Slashdot Mirror
Gardasil Cleared of Anti-Vax Nonsense (slate.com)
New submitter Zane C. writes: A new study once again shows vaccines have no link with yet another batch of medical disorders. The vaccine in question is a relatively new HPV vaccine called Gardasil, mainly targeting preteens to reduce infection. Phil Plait has more on this, debunking anti-vax claims and explaining why you should receive the vaccine: "It’s another typical anti-vax call to arms due to a complete and gross misunderstanding of how reality works. To them, if something happens after something else, it was caused by that first thing. This is the classic post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. But the Universe doesn’t work that way. And this kind of bad thinking has consequences. In the U.S. alone, 79 million people are infected with HPV. That’s more than a quarter of the entire population. Fourteen million new cases crop up every year. Gardasil can substantially cut those numbers back—it’s working, and working well, in the U.S. and Australia—but not if the fearmongering falsehoods by anti-vaxxers get traction."
I loved working on my VAX systems - a great little healthcare OS.
If you take a former playmate's advice on vaccinations, maybe the herd could do without you.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
DHI get a clue
As somebody who wholly supports vaccines and vaccinations, I absolutely hate it when I see really shitty submissions like this one. It doesn't even attempt to present something resembling an objective view of the situation. It's extraordinarily biased and sensationalist, with childish name-calling like "anti-vaxxer", and self-righteous babble like "fearmongering falsehoods".
Submissions like this just make those who support vaccines and vaccinations look like total kooks! This submission has the same "holier than thou" attitude that we see from those who push the Rust programming language or those who support systemd or those who moderate at Stack Overflow. Instead of even considering the concerns of their opponents, these people just go on spewing vitriol, and look like total assholes in the process. Normal people see them behave like this, and these normal people think, "What the fuck..." and write off everybody who is even slightly associated with the egomaniac's viewpoint.
Slashdot, please don't tarnish the image of all vaccination supporters by putting total shit like this submission on the front page. Shitty submissions like this do so much more harm than good!
That's the big excuse of the anti-vaxxers. That's why they fearmonger us into buying their vaccines. They need our money and they want to get rich off us. No vax for me!
Instead, let's all buy bleach at a few hundred bucks a gallon from an ex-scientology member. He sure ain't in it just for the money!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Let's also not forget that HPV causes a number of different cancers - cervical, penile, throat, etc. This vaccine dramatically reduces your chances of HPV-caused cancer. The press most often focuses on cervical cancer when they talk about it, which is why the vaccine has been more targeted to women, but boys and men also get a direct benefit, as well as all the indirect benefits through herd immunity.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
I'm glad it got cleared because this one vaccine might cut cancer rates in our children and their children by an enormous rate.
Gardasil is made by Merck Sharp & Dohme.
Cervarix is made by GlaxoSmithKlein.
What's the Japanese rate of HPV?
Why did they ban it?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Note this up front: Vaccines are good for you. I have zero problems with vaccination as it is beneficial to humanity individually and overall.
Now - about this article: Way the hell too much sensationalism, too much flamebait imputed, and IMHO way too much of this attitude: '...this study is right so I am right and therefore fuck you! Get right with us or else you are not worthy of life you troglodyte!' Seriously... is this what Salon has fallen to? Well, okay, I know they've always been a bit partisan (okay, quite partisan), but TFA and summary alike are indicative of what's wrong these days - too much sturm un drang, not enough persuasion.
Interestingly enough, Slate leans a bit to the left... and most anti-vaxxers lean very much to the left, so why was the bile necessary? You'd think that instead of turning it into a contest that hardens opinions (on both sides), that they'd try to at least be a little persuasive about it. ...or has science degraded into an echo-chamber shouting match these days?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
This is part of the problem.
Big pharma are greedy, lying bastards who would climb over us to make a buck and not think twice.
The anti-vaxxers are a bunch of loonies who can't look at scientific evidence or recognize the initial claims were fabrications by a discredited scientist.
Both of them aren't trustworthy entities ... one lies about its science and the other doesn't understand it.
I fear as long as we can still point to how the pharmacy companies have lied or manipulated their findings, people will be willing to believe they're just evil corporations out to make a buck. But then you just let a bunch of drooling idiots take over the conversation.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Believing that a vaccine is by nature safe. This article makes it out like it's ridiculous to believe that a vaccine could have serious negative side effects. It's not; being a vaccine doesn't make anything safe. Yes, the data show that Gardasil isn't the cause of the various things some suspected of it. But that wasn't a foregone conclusion.
Does Japan have any additional evidence that they feel invalidates TFA or did they ban it because of crying mom and her parents association? All articles say "amid health concerns", which sounds like a herd mentality reaction to unsubstantiated data. This article suggests they are conducting their own study (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/15/national/cervix-vaccine-issues-trigger-health-notice/#.VpPyhd-rQUE), which may or may not match the finding of TFA.
It is good that people are conducting their own research, and would be noteworthy if their research produced conflicting results. But it is the wrong conclusion to assume that because Japan's government has done something, that it was a data driven decision produced by anything like a proper scientific study. Note the crying mom in the article I linked... that is more effective at policy setting than boring numbers.
... and please by all means, don't get vaccinated. when he sees fit, he'll remove your offspring off the planet too.
To be clear, it is overly expensive - and most of the cost is profit. The company could recover the cost to research it and manufacture it within one year, if it cost just 1/5 the current price. But that excludes the money they spent on many other drugs that failed to make a profit. Most drugs they research fail to ever become profitable - success rates vary between 5 and 15%.
As such, a profit ratio of 5:1 is not unreasonable. It is a little bit on the greedy side, but no where near as much as the anti-vaxer 100% profit, 0% research and 0% results offer.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
And they don't even have the proof their vaccines aren't behind the health problems they claim have been debunked. This is obviously a marketing ploy to hide the risks and unproven safety lies about their vaccine.
The question is why aren't vaccines being banned so we can focus on proper treatment of the condition if it develops? If HPV infection occurs, they need a treatment for it at that point not in a vaccine they merely want to sell to everyone So they can get money from people who aren't even ever going to get the infection.
In all the hoopla about Women's rights, remember, this stuff hits MEN too. If you have a lump in your throat, you might wish your girlfriend had that vaccine.
Call them what they really are: Hosts.
I am neither for nor against vaccines. It is a *very* complicated issue, and *each* vaccine needs to be considered on its own.
There does exist research that demonstrates severe, even sometimes *fatal*, results from vaccines.
There also exists research that demonstrates that vaccines, which only prime *part* of the immune system actually results in a weakened immune system for it. (Again, it is very complicated).
Some vaccines have more contraindications than others.
E.g. years ago the Japanese actually showed that the DPT shot was responsible for some SIDS. At 7-14 days after (which delay they can explain) some recipients experience a few nights of extremely shallow breathing. They were able to track this very closely and demonstrate causation.
Some vaccines actually have *death* listed among its known side effects. Gardasil happens to be one of them. It was actually *in the very commercials they aired on TV*. Do ya feel lucky?
