Slashdot Mirror


Diphtheria Returns To Spain For Lack of Vaccination

TuringTest writes: A six-year-old child was admitted to a hospital in Barcelona and diagnosed with diphtheria, which hasn't occurred in Spain since 1986 and was largely unheard of in western Europe. The boy had not been vaccinated despite the vaccine being available in free vaccination programs. Spanish general health secretary called anti-vaccination campaigns "irresponsible" and said: "The right to vaccination is for children, not for the parents to decide." The child is in critical condition, though he's now being treated with a serum expressly brought from Russia through an emergency procedure.

254 comments

  1. You wouldn't pay to see a Rob Schneider movie... by Picass0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... so why are you listening to medical advice from him?

    A Public Service Announcement from Get Your Brats Immunized

  2. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I thought they were conservatives telling everyone they don't want no gubbamint telling them what to put in their babby's body.

  3. Re:Deniers on the Left? by halivar · · Score: 4, Informative

    No. Vaccination rates are highest in the Bible belt, while they are lowest on the west coast. I think it has less to do with political affiliation and more to do with who reads idiot granola mommy and food blogs.

  4. Parents should be liable by sjbe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I strongly think that parents who elect to not vaccinate their children (absent a documented medical condition preventing safe vaccination) should be liable for child endangerment. This is reckless behavior that is reasonably likely to result in bodily harm to another human being. This is a public safety issue with a clear and benign and effective solution. Those who opt out should be liable for the consequences of their actions.

    1. Re:Parents should be liable by wiggles · · Score: 1

      That was the topic of a Law & Order SVU a couple weeks ago.

    2. Re:Parents should be liable by geekmux · · Score: 1

      I strongly think that parents who elect to not vaccinate their children (absent a documented medical condition preventing safe vaccination) should be liable for child endangerment. This is reckless behavior that is reasonably likely to result in bodily harm to another human being. This is a public safety issue with a clear and benign and effective solution. Those who opt out should be liable for the consequences of their actions.

      Good luck going against religious beliefs that curtail vaccinations. That "endangerment" has one hell of an establishment in the community.

    3. Re:Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how is it a public safety issue, the ones who do get vaccinated aren't at risk... so they only endanger themselves and likeminded folks

    4. Re:Parents should be liable by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      It isn't religious exemptions, but the parallel "gosh I duwanna I duwanna" exemption.

      The religious exemption is cognizant of the First Amendment; the latter of foolish and scared politicians who don't want Jenny (or Rob as the case may be) lambasting them as elections approach.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:Parents should be liable by ageoffri · · Score: 4, Insightful
      For several reasons. First vaccines are not 100% effective. Second people who can not be vaccinated for medical reasons are put in danger by those who through ignorance refuse to get vaccines.

      I'll take it a step further and state that the blonde bimbo should be tried on charges of attempted genocide.

      --
      -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
    6. Re:Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is people that can't get vaccinated for many reasons. Those are at risk too when the vaccination level decreases.

    7. Re:Parents should be liable by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good luck going against religious beliefs that curtail vaccinations. That "endangerment" has one hell of an establishment in the community.

      Several states in the US have done so successfully. No reason why more couldn't. You do have a fair point though. It's amazing how much nonsense we put up with in the name of "respecting religious rights" even when they are clearly crazy and/or self destructive.

    8. Re:Parents should be liable by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Not everyone can be vaccinated (allergies, compromised immune systems), and vaccines are not 100% effective.

    9. Re:Parents should be liable by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 4, Informative

      Diphtheria has a very serious "side effect", and I suspect the percentage of patients who develop it is larger than the percentage that react to the vaccine. Wikipedia says:

      "Diphtheria is fatal in between 5% and 10% of cases. In children under five years and adults over 40 years, the fatality rate may be as much as 20%.[17] In 2013 it resulted in 3,300 deaths down from 8,000 deaths in 1990.[6]"

    10. Re:Parents should be liable by Maritz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless you are ready to pull the trigger of the gun of force.

      Fine, don't wanna vaccinate your kids, they shouldn't be allowed in public schools. This is a nice, fair solution. If people want to make their kids a vector for eradicated diseases (hey it's their "right") they should make other arrangements for education.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    11. Re:Parents should be liable by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      No, don't touch the touch nor the child. By that I mean it was the choice of the parent(s) to not get their children vaccinated, it should not be up to the state (i.e. taxpayers) to foot the bill to take care of the kid.

      Let nature take its course since that is what the parents wanted. If the kid survives they got lucky. If the kid survives but is disabled, the parents take care of everything. If they die that's one less we have to worry about and the parents will have to live with their decision for the rest of their life.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    12. Re:Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Am I protected if my religious beliefs say I need to sacrifice a virgin? Certainly not, so why should I be able to gamble with my child's life based on religious beliefs? Furthermore, they are MY religious beliefs, not my child's. Who is to say my child is going to give a crap about my religion when he grows up.

    13. Re:Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you'd prefer that polio hadn't been eradicated because of the loss of liberty people experienced?

    14. Re:Parents should be liable by bohmt · · Score: 2

      And each host that is infected with diphtheria increases the risk that some mutation could lead to a pandemic.

    15. Re:Parents should be liable by Maritz · · Score: 2

      "Herd immunity" is the main reason why it is a public safety issue. Most vaccines are not 100% effective, but they stop disease from spreading through the population because higher than a critical proportion of the population are effectively vaccinated. This protects not only those for whom the vaccine is ineffective, but those who cannot have the vaccine administered for medical reasons (e.g. very young, very old, or immunocompromised). Herd immunity is vital for pertussis (hooping cough), because the newborns to whom it is most dangerous cannot be given the vaccine. I'm not a doctor, but this is my understanding of the issue.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    16. Re:Parents should be liable by geekmux · · Score: 2

      Am I protected if my religious beliefs say I need to sacrifice a virgin? Certainly not..

      Well, I suppose that depends on how the virgin was "sacrificed", now wouldn't it...

      ...so why should I be able to gamble with my child's life based on religious beliefs?

      Because your religion says it's not a gamble. At all. It's God's will. The question for the courts is when will they start defining the death of a child as criminal. The risk of non-vaccination is not merely endangerment to the public, but can also be viewed as murder in the case of a child who doesn't know better.

      Furthermore, they are MY religious beliefs, not my child's. Who is to say my child is going to give a crap about my religion when he grows up.

      Uh, your religion does, by ensuring your child will go to [insert eternal damnation definition here] if they don't.

      Sorry, just wanted to clarify exactly how religious zealots justify their stance today, and how that logic perpetuates through generations.

    17. Re:Parents should be liable by Falos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Schools?

      Personally, I'd expect to see signs on every office, library, store, business, government building, restaurant, laundromat, bowling alley, etc etc etc that say "NO SHIRT NO SHOES NO LEPERS"

    18. Re:Parents should be liable by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Unless you are ready to pull the trigger of the gun of force.

      Fine, don't wanna vaccinate your kids, they shouldn't be allowed in public schools. This is a nice, fair solution. If people want to make their kids a vector for eradicated diseases (hey it's their "right") they should make other arrangements for education.

      Sure, sounds fair.

      Although I'm struggling to understand how a public school ban will do fuck-all to truly protect the masses.

      In other words, Disneyland isn't a public school...

    19. Re:Parents should be liable by Maritz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't (and didn't!) help with Disneyland I agree. But it might be able to persuade some of the less-rabid or on-the-fence parents to get their kids vaccinated.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    20. Re:Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lets try an example.

      Lets say I am deathly afraid of flying as there is a slight chance the plane will crash and I'll die. So somehow I end up on a plane, when I come to I freak out and run for the plane door, about to open it in mid flight. Possibly causing the very crash I am afraid of. Should other passengers be allowed to "pull the trigger of the gun of force" and prevent me from potentially killing them all? (Ohh and BTW what libertarian blog did you get that gem of a phrase from?)

      When you are scared of something that never happen, and your illogical beliefs are actually putting others at danger. Your fear of autism is unfounded, others fears of your walking talking incubator infecting those who cannot be vaccinated is very well founded. I actually believe it is remiss of society to allow you to continue with your delusions. If you wish to opt out then the said incubator should not be allowed in public schools, eating establishments, playgrounds, theme parks, or anywhere else where close contact is routine. If you don't like that then you should bite the bullet and get your kids the shot.

    21. Re:Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nevermind schools. The unvaccinated should not be allowed in *any* public places.

    22. Re: Parents should be liable by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Informative

      As the parent of a child with autism, the "vaccines cause autism" crowd triply annoys me.

      1. They take funding that should go to diagnosis/treatment and send it to Yet Another Study that will yet again show no link. (Or worse: Advocating "treatments" that are a baby step shy of torture.)

      2. They fear monger autism such that you'd think your child would be better off dead than autistic. I know plenty of parents of kids on the spectrum. Some with pretty severe issues. None would rather their kids were dead.

      3. They make it hard to support autism societies because you need to first weed out the ones dedicated to "proving" an autism-vaccine link.

      The sooner these people accept that autism and vaccines have no link, the better for everyone.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    23. Re:Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More like if they don't want to vaccinate their children, they ought to emigrate to say, the parts of Africa where there isn't any immunization. That would make their children equal with the locals, and we all want equality, right? And incidentally where those diseases still occur.

    24. Re:Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am 52 years old and was born in England. I had an uncle who I never met because he died of Diphtheria in the post WW2 period when he was just ten. This was not uncommon in England at the time. Vaccines eradicated this. How this blight can possibly come back now is just is beyond belief.

    25. Re:Parents should be liable by Sique · · Score: 0

      Exaggerating and calling people names make sure that your arguments appear well-balanced and thoughtful, and you in no way will be confused with a zealous nutter, right?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    26. Re:Parents should be liable by ColdWetDog · · Score: 0

      How about parents who smoke in the house? You can prove that by checking conicotine levels in the kid's urine. There are are number of distinct parental behaviors that can demonstrably harm children.

      You gonna put everybody in jail?

      Let Uncle Nanny raise the kids?

      This is an imperfect world. Get used to it.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    27. Re:Parents should be liable by Warhaven · · Score: 2

      I strongly think that parents who elect to not vaccinate their children (absent a documented medical condition preventing safe vaccination) should be liable for child endangerment. This is reckless behavior that is reasonably likely to result in bodily harm to another human being. This is a public safety issue with a clear and benign and effective solution. Those who opt out should be liable for the consequences of their actions.

      Good luck going against religious beliefs that curtail vaccinations. That "endangerment" has one hell of an establishment in the community.

      There is already precedence in court (US, Canada, and abroad) overruling the objections of Jehova's Witness parents with regard to blood transfusions. A quick Altavista will reveal many cases, as recently as this year (in favor of the child, not the parents). It's not inconceivable that these ruling could extend to cover vaccines as well, if someone (or agency) were to actually bring a lawsuit against the irresponsible parent.

    28. Re:Parents should be liable by chilenexus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with that argument is that the "parents" in this case are not qualified to make that decision. They don't have the education nor the data to determine whether or not their child might be susceptible to one of those "serious side effects" that may strike 1/1000 of a percent, at most. When considering that the potential equivalently-bad-or-worse consequences from the diseases themselves have percentages on the left side of the decimal point, they are avoiding a slim chance of something rare by almost guaranteeing a bad outcome if their child gets exposed. And they volunteer their child into the service of exposing other people to that illness.

      If we didn't have the anti-vaxxers or the people who think vaccines are a plot for some kind of non-microscopic genocide, we'd probably have a few less diseases in the world to worry about or continue vaccinating against. After all, how many people get a small pox vaccination these days?

    29. Re:Parents should be liable by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      it should not be up to the state (i.e. taxpayers) to foot the bill to take care of the kid.

      Man, do I hate these abstract arguments with a passion.

      I'll simplify your argument for you: "I'm perfectly fine with innocent children suffering and dying."

      You're not punishing parents, you're punishing kids.

    30. Re:Parents should be liable by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 1

      Since all you can talk about when people are DYING of PREVENTABLE diseases, is a tired old tone argument, do feel free to eat a bag of infectious ward waste.

    31. Re:Parents should be liable by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 2

      Since you're obviously an antivaxxer moron, I'll spell it out.

      In almost every other case, the bad effects of bad parenting stop with the kids.

      But in this case, their precious little walking sacks of infection can toddle off outside of home septic home and spread their diseases far and wide.

      And if you don't think that's a problem that needs solving, you don't think at all.

    32. Re:Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll be ok. Part of people suddenly having common sense will be that teaching children religion will also be considered child abuse.

    33. Re:Parents should be liable by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      just fyi altavista was bought by yahoo which is now powered by bing

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    34. Re:Parents should be liable by matfud · · Score: 2

      Add in Measles, mumps and rubella.

