free to really practice your religion in that country at all.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I don't know about the autism claims but I do know that getting 6 shots in one day can be a problem.
The autism claims were based of a study that was completely fabricated by the author.
I am all for free speech and entitlement to personal opinion. But the very role of government and public policy is to have a rational and objective view on what is reasonable for citizens to do and not do as part of civil society. It is not to merely sway with the wind and throw up one's hands and say, well, we can't offend anyone's beliefs so we shouldn't do our jobs for fear of being voted out of office.
It is high time that both we as citizens and we as government not put up with or enable a small ridiculous minority of extremist views to hold the rest of society hostage, with the threat of lawsuits.
There is such a thing as being overly reasonable. And there are many more issues that don't rise to this level of publicity, that policy makers give in to, for fear of negative repercussions, rather than doing the right thing.
No, there are not "legitimate concerns" about childhood vaccination.
Ah, but this is what comes from nonsense like "teach the controversy!" and from a mistaken notion that the phrase "there are two sides to a story" means that all views must be equal.
Not really considering that California is the very definition of lack of common sense.
If Californians lack common sense, my dear Ageoffri then Texans, Georgians, Floridians and all the other people living in bible belt states are congenital idiots.
First, it IS an assault on religious freedom despite what proponents will tell you. You may think people with religious objections to vaccination (one or all of them) are nuts (and they may very well be) but that does not give the government the right to violate their freedom to do stupid things. It's called liberty. You may not like other's choices, but you MUST give them the choice.
No it's not. They can still choose not to vaccinate their kids in accordance to their beliefs. They just aren't allowed to send their kids to public schools.
Because vaccines aren't always effective for everyone, and some people (e.g. immunocompromised individuals) can't get vaccines. But these people rely on herd immunity, which is depending on enough people being vaccinated that any disease that shows up isn't transmitted through the whole community. It's not the kids who don't get vaccinated that the legislators are worried about, it's everyone else.
And the rate of vaccinations in parts of California are so low that health officials are seeing the effects of lack of herd immunity.
Ask me how the Heisenberg Principle may or may not have saved my life.
There are some legitimate concerns about child vaccination.
Any legitimate concerns about child vaccinations have been addressed for a very long time now. Every study that comes out continues to prove how safe and effective vaccines are. They prove beyond any legitimate doubt that vaccines are so effective that the very small segment of the population that cannot tolerate them are effectively shielded by the herd immunity. There are absolutely no legitimate studies that question the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.
On the other hand, there is an epidemic of willful ignorance when it comes to vaccinations. A large segment of the population flat out refuses to believe that they've been duped by someone trying to sell something. They refuse to admit that the science is overwhelming and undeniable. They flat out refuse to acknowledge facts staring them in the face. But, sadly, that's a disease that is impossible to overcome.
The only mob stupidity are the people who arbitrarily reject science that is incredibly well documented with study after study. Vaccines are safe and effective. No legitimate study has shown otherwise since vaccines were first administered. The only shaky information is spread by the people with unfounded distrust of vaccines.
This is true, I'm glad someone said it. Especially the part about the shot line in the military being different.
I did the same thing when joining the Navy and me and most of my company were sick as hell for a week or so. But, they immunize you instead of simple MMR, for dozens of things including exotic jungle rots and things like malaria, etc. Things that you would never encounter if you stayed in the USA, and weren't in some muddy jungle or strange desert somewhere with their localized exotic diseases.
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
The federal laws passed in the mid-80s that insulate the responsibility of vaccine creating companies to flaws in their products needs to rescinded or heavily revised.
It is the fact that the companies creating these vaccines are largely not culpable for their products that has driven the anti-VAX movement. FIX THAT or this law will be ignored.
No. The anti-vax movement has been largely driven by greed, stupidity, and the parents need to "blame" someone.