So, choose your vaccines wisely.
Anti-vaccination arguments are often incomplete, wrong, or presented so poorly as to make it look like there are no valid arguments against.
Pro-vaccination arguments can sometimes be just as zealous--and when so obviously discounting any possibility of reason against scuttle themselves in the process.
Vaccines are far from an open and shut case.
Personally, I would rather it be illegal to vaccinate someone against their will or to make that decision for them--let them make the choice for themself once they reach an appropriate age to do so (~16?). But, that would leave all the young unvaccinated... See, it's not a simple issue. However, the research does show that some vaccines can *permanently* alter a person's immune system for life, not necessarily in a good way--so making that decision for someone else doesn't seem quite right to me.
"... In the U.S. alone, 79 million people are infected with HPV. That’s more than a quarter of the entire population. Fourteen million new cases crop up every year. Gardasil can substantially cut those numbers back—it’s working, and working well, in the U.S. and Australia—but not if the fearmongering falsehoods by anti-vaxxers get traction."
Isn't it odd that we'll do everything we can to focus on the vaccination and those who might be affecting that profit stream, all while ignoring the root cause and ever-growing infection rate.
Yeah, there's a fucking herd of elephants standing in the room, but they're making us a shitload of money, so...
Which one can honestly say they've saved billions of lives?
This was my problem with Evil Pharma types going back to before Hillary talked about their "unconscionable profits".
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
What's the Japanese rate of HPV?
Human Papillomavirus and Related Diseases Report
"Japan has a population of 57.12 million women aged 15 years and older who are at risk of developing cervical cancer. Current estimates indicate that every year 9390 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer and 3645 die from the disease. Cervical cancer in Japan ranks as the 10th most frequent cancer among women and the 2nd most frequent cancer among women between 15 and 44 years of age. Based on Japan studies performing HPV detection tests in cervical samples, about 1.9% of women in the general population are estimated to harbour cervical HPV-16/18 infection at a given time, and 52.1% of invasive cervical cancers are attributed to HPVs 16 or 18."
Why did they ban it?
Cervix Vaccine Issues Trigger Health Notice
"The panel focused on 38 cervical vaccine recipients who reported widespread pain. Given the timing of their symptoms, the panel concluded that a causal link to the vaccines could not be ruled out in many of the cases.
There were 245.1 reports of side effects per million vaccinations for Cervarix, and 155.7 reports per million for Gardasil — more than two other, separate vaccines that affect both sexes and were added to the regular list at around the same time.
Reports of side effects from the other two medicines came to 89.1 per million for a set of pneumococcus vaccines and 67.4 per million for Japanese encephalitis vaccines."
so avoiding vaccines is the safe call! Take your science and shove it!
Not having sex with someone you don't know is clean is the safe call, but hey fuck all that nonsense. Take your root cause analysis and shove it!
Bullshit, There are many mosquito-borne infections that kill many, many more people than this infection (though if you believe the BS numbers in the article, it kills in 5-6 years 14M new cases/year divided by 79M extant cases means that either it's growing faster than logarithmically or that it kills in 5 years). Further, this isn't the most important tool for this set of inections; there are many prophylactic measures that are very effective in preventing the spread of the disease which are also a) much safer b)much cheaper and c)provide many other benefits.
This is the most important vaccine of the decade for GSK's profit margin. They've paying handsomely for folks to shill it everywhere. If you're promiscuous, you most certainly should get it. However, for the typical basement dwelling slashdtard, there's not much benefit at all.
"...to them, if something happens after something else, it was caused by that first thing."
Clearly, these people have too much experience with Windows Updates
I thought journalists were supposed to be unbiased. Calling it "nonsense" in the title is far from that very minimal standard.
The fact is that the toxic sludge in vaccines is harmful to everyone to some degree, and there are always going to be those who have reactions to it. It just makes statistical sense in a bell-curve kind of way. There is no such thing as a universally safe vaccine.
Is my grand ma criminal for having her computer infected and possibly infecting other?
I think so, yes.
Ignorance should not be a defence against liability. If anything, I think it should be considered an aggravation of crime, not a mitigation.
Has Joe_Dragon started giving English lessons?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Can the "other people" just can vaccinated?
Not always... allergies to compounds used in the vaccines, compromised immune systems, etc...
HPV vaccination is now recommended for both women and men.
If a guy feels a lump in his throat or penis perhaps he should have considered being vaccinated rather than exclusively blaming his girlfriend.
Wonder if we can make it a cultural norm to carry around tags that say you've got the HPV and other sexually transmitted disease vaccinations... Something akin to the rabbis tag my dog has (though I'd presume people would carry it on their keys or wallets) and make it ok to ask to see it prior to intercourse... It's not a guarantee they are clean, but it's a start.
You can be clean, if you get the vaccine!
Big pharma lobbied for legal immunity against any vaccine damage claims decades ago. Claiming they don't have time to fight lawsuits since they are too busy "saving the world". I'll start using vaccines when they are able to actually take responsibilities of their own products.
Vaccines are not 100% effective. There are some people who do not develop the proper immunity even after taking a vaccine. There are also people who are allergic to vaccines. These people benefit from the herd immunity. There are also children not in a position to make the decision for themselves.
So yeah in a black and white world where the only people effected by negative consequences were adults who made bad choices, then the system you talk about would be more viable.
And as far as I know nobody is forcing anyone (even kids) to be vaccinated. The only measures I've heard being proposed is removing the personal belief exemption for allowing unvaccinated kids from attending public schools (while keeping the medical exemption), and forcing healthcare workers who don't want to get flu shots to wear masks. I have never heard of a mentally competent adult literally being forced to get a medical procedure they didn't want.
And while it's true that modern medicine is not perfect, comparing the knowledge of modern medicine to the knowledge of the people in the anti-vax community is like comparing modern chemists to alchemists of the middle ages.
I think a healthy skepticism of "expert opinions" is a good thing, but this skepticism in the anti-vax community is gone well into unhealthy territory.
We know that vaccines are not good for everyone.
That's why people with specific allergies don't have to take them.
The unvaccinated give pathogens a possible place to mutate into something that the existing vaccine does not protect against.
Can the "other people" just can vaccinated?
No vaccine is 100% effective, and some vaccines are far less than perfectly effective. The primary benefit of vaccines is not individual immunity, but herd immunity, that prevents a disease from spreading through a population.
Is my grand ma criminal for having her computer infected and possibly infecting other?
If her negligence is harming others, then she should be held liable.
If antivaxxers paid heed to evidence or thought critically there wouldn't be an antivax movement. They'll probably go a bit quiet about gardasil for a bit and start harping on about mercury or something else. Then that claim will be debunked (again) and they'll move onto something else ad nauseum. It's like whack-a-mole but with idiots. Most denialist causes employ remarkably similar tactics to deal with evidence to the contrary - cherry picking, straw men, quote mining, compiling lists of "experts", pseudoscience and so on.