      All nasty and they do maim and kill. Think chicken pox and how well that spreads. Now try measles and how that spreads (far faster)

      I fear that many do not know the harm that these diseases caused. .

    35. Re:Parents should be liable by 0123456 · · Score: 0

      Fine, don't wanna vaccinate your kids, they shouldn't be allowed in public schools.

      I thought the whole point of a vaccine was that it prevented your kids from catching these diseases? If it doesn't do that, why bother?

      Besides, many people would consider their kids being banned from government schools a bonus.

    36. Re:Parents should be liable by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      I have seen, and heard of other cases, where doctors' offices put up a sign in the waiting area that non-vaccinated children should be kept in a different place (another room or the hall, depending on what's available), so as not to endanger other children who are obviously at the doctor because they are already immuno-compromized (i.e. sick).

    37. Re:Parents should be liable by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      If you don't like that then you should bite the bullet and get your kids the shot.

      I prefer:

      If you don't like that then you should bite the bullet and get your kids shot.

    38. Re:Parents should be liable by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      I strongly think that parents who elect to not vaccinate their children (absent a documented medical condition preventing safe vaccination) should be liable for child endangerment. This is reckless behavior that is reasonably likely to result in bodily harm to another human being. This is a public safety issue with a clear and benign and effective solution. Those who opt out should be liable for the consequences of their actions.

      Would you support also eliminating the immunity from liability that has been granted to pharmaceutical companies for vaccines? Would you include mandates for things like Gardasil even for boys (which Merck & Co have been promoting)? Who do you hold responsible when a mandated vaccine proves to be defective (like happened with RotaShield), or has manufacturing issues that causes problems, which happens with vaccines more than any other drug). If a parent gets a vaccine for their child that causes a problem, and since you can't go after the manufacturer, would you charge the parents for endangerment then, too?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    39. Re:Parents should be liable by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Vaccines aren't 100% effective, otherwise you're right that it wouldn't be an issue.

      There are also people who can't use vaccines due to allergies, and the idea is they are protected via "herd immunity" -- basically if enough people are vaccinated, then disease can't get a foothold and spreading it is much harder.

      I'm not sure how I feel about that case, because to me if you're allowing people to go to public school without vaccination because they are allergic, then you're admitting it's not a safety issue to have some percentage of unvaccinated people.

      I think people should be able to choose to not vaccinate voluntarily, and there should be a lottery system for which unvaccinated kids get into schools.

    40. Re:Parents should be liable by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      The GP is a perfect example of his own signature.

    41. Re:Parents should be liable by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 0

      Diphtheria has a very serious "side effect", and I suspect the percentage of patients who develop it is larger than the percentage that react to the vaccine.

      So as long as most people are okay, just accept whatever collateral damage is caused. Sure, okay. I'm glad this "Well I'm okay so screw the rest of you" attitude isn't applied to most other government programs.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    42. Re:Parents should be liable by stdarg · · Score: 1

      For someone who hates abstract arguments, you didn't waste any time abstracting the issue to "children suffering and dying."

      And come on.. be honest.. aren't you perfectly fine with innocent children suffering and dying? I think you must be, given that you're wasting your time here on slashdot instead of saving innocent children.

    43. Re:Parents should be liable by stdarg · · Score: 1

      In almost every other case, the bad effects of bad parenting stop with the kids.

      Are you kidding???

      1. Badly parented kids can become bad parents themselves, affecting the next generation
      2. Your badly parented kids may be in my kid's classroom, seeking negative attention
      3. Speaking specifically of health concerns that GP brought up, your badly parented kid who is exposed to second hand smoke makes my health insurance premiums go up

      There's very little you do that doesn't affect other people.

      But in this case, their precious little walking sacks of infection can toddle off outside of home septic home and spread their diseases far and wide.

      And if you don't think that's a problem that needs solving, you don't think at all.

      Hmm so how do you propose solving the problem of kids who can't get vaccinated because they are allergic, or have some immunologic disorder?

      Are they somehow less of a problem, even though they are also little walking sacks of infection who can spread their diseases far and wide?

    44. Re:Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exaggeration?

    45. Re:Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe what you will, but please allow others the same freedom. Saying that the personal choices of others affect you is innacurate and unfair (ie, "wrong"). If you want a given vaccine, get it - and leave others to make the same choice individually, and on behalf of their children. It is still the most appropriate place for that choice to happen and calling any such personal choice "child endangerment", even if its one you don't agree with, is nonsense. The idea that not choosing something that has never been required to live a full life for the majority of people should somehow be considered criminal is absurd.

      If only I could threaten you with liability for destroying my children's freedom. Also, nonsense.

      I will instead politely suggest that your brain is broken, or perhaps clouded by the smugness and hysteria of the mob.

    46. Re:Parents should be liable by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not punishing anyone. The parents are the ones doing the punishing.

      Unless of course you're suggesting it's up to everyone to watch out for everyone else in which case I get to yank cigarettes out of people's mouths since I'm footing their medical bills, get to post their faces at bars and liquor stores so the alcoholics can't but more and tie drug users down until they detox since, again, I'm the one footing their insurance and medical bills.

      Or are you saying people should be forced to pay for the stupidity of others rather than making the people more responsible for their own actions? In essence, completely abandoning personal responsibility in favor of socialism.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    47. Re:Parents should be liable by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 1

      *yawn* All of which is why I said almost every other case. Do at least try to keep up.

      Since you obviously need these things spelled out, none of your three Ever-So-Significant points are the direct causes of otherwise perfectly preventable deaths.

      Since you seem to need this spelled out too, we weren't discussing people who can't get vaccinated, we were discussing people who can get vaccinated but who are idiotic enough to refuse.

      Got any other nits to pick, or would you like to try staying vaguely on-topic for once, instead of these pathetic attempts at derailing?

    48. Re:Parents should be liable by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      then you're admitting it's not a safety issue to have some percentage of unvaccinated people.

      I suspect the safe percentage is much higher than the percentage of allergic people, and considerably lower than the percentage who are stupid.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    49. Re:Parents should be liable by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      How about parents who smoke in the house? You can prove that by checking conicotine levels in the kid's urine.

      Only once you've ruled out consumption of tomatoes and aubergine.

    50. Re:Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm actually inbetween. I'm pro-choice, but I think there needs to be conditions.

      1. Require that parent and child go see a doctor for each individual vaccination one wishes to opt out of. Get signed off after hearing the risks and benefits.
      2. Require daycares and schools to annually post the percent who are vaccinated. Those being staff and children/students.

    51. Re: Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Speaking as a guy who is on the autism spectrum (diagnosis of Aspergers - from a registered psychologist, I might add, not just a Doctor Google diagnosis - a couple of years ago): that crowd is, in essence, saying that people like me should not exist. That they would rather see hundreds of thousands dead, and millions crippled for life, than see one person like me exist in the world.

      I know that autistic children can be a burden. They demand more care, more attention, more specialist intervention early in life than a neurotypical child. I get that. I understand it. I have two friends who each have one autistic kid (one with a son, one with a daughter), and another who has two (her elder, a son, was vaccinated; her younger, a daughter, was not - not until long after the autism diagnosis was clear. In fairness, this was around the time of the MMR scare. Fuck you very much, Andrew Wakefield.) But as you say, these parents would rather see their kids alive with autism than dead from some vaccine preventable disease. And, for all the problems I've had through my life as a consequence of who I am - so would I.

      Seriously. Is autism the best these guys can do as a reason to not vaccinate? Penn and Teller debunked that a long time ago.

    52. Re:Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, don't touch the touch nor the child. By that I mean it was the choice of the parent(s) to not get their children vaccinated, it should not be up to the state (i.e. taxpayers) to foot the bill to take care of the kid.

      The cost equation is far more complicated. I live in Finland and my friend and his wife recently got fraternal twins and such pregnancies involve special considerations and may require highly specialized intervention to ensure that both fetuses develop normally. They had therefore been told to keep "bags packed" and check passport expiration dates so that they could leave on 12 hour notice if things developed that way because the specialist would be in the US, if needed. That's right, a transatlantic ambulance flight (+ whatever the specialist costs in the US) is a far cheaper option for Finnish taxpayers when the bigger picture is considered - both twins are born healthy that way and don't need more medical care than other children and they can grow up to become fully contributing taxpayers (instead of non-contributing ones due to medical problems). In my friend's case no trip was needed but his wife got to know some people who had to go via some facebook group for parents expecting twins here. So in the long run and when the bigger picture is considered, it is in society's interest to pay for intervention regardless of who (if anyone) is at fault. Many here would probably also argue the fairness argument that you have a right to see a specialist no matter how rare your condition is and a nation of five million is so small that it's simply infeasible to have every type of specialist available (I believe that adults too are in some cases sent abroad because of that).

    53. Re:Parents should be liable by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I think they should only be held accountable after harm has been proven. Victimless crimes are bad. I also do not think we, as a society, can demand what someone does to their body. Just like we should not be outlawing abortion... Now the parent, by right of parenthood, has the right - obligation really, to do what they see fit concerning their child so long as no harm is being done. I think they should accept accountability, however, and if harm is done they should be penalized. Does this mean that we have to wait until there is a victim? Yes. As cruel as it sounds, I am okay with that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    54. Re:Parents should be liable by KGIII · · Score: 1

      In addition, I suspect that the trivial number of people who choose to not get vaccinated will have little impact due to the afore mentioned herd immunity. We must first prove they are the vector and not the child who was unable to be vaccinated because the vaccine is not made without things like egg-white content.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    55. Re:Parents should be liable by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Parents are not and have never been infallible. Why are you expecting perfection in a imperfect host? You seem to be advocating logic in an illogical manner. Just accept that people are going to die, some for stupid reasons, and do your best with what you have.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    56. Re:Parents should be liable by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Does 'can't' or 'refusal' actually alter the outcome? No, not your opinion, does it actually affect the outcome? Can you prove the vector is 'refusal' and not 'can't?' Do you have any evidence that shows that 'can't' is less dangerous than 'refusal?'

      Keep in mind that I am pro-vaccine. I am not pro-draconian or authoritative force being used as a means to "think of the children." It may suck but shit happens. Much of that shit could have been prevented and much of it is the fault of somebody else. We will not achieve perfection even if we use draconian means to try to force our ideals onto other people. As much as I believe we should all be vaccinated I do not see how I can reasonably force someone to do so without being an authoritative ass. I would suggest greater education as well as providing adequate health care as social programs with potentially great benefits.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    57. Re:Parents should be liable by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It is funny how much hypocrisy this subject has. Many of these same people decry the singular premise of their argument. The basis, entirely, is limited to, "Think of the children." It is riddled with appeals to authority, ad hominem, strawmen, correlation and causation errors, and myriad other logical fallacies. However, no argument, however logical, will mean that a single mind was changed. Logic does not change opinions. It is okay to force medical procedures if it is one that they agree with. As much as I utilize and support vaccination I do not support draconian measures or appeals to authority as a way to force other people to conform to my beliefs.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    58. Re:Parents should be liable by stdarg · · Score: 1

      *yawn*

      Oh my, do you need a nap? That might explain your nonsensical reply to me.

      All of which is why I said almost every other case.

      Yes, you did, and that's wrong. That's why I replied to you. Virtually every case has effects that go beyond the kids.

      none of your three Ever-So-Significant points are the direct causes of otherwise perfectly preventable deaths.

      Oh I get it now. You're an idiot! You should have just said so.

      You said "the bad effects of bad parenting stop with the kids." No mention of preventable death. The person you replied to was talking about demonstrable harm to children... again, not preventable death, just harm.

      Now why are you pretending that you meant to narrow it from demonstrable harm to preventable death? Do you think that helps your argument? If you restrict the type of bad parenting we're talking about to "things that kill" then you're getting ludicrously incorrect on two fronts instead of one.

      First of all, bad parenting that kills children is far more likely to have effects that go beyond the immediate death of the child. So rather than "almost every other case" not having further effects, it is "almost every other case has tremendous effects on others." I mean you really can't get more wrong that you are now with your historical revision.

      Secondly, if we're talking about actual death instead of just harm or "bad effects" then anti-vaxxers pretty much drop off the map. Dying from easily preventable disease is very low on the list of stuff that kills kids. First they have to get the disease, which is still rare. Then they have die from the disease, which is also rare. Even in our rather crazy anti-vaxxer country, how many kids from that big measles outbreak in Disneyland? In the meantime, how many have died from, say, homicide -- which, in children, is often related to bad parenting?

      Since you seem to need this spelled out too, we weren't discussing people who can't get vaccinated, we were discussing people who can get vaccinated but who are idiotic enough to refuse.

      This is just sad.