What's lost in most discussions of the fraud doctor in Britain is that he was trying to discredit the current vaccination regime so he could push his own = greed. Parents, preferred listening to that jackhole and dipshit blondes who's only claim to fame is stripping for cash instead of medical professionals with actual knowledge = stupidity. The whole blame game is the demented way humans interact with seemingly everything. Their child has autism = it MUST be someones fault.... which in reality is just more stupidity.
The companies that produce these vaccines are shielded from individual lawsuits because individual lawsuits would very quickly bankrupt said companies. The result of that would be no vaccines, which would lead to everyone in society fucking dying of easily treated illnesses = more fucking greed and stupidity ("everyone" being hyperbole, obviously, but given current transportation ease and population, "millions" would be a given) . Complications from vaccines are fairly rare, and very serious complications/death even more-so.... but vaccines are of critical importance to our species in the present day. If the argument is: let millions of people die each year because of diseases that can be easily vaccinated against, or requiring parents to keep their disease ridden kids out of school unless they vaccinate... that's an easy one: fuck the idiot parents.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
I'm not an anti-vax person myself, but I do suspect that at least one of the vaccines I received in the Army caused my current chronic kidney disease, which is caused by a misformed IgA antibody. I suspect that because I have a familial history of Ceceliacs disease, which is suspected by some to be related to IgA Nephropathy, and the timeline of when I developed IgAn coincides perfectly with the progression of the disease and the time that I received those inoculations. That, and this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
Problem is this is hard to prove, and I doubt anybody would do any further serious research into it. Why won't they? Because the anti-vax movement has made anybody who does easily lose credibility, because the anti-vax movement repeatedly and often makes very stupid claims (autism? are you fucking kidding me?) that cause everybody else to come down hard on anybody who speaks honestly about any potential down sides of it.
There may very well be good reasons to not vaccinate in some cases, but those reasons will be hard to find when idiots keep crying wolf for no reason other than they happen to be Jenny McCarthy fans.
Still though, and I do myself admit, I still accept that it's better to have practically zero cases of polio in exchange for a few cases of IgA Nephropathy, even though I happened to get the shitty end of the stick (dialisys, which is where I'll probably end up very soon, is a lot better than an iron lung.) That said, even if it is proven that vaccination is the cause of my condition, I'll still support it anyways.
Viruses don't care about your religion. Their mutation rate does not care what deity you believe in. It is too dangerous for society to allow humans to play incubators for the measles. It will eventually mutate and bypass the current vaccine. If it does many millions will die until we figure out a way to make a new vaccine.
The ONLY way to prevent this is to make sure there are not enough hosts for the virus to survive.
Your religious freedoms don't allow endangering everyone else around you. We also have people that have religious views on human sacrifice and we don't allow that either.
There are limits to religious freedom and this has to be one of those limits. A legitimate medical reason should be the ONLY way to get exempted from a vaccine unless you want to go live as a hermit and never encounter humans again.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
I presume you would exempt parents of unvaxed children who were unvaxed for reasons beyond their control, such as
1) Could not afford shots 2) No access to health care 3) Child could not get shots for medical reasons
--PeterM
In Australia the shots are free and there would be obvious exemptions for kids who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons, but maximizing Herd Immunity to protect these kids is another reason for vaccinating as many as possible.
California is a mix of odd politics. Partially heavily left leaning, partially heavy right leaning, and a whole lot of libertarian leaning to combine a bit of both. We want the government to keep their hands off of our pot and our taxes.
I'll let measles be the judge of that.
Do you think that Islamic terrorists should be free to murder whoever they want because trying to stop them would violate religious freedom? They're certainly free to believe that it is justified, but they are not free to put it into practice.
In Employment Division v. Smith the Supreme Court ruled that the State can deny unemployment benefits to users of peyote, as the ban did not violate the Free Exercise Clause.
"To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
Even more to the point Jacobson v. Massachusetts ruled that the State only needs to justify compulsory vaccination on the State's basic police powers in order to be constitutional.
Anti-vaxx parents are free to believe that vaccines are an evil communist jew plot, AND they can choose not to vaccinate their kids. They just can't send their kids to public school. As long as the law is neutral and does not target any specific religious group (a tax on wearing yamulkes e.g.), there is no valid First Amendment challenge.