Not always. Sometimes due to age (both directions) and sometimes personal health issues (allergies or auto-immune disorders). This is especially problematic in pediatricians offices, and there are many which forbid non-immunized people from waiting in the same area as regular patients.
What's an "ascid"? Fluoride (not flooride) has really cut the amount of tooth decay, especially in kids (around a 35% cut in fluoridated water) It's only at 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million, which is probably millions of times less than you used to etch glass. You could also use hexafluorosilicic or hydrofluoric acid.
PDP-11's Forever!
To them, if something happens after something else, it was caused by that first thing. This is the classic post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.
.
Sounds like computer IT support. "My computer was working fine until YOU did (whatever)"
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
In the case of pertussis ("whooping cough"), infants cannot be vaccinated until they are four months old and the disease is most dangerous to infants.
We had an outbreak in my home town of pertussis at a private Christian school. Thankfully no infants died in that case.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Side effects in 0.0245% in recipients seems more than acceptable, and a very good way to reduce (roughly) 4500 cases of cervical cancer PER YEAR.
Somebody, probably many somebodies, are idiots in Japan.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Oh geez! How could I mistake GlaxoSharpDohme with MerckKleinSmith? Two totally different animals! Thanks for straightening me out!
We DO know that vaccines are good for >99.9% of the population.
Who knows why they banned it? Don't they know they can trust GlaxoSmithKlineMerckSmithDohme(tm) to provide safe vaccines? It is settled science, baby!
Better safe than sorry, so don't eat chicken sandwiches on a Tuesday. You can't prove conclusively to me that eating chicken sandwiches on a Tuesday won't give your family cancer!
Why look at me, I never eat chicken sandwiches on a Tuesday, and I don't have cancer. I think.
I agree. It is better to continue the sale of the drug, rather than trying to gather information on what is causing the side effects. After all, why stop the flow of cash to GlaxoSmithKlineFrenchDohme(tm)? If they say it is safe, it is safe.
there are a lot of people who are unable (for various medical reasons) to get certain vaccinations or whom otherwise are not completely protected by vaccinces, their only protection from certain terrible diseases is via herd immunity. Those people don't believe your pseudo-intellectual nonsense, but they are still affected by it if you choose not to vaccinate yourself and your kids.
If anti-vaxxers were only hurting themselves then I'd have less objection to it, as refusing to take simple steps to protect yourself from horrible diseases is clearly a trait that we should remove from the gene pool via natural selection.
And he also lied about the Japanese 'banning' the vaccine:
http://www.skepticalraptor.com...
All the Japanese Health Ministry did was note the generalized-pain side effect reported by 180 women out of the 8.9M Japanese women who have taken - and are still taking - the vaccine.
Your sarcasm seems to want to kill thousands per year so that someone else doesn't get a bit richer.
You're a fucking asshole.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I agree. They should have just trusted GlaxoSmithKlineBeechamDohme's studies which say the drug is safe. After all, "health concerns" aren't important. People are just being a bunch of crybabies. They should take their drugs and shut up.
Even if a person can receive it, no vaccine guarantees 100% immunity since diseases come in various strains which the vaccine might not offer total protection against .
So no is the answer. Diseases can and do spread because idiots refuse to vaccinate themselves and their kids.
Yah, that sounds like a great idea. Spend lots of money to vaccinate everyone to save 4000 people from dying in the United States from a problem they could have saved themselves by curbing their own actions. That is why healthcare is so expensive.
No, they also suspended the vaccine from the regular schedule of vaccinations and stopped recommending it while it is under investigation. Why are you lying? Personally I think the vaccines are safe, but for people to trust the pharmaceutical companies is ridiculous. This "story" and your link look like they were written by the SmithKlineBeechamGaxo(tm) marketing department.
"My friend has throat cancer from HPV. He is straight, single , and a nice guy."
And if he's straight, then he got this cancer specifically from being nice to women. Hippie mothers of the anti-vax community, you need to think about that.
Given that it is a good vaccine that is effective and has very limited downsides the question then becomes whether to make it mandatory for school attendance. The theory behind mandatory vaccines is that you are putting children in a room in close proximity and therefore increasing the risk of disease transmission.
Given that HPV is primarily a sexually transmitted disease Gardasil really doesn't fit under this public health justification of the likely form of disease transmission in a school setting. HPV isn't transmitted in the air or on surfaces even, so this vaccine doesn't fit the justification for other vaccines. Making Gardasil mandatory really does get into the territory of forcing medical treatment on people because we think it is good for them. Whatever you think of vaccines, as a society we are better off with public health policies that only intrude on medical decisions when absolutely necessary.
And there is nothing about this vaccine that should make it mandatory for school attendance. I agree that people should get it, but forcing it on people is really the wrong way.
You are right. Just take your drugs and shut up like a good boy.
I literally hope you die of cancer from someone who infected you with HPV.
Most likely a coked up gay hooker.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Considering there is no screening test for HPV for people with penises, how would you propose someone considering having sex with such a person ensure they're not carrying any strain of HPV?
Classy. You seem to be off your meds. I am sure GlaxoSmithKlineBeecham(tm) can help you with your problem.
It's OK. You're simply not that interested in details or facts. Lots of people aren't.
A lot of people who've passed through death row have had a medical procedure they didn't want.
You are right. It makes a big difference that Merck Sharp and Dohme and GlaxoSmithKline make different versions of the HPV vaccine. Both of with have the same issues and both of which are not recommended for use in Japan. Thanks for the tip!
"If it was just they and their offspring would become ill? Hey, run wild. You've taken yourselves out of the gene pool and we don't care. That's your damned problem for a choice you made.
But that isn't what happens. Someone else gets sick."
How do others get sick if they're vaccinated?
I must be missing something because I thought the vaccine protected them from getting sick? Won't the unvaccinated only pass on the illness to other unvaccinated people?
Says the guy who, when science shows that the vaccine works, rants on about big $ for pharma without giving a shit about 50% deaths.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Your dog is a rabbi? I think it's safe to say that anything else you have to say about anything can be safely disregarded since you are a moron.
It's spelled rabies, you idiot.
"Thankfully no infants died in that case."
Risk analysis is never used. Vaccines are "Safe" even if the risk is greater than the actual disease. Let say, that Whopping Cough kills 1:1,000,000, but the Vaccine kills 2:1,000,000, it is considered "safe" but twice as risky as not having a vaccine. The 2 don't count as "unsafe" even though it is less safe than nature. After all, vaccines are proven effective!
The problem is, NOBODY is doing the complete risk analysis to see if paying Big Pharma is worth the money being poured into Vaccines.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Why don't you just kill yourself. Seriously. Do the world a favor and fucking off yourself. You are a worthless, useless piece of shit. Just kill yourself.
Please, go die in a fire.
No, at least not all of them.