      You said the problem is little sacks of disease walking around. And I agree.

      But you seem to not understand that the reason they aren't vaccinated doesn't actually make a difference in terms of their being out there walking around potentially spreading disease.

      You are a demonstrated idiot, so let me spell it out a little more. It doesn't matter if it's a religious objection, an allergy, or a vaccine that just didn't work for that person -- the person is still a little sack of disease walking around, and that's a problem.

      Now perhaps what you meant was the moral problem of people who intentionally endanger others. But that's not what you said. Do try to keep up with your own posts.

      Got any other nits to pick

      I enjoy putting people in their place when they talk a bunch of nonsense while trying to sound clever. So if you want to put forward another stupid comment, I'll be happy to reply!

      or would you like to try staying vaguely on-topic for once, instead of these pathetic attempts at derailing?

      I don't get it, is this some type of ironic humor? My post wasn't off topic, but attempting to derail the conversation by claiming that I derail conversations.. it's kind of funny, but also not funny. I think it's probably just you being an idiot again.

    59. Re:Parents should be liable by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with vaccines was their unbridled success. Because vaccines eliminated those terrible diseases and all that remains are distant memories from a dying generation; you have functional retards that publish crap like this: http://www.amazon.com/Melanies...

    60. Re:Parents should be liable by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Somehow I doubt this. Homeschooling is a growing trend.

      If you don't trust what the government says about vaccines; do you think you would trust the education from the government?

    61. Re:Parents should be liable by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you have any evidence that shows that 'can't' is less dangerous than 'refusal?'

      Easy, what are the numbers of anti-vaxxer morons vs. the numbers of people who have actual medical reasons not to vaccinate? Dimes to dollars the former is more numerous than the latter.

      Even if anti-vaxxers aren't more numerous, they have already had demonstrable negative impact on public health, as shown by the obvious fact that infectious diseases were not recurring in the population prior to the recent rise of anti-vaxxer lunacy.

    62. Re:Parents should be liable by crbowman · · Score: 1

      If your argument is that it won't fix the problem (Disneyland) but it might persuade then you're not trying to be fair you're trying to be punitive towards people that don't do what you want. When their are so many other better arguments you'll have to forgive me if I completely ignore your suggestion if that's the argument you want to make for vaccines.

    63. Re:Parents should be liable by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 1

      It's hilarious that you've deluded yourself into believing that your desperate little attempts at changing the topic might actually have some sort of significance.

      Here, have a reality check: unlike you with your pitiable fixation on selective quoting, most of the rest of the page is actually managing to talk about about the topic of TFA, the literally life-and-death issue of the recent rise in entirely preventable diseases killing people, traceable to the equally the recent impact of antivaxxer lunacy on public health.

      *yawns again* I suppose this is what I get for feeding a troll. No more food for you from me. Toddle off back under your bridge and starve.

    64. Re:Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it should not be up to the state (i.e. taxpayers) to foot the bill to take care of the kid.

      Man, do I hate these abstract arguments with a passion.

      I'll simplify your argument for you: "I'm perfectly fine with innocent children suffering and dying."

      You're not punishing parents, you're punishing kids.

      I second that by pointing out your rights stop where the rights of others begin.

      So when there is another Tuberculosis outbreak at Principia College, because all the hyper religious idiots over there are not smart enough to get vaccinated and "herd immunity" is compromised, thereby creating a worse epidemic than would have happened in the first place... Who is to blame? Principia primarially, for being christian scientist idiots, but the local government also for allowing that shit to go on and create a public health hazard.

    65. Re:Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I'm not punishing anyone. The parents are the ones doing the punishing.

      Unless of course you're suggesting it's up to everyone to watch out for everyone else in which case I get to yank cigarettes out of people's mouths since I'm footing their medical bills, get to post their faces at bars and liquor stores so the alcoholics can't but more and tie drug users down until they detox since, again, I'm the one footing their insurance and medical bills.

      Or are you saying people should be forced to pay for the stupidity of others rather than making the people more responsible for their own actions? In essence, completely abandoning personal responsibility in favor of socialism.

      By your logic I am footing the medical bill for your head injury too.. *Punches you HARD in the face!

    66. Re:Parents should be liable by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      Reckless endangerment is not victimless. The victims are those you recklessly endanger.

      If we criminalized not having vaccines -- and I don't go that far (yet) -- the victim would be "everybody else" since you're a walking biological weapon.

      This is similar to how attempted murder is still a crime even if you miss with your sniper rifle. I absolutely do not think it is always reasonable to wait until actual harm is done.

      The problem we have here is that the rights of the child are being represented by two proxies: the government and the parents. It's widely (though not universally) agreed that both these groups have some claim over the child's welfare. The government can take children away from unfit parents, and whether or not that is used overzealously some parents are seriously unfit. On the other hand, parents get to make all kinds of choices for their kids, even at the inconvenience of government institutions.

      The government has soundly listened to reason and decided that these vaccines are for everybody, and are so vitally important as to be subsidized. Most parents are in perfect agreement. Some few are taking the opposite path, and that's where the struggle lies.

    67. Re:Parents should be liable by matfud · · Score: 1

      Is that for real? Sometimes I wish I could sensor this kind of trash. Well I do not really A question of what do you chose. Do you let people decide for themselves? . Not an easy question. when it comes to vaccinations.

    68. Re:Parents should be liable by KGIII · · Score: 1

      A willingness to bet is not evidence. It is not that I do not agree that people should be vaccinated. I disagree with the draconian methods proposed here. I suggest education and encouragement. More so than we do now. We simply should not do this by way of force. We should also be certain to prove that it is a problem that justifies intervention.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    69. Re:Parents should be liable by Maritz · · Score: 1

      If your argument is that it won't fix the problem (Disneyland) but it might persuade then you're not trying to be fair you're trying to be punitive towards people that don't do what you want. When their are so many other better arguments you'll have to forgive me if I completely ignore your suggestion if that's the argument you want to make for vaccines.

      So if it doesn't fix all problems, ever, it isn't worth doing? Kids mainly transmit diseases at school. Schools are disease incubators. If you don't think it's appropriate to require people to be vaccinated at public schools there isn't much anyone can say to you about it, I suspect.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    70. Re:Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that the trivial number of people who choose to not get vaccinated will have little impact due to the afore mentioned herd immunity.

      And you would be wrong. This has been discussed and studied a lot and yes, anti-vaxxers are destroying herd immunity all over the states.

    71. Re:Parents should be liable by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      It's for real. The author is delusional.

    72. Re: Parents should be liable by cluemore · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry for you and your family. autism is everywhere now. in the last 20 years it's gone from one in hundred thousand to one in fifty. Everybody, myself included, either has asd, has a relative with it, or knows someone with it. They like to say it's genetic, but it's not. It didn't exist in previous generations, and it does not exist presently in countries without pediatric vaccinations.

      in the last year a CDC whistleblower has come forward, and is testifying before congress. you must have heard of him. Yes, vaccines cause autism. The CDC said so. Not to mention the vaccine court in the US, and a court in italy, etc, etc. You don't have to look hard to find well referenced articles about this. Follow the links and you'll find Dr Thompson's letter of confession, and tapes of him discussing what exactly the CDC has done.

      here's a link for the CDC whistleblower. Dr. William Thompson

      also, Dr. William Thompson.

      the simpsonwood tapes have been out for years, where big-pharma and the cdc plotted out how to hide the autism connection. The corrupt and venal CDC not only sat on this info for years, but invested your tax dollars in every scheme possible to hide and obfuscate this truth.

      it should be simple. mercury is a neurotoxin. we know this. if the vaccine vial falls on the floor and breaks, you bring in the hazmat suits. inject it into small babies - it will damage them, no doubt about it. it's mercury - what do you expect? now, as to whether you diagnose it as autism or minimata disease, that would be a different matter. that's a regulatory capture issue.

    73. Re: Parents should be liable by cluemore · · Score: 1

      here's a better link about simpsonwood. This has the simpsonwood transcript.

      http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/chapter2.html

      i challenge you to read that and not come away with the conclusion that the CDC is corrupt and venal.

    74. Re: Parents should be liable by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      There is no mercury in US vaccines except for very few such as the flu vaccine. And the mercury that is in those is different than the kind of mercury that injures people. The mercury that goes into vaccines (again, a very small group) gets processed by a person's body and removed in a matter of days. It is such a small amount and leaves so fast that it doesn't have time to accumulate.

      As for the hazmat suit claim: One year, while getting our flu vaccines, my son flinched, the needle came out of his arm, and the vaccine squirted across the office instead of into my son. There were no hazmat suits. No special calls to people to clean it up. They just moved on to try again with him.

      There have been tons of studies looking into an autism-vaccine link and they all have shown that there is none. The people that claim there are tend to be clinging to the discredited and disproven Wakefield study. I know I'm not going to convince you (just like you won't convince me). You've probably made up your mind because you read a few blogs touting the "evils" of vaccines. Hard science shows that vaccines don't cause autism, though, and their risks are much smaller than the risks of the diseases they prevent.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    75. Re:Parents should be liable by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      It would be almost impossible to prove murder. The best you might get is negligent homicide, but even that's a tough sell. It's hard tying a direct causal line between non-vaccination and death, when so many other non-vaccinated children do not die. Yeah, from a medical point of view, it's negligence. From a legal viewpoint? Whole 'nother can o'worms.

      --
      That is all.
    76. Re: Parents should be liable by cluemore · · Score: 1

      thanks for those points.

      re hazmat suits - i was talking about a 10 dose vial falling on the floor and breaking, not a squirt on a shirt.

      up until 2002 or so, most if not all vaccines had mercury in them. the form of mercury is thimerosol, which is a disinfectant used in the manufacturing of vaccines. This is extremely toxic. I read of cases where there was an improper application of thimerosol to disinfect a new born umbilical are and it killed the child.

      here's a table of mercury content in (some) vaccines, from 2013. more or less current. follow this link: http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm. You'll notice that, yes, the flu vaccine has mercury in it, but it is not the only one. Also showing up is a meningococcal vaccine.

      presently, mercury (thimerosol) is used in any multidose vial. the flu shots are usually packaged in 10 dose vials. those have mercury in them. if you can get a flu shot in a one dose vial, then it probably won't have any mercury in it. just aluminum salts and all the other toxins they use to really rev up the vaccine.

      there is no form of mercury that is not harmful. i understand the relationship to be linear with quantity. mercury does not just pass through the body, not thimerosol and not any of the other kinds of mercury that cause mad hatter disease, minimata disease, grassy narrows disease, and so on.

      the links i posted are good, well referenced and not hard to read. there is no reference there to the wakefield study. however, wakefield is one of the people quoted or commenting in the links I posted. I've probably read more about the wakefield thing than most. i wouldn't say his theory has been discounted so much as it's been smeared. You'd never know there were other names on the study, but wakefield was the only one without insurance to defend himself.

      if you were to read up on the simpsonwood thread, you would find how the cdc and big-pharma hacked at the data until the autism link disappeared. read up on thompson and find out how big-pharma used tobacco science to make it look like there's no link. they funded a lot of bad science and meta studies.

      we've all seen bad science before made in the service of profits. the tobacco companies got by for years saying smoking wasn't bad for you, in fact they'd tell you it was even good for you. they had lots of (paid for) studies published to prove it too, but it was all lies.

      independent science is what's needed.

      evils of vaccines, eh? I didn't say that. the thing that really gets me is the simpsonwood conference. now that was evil, and it was done by evil people, not a vat of some snake oil.

    77. Re:Parents should be liable by stdarg · · Score: 1

      It's hilarious that you've deluded yourself into believing that your desperate little attempts at changing the topic

      You should reflect more.

      Here, have a reality check: unlike you with your pitiable fixation on selective quoting

      Selective quoting.. ahh.. the bane of idiots who say one thing, mean something else, stick fervently to it, and pretend that's what they originally said. Oh no, now he quoted me! The bastard!

      the literally life-and-death issue of the recent rise in entirely preventable diseases killing people, traceable to the equally the recent impact of antivaxxer lunacy on public health.

      You're seriously an idiot. You can't distinguish between what the article is about, what the "whole page" is about, and what an individual thread is about.

      No more food for you from me. Toddle off back under your bridge and starve.

      Ohhhh burn!

      You sound so stupid it's unbelievable. The weirdest part though is how you're pretending that you know me.

      But anyway, I'm glad you're not going to "feed" me any more dumb comments. Hopefully.

      Oh shit here comes another reply accusing me of quoting you, and changing the topic!