But, more to the point, failing to put this exemption into the law will open it up to constitutional challenge. Such challenges will likely be successful.
You mean like in New York?
I'm pro-vaccines, after all they've done a huge amount of good over the years. They're not an unqualified good, some people do experience negative outcomes but the chances of that are extremely rare so for society as a whole they're a net positive when used approrpriately. I am concerned however with trends I've seen for dogs and horses where the vaccines schedules and number of booster shots keep getting increased. For the most part it looks like greed rather than science and with a public mandate I'm worried that behavior may move to human vaccinations.
What heavy thing? If they have a legitimate reason not to vaccinate then they can get an exception. However not vaccinating children does cause a public harm. Even the most staunchly adherent Libertarian allows for government activity in cases of protecting the public.
What you don't understand is the harm the diseases prevented cause. Way more than vaccines do. You sound like a typical anti vax moron.
West Virginia and Mississippi being ahead of California in doing something involving common sense?
"STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARING: Drinking water contributes to urination"
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
We want the government to keep their hands off of our pot and our taxes.
Well, you're not doing a very good job of expressing your wants as reflected by your very high taxes and still-not-legalized pot.
Bollocks. Religious freedom exists within the bounds of the law, not outside it. It means no one can tell you that you can't do something otherwise legal for religious reasons, not that you get a free pass on illegal activities. You want to pray before meals, preach a certain thing, dress a particular way, wear a religious symbol around your neck, pass out books on the street, cool, that's freedom of religion, and that is part of living in a free society. You want to willingly put your children at risk of potentially fatal diseases (otherwise known as child neglect) then call it freedom of religion, nope, that's not ever remotely similar and that's not what freedom of religion means. Freedom of religion is not a pass to do whatever you want and then call it oppression when someone tries to hold you accountable.
If you want to do stupid things to yourself, that's fine. I'll be the first to complain about liberty and government overstep when laws are passed to protect people from themselves. You want to do something stupid that might result in your own demise, as long as you're not taking anyone else down with you, then have at it. It's none of my concern. However, this is not about what you do to yourself, it is about what you do to others. Child neglect is not a right, and you don't get to put your kids and other kids at risk and then shout 'But religion!' when you are expected to act like a mature reasonable decent human being and demand that the rest of the world respect your excuses as to why you put your kid at risk of easily preventable and potentially serious disease.
The funny thing about this... there is no mainstream religion that actually bans vaccinations. Religious dogma predates the germ theory and therefore couldn't have possibly included vaccinations as anything banned.
In fact, it's the exact opposite. Most religions (at least Abrahamic religions) dictate that personal health is a paramount concern. Even if something required for good health would violate some religious law, good health overrides the religious law. For example, Judaism and Islam declare pigs as unclean animals. They are not to be consumed. However, if a pork derivative is used in a vaccine, the rule of good health means that not getting the vaccine would actually be violating religious law.
The "religious exception" was added in there so idiotic anti-vaxxers could deny their children necessary vaccinations without ever getting questioned, because asking a person about their religion is considered discriminatory.
Part of the reason for feeling sick during those shots during basic training is members of the armed forces get shots for things that most civilians don't get shots for at any age - smallpox, anthrax, and cholera, for example, with the cholera vaccine being known to cause people to feel sick for a short while afterwards. Your vaccine experience in basic training is absolutely not comparable to what children experience.
My religion says I can rape and murder members of other religions. In fact its a sacrament.
So you're either a fanatic Christian terrorist or a fanatic Muslim terrorist or a fanatic what?
I would just ask all these anti-Vaxxers to show were in their holy book is vaccine banned. Problem solved.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
First, it IS an assault on religious freedom despite what proponents will tell you.
Baloney. Your religious rights do not and should not extend to the point where you can transmit dangerous and easily preventable pathogens compromising public safety. You can believe whatever looney nonsense you want as long as it does not hurt others. Claiming religious exemption to vaccination demonstrably hurts other people and therefore should be illegal.