Some people are immuno-comprimised. This would be people like infants, the elderly, children with diseases like leukaemia, adults undergoing cancer treatment, or people who have received life saving organ transplants and must take drugs that suppress their immune systems (for the rest of their lives). These people's lives depend on the rest of us doing the right thing and getting vaccinated so deadly diseases cannot take hold in the population and then find a path to the chronically ill.
I just think that it is amazing that we have developed a vaccine that can prevent a type of cancer! It's really unclear how many lives can be saved by gardisil because cervical cancer is kind of a secondary effect of long term HPV infection, but just think about it. In the future, what other cancers be preventable with a few shots in childhood? Prevention is such a better option than treatment. Both of my children have been vaccinated against HPV (male and female). We have a chance to strike a blow against a troublesome disease, HPV, and a secondary deadly disease, cervical cancer. This is truly like the fight against polio, or mercury exposure. It can make a much better life for future generations.
Yeah, how can you be for 50% deaths? Derp...time to take your meds, dude.
And as far as I know nobody is forcing anyone (even kids) to be vaccinated.
31 states do indeed force children to be vaccinated, not having an exemption for philosophical reasons.
I don't know of anything - not just any vaccine, any thing that's ever existed in the universe - that is "accepted as 100% effective with zero side effects". That seems to be a high enough bar to be, er, perhaps obstructionist. To be honest, I wonder what your objection might be once this technique gets commercialized.
My wife and are teaching our children about how things work and what contraceptive options are available, emphasizing the effectiveness of each method, and the potential risks and benefits of sex, before and within marriage. And they either have received or will receive Gardasil, too. For much the same reason we have them wear seatbelts.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Gardasil is not banned; the just stopped recommending that girls take it, but because international studies have failed to prove any connection between generalized pain and Gardasil, the Japanese are taking it anyway.
argumentum ad monsantium all you like, but the safety is proven.
...but we still have seatbelts and crumple zones in cars.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
The other people might be too young to be vaccinated or have medical conditions precluding vaccination. Alternatively, they might have been vaccinated, but it didn't "take" (vaccinations aren't 100% - close, but not perfect). In those cases, the vulnerable rely on herd immunity. When people first started not vaccinating, herd immunity was able to take it but we're getting to the point, in some areas, where herd immunity is breaking down. All because some parents decided that a celebrity known for posing naked must give better medical advice than a group of doctors.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Thank you for this informative, well-reasoned and insightful comment.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
Actually, vaccines don't pull in big money for pharmaceutical companies. That's one reason why the vaccine court was formed. If pharmaceutical companies needed to face normal lawsuits (both real and baseless) over vaccines in the regular court system, they would lose money and stop making vaccines. Not because the vaccines aren't safe, mind you, but because lawsuits cost so much to defend against and vaccines bring in so little money.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Those people, and the anti-vaxxer community at large, should group up and pay for a study from someplace they feel isn't co-opted, who knows how to produce an honest result, and see what happens, rather than simply spouting their unsubstantiated nonsense and possibly slandering a company.
There's no question about GlaxoSmithKline's significant profit motive, but a profit motive does not necessarily create a crime. If a third party could show the drug is dangerous, that is best. Someone is either doing their job poorly, or outright lying.
Lots of people are doing a complete risk analysis.
The risk of dying when you get pertussis (whooping cough) is about 1 in 100 cases (highest in young children).
The risk of dying when you get the vaccine is 0 out of hundreds of millions of doses.
Questions?
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
More propaganda spread by the pharmaceutical companies.
I suggest you stop eating and breathing as well. That will make the rest of us much, much safer.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Each vaccine added to the schedule = $1B for the manufacturer. In the case of rotavirus, the man responsible for getting added to the schedule held a patent on the rotavirus vaccine. Afterwards he sold the patent to a big co and personally profited $200M. Conflict of interest much?
condoms don't protect against HPV. abstinence or vaccines really are the only way to avoid it.
yes.
Why do so many people keep insisting this isn't true?
YES IT IS BETTER TO KEEP SELLING THE DRUG THAT WILL LITERALLY SAVE THOUSANDS OF LIVES PER YEAR.
did you read the post you replied to? 3645 women DIE EVERY YEAR FROM CERVICAL CANCER.
The vaccine prevents most HPV infections, which prevents most cases of cervical cancer. If every person got the vaccine, it would prevent thousands of deaths per year. (projecting forward twenty or thirty years when the 11-year old girls receiving the vaccine are at the age where they would start succumbing to and dying from cervical cancer.)
so yes, they should keep giving the vaccine out while they investigate it. because a few hundred reports of pain are trivial when compared to thousands of deaths.
Ah, but here you aren't considering where you got your numbers. For the sake of argument, let's use your risk levels. If whooping cough kills 1 in a million people now (with a vaccinated population), that bears almost no relation to what the risk is in an unvaccinated population. Nobody is worried about a hypothetical infection that kills 1 in a million people infected. If people stopped vaccinating for whooping cough because almost nobody dies from whooping cough (because almost nobody gets it in the first place, because they got the vaccine), then a lot of people are going to start dying from it.
For diseases where we either can't or haven't eradicated them, we need to keep vaccination rates up so that they don't come back. Theoretically, we could balance rates so that risk of disease is equal to risk of vaccine, but practically speaking that's not an option. Furthermore, a lot of viral infections have other long-lasting side effects that the vaccine doesn't have, so just looking at fatality rates isn't always the best way to assess risk.
Essentially, when you say "nobody is doing the complete risk analysis to see if paying Big Pharma is worth the money being poured into Vaccines", you're wrong. If we took your very basic analysis and made policy from it, we'd stop vaccinating, because it's twice as safe! And then whooping cough comes back, and it turns out that no, the vaccine is still safer. The population-level risk analysis is a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Who paid for the research and who paid this article ?
How are you going to know someone is clean unless you do a blood test, a lot of people carry the viruses without having hat any outbreaks. HPV is commonly considered a sexually transmitted disease but;
some research indicates abstinence isn't a slam-dunk for prevention.
When you come back around and rant about how "Big Pharma" is suppressing a cancer cure or vaccine, all
I'm going to hear is "Blah blah blah" because we have a cancer vaccine and the same whackos will not let their kids have it.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Not $1B in profits - unless you're talking about spreading that over a decade or more. Vaccine trials are expensive to run, and vaccines themselves are relatively expensive to make (rightly so, for injectables). They tend to be guaranteed volume on a vaccine, but they really don't make much money off of them, especially compared to other drugs they could spend the money on.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
There is no HPV test you can take to prove you're clean, if you're a man. For women, there is a test but it's invasive and expensive, and never included in one of those "test for all STD's" panels. The cancer-causing strains don't have any symptoms until you get cancer. It's seriously not a thing you can consciously avoid unless you're literally celibate for your entire life.
Appropriate that the captcha is "idiots," isn't it?
it's a forward-thinking statement. he means that if we get our kids vaccinated today, in 20 or 30 years, many less of them will be dying from cervical cancer.
Okay, lets stop for just a second.