    78. Re:Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for the polite reply. I am still concerned by the easiness with which people want to give away the rights of others. Even a doctor can be wrong, and I would not ever willingly abdicate my own interest in my health and body... It should go without saying the forcefully violating someone's body is wrong. If lack of information is the problem, promotion of information is the most effective and appropriate avenue of influence since it violates no one's rights. Side-stepping personal choice, or advocating for the same, only erodes all of our individual rights and rewards bullying. If you can successfully argue against my right to choose which vaccines I or my children get (even if it's "just" mandatory propaganda) then I, and everyone else, would be equally justified in reaching into yours.

      "Herd immunity" is no more attainable than a 0% crime rate, and aiming for it will cost more than anyone can afford. Case-in-point, the costs of preventing "Terrorism." (Vaccines aren't even 100% effective, and can often make you contagious; ie, unvaccinated children in school should be wary of the vaccinated, not the other way around... ) We can disagree all day about vaccines, and life goes on. More relevant than any vaccine: we need to protect each other's rights, not walk all over them.

      The idea that parents should be liable, or that vaccination should be a barrier to education just promotes classes, social divisions, and inequities. That is the offramp to an unjust society.

      I encourage everyone reading to stay on the freeway.

    79. Re: Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. Sounds great. But get rid of the statutes that prevent lawsuits against the FDA regarding vaccinations.

    80. Re: Parents should be liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dr. William Thompson is hardly a whistleblower. He screwed up his statistical analysis, and then when people who were actually qualified to do it properly (he isn't - no strong statistical training) did the analysis correctly, the false signal he made went away. You might try checking out this link: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/08/29/the-cdc-whistleblower-william-w-thompson-final-for-now-roundup-and-epilogue/

      Things are only toxic at certain doses. There is a safe quantity of mercury, and what type of mercury it is definitely influences that amount. They don't bring in hazmat suits to clean up broken multidose vaccine vials; they may wear extra protective clothing because of the broken glass, but you don't need a hazmat suit.

  5. How is the virus even still around? by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

    The only way I even know the name is because George Bailey saved the pharmacist from poisoning a kid with it in "It's a Wonderful Life." And the last recorded case of it in Europe was decades ago. So did it go hide out for a while in Africa or something?

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:How is the virus even still around? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Maybe the virus has access to a NotTardis.

    2. Re:How is the virus even still around? by 0123456 · · Score: 0

      So did it go hide out for a while in Africa or something?

      Many diseases that were rare or unknown in developed European nations twenty years ago have been making a comeback lately. The reasons are obvious, but no-one is allowed to talk about them in SJW^H^H^Hpolite society.

    3. Re:How is the virus even still around? by koan · · Score: 1

      How is it around?

      The existing vaccine does not protect against infection, but against the effects of the toxin that the bacterium produces.

      Appears people get infected, but do not suffer if they have been vaccinated, so the bacterium continues to exist and infect humans, and possibly other vectors as well.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    4. Re: How is the virus even still around? by jstomel · · Score: 2

      Diphtheria is a bacteria, not a virus. When it isn't in people it can just go live in the environment.

    5. Re:How is the virus even still around? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      The only way I even know the name is because George Bailey saved the pharmacist from poisoning a kid with it in "It's a Wonderful Life." And the last recorded case of it in Europe was decades ago. So did it go hide out for a while in Africa or something?

      George: Tell that poster to eff off.

      Clarence: But that poster never posted! You weren't there to stop Mr. Gower and that kid died, and nobody ever made a movie because you weren't there to be a subject, so the poster never saw it and had nothing clever to say!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    6. Re:How is the virus even still around? by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 2

      So did it go hide out for a while in Africa or something?

      Many diseases that were rare or unknown in developed European nations twenty years ago have been making a comeback lately. The reasons are obvious, but no-one is allowed to talk about them in SJW^H^H^Hpolite society.

      "With so many Africans in Greece, at least the West Nile mosquitoes will eat home made food!"
      That joke about the West Nile virus posted on twitter by the Greek triple jumper athlete Voula Papachristou few days before the 2012 Olympics was the reason to be expelled from the games...

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    7. Re: How is the virus even still around? by jonnythan · · Score: 1

      I don't think it survives in the environment, and it doesn't seem to have any animal hosts. There are places in the world where it's endemic and somewhat common, and it can live in the pharynx of vaccinated or asymptomatic humans. So it probably comes into a country from an immigrant or traveler with some frequency, it just doesn't spread because of vaccination.

      Then there's this kid.

    8. Re:How is the virus even still around? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's in the the fine article:

      "The existing vaccine does not protect against infection, but against the effects of the toxin that the bacterium produces."

    9. Re:How is the virus even still around? by Maritz · · Score: 2

      The reasons are obvious, but no-one is allowed to talk about them in SJW^H^H^Hpolite society.

      Something to do with gaming journalism?

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    10. Re: How is the virus even still around? by jstomel · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't think it survives in the environment, and it doesn't seem to have any animal hosts. There are places in the world where it's endemic and somewhat common, and it can live in the pharynx of vaccinated or asymptomatic humans. So it probably comes into a country from an immigrant or traveler with some frequency, it just doesn't spread because of vaccination.

      Then there's this kid.

      From microbewiki (emphasis added): "C. diphtheriae is a Gram-positive, aerobic, nonmotile, toxin-producing, rod-shaped bacteria belonging to the order Actinomycetales, which are typically found in soil, but also have pathogenic members such as streptomyces and mycobacteria."

    11. Re:How is the virus even still around? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mr gower, you don't know what you're doing!

    12. Re:How is the virus even still around? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      seems to be in Asia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

    13. Re:How is the virus even still around? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      There are a quite a few pathogens that can exist outside of the human body and hence will never be exterminated. Some are deadly, like tetanus. For others, like the case at hand, the vaccination does not prevent the infection, but its grave effects.

      Not being vaccinated is asking for serious consequences, frequently including death.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    14. Re: How is the virus even still around? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your knowledge of biology is suspect, citizen. Are you a registered authorized researcher?

    15. Re:How is the virus even still around? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Many diseases have animal reservoirs they can keep a population in if there are no available human hosts around. Sometimes the animal is the preferred host and the human infections/deaths are a side effect. In cases like those, immunization alone won't eradicate the disease, not unless we figure out a way to start immunizing wild animals/insects. For diseases that are human specific like smallpox, there is a chance to eradicate the disease entirely with a global immunization campaign.

      That said, mass vaccinations for diseases with animal hosts can still make a huge difference. It's a lot easier to fight a disease when it only shows up in sporadic cases where people live near wild animals. It does mean that we won't be free of Malaria or West Nile for a long time sadly.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    16. Re: How is the virus even still around? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diphtheria vaccines also target the toxin, not the bacteria. Getting the vaccine doesn't mean you aren't a carrier of the bacteria (and arguably makes you more likely to be a carrier, since the toxin had to be isolated from something...).

  6. Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated by sjbe · · Score: 1

    So did it go hide out for a while in Africa or something?

    Completely eradicating a pathogen from the globe is absurdly difficult. So far as I know we've only actually managed to do it once for a pathogen in the wild (smallpox) and even then we still have small stores of it in bio-weapons labs. You have to basically vaccinate the entire human population which is a logistical nightmare to accomplish. It's not too hard in wealthier countries with robust healthcare systems but in poor remote areas with low levels of education it can be extremely difficult to get to every last village and town and person.

    1. Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      I'm skeptical it can even be done at all. So it's said that smallpox is gone. But.. it's just too big of a big world.

      Besides the know laboratories there has to be somewhere that some viri have somehow managed to be preserved. Maybe a vial that has long since lost it's label, now stuck in an attic or basement waiting to be sold with a pile of antiques. Maybe it's in a body that has managed to be burried in just the perfect environment to preserve it. Maybe it's in a stain on some old antique, totally not obvious by site after decades of just sitting there that it's source was a bodily fluid.

      Wherever it is it's only a matter of time before someone wakes it up.

    2. Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 0

      Yeah, man, totally.

      And, relatedly, does anyone really think the dodo is extinct? Surely they must be somewhere, maybe being mistaken for pigeons or chickens or something.

      Also dinosaurs. Maybe the abominable snowman's really a raptor or brontosaurus and just no one's gotten a good look.

      Eventually someone's going to find one of these supposedly "extinct" animals and blow the sheeple's minds. Nothing can ever really go "extinct". It's just too big of a big world.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    3. Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Viruses generally are not as stable as your story posits. Spores maybe, but that's a whole different thing.

    4. Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated by Maritz · · Score: 1

      While you could well be right, every year that passes would seem to make it less likely that smallpox is going to make a comeback (at least from natural reservoirs).

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    5. Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to feed your skepticism, but there are places in Norhtern Europe (Netherlands) that are so cold people buried there don't decompose. They dug up victims of the 1918 Spanish Flu in order to study the virus and how current strains could mutate to cause another epidemic.

      They've stopped burying people there IIRC, but its not impossible one of the people currently buried there had small pox.

    6. Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      no other natural reservoirs. this thing has been killing us for what, 12 millenia. They're pretty specific to the human animal.

    7. Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      That's pretty dumb. Comparing a virus to macroscopic animals.

    8. Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      Smallpox is still maintained in US and Russian laboratories. It was declared eradicated in 1980. The WHO wanted the last of the laboratory samples destroyed, but it has so far been delayed. Interesting history in that link.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    9. Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Most will die quickly without a host to reproduce in. I do know that.

      But... a small number will not. I certainly don't believe that every place a smallpox victim has been or every gravesite where one was buried still contains viri. But there were a lot of hosts before it was 'exterminated'. I do think it's probably out there somewhere.

    10. Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated by pjt33 · · Score: 2

      And who knows how many more forgotten samples are out there?

    11. Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

      Smallpox virus is reasonably stable when dried. There probably are graves where it still exists. We're pretty careful when opening graves, particularly old ones, though.

    12. Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated by KGIII · · Score: 1

      If I had to make a wild, uneducated, and completely from the hip guess about this, and I do not have to but I will anyhow because that is how it is done around here, then I would suggest the most likely host would be an animal that carries the virus without them being negatively impacted by the virus. If smallpox still exists (outside of labs) then I would guess that as the most likely place to find it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:Nearly impossible to get everyone vaccinated by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Exactly!

      Surely there is a body somewhere that will one day be discovered by someone who isn't careful. Maybe somebody died in a strange place and hasn't been found yet. Or a sick murder victim. Or maybe somebody will dig up a grave that just doesn't know any better.

      If we assume the virus is extinct forever and so don't immunize against it how far will it spread when this happens?

  7. Jenny McCarthy married Donnie Wahlberg... by Picass0 · · Score: 0

    ... so why are you taking medical advice from her?

    A Public Service Announcement from Get Your Brats Immunized.

  8. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In The Netherlands, the Bible Belt is the only place where the vaccination rate is not very close too 100%. Some orthodox protestants believe prevention of infectious disease is an unaccaptable interference with divine plans, so they choose to deny their children vaccines that could save their lives.

  9. at least he doesn't have autism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or mercury poisoning /s

    1. Re:at least he doesn't have autism by gweihir · · Score: 1

      None of which is going to happen with vaccinations. The Autism legend was caused by scientific fraud, perpetrated to promote some new vaccine. The one perpetrating it has by now been stripped of his PhD for gross scientific misconduct. But stupid people will believe whatever fits their messed-up world-view, no matter what evidence is presented to them. One of the reasons why stupid people have a higher risk of killing themselves or dependents by entirely avoidable problems.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  10. Odd comment by koan · · Score: 1

    "The right to vaccination is for children, not for the parents to decide."

    Is he saying the kid gets to decide?

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Odd comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A six year old child, after having everything explained to him by a qualified doctor... doesn't seem like a bad idea.
      Even small children care about their own life more than most adults care about others'.

    2. Re:Odd comment by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      No, he's saying that the kid's right to not be exposed to a deadly disease trumps the parent's right to force their religion/philosophy/stupidity onto the child.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    3. Re:Odd comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's saying that kids should choose, which doesn't make sense because no kid wants a needle inserted in the arm. There's no need to defend a bad quote.

      A better statement would have been "The right to force vaccination is for the government, not for the parents to decide."

    4. Re:Odd comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the translation is quite accurate, but just in case something I can't notice was missing in translation, what the general health secretary says is that vaccination is not a parent's right, it's a children's right. In other words, the boy had the right to be vaccinated and parents shouldn't have been able to prevent that.

    5. Re:Odd comment by IcyWolfy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We had the choice to get vaccines growing up (2nd grade, 6 y/o).
      They explained it to us, and most took it because of the dire warnings and videos of people with diseases.
      They showed us filmstrips from the 40s and 50s about measels, diphtheria, whooping cough, scarlet fever, ..., and that pretty much scared people more than the needles (which I would say didn't really bother half the class).
      For the few who didn't want to, they were just goaded into it by peer pressure of all their friends and classmates (either by comforting or mocking, depending on gender). Kids are cruel, and also don't want to be excluded for chickening out / being afraid (and then teased). It's pretty effective.