You may think people with religious objections to vaccination (one or all of them) are nuts (and they may very well be) but that does not give the government the right to violate their freedom to do stupid things. It's called liberty. You may not like other's choices, but you MUST give them the choice.
What a load of complete nonsense. People don't have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want. That would be anarchy and you cannot have a civil society where people are free to endanger others without restriction. Do you drive on the wrong side of the road without consequence? By your logic people should have complete "freedom to do stupid things".
But, more to the point, failing to put this exemption into the law will open it up to constitutional challenge. Such challenges will likely be successful.
You should certainly hope that such challenges are not successful. Lives literally depend on it. Furthermore there is nothing preventing people from opting out for religious reasons. They simply cannot put their child in public schools and endanger others in the process. They are perfectly welcome to home school or find alternative schooling but there are and should be consequences for demonstrably irresponsible and dangerous behavior.
Obviously each state has it's own personality for lack of a better term.
I'm mostly just annoyed at how he made a broad sweeping generalization of an entire state with a less than favorable one liner and got modded up for it. Here I can do the same thing. Everybody in Kentucky is a hill billy. Everybody in Georgia is racist. Everybody in China is a communist. You see how stupid it sounds, and he got modded up for saying that crap.
Other posters have pointed out your flawed reasoning. However, here we go again, this time with the actual numbers.
Of 2,236,678,735 vaccines administered during the period, only 1,709 received compensation for adverse effects. That translates to less than 1 in 1.3 million.
Contrast that with the death rate for measles in the US of 3 per 1000 infections. Compare that to death rates of up to 28% who die in the underdeveloped world.
Dead is dead.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Strange that I got modded offtopic for speaking about vaccinations in a reply to a post about vaccinations. Just to be clear. No one, and I mean no one in the medical field says that vaccinations are totally safe. They say that there are risks but that the risks of not getting vaccinated are greater. I don't see why steps to minimize any risks are so unacceptable. I for one see no reason to cluster so many shots in one group when there is really no added risk by spreading them out. Hammering a small toddler with so much medication at one time seems unnecessary. I know a lot of the people here consider themselves experts on every fucking thing and feel that any time someone questions their greater knowledge they must react viciously.
Hello,
I hate to inject some facts into your prejudice, but it's a sad fact that large swaths of South America have higher immunization rates for measles (as an example) than the US does.
Even Mexico is only 2% behind US vaccination rates on measles. Check it out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
--PeterM
Actually the federal government's National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has a reasonable basis.
There are 2 kinds of vaccine injuries:
(1) The avoidable injuries that come from the manufacturer clearly violating the good manufacturing procedures, like improperly filtering the vaccine preparation or letting it get infected.
(2) The inevitable injuries that come even when the manufacturer does everything right, meets the good manufacturing procedures. That's because the immune system is complicated, and we don't understand everything about it. (Furthermore, they sometimes have to make tradeoffs between a vaccine that protects you better from the infectious disease, but has more adverse effects, and a vaccine that has fewer adverse effects, but doesn't protect you from the infectious disease as well.)
I think the inevitable serious injuries occur at the rate of 1 in a million vaccinations. These are the kids who just drew an unlucky lottery ticket. Nobody's wrong.
There were a lot of problems with the vaccine program, and manufacturers stopped making a lot of vaccines, because they were getting hit with big-dollar product liability lawsuits. Some of them were justified, some of them weren't, and some of them, nobody knows, because the immune system is complicated, and we don't understand everything about it.
In order to encourage manufacturers to make vaccines, and parents to vaccinate their kids, the federal government set up what amounts to a no-fault program. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They listed a lot of known serious complications that everybody agreed were caused by vaccines. Kids with those complications were automatically compensated, and it was fairly generous compensation, designed to match what they would get if they went to court and won. That's worked pretty well.
The idea is, if a kid gets vaccinated, in order to protect society as a whole, and draws the unlucky lottery ticket, then society ought to insure him for that bad luck. That's the proper role of insurance.