1) You're comparing death rates for those that catch (and report) Whooping Cough (relatively small numbers) to wide scale Vaccines immunizations. These skew the statistics, since very few people actually catch/report Whopping cough. If you spread that out to the MILLIONS of people who don't get it, have already gotten it, or otherwise, the numbers become relatively similar
2) Excluding the children Ineligible to get the Vaccine, which account for the most deaths, you're looking at even larger numbers. Young babies are the highest risk, riskier than ALL OTHER cases combined.
3) In the United States in 2012 there were over 41,000 reported cases.
4) There were 18 reported deaths.
If there is a 1:1,000,000 chance of death by vaccine, the vaccine will kill more than 18 deaths. That is proper RISK assessment. And you're saying that is a fair tradeoff. I'm saying we need to look at it more closely.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
mod parent up insightful & funny
There are no reported deaths from the vaccine. Zero risk of death from the vaccine.
Zero. None. Nada.
No risk of death.
No one has died.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Nurse Ratched: "If Mr. McMurphy doesn't want to take his medication orally, I'm sure we can arrange that he can have it some other way. But I don't think that he would like it."
Okay so McMurphy wasn't competent, but I have heard of Hunger-strikers having a Levine tube shoved down their nose for tube feeding (it pretty much feels like getting punched in the face too); but I'm not sure what country it happened in. I will say that anybody who has had the old rubber hose down the nose three or four times and still isn't eating is really dedicated. The nose is innervated by the Trigeminal nerve which when agitated transmits some exquisit pain.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Whooping Cough outbreaks in vaccinated populations exist. Including deaths of previously vaccinated children. The problem is, we don't know the comparative advantages (if any) in vaccinated population. There are no double blind widespread testing to verify anything.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You get vaccinated. You don't get the disease. You don't die.
Is that so hard to understand?
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
...but we still have seatbelts and crumple zones in cars.
Does the population around you have a hard time keeping their genitals from crashing into each other accidentally?
I've heard some weak-ass excuses for infidelity before, and I know we've got a passion here for car analogies, but seriously...
The problem is, NOBODY is doing the complete risk analysis to see if paying Big Pharma is worth the money being poured into Vaccines.
That is totally wrong. People don't start vaccination programs on a whim. The law is very strict on the number and type of medical studies that must be done to allow medicines and vaccines can be sold, and even more to prove their effectiveness , safety, and cost-effectiveness before large scale vaccination programs are implemented.
How many times have you laughed at some scientific study because it seems to be attempting to prove what we already "know"? That is because science does check and recheck everything. They do studies and meta-studies all the time to do risk analyses on drugs to ensure that they do more good than harm. Similarly, the bean counters in government are always looking for ways to reduce medical expenses. There is a constant struggle between what is medically necessary and what is affordable. Accountants don't care if you live or die, as long as you take the cheaper option.
If you seriously think that both medical professionals and accountants would allow a vaccination program that killed double the number of people that they saved then you are misguided and naive. And to spout such erroneous and uneducated claims here is dangerously misleading.
Damn, fellow Slashdotters, the forced-vaccination fundamentalist shills are out in force today! The big money elite are pushing this forced-vax stuff HARD. Darned good propaganda operation, too. I bet at least 60% of posters who parrot the standard forced-fax talking points aren't even on the payroll!
As another posted said, the vehemence and even threatened-violence with which this agenda is being pushed is itself suspicious. It's a good hint - tho I'm sure a useful idiot will point out, not proof - that some of these vaccines have way more undesirable effects than is being disclosed.
90+ MILLION people were infected with Saulk vaccine that had CANCER virus in it. Me included!!! There were thousands of men vaccinated with Hemophilia vaccine in the 70's, remember what happened in the 80's - HIV, AIDS!!!
Is it the police or National Guard who come around and hold the children down for vaccination? If neither, then they aren't forcing children to be vaccinated. They're just adopting some prudent safety measures for being around other children.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This is the kind of article that would also claim, or implicitly assume, that scientific tenets are "absolutely sure" or "indubitable". That's no help against stupidity, it's just as stupid. I know that vaccinations aren't very dangerous, but there is a certain risk involved, and for my own life, I decided to avoid both the vaccination risks and those of infection by living non-promiscuous life. I do not have HPV and I will never accept compulsory vaccination.
Vaccinations do not confer perfect immunity. We have ways of making reasonable guesses as to how many people die at certain levels of vaccination, and for pretty much all vaccines we find that they save lots of lives.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
For instance you can not enroll a child in public school without immunizations records. Looks like home school only for your kids.
Which is not the same thing as "no exemptions", you just can't avoid them because the voices in your head or other idiocy compel you to.
I have noticed that Slashdot has turned into the mouthpiece of government propaganda lately.
For all of those Vaccine lovers maybe you should check with other sources for your data. The government does it's best to lie to the whole population. You already know that about many other subjects, but of this one you feel empowered to push the exact propaganda that the government and big pharma have been pushing down your throat for years. Without even a proper investigation. Oh sure, you will investigate what the "objective media" and "objective FDA" puts together and say they are right? You do already know the FDA is a revolving door for the big pharma, so why would you believe what they say in the first place? Oh, yeah, that's right, because they are the "good guys", oil companies bad, big pharma good...
Slashdotters will do this even if it's the lead researcher who helped invent the vaccine that is warning them..
THE LEAD INVENTOR OF THE VACCINE IS WARNING YOU! HELLO?
Lead Gardasil developer clears conscience, admits vaccine is useless and deadly
http://www.naturalnews.com/041644_Gardasil_vaccination_scam_HPV_vaccine.html#ixzz3wz5rZMZf
Did you also notice how many people who were vaccinated got sick from the exact thing they were vaccinated for? Oh that's right, they try to blame it on those who didn't get vaccinated. So if someone got you sick with the exact thing you're vaccinated for, it was obviously an epic failure. You really weren't vaccinated from anything, demand you money back. You got hoodwinked.
Anyone with a brain the size of a pea or larger should at least not accept anything from the government or big corporations at face value (Either Oil or Pharma). The system has been completely corrupted at all levels with all industries.
It's about profit at the expense of people..........So many will have to pay the price before this fraud is exposed.
If you are talking about "kids being forced to get a vaccination as a per-requisite of attending public schools", then that's exactly what I said. If you are talking about "home schooled kids being forced to get vaccinated under penalty of their parents being fined or jailed", please provide a citation.
Also: Immunizations are not effective in 100% of those immunized.
If enough of the "herd" are immunized so the exponential function of infection is quickly decaying rather than growing, outbreaks are tiny and peter out very rapidly. So individuals are protected by the immunization program even if their personal immunization failed. If enough have failed immunizations or refuse for the exponential to be growing, those whose immunization failed are S.O.L. - and if the refusnicks are the reason for the k > 1 situation, it can be argued that, in an outbreak that becomes large, they're responsible for the illnesses of those whose immunization failed or who couldn't be immunized.
(What matters for the outbreak is not the percentage unimmunized - through failure or refusal - but just the absolute number of susceptible individuals and the degree of contact between them. Those who are successfully immunized are just scenery, not players.)