    6. Re:Odd comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he does not say that. Maybe the word "right" (derecho) has a slightly different meaning in English and Spanish but as a native Spanish speaker I can assure you that the secretary was saying that the kid had the right to be vaccinated, i.e.: he should have been vaccinated in spite of what their parents wanted because it's not the right of the parents (to decide) but the right of the kid (to be vaccinated). I don't know if you're familiar with the term "inalienable right" or even if it makes sense in English (Anglo-Saxon law) but it basically means that you cannot renounce that right. In Spain, a kid has the right to be fed, to have a home, to be schooled and access to healthcare; if the parents fail to provide that, the Government is forced to act and take custody.

    7. Re:Odd comment by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And he is right.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re:Odd comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking of the case where a kid wants to get vaccinated and his parents say "no". Then his right to vaccination has been violated. The problem is that there is no violation if the kid doesn't ask to be vaccinated, so we may end up with a relatively large fraction of kids who choose to not get vaccinated (or aren't even aware that vaccination exists).

      It's much better to call it an "obligation" like paying taxes, than a "right".

    9. Re:Odd comment by strikethree · · Score: 1

      When I was growing up, we had no choice...

      I dislike being forced to do anything, even if it is in my best interests, but I am genuinely GLAD that I was given vaccinations against polio, mumps, etc.

      Look at this for polio: https://www.google.com/search?...

      Why would ANYONE let their children risk this, no matter how minuscule the chance?

      Take your vaccines. Takes your vaccines. Take you fucking vaccines!

      If you want to skip on the yearly flu shot and do not work around vulnerable people, fine; but, take your vaccines!

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    10. Re:Odd comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that there is no violation if the kid doesn't ask to be vaccinated

      Again, no, that's not the case. If the kid doesn't want to go to school and the parents don't want to send the kid to school, the kid still has to go to school. Because the basic education is an inalienable right. Kids, in Spain, do not have obligations, but they have a fairly long list of inalienable rights. If the parents fail to comply with any of the kid's rights, the Government will take over.

    11. Re:Odd comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Among "right to be fed, to have a home, to be schooled and access to healthcare", you had to pick the misclassified one to make your argument. Being schooled is an obligation. The others are rights.

  11. Just require the vaccines to be admitted to school by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Why is this rocket science. Next issue.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  12. Nobody wants to be in a movie with Jim Carrey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... so why are you taking medical advice from him?

    A Public Service Announcement from Get Your Brats Immunized.

  13. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then clearly they don't treat the infections when they occur either, do they? Or is not endangering others an unforgivable sin, but treating your own only sends you to purgatory? If doctors were the same kind of shite people as the ones who don't vaccinate their children, they would just quarantine the kids and their families and let them die.

  14. And sure enough Jenny McCarthy is involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop the INSANITY!

    1. Re:And sure enough Jenny McCarthy is involved by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Just because Jenny's child has a serious condition doesn't mean she has the right to give thousands of other children a different serious condition.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  15. Why is slashdot promoting this topic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is slashdot promoting this topic? Does it have something to do with modern technology?

    1. Re:Why is slashdot promoting this topic? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      The modern era began approximately in the 16th century.

      So vaccines are modern technology that enough people regard are evil magic voodoo to impact the effectiveness of herd immunity in our "modern" communities.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  16. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It just demonstrates that stupidity can flourish in both religious and non-religious communities.

    It's still stupidity either way.

  17. Re:Deniers on the Left? by halivar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I didn't know there WAS a Bible Belt in Europe, especially the Netherlands. Here in the US, non-abortion-related medicine is usually without any religious controversy, save for the Christian Scientists (who are, depending on what angle you view them from, neither Christian nor scientific), a relatively small, fringe sect that believes that all medical care represents faithlessness.

    Here in the deep-south, there's a modern-day parable that goes around Christian circles that demonstrates the general philosophy in this regard: A man goes over a cliff overlooking treacherous waters and manages to grab hold of a thin root half-way down. In desperation he cries out to God, "Save me! Send me deliverence!" Having thus prayed, he resolves to place his trust in God. A man walks by the cliff and lowers a rope. "Grab the rope!" he says. The hanging man replies, "I cannot! I have placed my trust in the Lord, and I will await His deliverance." Next a boat drives by under the cliff. The man in the boat says, "Jump! I'll catch you!" The hanging man replies as he did to the first. Next, a rescue helicopter hovers nearby, and a man lowers a ladder. "Grab the ladder!" he says. Again the hanging man replies as he did to the previous two. Slowly, the hanging man loses his grip, falls into the swirling waters, and drowns. He arrives at heaven, meets God, and cries, "Why did you never answer my prayer?" To which God replies, "What are you talking about? I sent you a man with a rope, a boat, a helicopter..."

  18. You might want to check that data again... by denzacar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Bible Belt states have some of the highest AND the lowest vaccination rates.

    http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

    And as usual, it is probably a combination of factors which influence the anti-vaccination attitudes.
    Though one factor does seem to be common - clustering.
    I.e. It's social. Where there's one anti-vaxxer, there's more anti-vaxxer.

    Overall, national vaccination rates seem high: The median rate of coverage for the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, administered to most before entry into kindergarten, was 94.7 percent for the 2013-14 school year. But, as Schuchat points out, the rate is lower in communities where unvaccinated families tend to cluster. In some areas, low rates might have more to do with access to clinics than with beliefs about vaccinations.

    "The national estimates hide what's going on state to state. The state estimates hide what's going on community to community. And within communities there may be pockets," Schuchat said. "It's one thing if you have a year where a number of people are not vaccinating, but year after year in terms of the kids that are exempting, you do start to accumulate."

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:You might want to check that data again... by Calydor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where there's one anti-vaxxer, there's more anti-vaxxer.

      Just like infectious diseases.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:You might want to check that data again... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Where there's one anti-vaxxer, there's more anti-vaxxer.

      Just like infectious diseases.

      And rats.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    3. Re:You might want to check that data again... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2

      Memetic engineering.

    4. Re: You might want to check that data again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And fles, ticks and mosquitoes.

    5. Re: You might want to check that data again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Unvaccinated families tend to cluster"

      It seems to be that such clusters will eventually self-correct.

  19. This could be fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The right to vaccination is for children, not for the parents to decide."

    Lets extend that reasoning to all forms of informed consent and see how far we get. Pregnant 10 year olds declaring bankruptcy would make for some cracking tabloid headline.

    1. Re:This could be fun by Maritz · · Score: 1

      A more generous interpretation of what he's saying is that children have the right to be protected from disease. I agree with him.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  20. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, religious people are rarely very rational. If they were, they wouldn't be religious.

  21. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this rocket science. Next issue.

    Vaccines ARE required to get into some schools, which is why a lot of parents are homeschooling their kids. Now we've got these brain-donor parents as the primary teachers for their kids too ... what harm can come from that?!

  22. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's not rocket science. It's political science. To dismiss that is missing the point. In free societies, you cannot sweep stupid under the rug. You have to work around it.

  23. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Maritz · · Score: 1

    "Christian Scientists" are trying to punch a hole in time with sheer fucking irony, given what they believe, and their goddamn name.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  24. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would parents want to send their children to school when they can protect them from the big bad world by home schooling?

  25. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Karmashock · · Score: 0

    can you give me an example of a home school kid infecting anyone because of lack of vaccines? I haven't seen that outside of political screes.

    The issue is not fucking home schoolers. This kid wasn't a home schooler was he? The issue is schools not requiring the vaccines for admission.

    Half the nasty viral and bacterial outbreaks I've seen in the last few years hit the border states. THAT should be a clue to you. People crossing the border and not going through immigration or quarantine are going to have all sorts of fucking diseases.

    And whatever your attitude is on immigration, I think we can agree from a medical best practices stand point... that that is actually a bigger problem than the relatively tiny portion of the population that home schools and really I can't see any evidence that they've caused an outbreak... ever.

    I'm trying to be nice here... but I'm sort of annoyed that you went with such a biased narrative and entirely ignored other issues that actually much larger.

    In the case of the article, I would point out that this happened in SPAIN... not Norway. Are you aware what is happening in southern Europe these days? Huge illegal immigration from Africa. People just show up in boats by the thousands... no quarantine... no papers... no vaccinations... just show up and mix into the population.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Again, have any opinion on the immigration situation you want. From a viral and bacterial and paracitic vector stand point... you can't disagree with me. I have science on my side here. Fact. It is as much an issue as taking a dump and them without washing your hands going to perform surgery.

    But again... by all means... show me some examples of home schoolers spreading disease in the community. I'd like to see a case of it. And a couple incidents aren't going to be evidence of a pattern. Everyone spreads diseases. Even the vaccinated kids. The issue is their lack of vaccinations causing a disproportionate health risk? I doubt you can show evidence to that effect.

    We can't afford to be political and tribalistic when diseases come into the picture. They don't care what your politics are... A fascist, a communist, an anarchist, a socialist, a capitalist... to a disease they're all just people. It doesn't care what you believe.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  26. No, just no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, as much I agree that vaccination is a good idea, there's no point spouting stupidity as bad as the anti-vaxxers'. Point in case:

    "The right to vaccination is for children, not for the parents to decide."

    Nope. Children have parents exactly to tell them what to do and to make decisions the child cannot make by itself. You as a parent are supposed to make these decisions in the best interest of the child, but that is not quite the same as "is for children to decide".

    Besides, the supporting material in favour of vaccination is already too hard for many adults, who resort to uninformed superstition to say "no", so it's hard to see how even less educated and more gullible children would make better decisions here. "Lord of the flies", anyone?

    1. Re:No, just no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You totally missed the point. They're not saying the kid has the right to decide whether he's going to be vaccinated or not, they're saying the kid has the right to actually be vaccinated. The same way the kid has the right to be fed or the right to an education. As a parent, in Spain at least, you can't decide not to send your kids to school, it's their right to be schooled. If you fail to do this (feed or send your children to school), social services will remove your kids from your custody. Right and right to decide are two different things. Some rights are inalienable.

  27. who pays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so the Spanish taxpayers, via socialized medicine will pay for the critical care, and for the Russian serum, for the decision made by these idiot parents. They should have to cough up the money to pay for this lunacy. Unfortunately, the child may pay with his life.

  28. Yes it is a public health and safety issue by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    how is it a public safety issue, the ones who do get vaccinated aren't at risk... so they only endanger themselves and likeminded folks

    Wrong. Not everyone can get vaccinated because some people legitimate medical conditions making it inadvisable. Sometimes they are too young. Sometimes they have allergy or other medical conditions that prevent their vaccination. These people depend on herd immunity to avoid the illness. If people start avoiding vaccines for non-medical reasons then these people who cannot be vaccinated are endangered by those who recklessly decide to avoid vaccination for no good reason.

    Furthermore diseases have a substantial and measurable cost to society. We have finite resources both financial and time to devote to treating diseases and if we waste them on something that could be solved with a cheap and safe vaccine then we necessarily cannot spend those medical and financial resources on something else. Should we spend a few dollars for a vaccine or thousands on a treatment. THAT is a public health issue.

    1. Re:Yes it is a public health and safety issue by KGIII · · Score: 1

      My kids were vaccinated and I think we should all get them vaccinated and maintain our own vaccines throughout our lives but I do not think you are an authoritative source to decide such things as "no good reason." Who are we to judge what is and is not good without an absolute knowledge of the future?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  29. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From a viral and bacterial and paracitic vector stand point... you can't disagree with me. I have science on my side here. Fact. It is as much an issue as taking a dump and them without washing your hands going to perform surgery.

    and what was your scientific argument? you didn't make one. if you want to project yourself as being knowledgeable on science, you need to actually show that you understand it - as opposed to just declaring yourself informed as you just did.

    there are many good arguments for mandatory vaccinations against a number of diseases, and pretty much no good arguments against the overwhelming majority of the vaccines that we have available. however you did not produce any of them in your comment. you've shown that you are content with grandstanding, now can you show that you have some ability to process information?

  30. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can you give me an example of a home school kid infecting anyone because of lack of vaccines?

    Measles at Disneyland. Home schooled children grow up, and they still are not vaccinated.

  31. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I didn't know there WAS a Bible Belt in Europe, especially the Netherlands. Here in the US, non-abortion-related medicine is usually without any religious controversy, save for the Christian Scientists (who are, depending on what angle you view them from, neither Christian nor scientific), a relatively small, fringe sect that believes that all medical care represents faithlessness.