Then along come the parents whose kids have serious complications where people don't agree it was caused by vaccines. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't, and sometimes (usually) nobody knows. Those go to a special vaccine court. From the occasional articles I've read about it, they seem to be pretty generous in giving the injured child the benefit of the doubt. I can accept that. It's better to err on the side of compensating people who don't deserve it, than err on the side of not compensating people who do deserve it. But they held the line at the vaccine-autism connection, and rejected those cases.
active duty military receives a hell of a lot more vaccines than stateside school children.. and travel to places where there's a hell of a lot more risk of catching something. you could very well be sicker without those shots.
They may be, as you say, willingly endangering everyone, but in reality they are not doing so out of any real sense of malice, so response with deadly force is absurd, to say the least. It is, in just one word, ignorance. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Killing somebody simply because they are ignorant ultimately amounts to killing someone simply because of what they believe.
Are you sure that's a road you want America to go down?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The problem is that quarantining does not heal (quarantining the polio kid won't save his legs) and there has to be an infected host that spreads the disease so it won't be just one, there will be dozens if not hundreds of kids that require quarantining by the time the first one shows up with symptoms (read up on the lifecycle of these preventable diseases)
Vaccination is a good idea until we have the technology to auto-vaccinate or to eradicate the disease worldwide.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Ummmm I think you are talking crap.
http://www.cdc.gov/rotavirus/s...
Prior to the vaccine, almost all U.S. children were infected with rotavirus before their 5th birthday. Each year, among U.S. children younger than 5 years of age, rotavirus led to
more than 400,000 doctor visits,
more than 200,000 emergency room visits,
55,000 to 70,000 hospitalizations, and
20 to 60 deaths.
Also from the CDC website - Rotavirus vaccine risks - http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafe...
It is possible that an estimated 1 to 3 U.S. infants out of 100,000 might develop intussusception within 7 days of getting their first dose of rotavirus vaccine. That means 40 to 120 vaccinated U.S. infants might develop intussusception each year.
What the fuck is intussusception?
a medical condition in which a part of the intestine invaginates (folds into) into another section of intestine
Treatment?
The intussusception can be treated with either a barium or water-soluble contrast enema or an air-contrast enema, which both confirms the diagnosis of intussusception, and in most cases successfully reduces it. The success rate is over 80%. The remaining 20% require surgery.
So to summarise
Prior to the rotavirus vaccine there were 55,000+ hospitalisations and 20+ deaths per year due to rotavirus. Post vaccine your worst case risk is a minor surgery which occurs 8 to 24 times a year. I think I know which I would prefer.
There is no evidence for risks of clustering that I am aware of. On the other hand not clustering means, at least, more risk of individual children missing shots due to greater complexity, more visits to doctors with more risk of infection with unrelated diseases and more cost, which could be spent on other public health measures that would presumably reduce other risks.
If you do think clustering vaccines adds risk, there is a fairly straightforward, if somewhat lengthy, route to address this.
First get a PhD in virology or some other appropriate discipline and a suitable job.
Next, carefully design a series of experiments that will help answer your question and get relevant approvals for it (ethics, safety,....)
Now apply for an NIH (or your country's equivalent) grant to perform it.
Perform it, analyse the results, publish them.
If they show significant extra risk from clustering, then, after a little bit of bureaucratic inertia while people find out about and understand your study and try and work out what changes to procedures would reflect it without risk elsewhere, the chances are clustering would be reduced.
Actually some people did do what you ask. Their findings were that spreading vaccines out actually INCREASES the risk of negative complications.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
"Problem is this is hard to prove, and I doubt anybody would do any further serious research into it. Why won't they?"
There is research in such a stuff, but mostly from public university and as with all orphan disease not very much. The reason that it is not done is because there are so many research point and at the end of the day you have got to limit yourself to what you can find a funding for. The fact that you found a pubmed article belies your claim that nobody would research it. The simple truth, is that sometimes some stuff will simply through bad luck not be researched.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Put this another way:
If measles goes through a small town public school with a thousand kids, three of those kids will die. Several will have life-long aftereffects.