(Note "immunization" rather than "vaccination" in the above text. The former is the general case and the latter a particular subclass of it. The herd immunity argument applies to all types of immunizations for communicable diseases.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The only measures I've heard being proposed is removing the personal belief exemption for allowing unvaccinated kids from attending public schools (while keeping the medical exemption), and forcing healthcare workers who don't want to get flu shots to wear masks.
I understand that many healthcare operations consider some immunizations a condition of employment for workers in contact with patients. Certain workers who refused immunizations would be subject to reassignment, demotion, and/or termination.
Not only would they be putting the patients at risk of disease - they'd be putting the institution and its officials and personnel at risk of lawsuits.
(On the other hand - someone who has recently had a live-virus vaccination must be kept separate from immune compromised patients until their own immune systems have cleared them of the virus.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If you provide a host population for a virus it will mutate over time. It could mutate around the vaccine the others have taken and become generally infectious again.
Or mutate to jump a "species barrier" or other population immunity difference. (For instance: In principle measles might mutate to become able to infect some host other than humans. This would then provide both an additional host pool and strong selection pressure for further mutations, which in turn might change it enough that the current human immunizations are no longer effective.)
Sort of like some African animal (current guess - bats) serving as a reservoir for Ebola, which occasionally jumps to primates and humans.
Or like Microsoft software providing a malware agar big enough to generate a multibillion dollar criminal industry, which developed lucrative infrastructure and software payloads, the bulk of which payloads could then be ported to other operating systems once an exploit was found allowing an infection head to be generated for the new target.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
not news for nerds.. ... DHI get a clue
My nerd credentials are impeccable. I say this is "news for nerds" and "stuff that matters".
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The question isn't whether government scientists are right or wrong about any particular vaccine, it is whether the government should have the right to force people to inject stuff into their bodies.
Private schools can make that argument and require vaccinations to their hearts' content. Public schools, however, are bound by limits on governmental powers; for example, they can't advocate particular religions, and likewise, they shouldn't be able to impose vaccinations. A compromise would be to move to a voucher system that allows kids who don't want to attend public schools to use the money to pay for private schools, but that is something progressives and their public sector union lobbyists are fighting tooth and nail.
"Thankfully no infants died in that case."
Risk analysis is never used. Vaccines are "Safe" even if the risk is greater than the actual disease. Let say, that Whopping Cough kills 1:1,000,000, but the Vaccine kills 2:1,000,000, it is considered "safe" but twice as risky as not having a vaccine. The 2 don't count as "unsafe" even though it is less safe than nature. After all, vaccines are proven effective!
The problem is, NOBODY is doing the complete risk analysis to see if paying Big Pharma is worth the money being poured into Vaccines.
Conclusion: You're an idiot. The risk 1:1000000 changes with each increase of unvaccinated individuals in the herd. Let's assume a best case scenario here: a herd of 1000000, with two people (intentionally) unvaccinated. That's your 1:1000000 number. If three people are unvaccinated that number goes up to 3:1000000. If 500000 people are unvaccinated then your odds of infection are roughly 1:2.
I left out a lot of details - this is the best case scenario for your argument.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
One would think that the suffix "-ide" would clue the GP into the fact that we are dealing with a salt rather than an acid, but I'm still hung up on finding "floorine" on my Periodic table....
The question isn't whether government scientists are right or wrong about any particular vaccine, it is whether the government should have the right to force people to inject stuff into their bodies.
That's not the question until law enforcement start showing up at your house with vaccines and guns.
Private schools can make that argument and require vaccinations to their hearts' content. Public schools, however, are bound by limits on governmental powers; for example, they can't advocate particular religions, and likewise, they shouldn't be able to impose vaccinations.
I don't see how these are the same at all. One would be a regulation on thought (i.e. religions are belief systems), the other is a regulation on public safety. If the government can prevent people from coming into government buildings with firearms, then they should be able to kids from going to schools if they are a public safety hazard due to lack of immunizations.
A compromise would be to move to a voucher system that allows kids who don't want to attend public schools to use the money to pay for private schools, but that is something progressives and their public sector union lobbyists are fighting tooth and nail.
Schools are paid for by property taxes. This is a horrible system in general. Vouchers don't fix this problem, because you are still paying for the schools if you have zero kids. Just like your taxes are paying for government buildings like courts that prohibit firearms even if you are an open carry proponent.
Law enforcement doesn't have to show up with vaccines on your doorstep in order to coerce you; they can arrest you, or take your stuff, or limit your freedom of movement, or whatever until you "choose" to get vaccinated. Those approaches are just as coercive as if they showed up with vaccines at your house.
Whether people who don't have any kids pay for the education of other people's kids, and how that education is delivered are two entirely separate issues. Regardless of where you stand on the first point, delivering education through a public school system with politically determined curricula and policies is increasingly failing.
Law enforcement doesn't have to show up with vaccines on your doorstep in order to coerce you; they can arrest you, or take your stuff, or limit your freedom of movement, or whatever until you "choose" to get vaccinated. Those approaches are just as coercive as if they showed up with vaccines at your house.
The way government *forces* you to do something is with guns. They have other tools like fines and prison, but should you refuse to pay fines or report to prison, the guys with guns show up to your house. Simply preventing you from using some public services like public schools is not coercion. It's just a normal requirement like any other.
Whether people who don't have any kids pay for the education of other people's kids, and how that education is delivered are two entirely separate issues.
It is the same issue as the issue of paying for public schools if you don;t vaccinate your children, because in both scenarios you are forced to pay for a service you aren't using. And the reasons for this situation are the same. It is because public schools are funded by property taxes and not, for example, tuition. Everyone who is paying property taxes is paying for schools they may or may not be using for whatever reason. It's not unique to opponents of vaccination. Vouchers only "fix" one aspect of this larger problem.
Regardless of where you stand on the first point, delivering education through a public school system with politically determined curricula and policies is increasingly failing.
What political determined curricula are you referring to?
I think American schools just suck even ignoring the effect of politics. We spend more money per capita than any country in the world on public schools and our schools are terrible. It's not that public schools in general are bad, there are many examples of countries who do public schools very well. We just don't seem capable of it at the moment.
Wait, isn't this the vaccine that was already stopped in some countries (Japan?) because of the side effect, and is causing investigations in other countries (e.g. here in Denmark), because the government kept saying it is harmless until they could no longer ignore the growing number of doctors reporting side effects?
And yet again, here comes someone who has proven a negative. Proving a negative, and agreeing with the government and the medicinal industry, while ignoring doctors. Something smells.
Previously they were proving that mercury is perfectly fine against all existing knowledge (and yet they ended up removing the stuff), and now doctors are wrong, and the salesmen and politicians are right. It keeps getting harder and harder to convince people that the well-tested vaccines are good, when the pro-vaccines side keeps pushing this kind of bullsh*t.
Well, actually, a rather large number of humans throughout history have had a spot of trouble controlling their genitals, yes. Humans are, er, far from perfect.