    In general, religion does not play a major role in The Netherlands anymore, since the majority is not religious and most of those who are tend to be relatively liberal. Legalising euthanasia, for example, was also supported by a majority of christians in The Netherlands.

    There is, however, a 'slice' that runs from the southwest to the east where a significant fraction of the population are orthodox protestants. This area is commonly referred to as the Bible Belt (probably after the region with the same name in the U.S.). It largely follows the historical boundary between the part of the country that used to have a catholic majority and the part that had a protestant majority. Somehow the large-scale secularisation that happened in the rest of the country in the decades following World War II never happened in the Bible Belt. Many people still attend church twice on a Sunday, they adhere strictly to specific readings of the Bible, they do no do any non-religious activities on Sundays, etc. It is one of the few regions in Western Europe where new churches are being built regularly.

  32. Why punish them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Educating them would be more effective than punishing them.

  33. It doesn't just endanger the idiots by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Let nature take its course since that is what the parents wanted.

    Stupid argument because the consequences go beyond the idiots who avoid getting vaccinated. There are people cannot get vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons. There are people who are too young for a particular vaccine. No vaccine is 100% effective either and sometimes the protection disappears over time. By not getting vaccinated people are not only endangering their own family but the families of others.

    1. Re:It doesn't just endanger the idiots by KGIII · · Score: 1

      While I think vaccination is a wonderful thing (and would never avoid it) it seems that the argument against disallowing the choice is premised on, "Think of the children!" Your post is, well, exactly that. Forcing any physical act on another is, well, force. As much as I personally disagree with it, and I am aware of the potential ramifications, I am not comfortable forcing any medical procedure on anyone much like I am not comfortable disallowing medical procedures. I personally, for example, dislike abortion but I would never have the temerity to tell someone that they could not have one. My body, my rights. Their child, their rights - until said child reaches majority. I would probably support a law that allows unvaccinated children to punch their parents in the face, repeatedly - until tired, when they reach the age of majority.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:It doesn't just endanger the idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it seems that the argument against disallowing the choice is premised on, "Think of the children!"

      The argument is: "think of everyone else".

      Forcing any physical act on another is, well, force.

      And...?

      I am not comfortable forcing any medical procedure on anyone

      Vaccination is not a medical procedure.

      My body, my rights.

      Refusing vaccination is not just about your body, that's the thing. It is about your body and everybody else's health.

      Their child, their rights

      Also, no. Their child is not their property, he has the right to be immunized against those diseases whether his parents like it or not. For his own good and everybody else's.

  34. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    No. Vaccination rates are highest in the Bible belt, while they are lowest on the west coast.

    [citation needed]
    We keep hearing this. Please substantiate your assertion.

  35. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The highest rates of vaccination in the US are Mississippi and West Virginia.

    Funny that.

  36. Diphtheria vaccine doesn't prevent infection, by IcyWolfy · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Diphtheria vaccine doesn't prevent infection, it only immunizes against the effects of the toxin the bacteria produce.

    Thus, it's still around and kicking, it just doesn't kill people anymore as most people can fight off the infection on their own without the toxin wreaking havoc on their body. And most people won't even notice anything other than "flu-like symptoms" as all the effects of Diptheria are caused by the toxin, rather than the presence of the bacterial infection.

    The poor kid probably just got coughed on, or touched something and then cross-contaminated something he put in his mouth.

    1. Re:Diphtheria vaccine doesn't prevent infection, by jandrese · · Score: 1

      The Diphtheria vaccine doesn't prevent infection, it only immunizes against the effects of the toxin the bacteria produce.

      That's not how vaccines work.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Diphtheria vaccine doesn't prevent infection, by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      I actually don't know much about the diphtheria vaccine and am feeling too lazy to look it up, but yes, some vaccines only have you make antibodies that inactivate the bacterial toxins, which lets you stay alive long enough for the rest of your immune system to clear the bacteria via more conventional means. This makes extra sense in circumstances where the toxin is highly conserved but the bacterial cell wall is highly variable.

    3. Re:Diphtheria vaccine doesn't prevent infection, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tetanus vaccine, I believe is also against the toxin rather than the organism.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetanus

      "Unlike many infectious diseases, recovery from naturally acquired tetanus does not usually result in immunity to tetanus. This is due to the extreme potency of the tetanospasmin toxin. Even a lethal dose of tetanospasmin is insufficient to provoke an immune response.

      Tetanus can be prevented by vaccination with tetanus toxoid.[19] The CDC recommends that adults receive a booster vaccine every ten years,[20] and standard care practice in many places is to give the booster to any patient with a puncture wound who is uncertain of when he or she was last vaccinated, or if he or she has had fewer than three lifetime doses of the vaccine. The booster may not prevent a potentially fatal case of tetanus from the current wound, however, as it can take up to two weeks for tetanus antibodies to form.[21]"

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetanus_vaccine

    4. Re:Diphtheria vaccine doesn't prevent infection, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's how this one works, you moron.

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

    5. Re:Diphtheria vaccine doesn't prevent infection, by cluemore · · Score: 1
      here's a table of vaccine's and the inserts as pdf. http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm

      I see Diptheria toxoid all over the place in this table. other references seem to confirm that the 4 or 5 way vaccine contains the toxin and not components of the bacteria.

      The vaccine coverage rate for barcelona is 95%

      That would seem to be a nail in the coffin for this herd immunity theory. Where is patient zero?

      Other literature indicates that whatever immunity the vaccine confers dissipates after a few years. here: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/18/2/11-0987_article

      also in there, it says the largest cofactors for diptheria are: #1 war; #2 unemployment. Spain has a really high unemployment rate now. Also, note that eastern europe has high vaccination rates but a persistent diptheria problem. Seems to me eastern europe has a persistent war problem too.

      also in there, it says 75% of the people getting diptheria have already had the vaccine. Sounds like this vaccine has got snake oil as it's active ingredient. reading the product insert i see more than 50% of the people getting the vaccine suffer from side effects, with around 10% having very unpleasant consequences. safe? effective? strike out on both counts.

      the numbers there say that the vaccine reduces symptoms, but I suspect they put some lipstick on those stats.

      Most (75%) case-patients reported in the European Region were at least partially vaccinated, but most (74%) case-patients and (93%) infants who died were unvaccinated).

      they don't appear to have factored for the most vulnerable groups, who are also least likely to be vaccinated - the very old, the very young, and the very sick.

    6. Re:Diphtheria vaccine doesn't prevent infection, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean, where is patient zero? The kid in the story is patient zero, obviously.

      You're supposed to boost the diptheria vaccine every so often. The people who get it after having gotten the vaccine haven't boosted recently enough. It certainly could be more effective, but as long as you boost every 10 years or so, you should be okay.

  37. Re:Deniers on the Left? by halivar · · Score: 2

    /sigh... and as I do in every single thread this comes up in: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...

    Further data: 7 of the 8 most vaccinated states went to Romney in '12.

  38. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Compared to bringing eradicated diseases back in a big way, it's the lesser evil.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  39. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Measles outbreaks in China, where 99.99% are vaccinated.

    The pro-vaxxers are not very scientific. They resort to outright lies about how dangerous some diseases are to scare people into getting vaccines. They believe the "experts" who talk about how effective the vaccines are, claiming 95% when the Mumps vaccine is more like 30% and Merck covers up this fact. They also believe the "experts" who are always talking about how safe they are. But since they are soo safe, most of the vaccine harmed people are not counted as being harmed by the vaccine. So it is really circular reasoning that you use when you claim it is safe, but refuse to count the harm that is done.

  40. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    I actually did. I pointed out that the home schoolers make up a relatively tiny portion of the population and are therefore not relevant to herd immunity.

    Pay attention next time.

    As to mandatory vaccinations, I said they were fine for people that go to school. Require it when they show up. Getting snippy with me about home schoolers is idiotic since there aren't enough of them to be relevant. You might as well bitch about the Amish not getting vaccinated.

    Does that sound rational to you or fucking stupid?

    That's a rhetorical question. Its fucking stupid.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  41. Anti Vaxxers unite! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    Move to your own island, where you mab be around others with your insights.

    Pass around those lollipops so your kids all get those diseases

    Avoid all modern medicine.

    And let Darwin take care of it all.

    p.s. Take Jenny McCarthy with you.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  42. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The version I've heard has the man on the roof of a house surrounded by rising floodwaters, but is otherwise essentially the same.

    Then there's the devout guy who keeps praying to win the lottery, but never does. Finally after one particularly impassioned prayer, he hears a voice: "Meet me half way, buy a ticket!"

  43. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow, you are so kind, dear sir. obviously you are infinitely more knowledgeable than anyone else and hence don't need to actually partake in a rational discussion. hopefully the rest of the world can some day bask in the glow of all you can offer to them. it looks like you chose to start by sharing that here on slashdot, blessed we must all be for being witness to it.

  44. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Ryanrule · · Score: 0

    do it by dem vs repub. there are some VERY repub areas in california. lots of agri hicks, and lots of libertardians.

  45. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, they're basicly the neo-nazis of the bodily autonomy debate.

    If you don't want the government to be able to mandate medical procedures you end up having to defend the antivaxers even though the antivaxers are by and large themselves not particularly concerned with the issue of bodily autonomy beyond their right to refuse the one thing they arbitrarily decided to not like.

    The source of the concern is parents who're trying to be "cutting edge" with their child raising and get suckered by clickbait fear mongering "journalism". The more conservative parents tend to get their kids vaccinated because their parents got them vaccinated and they "turned out alright".

    The religious reasons thing, is just the legal loophole the antivaxers use to get what they want because it's really hard to get politicians who will stand up and fight against claims like "the school board wants to send my child to hell" rather than caving immediately.

  46. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Ryanrule · · Score: 0, Troll

    and by county? i think you have lots of dems in the cities driving up rates bro.

  47. Let the full retard, pro vaccinator's, rejoice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woot!! Someone got sick, which there's a vaccine for, let's all jump on how stupid it is to NOT get vaccinated!
    Because everyone here knows full well, how safe vaccines are for you. Oh, wait, none of you shitheads know
    for sure how safe vaccines are. How about those of you who feel that vaccines are safe, look up the rates of
    how many more people every year are suing for compensation for the damages that vaccines are causing. But
    don't even bother looking up the latest rates, because the database for that was deleted... Hmmm, I wonder why...

    1. Re:Let the full retard, pro vaccinator's, rejoice! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's very difficult to find side effect rates. In fact, nobody even keeps track of them! Oh, wait, no it's not:
      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/va...

      The risk from vaccine side effects is very carefully measured against the risk of not being vaccinated and the vaccines are approved only if the benefit very much outweighs the risk.

  48. Re:Deniers on the Left? by chilenexus · · Score: 1

    Don't forget the Jehova's Witnesses, who believe blood transfusions are against their faith. And celebrating birthdays or other holidays.

  49. Re:Deniers on the Left? by ImprovOmega · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now you're just being a pedantic assclown.

  50. immigration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is becouse all these ill negroes and arabs coming by flocks to Europe from Africa and Middle-Asia. Nothing to do with the "anti vaccination movement".

  51. I hope this movment dies out. by IgnitusBoyone · · Score: 1

    Curious if they vaccinate there next child. Its easy to sit above everyone when you have never seen the issue, because its been almost entirely eradicated, but at the turn of the 20th century people were ready to stand in line for the mere chance that they could prevent permanent disability or death from a number of childhood disease.

    --
    Momento Mori
  52. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Triklyn · · Score: 1

    oh, we got those too, that's different. We've got the ones on the right that have always done it for religious reasons.

    what he's talking about is the newer movement that says vaccines are bad for you and cause disease.

    the religious exemption has never been a big issue, not enough to make a dent in herd immunity. It's the dirty hippies that are causing the big problems in the US.

  53. Dr. Cox says: by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Dr. Cox would call the side effect a major case of "deadness."

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  54. This will end well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The right to vaccination is for children, not for the parents to decide."
    Well, with the general level of needle enthusiasm among 5 year olds, I can guess what the vaccination rates will be once children are the ones decided whether they should be vaccinated.

    The right to determine a child's rearing MUST lie with the parents of that child. Not because parents do not make mistakes, but because they are less likely to make mistakes than any other group. This mindset that we must live in a 100% safe, mistake-free world is delusional at best.

    1. Re:This will end well. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Interpret it differently: The right of a child to be vaccinated takes precedent over the right of the parents to decide whether to vaccinate.

  55. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    and by county? i think you have lots of dems in the cities driving up rates bro.

    Cognitive dissonance.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  56. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    So... sarcasm is your way of showing you're superior to me?

    How is that working out for you?

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  57. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Measles outbreaks in China, where 99.99% are vaccinated.