If you vaccinate every human being in a large city, *1* will have *some sort* of adverse effect.
If 'reducing possible harm to children' is actually your end goal, there's no way in hell you'd argue against vaccines.
The problem, really, is that there are entire generations who've never seen a playmate die of measles, or have the polio leg braces, or the like.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Aside from the fact that that wasn't an ad hominem, that's a really weird way of phrasing things. It's like saying that 100% of people standing out in the rain experience rain-related effects, including being hit by lightning. It's technically true, but it's phrased in a way to imply that way more people get hit by lightning than actually do. The reality is that 100% of people get wet and a tiny fraction of a percent get hit by lightning. Lumping them together as "effects of rain" makes the statistic basically meaningless. Was that intentional?
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Disclaimer: I*A*AMD, but just not in this field (I'm doing research).
I suspect that because I have a familial history of {Ce}liacs disease, which is suspected by some to be related to IgA Nephropathy, and the timeline of when I developed IgAn coincides perfectly with the progression of the disease and the time that I received those inoculations.
That would sound plausible.
Note that technically, it's not exactly the vaccine's fault. It's your genetic tendency to develop auto-immune disease that runs in your family that caused your nephropathy, and that *happens* to have been triggered by the vaccine. But had it not been the vaccine, it could have been any other trigger that disturbs your immunological system. One susceptible person could trigger an autoimmune disease after a cold. (In fact, Diabetes Type I, the one that more frequently in youth - is strongly suspected that the auto-immune disease is triggered most often by the immune response to infection). In fact that might also have been your case: the trigger might have been some virus you caught while serving, but you overlooked because it's frequent (even more so with lots of people packed in the same place like barracks) and thus forgot about it, but when thinking back you remember the vaccine.
(Same as psychedelic drugs:
Smoking pot doesn't force people to become psychotic. But there are a few people who have a genetic predisposition to psychosis and the joints happened to be the trigger that started it. But the guy could have just as likely gone bonkers after experiencing an intense emotional experience, etc.).
Problem is this is hard to prove, and I doubt anybody would do any further serious research into it. Why won't they?
Well, you might be surprised but actually *there is* research into these kind of stuff. There is a whole branch called "personalized medicine" which tries to gather *which exact* risk factors, variations, etc. you have, and adapt treatment to your specific needs.
(example which are already in production:
- analyse a collection of liver enzymes which play an important role in the destruction of chemicals, and thus influence critically the dosage of some meds.
example currently in study:
- for some cancer (like breast) it might make more sense not to do the same control regularly (currently, mammary X-rays, every 2 years for all susceptible women) but to adapt it (women with certain variant of BRCA genes should get yearly or every 2 year, the general female population might as well do the X-ray only every 5 years).
I don't happen to know where exactly is the research about genetic predisposition to autoimmune disease.
But that exactly the kind of stuff personalised medicine and the "your whole genome for less than a few k $" are for.
There may very well be good reasons to not vaccinate in some cases, but those reasons will be hard to find when idiots keep crying wolf for no reason other than they happen to be Jenny McCarthy fans.
Still though, and I do myself admit, I still accept that it's better to have practically zero cases of polio in exchange for a few cases of IgA Nephropathy, even though I happened to get the shitty end of the stick (dialisys, which is where I'll probably end up very soon, is a lot better than an iron lung.) That said, even if it is proven that vaccination is the cause of my condition, I'll still support it anyways.
Indeed there's a huge difference between:
- Must skip the vaccine for medical grounds (e.g.: known allergy to some compound inside the vaccine)
- Want to avoid so because it says so in a magical book that is always true and contains the true word of some beardy deity sitting on a cloud, and was written down by a bum who basically spent a year in the desert completely high on mushroom while seeking for divine inspiration).
The former is a valid reason to skip the vaccine for a given person, the latter is a good reason why I agree with Rch
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]