With Gardasil, by far the primary issue is sex before marriage, not adultery. I'm not sure where you're getting that from - certainly not from anything I actually wrote. Did I miss something in the previous comments?
But I'm going to continue the car analogy. Our oldest is learning to drive, and we're teaching him to be careful, cautious, and defensive. Not to take stupid risks, etc. Of course, most parents do that when teaching their kids to drive. And yet, kids do impulsive and stupid things with cars every day. (Heck, so do adults.) So we're also teaching him to use his seatbelt. Even if he does everything right, someone else could do something terrible. (I'm sure you can't imagine any analogy to sex there, right? Something about involuntary sexual activity even if someone's being sensible? There's a word for it...)
I certainly want my kids not to make mistakes. But if I can minimize the consequences of mistakes - particularly preventing long-term and/or fatal consequences - I'm going to do that. You can disagree as you choose, I guess.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
It would be "the same issue" if we were talking about a small expense. But schooling is major and mandatory. Lower income families do not have an economic choice: they must send their kids to public school, no matter what.
All of them: curricula are politically determined, through legislatures and school boards.
I come from one of those countries whose public schools are supposedly very good; they aren't. Even if you look at something like the PISA study, the US is just fairly average, with the differences between countries not being all that large. European schools have the same kinds of problems that US schools do. When they work a little better (e.g., in Finland), it's due to social and cultural factors.
That's why you look at other sources. In this case, vaccines save lots and lots of lives, which you can see with basic statistics. There have been scientific medical studies. Never trust Big Pharma, but look at people who have actual evidence and are willing to share it with you.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It would be "the same issue" if we were talking about a small expense. But schooling is major and mandatory. Lower income families do not have an economic choice: they must send their kids to public school, no matter what.
Lower income people pay lower taxes from having dependents. Paying for the local schools is a requirement for everyone regardless of whether they use the schools.
I have been paying for public schools for the past 11 years. I have a 1 year old and I won't be able to start using public schools for another 4 years. That's even if we deem the schools in our area to be good enough quality. Otherwise we are sending my daughter to private school in which case we will not be getting any of the benefit of public schools. Believe me, this issue of paying for public schools without using them affects way more people than just people who don;t want to get immunizations.
Saying that poor people who forced to get immunized because they must send their kids to public schools, is like saying that I am forced to use public transportation because I can't afford a car. That's not what force is. That's still well within the realm of choices. Everyone must make choices, and being poor means making some harder choices.
I think it's actually good that this is a hard choice. Maybe it will mean that some idiot parents will actually decide to immunize their kids which may prevent them from getting a horrible disease or giving someone else a horrible disease. The kids don't get a say, but I'm sure the countless kids saved by vaccines every year appreciate that their parents made the right choice when they grow up, or more likely that they don't even have to think about diseases that they avoided.
All of them: curricula are politically determined, through legislatures and school boards.
I thought you were using "politically" in the colloquial sense. You want the curricula to be determined non-politically (i.e. without the influence of the citizenry) ?
I come from one of those countries whose public schools are supposedly very good; they aren't.
Which country is that? Sweden?
Even if you look at something like the PISA study, the US is just fairly average, with the differences between countries not being all that large. European schools have the same kinds of problems that US schools do. When they work a little better (e.g., in Finland), it's due to social and cultural factors.
I don't think anyone disagrees that social factors and cultural factors effect school performance. But it is also true that education affects social and cultural factors. They effect each other. Part of the problem with improving schools is that you need a smarter population to solve problems of society properly, and you don't get that without a good education system.
People could just as easily say the converse. We can't fix these social and cultural problems because the education system is broken.
Exactly what science is that? Was it the report which is locked behind a paywall? Because I always trust the word of someone who refuses to share the data. Hell, I have no way in which to even determine who funded the study, but my money says that the manufacturer/s funded the study, and I do not trust them at all.
In case you have had your head too far up your ass to notice we have been facing a severe problem with fraud in the medical science community, especially when large pharmaceutical companies are involved. Trusting them blindly is the height of stupidity.
You forgot something very important here. pay attention to who funded the study and what financial ties all the people involved have. In this case both of those things are hidden from us by a paywall.
Darn! I thought this thread was about the old Minicomputer wars.
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
You don't get the disease. You don't die.
Except that is not entirely true. Both have happened in Vaccinated populations.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Protect your Digital Equipment VAX computer with the Gardol invisible shield.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
No, the "force" is in the taxation itself, something lower income people are disproportionately subjected to.
Correct. I want curricula to be determined by the market. That is, there should be a wide range of schools offering a wide range of educational options, and parents vote with their dollars.
US public schools are pretty decent, and US private schools are excellent. And for all its problems, the US is still culturally and socially way ahead of Europe, although unfortunately, European political mistakes are gradually making inroads in the US. The US should return to its more classically liberal tradition of individualism and personal responsibility, instead of trying to have government "fix" society.
No, the "force" is in the taxation itself, something lower income people are disproportionately subjected to.
Yes the taxes are certainly forced. But this is not the same as being forced to get immunizations.
Correct. I want curricula to be determined by the market. That is, there should be a wide range of schools offering a wide range of educational options, and parents vote with their dollars.
There are. They just aren't free. And I'm not even opposed to vouchers. All I am saying is that it doesn't solve the larger problem of people paying for schools they don't use. It only solves this problem for a small subset of people who already have kids but can;t go to public school for whatever reason. I thoink if anything vouchers probably help wealthy people most of all. They are the people who would be sending their kids to private school anyway, but with vouchers they can get a big discount.
US public schools are pretty decent, and US private schools are excellent. And for all its problems, the US is still culturally and socially way ahead of Europe, although unfortunately, European political mistakes are gradually making inroads in the US. The US should return to its more classically liberal tradition of individualism and personal responsibility, instead of trying to have government "fix" society.
Europe is a big place. There is no doubt a lot of diversity in European schools, just like there is a lot of diversity in American schools. Most of the schools I've seen in Europe were way better than the schools I attended in early life (LAUSD). It was only until my parents moved to a wealthy neighborhood that schools became much better.
We certainly have some very good public schools, and definitely some good private schools, especially when you get to the university level, but this is not the whole story. There are lots of people stuck in substandard schools in poor communities. The difference in quality between affluent schools and low income schools is immense.
Taking people's stuff through the threat of force and then giving it back with conditions certainly sounds like "forcing" people to me.
No, vouchers mostly help lower income people, who finally get a choice about schools. A "discount" on high school doesn't make a big difference to wealthy people.
About half of the schools in countries like Germany don't even attempt to prepare students for college or university; did you "see" any such schools?
As it is in Europe. What matters is, in fact, not the amount of money available to schools, but the demographics of students and parents.
http://articles.mercola.com/si...
You benefit even if you don't have kids in school, as you will interact with graduates all day, and every single service you require from the local area will have benefited from education. It's amazing that some people don't understand that other people are people too, and just how interconnected our lives are.