    The pro-vaxxers are not very scientific. They resort to outright lies about how dangerous some diseases are to scare people into getting vaccines. They believe the "experts" who talk about how effective the vaccines are, claiming 95% when the Mumps vaccine is more like 30% and Merck covers up this fact. They also believe the "experts" who are always talking about how safe they are. But since they are soo safe, most of the vaccine harmed people are not counted as being harmed by the vaccine. So it is really circular reasoning that you use when you claim it is safe, but refuse to count the harm that is done.

    God is not in the gaps. Or at least, he shouldn't be.

  58. Loss of threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sit here reading and thinking, but I'm in my 40s, and when my mother was a young girl Polio was a serious thing. She knew people struck down from it. Everyone was scared of it. So when the vaccines came, everyone was happy and it cut Polio morbidity down to nothing. In the meantime we have had two generations that have not generally faced the scourge of serious infectious disease, thanks to vaccination. It is easy for them to dismiss something they have never encountered as a real threat.

  59. Re:Deniers on the Left? by 517714 · · Score: 1

    No, you don't. You have been shown the facts and simply choose not to accept them.

    --
    The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
  60. Them damn commies? Really? by denzacar · · Score: 1

    MotherJones used to have journalists, but they are now nothing but a pro-progressive propaganda rag, fond of running hit pieces on anyone to the right of Mao Zedong.

    You do realize you just replied with a "god damn commies" ad hominem to an article citing Center for Disease Control and Prevention, on the topic of... well... diseases and vaccination?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Them damn commies? Really? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 0

      MotherJones used to have journalists, but they are now nothing but a pro-progressive propaganda rag, fond of running hit pieces on anyone to the right of Mao Zedong.

      You do realize you just replied with a "god damn commies" ad hominem to an article citing Center for Disease Control and Prevention, on the topic of... well... diseases and vaccination?

      I said nothing about Commies - and it wasn't a link to CDC, it was a link to Mother Jones. They site all kinds of stuff, then provide their own interpretation.

      Here is your clues that, while the article uses facts, it's points are all opinion:

      • "major spike" - linked to another Mother Jones article spouting a lot of hyperbole and cherry-picked statistics
      • "2015 might be even worse"
      • A tiny, modified, and out of context quote from an authority [appeal to authority]. Actual quote: "It's only January and we have already had a very large number of measles cases. As many cases as we typically have all year in typical years. This worries me and I want to do everything possible to prevent measles from getting a foothold in the United States and becoming endemic again." Note "could get" is not something Schuchat actually said.
      • Scary graphics, which apparently had issues so glaring one of them had to be revised

      For Mother Jones, this article is really not bad, I don't have any real issues with it. But Mother Jones is not a trustworthy publication. Just saying.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    2. Re:Them damn commies? Really? by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Check those links.

      Article cites and quotes CDC for all the relevant information. Then it quotes itself quoting and citing CDC.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  61. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which diseases does a bday party protect one from?

  62. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    A good deal of working around stupid if figuring out what is relevant and what is not... and ignoring what is not relevant.

    Home schoolers are not relevant to herd immunity. There aren't enough of them.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  63. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A good deal of working around stupid if figuring out what is relevant and what is not... and ignoring what is not relevant.

    Home schoolers are not relevant to herd immunity. There aren't enough of them.

    Please don't make that assumption. In your area, there may not be enough. In Southern California, they are everywhere, and the congregate! That is how outbreaks occur - in small groups of closely knit unvaccinated areas.

  64. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Shit reading comprehension, perhaps?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  65. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    I live in southern california... lets look at the stats.

    Okay:
    http://a2zhomeschooling.com/th...

    California 6,757,361 / 190,911

    So that's your ratio... about 2.8 percent of the student body is home schooled.

    Alright... are you saying 2.8 percent breaks herd immunity? Because it doesn't.

    Also, just because someone is home schooled doesn't mean that they don't have their vaccinations and just because someone is in public school doesn't mean they do.

    That's an abtirary variable that doesn't control for whether you are vaccinated or not.

    Might you be more inclined to be vaccinated one way or the other? Sure. But then people with sniffles tend to have colds. It doesn't mean that because you have the sniffles you have the cold.

    Causation and correlation. I think if I were dictator of planet earth... I'd execute people for not appreciating the distinction between causation and correlation... past a certain age. Instant summery execution. The line has to be drawn somewhere. No offense.

    Seriously though... you can't control for it on that basis and 2.8 which is the ceiling number is a lot higher than the number of home schoolers that don't have vaccines. Lets say half of them don't... you're then talking about 1.4 percent.

    That's a fucking joke.

    Blaming the outbreak on home schoolers when there is literally no evidence to back that up is fucking retarded.

    there is no way that ALL the home schoolers are without vaccinations. And even 2.8 percent is a tiny portion of the population.... If you assume that half are without basic vaccinations which is likely too high, you're then talking about something less than 1.4 percent of the student body. And that is just of the students. We're not even talking about as opposed to the total population.

    This is officially unsupportable.

    Now, on the other side, I'd point out that we have an unprecedented wave of illegal immigration coming into this country. They're not vaccinated. They're permitted into the PUBLIC schools without vaccinations. So everyone else that goes to the school... we have to show documentation to prove we got our kids vaccinated. But they don't have to do that.

    The kids are classified as "homeless" and they're just let into the system with no vaccinations at all.

    Now... what are the numbers? No one actually knows. Most people cite Census numbers from TEN YEARS AGO that are of course utterly useless for figuring out what is going on today.

    All that said... outbreaks happen. Even if everyone gets their shots people are going to get sick. It just happens. You have to accept that. But to blame the fucking home schoolers? Fucking astounding.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  66. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    I couldn't find any link between that and home schoolers.

    Can you provide a link? From what I could see they had no idea where the disease came from and the people infected were mostly not home schoolers.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  67. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Pubstar · · Score: 2

    I wish I could find it, but there was a vaccination map for Southern California. You live in a poor part of LA? Really high vaccination rates. Live in a Rich and/or Hippie infested area? Vaccination rates MUCH lower than the surrounding areas.

  68. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    ... Did you have a rational comment or does the intellectual basis of your argument boil down to the sort of shit I would expect to hear from a six year old?

    Make a rational point or suck on a pacifier with the rest of the babies.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  69. Re:Deniers on the Left? by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Every day is a reason to celebrate Jesus thus no need for holidays and a line in the Bible that there will be an accounting for the blood. Yes, I did try to listen to them before outright dismissing them. It was amusing for a time. I would not have listened at all but I had answered the door naked (just out of the shower) and they waited outside patiently while I dressed so I was willing to listen for a while.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  70. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because lefties hate to admit that there are more wing nuts in their camp than in the other camp, that's why.

  71. It's endemic in some populations; also: a bacteria by tlambert · · Score: 2

    The only way I even know the name is because George Bailey saved the pharmacist from poisoning a kid with it in "It's a Wonderful Life." And the last recorded case of it in Europe was decades ago. So did it go hide out for a while in Africa or something?

    It's endemic in some populations; also: a bacteria, Corynebacterium diphtheriae, not a virus, FWIW.

    Yes. There are large reservoirs of the bacteria in many North African countries, as well as Pakistan. What's only noted in a couple of places is that while the kid was "a resident of Olot (Girona)", the kids origin was as an adoption of an immigrant child.

    To see the reservoirs, here is the World Health Organization data on reported cases by country through 2014:

    http://apps.who.int/immunizati...

    If you care, you can also look at diseases other than Diphtheria, across the top of the chart. For example, there were 52'628 cases of measles in China in 2014, and there are rather large reservoirs in the Philippines as well (which is whre the person who was pation zero in the Disneyland measles outbreak had just travelled into the U.S. from, presumably infectious at the time they travelled. Somalia, India, Ethiopia, Viet Nam, and China also have significant measles reservoirs.

    http://apps.who.int/immunizati...

    Of course, we don't perform health examinations or quarantines on people traveling from these hot zones into the U.S.

    P.S. India, the U.S., and Australia are the top reservoirs for pertussis (whooping cough), so it'd be a good idea to check those people too, if they happen to be coming into your country.

  72. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by tlambert · · Score: 1

    can you give me an example of a home school kid infecting anyone because of lack of vaccines?

    Measles at Disneyland.

    Patient 0 for the Disneyland outbreak had just returned from the Philippines, which is a measles hot zone, and did not self-quarantine for a couple of weeks before mixing with the public, and so did not know he was sick.

    Here are the WHO statistics on the number of cases of various diseases reported for various countries, through 2014:

    http://apps.who.int/immunizati...

    The Philippines has the highest incidence of measles of any country (but China, with a vastly larger population, is not that far behind).

  73. Re:Deniers on the Left? by slew · · Score: 1

    I didn't know there WAS a Bible Belt in Europe, especially the Netherlands.

    FWIW, there's even a "church-tax" (fees collected by the government on behalf of a church) in many European countries including the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden) and Austria, Italy and Germany. Rules vary, but participation of the population in state affiliated churches is north of 67% in some countries, although there has been a recent trend of people leaving churches in European countries if it allows them to avoid paying these "taxes".

    Of course paying the tax and actual active membership in a church are two different things. Apparently in Europe, there are lots of passive members that continue to simply just pay the tax (presumably for traditional reasons) inflating the membership rolls of the churches and overstating their influence...

    As for vaccines, I don't think there is much different underlying sentiment in European vs the USA-ans. is primarily an issue where there is a big push to be current on vaccines when entering school in the USA, where in most European countries the focus is in the (public) healthcare system. Perhaps both the USA and Europe, attendance to school is still more universal than attendance to healthcare (even if both are "free") and the resulting diseases bear this out.

  74. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

    In the U.S. the anti-vaxxers are largely those who go around calling people Deniers because they don't drive a Prius.

    GIven that much edepends on the framing ot the questions, it appears that between liberals, moderates, and conservatives, it's all about the same.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine....

    As in so many aspects of life, it depends on your own political views. If you are conservative - the liberals are the bogeyman. If you are liberal, it's conservative bugaboos.

    People like myself, in the middle, recognize that one's politics, left or right, does not prevent them from being a flaming asshole, which any anti-vaxxer most certainly is.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  75. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Which diseases does a bday party protect one from?

    Depends on the age - that 18th birthday party has been know to cause internal parasites that take the better part of a year to get over.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  76. Hit the nail on the head! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > "The right to vaccination is for children, not for the parents to decide."
    ^
    !
    This!

    I'm not against abortion, but against killing a life -- specially a human life!

    I totally pro-choice people, if they can wait 9 months. Don't want a baby? No problem, give him/her for adoption... just do not kill a defenseless creature, because you got a career planned.

    It's not about your rights: it's about the child's rights.

    1. Re:Hit the nail on the head! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An embryo is not a child. Going through pregnancy is not a risk free (much less consequence free) process and only the pregnant woman gets to decide whether to go through the process or not, it's her choice and her choice only. The day you get pregnant, you decide.

  77. As seen on Tv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... not for the parents to decide.

    Like when the parents decide a child doesn't need a doctor because their religion forbids it. There was a 'Law & order' episode about this.

  78. Porous borders break down herd immunity. by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 0

    If you have a large and not well controlled influx of people from areas with high infection rates and low immunisation rates the only thing you can do to protect your community is to warn everyone of the increased risk and ensure that as many people as possible do get vaccinated. The problem is how do you point this out to the population at large without causing racist sentiments to increase?

  79. Re:Deniers on the Left? by mjwx · · Score: 1

    No. Vaccination rates are highest in the Bible belt, while they are lowest on the west coast. I think it has less to do with political affiliation and more to do with who reads idiot granola mommy and food blogs.

    This. In Australia the only significant anti-vaxxer crowd are the nutbar organic and/or anti-government conspiracy crowds. Strangely enough these two groups tend to be so similar it's pointless to even try to separate them a venn diagram.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  80. You are a pathetic slave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with that argument is that the "parents" in this case are not qualified to make that decision.

    Wrong, slave. In fact, they are the only persons qualified to make that decision.

    Fuck off and die slowly in a fire with your nanny state bullshit. Can't believe four retards moderated you "insightful."

  81. There is only one group of people worth hearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Medical doctors.

    They know more than you, no matter what you read on the internet/hear from your mates/partially learned.

    Take their advice. They are properly and fully trained experts. They don't have an agenda. They don't get a back hander from BIG PHARMA. They speak the best truth they can. Fundamentally, unless you study for 7 years, they know best.

    Any other interpretation you can offer is stupidly arrogant.

    1. Re:There is only one group of people worth hearing by TheRealLifeboy · · Score: 1

      Really?

      Dear AC Troll, of course you are a medical doctor and know what they are being taught, right?

      Being a historian qualifies me to tell you that, since you clearly don't know history (study Rockefeller & Carnegie and their funding/destruction/rebuilding of US medical training), you don't know that doctors are not educated. They are trained. Trained to sell, promote and perpetuate the chemical industry that David and Dale have built and nothing else.

  82. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    consider that previous post another participation trophy there, junior. feel free to print it and put it on the wall next to the other ones in your bedroom. just remember to shake the toner cartridge in the printer before printing, otherwise it will come out all streaked. if your printer is out of toner, send me an email with the part number and i'll try to stop at staples on the way home from work.

  83. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    try again after you finish your g.e.d., kid - maybe they will be enough biology on the test to get you caught up with current middle schoolers. just because your parents have been kind enough to keep you out of the herd - for which the rest of us thank them as you clearly aren't ready to be part of it - doesn't mean you understand how it works. you think you're doing great because very few bugs get into your parents basement to make you sick; let us know how it goes when you get kicked out from down there and told to find a job. you'll likely lose your first job quickly when you take too many sick days.

  84. And it of course has nothing to do with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the fact that large portions of the poor in Spain live off garbage heaps! Trust the vaccination scaremongers to exploit the situation and the general readers to be dumb enough to fall for it...

  85. Re:Just require the vaccines to be admitted to sch by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    I know what herd immunity is, fool.

    I asked you to make an argument.

    You responded with ignorance and evasions.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  86. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Yes, Virginia, there is even an anti-evolution movement in Europe.
    http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
    The claim is made that 20% of Germans believe in creation.

  87. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    In today's society, European church taxes are deemed to be an expression of cultural identification in countries that have 'official' churches (Church of England, Dutch Reformed Church, et. al.) The tax for maintaining that church is supposed to be a minor element of cultural identity, not, as in medieval times, a requirement to follow the faith.

    Official churches of this type are what is explicitly forbidden in our First Amendment.

  88. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Anti-vax sentiment on the right is a vestigial part of the fad diet movement, like Dr. Mercola. It doesn't even have fundie megabucks behind it, let alone Hollywood gigabucks.

  89. Re:Deniers on the Left? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    JWs are fine with plasma, it's whole blood they don't like.

  90. Re:Deniers on the Left? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    > FWIW, there's even a "church-tax" ... in many European countries. here has been a recent trend of people leaving churches in European countries if it allows them to avoid paying these "taxes"

    It gets odder than that. In the UK, if you live in a parish then you're liable for costs resulting from the upkeep of the parish church, no matter what your religion (or lack of) is, or if you attend another one somewhere else.

    Then again a lot of people identify as "christian" despite never having set foot in a church in their life (The "my parents were so I am" model - this happens with other religions too. I know a bunch of very secular people who say they won't come out as such because it'd upset their muslim or sikh parents)

  91. Re:Deniers on the Left? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    No. Vaccination rates are highest in the Bible belt, while they are lowest on the west coast. I think it has less to do with political affiliation and more to do with who reads idiot granola mommy and food blogs.

    So, God or Jesus will protect them, when the next measles or pox or polio epidemic returns.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  92. Re:Deniers on the Left? by halivar · · Score: 1

    Uh, no, their high vaccination rate will protect them.

  93. Re:Deniers on the Left? by cluemore · · Score: 1
    maybe this?

    http://spreadsheets.latimes.com/look-vaccination-rates-california-child-care-cente/

    or this? http://spreadsheets.latimes.com/immunization-levels-california/

    I've read that the more educated you are the less likely you are to have your family vaccinated. Specifically, the reference was that Lawrence Livermore Lab has an extremely low vaccination rate.

    Also, somewhat anecdotally, doctors don't get vaccinated either. Doctors will not go to get the flu vaccine, and nurses will get it only if forced to.

  94. Re:Deniers on the Left? by cluemore · · Score: 1
    most people think the government is lying to them. does that make them conspiracy nuts? I don't think so, unless for some unknown reason they think the government's lying has a purpose.

    So, if you think the government lies randomly, like some kind of quota system, then you're normal, but if you think the government lies purposefully, then you're a conspiracy theorist? Are you anti-government, or just anti-bad-government?

    Dubya: Hey, Dick, what are we going to lie about today?

    Dick: Well, George, we're halfway through the B's. Bin Laden's at the top. Let's do something with that.

    there you have it. the 911 truth is out.

  95. Re:Deniers on the Left? by Pubstar · · Score: 1

    As someone who has worked in a hospital (Win XP to Win 7 Migration... dear god the special software never wanted to work on Win7, and half of the shit was still 16 bit), I would like to counter that. Everyone in the hospital I was in was vaccinated for the flu. Well, not EVERYONE, but majority. If you did not get vaccinated, you had to wear a mask and gloves at all times. Those that were vaccinated had a tag attached to their badge so you knew.

    Also, my mom (BSN) is head of Infection Control for a rather large medical center out here. Majority of the nurses get the flu shot there as well. She has to do all the paperwork and processing for those that dont and make sure that they are wearing at least a mask.

    She even doubts the effectiveness of them (due to the flu being something that mutates rapidly), but she does get them.

  96. herbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prevention:

    Child tetanus triple serum immunization, whooping cough and diphtheria.

    People awareness about the disease and the severity of infection and methods of prevention and treatment.

    Isolate patients from proper ones to limit the spread of the disease.

    Get rid of the patient waste safely.

    Treatment:

    Rest: The patient must obtain enough period of bed rest.

    Fenugreek: Boil a teaspoon of crunched Fenugreek in a cup of water for two minutes and gargle several times for two minutes.

    Onions: Heat Dry Onions on fire and then place the poultice on the
    throat area and on the bottom of the jaw, it is advisable to drink onion
      juice and lemon juice with lukewarm water several times each day.

    Garlic: chew Garlic cloves like chewing gum for three minutes then
    swallow it and then steam garlic vapor of boiling water for five
    minutes.

    Guava leaves: mix equal amounts of guava leaves, marshmallow roots,
    Echinacea purpura, licorice and wild thyme then soak a tablespoon of the
      mixture in a cup of boiling water for ten minutes and then drink a cup
    after three meals a day for the treatment of diphtheria.

    Fennel: Soak a spoonful of mashed fruits of fennel in a boiling water for ten minutes and then drink a cup after three meals.

    Honey: honey wax eaten several times a day for its usefulness in the treatment of diphtheria.

    Apples: eat apples in all its forms, roasted, raw, or fresh with anise, Rock candy or saffron.

    Ginger: boil or soak ginger sweetened with honey or sugar and drink it daily for the treatment of diphtheria.

    Geranium: Soak a teaspoon of crunched plant in cup boiling water for
    five minutes and then drink it for the treatment of diphtheria.

    Geranium: Soak a teaspoon of crunched flower roots or plant in a cup for five minutes and then drink a cup morning and evening.

    Plantain: Soak a teaspoon of grinded seeds in a cup of boiling water and drink it hot daily.

  97. No, it's not found in the soil by Pav · · Score: 1

    From Wikipedia : "Diphtheria is usually spread between people by direct contact or through the air. It may also be spread by contaminated objects." There's no mention of it being soil-bourne, so I would assume it's one of the few from that bacterial order that isn't able to live in soil.

  98. Re:Deniers on the Left? by cluemore · · Score: 1

    ok, fair enough.

    my somewhat anecdotally comes from my wife being a nurse, my step-daughter being a nurse, and we have another nurse in the house. i have a lot of doctors in the family, but i myself am not one. the word i hear from the nurses is that the doctors don't get the vaccines. i've read stats in newspapers that seem to confirm this.

    regarding the flu vaccine specifically, most people i know have read about the lack of effectiveness of the flu vaccine, and that it makes you more susceptible to next years flu. they aren't against vaccines generally, just against useless ones like the flu vaccine.

    one person i know never got the flu - until she got the flu vaccine, came down with a bad case right away. she says she'll never get the flu vaccine again. a good friend of the family got the flu vaccine in the morning one day a few years ago, and he died that afternoon. Sure, he was older, but he was in good health. Sure, he could have passed away from some undiagnosed illness, but that scared most of my family away from the flu vaccine.

    up until a couple years ago, i was on the fence wrt vaccines. the first connection i made with bad stuff happening to this generation is allergies. I've been aware for some time now that most countries don't have extreme allergy problems among their children. My wife is from the Philippines, and this allergy thing is completely unknown there. Especially the peanut allergy. Peanut allergy is unknown in most third world countries, but here in my child's school there's a safety wall in the teacher's room filled with 30 pictures of children with serious allergies, mostly to peanuts. Here, one in fifty children have a life threatening allergy to something, and this simply did not exist in previous generations and it does not exist in other parts of the world. Then i found out that peanut oil is a GRAS unlisted adjuvant ingredient in all vaccines, and has been since the cotton seed oil problem with vaccines back in the 1940's. Researching the origin of allergy, i find that everything points back to the hypodermic needle. The word allergy was coined by von pirquet, an austrian doctor studying serum sickness in the 19th century (serum sickness was what they called a bad reaction to vaccines in the 19th century). The reaction my child has to peanuts is called anaphylaxis. This word was also coined by a researcher into negative reactions to vaccines. It was the french doctor Charles Richet who coined the word for this deadly reaction to vaccines, and he got a nobel prize for his work in 1913. Richet was able to give dogs an anaphylactic reaction to raw meat by injecting them with raw meat proteins. To this day, the easiest way to create a severe allergy to something is by injection.

    Richet was not a humanitarian. This is what he has to say about people like my child.

    Anaphylaxis is thus necessary to the species, often to the detriment of the individual. The individual may perish, but this does not matter. The species must at all times retain it's organic integrity. Anaphylaxis defends the species against the peril of adulteration.

    Well, that's breathtaking. and if anaphylaxis isn't quick enough, we always have the gas chambers.

  99. Diphtjeria in depth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, my apologies for a long post, but it's an important message. This isn't a copy and paste deal, I wrote it.

    A few weeks ago, I researched diphtheria and discovered a great deal about it. My Mom's youngest sister died at 12:00 a.m. December 26, 1940 at 4 years of age after a bout with diphtheria. It is a terrible disease, spread by mucus particulates (sneezing, coughing), primarily affecting young children. It resembles the common cold in the early stages, which inhibits diagnosis. Initial symptoms are a sore throat, swollen glands, weakness, fever, and cough. An extremely potent toxin, deadly at a very minimal level, is released into the respiratory system. A membrane develops in the throat that restricts breathing and swallowing and causes palate and throat paralysis, nerve damage, congestive heart failure, necrosis of the heart and liver, and finally death over a short period of 2-3 weeks. It was not common at that time to vaccinate children for this disease, although the vaccine was developed in 1890. Mom's whole family was quarantined and given toxin anti-toxin as a preventive measure, and 7 children and their parents watched their little sister and youngest child die. Fortunately, no one else in the family developed diphtheria. I know vaccinating children (or the lack thereof) is a hot topic, but I seriously doubt anyone would want to see a loved one succumb to this easily preventable illness. If this isn't an argument in support of vaccination, I don't know what is. Thanks for reading.

  100. Family history by Loie+Ramone · · Score: 1

    First, my apologies for a long post, but it’s an important message. This isn’t a copy and paste deal, I wrote it. If you wish to educate yourself, this will be helpful. Please feel free to share. A few weeks ago, I researched diphtheria and discovered a great deal about it. My Mom’s youngest sister died at 12:00 a.m. December 26, 1940 at 4 years of age after a bout with diphtheria. It is a terrible disease, spread by mucus particulates (sneezing, coughing), primarily affecting young children. It resembles the common cold in the early stages, which inhibits diagnosis. Initial symptoms are a sore throat, swollen glands, weakness, fever, and cough. An extremely potent toxin, deadly at a very minimal level, is released into the respiratory system. A membrane develops in the throat that restricts breathing and swallowing and causes palate and throat paralysis, nerve damage, congestive heart failure, necrosis of the heart and liver, and finally death over a short period of 2-3 weeks. It was not common at that time to vaccinate children for this disease, although the vaccine was developed in 1890. Mom’s whole family was quarantined and given toxin anti-toxin as a preventive measure, and 7 children and their parents watched their little sister and youngest child die. Had she survived, she would have developed spinal meningitis and been paralyzed the rest of her life. Fortunately, no one else in the family developed diphtheria. I know vaccinating children (or the lack thereof) is a hot topic, but I seriously doubt anyone would want to see a loved one succumb to this easily preventable illness. If this isn’t an argument in support of vaccination, I don’t know what is. Thanks for reading.

  101. Re:Wrong again, asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may do whatever you like with your body because of your religion, but your religious rights don't include abusing or endangering your children. To believe otherwise is to be more self-absorbed than you accuse sjbe of being.