You clearly have no idea why the numbers for 3) and 4) are so low - hint: VACCINES. Did you not go to school or something? This is trivial stuff to understand. You are looking at a country relatively full of vaccinated people...
Taking people's stuff through the threat of force and then giving it back with conditions certainly sounds like "forcing" people to me.
It's absolutely force. It's forcibly taking property. It's not forcibly immunizing people. For one thing, the property is taken regardless of whether the child is given immunizations or attends the public schools.
No, vouchers mostly help lower income people, who finally get a choice about schools. A "discount" on high school doesn't make a big difference to wealthy people.
It doesn't help poor people who can't afford to pay for private school even with the vouchers. Those people will be be stuck in a public school with even less funding as wealthier people flee to private schools. And as I said. I am not against vouchers. This is just the reality of what happens.
About half of the schools in countries like Germany don't even attempt to prepare students for college or university; did you "see" any such schools?
Yeah, my friend teaches at one. The kids attending it are mostly from children of poor immigrants. These teachers are doing the best they can. One key difference is that my friend actually gets paid more to work in a troubled school, while in America we pay teachers in low income schools less, furthering the divide.
As it is in Europe. What matters is, in fact, not the amount of money available to schools, but the demographics of students and parents.
The difference being that in the US and Europe seems to be an honest attempt at remedying the situation rather than simply being complacent with the vast difference in quality of education for low and high income students.
You're replying to the wrong person. All I am arguing is that vouchers don't fix the "problem" of people paying for things they don't benefit from.
You're completely out of touch with reality. First, the US redirects vast amounts of money to inner city schools and problem schools, far more so than any place in Europe. Second, increased per student spending does not lead to improved educational outcomes. The latter point is true both within the US and across nations. In the US, many of the worst performing schools are also the most expensive ones. It is particularly obvious when comparing countries because the US spends far above OECD average on students, but achieves only average results.
That's not a "reality", it's something you're fabricating out of thin air. It is absurd to think that "poor people" wouldn't find a wide range of private school offerings for the average $12000/student that the US spends on education, if handed out as vouchers.
The idea that the US isn't spending enough money on primary or secondary education, anywhere in the country, is ridiculous, in particular if you compare US numbers with Europe.
In this particular case it's paywalled, although it's quite possible you can get access through a University library. There's a heck of a lot of stuff that's not paywalled that anti-vaxxers deliberately ignore.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There are certainly a lot of studies which are ignored, but they are ignored for a reason. You cannot trust a study which is funded by the company who wants to sell the product, these companies have proven this thousands of times over. You also cannot trust a study by someone who receives funding from the company who sells the product. They are just as likely to commit fraud as the company themselves. There is also a large amount of corruption in this sector, to the point that if you publish a paper which reveals harms caused by vaccines your career is almost certainly over.
I think you need to pull your head out of your ass and read what I actually said.
> In other words, while I understand your concern, you don't get to harm me to keep yourself safe.
But you do?
I mean, the case here is where in some respects both are harming the other. You harm us by not getting vaccinated, we harm you by forcing this upon you. Isn't the question then which harm is lesser?
And there are limited exceptions for vaccinations. But there's no way you can just choose not to get sick.
So which is the lesser harm here, given that we can only choose to harm one or the other?
I did read what you said, and it is nonsense. You are starting with so many faulty assumptions about the US and European educational system and about the relationship between spending and quality of education that one simply can't debunk it all in a few lines. You really need to read up, get some facts, and use your head before you keep spouting the progressive party line.
Really? Because your "refutation" of my faulty assumptions includes repeating things that I already said. Which to me says that you either can't read, or you have problems with logic.
Furthermore, if you think the worst performing schools in the US are the ones getting the most money, you are out of your fucking mind. You may as well claim that it's poor people that are driving all the Ferraris.
GARDASIL UNDER GLOBAL ATTACK:
NEW DOCUMENTARY
Since it was first approved in 2007, HPV vaccine has always been surrounded by a flood of controversy. A vaccine for cancer? The scientific premise offered to justify the vaccine’s necessity is too far fetched to stand up to even the most casual scrutiny.
But since the vast majority of the population blindly accepts the accounts of their doctor regarding Gardasil, there is no scrutiny. Most are willing to make virtually any leap of faith in accepting new vaccines, in absence of any supportable science. Until something happens, that is: the daughter is permanently damaged.
Merck’s billion $ Gardasil has become a standard injection for 9 years now in the vaccine Schedules of the US, Asia, and Europe. for essential background information on the absence of verifiable science behind Gardasil, see HPV: The First Cancer Vaccine .
A new documentary just came out of Ireland, and it is most compelling. No parents should let their daughters be vaccinated with HPV vaccine without seeing this 45 minute reality check.
REGRET, an organization of outraged mothers in Ireland is now getting TV and radio coverage that is going viral. Over 150 of their daughters have been severely injured immediately following the Gardasil shot. They were the recent subject of a documentary that was made by a prestigious filmmaker called simply TV3 HPV Documentary
If you have any 11 or 12 year olds, stop reading now and watch the whole thing - not even kidding.
It’s a compelling glimpse at a whole decade of Gardasil vaccine. What holds your interest is the story each of the girls is telling – it’s the same story, over and over. The mothers corroborate by telling their identical stories of rejection by doctors and politicians, who have all rotely recited the same predictable mantra/denial of any connection with vaccines. Paul Offit has several analogues in Ireland, every bit as condescending and serpentine.
Officials there are floating some flimsy rationales. They even invented 2 brand new syndromes to explain the condition of these injured girls: Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, which were tailor-made to categorize these new cases.
And then they proceed to deny any possible connection with Gardasil, without the slightest new clinical testing to verify that.
Sound familiar?
The systematic blackout in world media excluding hundreds of documented injuries and reactions from Gardasil in countries all over the world demonstrates the raw power that a global monolith like Merck can exert. This control has not been enough however to silence the growing number of dramatic reactions and injuries among 12 years olds all over the world.
Organizing in several websites, the potential of this experimental injection can no longer be hidden.
To enhance the coverup, the Merck-funded Vaccine Confidence Project paid its top writer to write a creative essay floating the preposterous idea that these 150 Irish girls are the victims of an internationally contagious psychogenic illness, caused not by the vaccine but by the Internet!
This is more extreme than even Merck itself, who admits the possibility of such reactions to Gardasil in 2.3% of cases. Quite a substantial figure in light of the millions of doses that have been administered.
The author of this desperate fictional essay, Heidi Larsen, invented a new term in vaccine mythology: vaccine hesitant. This Orwellian term is meant to refer to anyone who has the audacity to doubt any of the scripted vaccine dogma propounded by any government health agencies. Psychogenic, and vaccine hesitant! Edward L Bernays will never die.
Many countries have formed organizations of parents with injured children who are demanding answers instead of slogans
– where is the science behind the vaccine, and stop pretending all these children
Are you sure about what happens to people who publish vaccine harm? How many careers died to produce this government report?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes