Slashdot Mirror
Ontario Parents Refusing To Vaccinate Their Children Could Be Forced to Take Science Class (qz.com)
Ontario is considering making parents who choose to not vaccinate their children for non-medical reasons take a science class. The health ministry of Canada's most populous province has proposed a bill which would force those parents sit through the education session before applying for a vaccine exemption. In the class, they will be taught about the importance of vaccination for their children. Quartz offers more context: Ontario was the first province in Canada to introduce immunization laws (PDF) in 1982, which required children attending school be vaccinated against certain diseases -- including diphtheria, tetanus, polio, and measles -- unless they have a signed exemption. After routine immunization was introduced, cases of those diseases dramatically reduced.
Parents who apply for an exemption (PDF) for non-medical reasons risk having their child pulled from school if there's an outbreak, or the immediate risk of an outbreak, of a designated disease.
They should be forced to take a mental fitness test, an IQ test, and while they're doing that, their children are jabbed. Fuck "parental rights". Those should stop the very second a child's health is put at risk. Children are wards of their parents, not possessions, and if we're going to force the children of Jehovah's Witnesses to have blood transfusions to save their lives, why would we give some idiot parents the option of endangering their children's lives by allowing them to deprive their children of vaccinations.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
They must have run her out of California.
You thought voter id was bad? You aint seen nutin yet!
Oh ya...u jus try to lern me them ther science and I'll lern you 'bout my rifle.
It will be interesting to see what the rate of mind changing is after this. I can only assume that there are some parents who legitimately don't know how much evidence points toward the anti-vaccine position as being absolute bollocks, and this will actually serve to educate them. However, given the anti-vaxxer crowd, a lot more will likely just see this as propaganda by mean ol' Big Pharma, and take this as 'more proof' that they are part of a vast corporate conspiracy controling the government.
Personally, I think they should do away with all non-medical denial of essential medical services for children. I don't give a rat's ass what you believe, you don't get to put your children in danger over it. You don't see religious exemptions for seatbelts or toilet paper, because that would be completely idiotic. But I guess if you're going to have them, might as well do something about it.
These people already distrust anything science. They likely didn't get the point in high school and have been training their resistance to critical thinking and evidence based reasoning ever since. All that this will do is start a bunch of human rights complaints. The government would probably have better luck forcing all non-vaccinated kids into one school for the parentally challenged.
Re-education camps. These always work out great.
An educational class would be helpful in dispelling many myths surrounding vaccinations.
Topics should include: Iron lungs and polio. Deafness and rubella (and the subsequent dramatic drop-off in deaf children after the vaccination was created). Thimerosal is not the same as methyl mercury. There is no proven link between vaccinations and autism. Autism is better than death. Autism is better than the iron lung. Autism is better than Meningitis. Jenny McCarthy is not a doctor or scientist. Herd immunity is important in preventing permanent disabilities and death.
The only adjustment I feel is okay for a parent to make with respect to vaccinations is adjusting the recommended vaccination schedule and taking a slightly staggered approach (1-2 week gap). According to CDC statistics there are a couple of recommended vaccines that do have a slightly higher adverse incident rate (small fractions of a percentage point). By staggering these separately from those without a (slightly) higher adverse incident rate, I think a parent can feel a lot better about vaccinating their children. This is something a parent can actively do that ensures the child becomes vaccinated and also mitigates the (very small almost negligible) risks associated with doing so.
Vaccines are a net positive for society and it's actual stupidity to suggest otherwise.
Penn & Teller's take on anti-anti-vaxxers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
These are people who have already made up their minds, otherwise they would not be willing to suffer the indignity of being forced to attend public school as adults in order to have their way. Just as justice can not flow from the barrel of a weapon, intelligence can not be legislated into existence.
Vaccines make the human species as a whole healthier. They shouldn't be optional unless there are legitimate medical reasons signed off by a real doctor.
There's a saying about leading a horse to water....
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Of course not because your parents had you vaccinated!!!
mfwright@batnet.com
Vaccination exemptions for non-medical reasons should outright be school exclusions. You should not be able to willingly endanger other students because of vacuous beliefs. Take care of your child's schooling to the standard of the province and you can exclude them all you'll like, don't and they'll be vaccinated and reintegrated into school.
This anti-vaxxer movement needs to be culled ruthlessly.
This entire situation is horrifying.
What is worse I don't know:
the fact that the application of such medicine is mandated by the state
the fact that such medication is necessary
or how these dogmatic people verbally ravage anyone with standing on their sovereignty
People are not cattle. But our leaders and apparently many of our peers think they are, whether they have the fortitude to realize it or not.
In a free society you cannot force people to modify their bodies like this. The state cannot mandate what the composition of your body is to be. This is an extremely profound destruction of freedom. Any evidence to any immediate benefit is irrelevant in whole.
The point is it is the responsibility of the state to keep these diseases out of its borders, it is not the responsibility of the masses to compensate for this failure in policy and be complicit in a failure of justice and freedom also.
This is interestingly similar to the way some US governmental bodies force doctors, prior to discussing abortion options, to describe to a prospective mother a variety of "facts" regarding their fetus. For instance, whether the fetus has yet developed the ability to sense discomfort, or whether the fetus can hear the mother's heartbeat.
Of course, progressive people are very upset about that.
I get it. It's rare for a vaccine to cause physical damage. You probably don't know anyone who spent the better part of a year in the hospital battling an autoimmune issue caused from a simple flu shot. While statistically rare, these things can and do occur.
What I don't get is why it's ok for anyone to give the government free reign on deciding to forcefully inject these vaccines in a one-size fits all method. Increase what we vaccinate for, whether it's really applicable or not. All while not doing any tests prior to the shots or afterwards. If a blood test shows the first 2 shots were successful and the 3rd isn't necessary - then hey, why chance anything with an unnecessary injection?
Sometimes an argument isn't 100% for or 100% against an idea -- but somewhere in the middle.
We require classes and certification for motorcycle riders, car drivers, etc, where the danger/cost is sometimes more to oneself than to others (or the costs of bearing your public health burden if you get injured) -- it's not unreasonable then where the danger is a person inflicting injury on a child with no say in the matter.
Why are the children that would be immune to these diseases' be at risk the only ones at risk would be those that abstain. If there is an outbreak the parents bear the responsibility for their choices. Indoctrination will ultimately be counterproductive.
While there is some of it everywhere, a big bastion of antivaxing is in techy areas of California. The people in to it are generally above average in an academic sense. So what is going on? It is something you see all too often with geeks: Smartest Motherfucker in the Universe Syndrome. They get the idea that they are much smarter than everyone else, since they often are, and thus are good at everything. They are convinced they've found out a truth those stupid doctors don't know or are covering up. Their intelligence leads to a hubris which leads to them doing dumb shit.
Being intelligent doesn't make one informed.
You want to live in our borders, protected by our military, using our infrastructure, functioning in our economy? You want all of the benefits society has to offer? Then you have to pay by behaving the way society says you should. You have to accept limitations on your freedom in return for protections we can afford. You can still enjoy a great many freedoms along with plumbing, electricity and consumer goods - but you have to obey certain rules in return. Good societies maximize the return while minimizing the price tag (i.e. - your kids will be educated, but they have to be immunized against certain diseases so that they won't cause harm to their fellow students. In return, society asserts that their fellow students will not give your kids these diseases and you will end up with reasonably well educated children).
Big Government should NEVER tell parents what to do. It's the right of a parent to exercise ultimate suzerainty over their children.
Tetanus? I was under the impression that current tetanus vaccines "wear off" after 3 or so years. Do they continuously re-vaccinate children in Canada or is there more long-lasting vaccine?
These people have already made up their minds that vaccinations are causing some sort of harm, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if a fair number of them think there's some sort of government conspiracy involved. Forcing them to sit down and have the science behind vaccines pounded into them is likely to just make them more stubborn about it or more convinced that there's some sort of conspiracy going on.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
There are states in the US that have similar/worse criteria for getting an abortions...
Without arguing pro/con the legitimacy of abortions (since, I'm not female I reserve the right to not care), it's certainly clear that the public health risks to others aren't comparable.
Government forcibly educating people. What could possibly go wrong?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
First, I want to be clear that I am pro-vaccination.
Any vaccine has a certain number of people that are permanently injured by that vaccine (that's why there is a vaccine injury fund in the US), but, the overall number of people it saves (including immune compromised individuals) outweighs that very, very small risk that you could be hurt or killed by that vaccine.
However:
Certain specific vaccines likely killed more people than they saved because the threat of the illness was overestimated (deaths due to specific outbreaks of certain flu strains vs. deaths/injuries due to the vaccine.)
Other vaccines have had safety issues with certain batches and were recalled after injuring/killing various people.
Again, it's very, very rare. But that brings me to my next point:
I see no reason to not vaccinate myself and my children. I support herd immunity, and that it helps the greater good. However, I want the choice to be able to vaccinate as there could be a case where I don't feel a particular vaccine is safe. Simply being told to "trust" someone else that something is safe and being forced to have something put into my body and my children's body is not OK. Certain jobs or institutions can mandate vaccinations before being part of them - that's my choice for using them. However, there is a big difference between making a conscious decision to do something vs. being told you must do it.
When you're told that you must put something in your body, no matter if it is for the "greater good", then you are not truly free. Mandating general vaccination is tyranny.
Not to mention it, once the precedent is set, what is to stop mandatory gene therapy, genetic modification techniques, etc to "prevent" potential problems? Just because you approve of the situation today for mandatory vaccinations, would you be OK with how things are tomorrow? What if there are unintended consequences?
The only way to solve the "anti-vaxxer" problem is by education, so I don't disagree with having people attending a science class before opting out, but, I don't think it will resolve the issues. The problem is greater than one science class can resolve.
These people already distrust anything science. They likely didn't get the point in high school and have been training their resistance to critical thinking and evidence based reasoning ever since. All that this will do is start a bunch of human rights complaints. The government would probably have better luck forcing all non-vaccinated kids into one school for the parentally challenged.
It's hard to see this from the parents' point of view, but keep in mind that their fears are not *completely* without merit.
The original polio vaccine was a weakened strain, and it was possible to get the disease from the vaccine.
This meant that there was a time when getting polio from the wild was less likely than getting it from the vaccine, so it's completely reasonable from the *individual* point of view that the best course is the one that minimizes risk.
Factor in the general devotion parents have to their child's well-being, and it 'kinda makes sense.
Then it was thiomersal. Thiomersal is a mercury compound mixed with vaccines to suppress fungi growth and such.
At the time, there was a large body of indirect evidence that suggested Tiomersal was safe. There was a lot of evidence, but it was all indirect(*).
Then one researcher published a study that directly linked thiomersal to autism and suddenly, the emperor has no clothes!
You see, direct evidence trumps indirect evidence every time. Indirect evidence makes assumptions about similarity that may or may not be true.
When the autism study came out, everyone realized that the evidence was indirect, and everyone freaked. It took medical science another decade to show that they were right.
In my opinion, I think science got lucky. Scientists relied on indirect evidence for something that was an emotional powderkeg, and it *could* have gone the other way. This sort of thing has certainly happened before(**), and still happens (***).
And also in my opinion, I'm not 100% certain that the science was right about this. Thiomersal was removed from most vaccines "out of an abundance of caution", and the political pressure on "being right" and "showing the researcher was a fraud" was so high that I'm not sure either question was fairly settled.
I'm not an anti-vaxer at all, just looking at the history.
The position against vaccines is incorrect, but not *completely* baseless.
(*) For example, Thiomersal is ethyl mercury, and risk was extrapolated from known exposure to methyl mercury.
(**) Tetra ethyl lead, for instance.
(***) Science now says that SSRI's are ineffective, despite being the go-to prescription medication for depression.
Seriously, if the other kids are vaccinated, the only ones at risk here are the ones with dumbasses for parents.
Because every outbreak starts and end, with non vaccinated kids. With the ones having been vaccinated be completely off the hook from an easily preventable disease that's essentially been cured for decades now.
This 8-minute video uses layman's terms, especially in the second half. Just tell your anti-vaxxer friends that the "scientific journals" the guy mentions are basically the top four in medicine (meaning most influential).
Save your explanation of how scientific journals and study-replication actually work for some other conversation. Remember, you will be talking to an anti-vaxxer. Keep it simple.
Vaccines are not a simple topic. Anyone who says that all vaccines are good is just showing their ignorance. If you unquestioningly equate "vaccine" with "science" and "good" you are also showing just how stupid you are.
In some ways veterinary science is more advanced than human medicine. The reason is quite simple... they can practice on lots of cats and dogs and it's not a big deal when the patient dies. Many surgical techniques and medicines were tried out on pets for decades before they were accepted for humans.
If you talk to a veterinarian with advanced degrees (I have), they will tell you that receiving too many vaccinations tends to cause health problems, at least in pets. They don't say to avoid all vaccinations, but instead to give careful consideration of all the issues in order to decide which vaccines to administer and when to do give them.
My dog developed an autoimmune disease. The specialist vet came to the conclusion that it was brought on by a rabies booster shot, and their recommendation was that my dog should not receive any additional vaccinations of any sort because it could cause a resurgence of the disease. My dog is going to die a very early death because of damage caused by the autoimmune disease which was in turn caused by the vaccine.
Now on to the human side...
I have a friend who is now a doctor. While she was in college she had a simple flu shot and developed complications from the shot which will affect her for the rest of her life.
In the past, the CDC said that pregnant women should not receive vaccines. They had statistics that showed higher rates of spontaneous abortions resulting from the vaccinations. They also had statistics showing a higher rate of schizophrenia in adults whose mothers received vaccinations while pregnant. A few years ago the CDC changed their minds and are now pushing vaccines on pregnant women even though the science hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is the politics of vaccines. It seems the CDC changed their recommendations purely to try to convince the masses that vaccines are safe in all situations, even though they knew otherwise.
There is now science, well statistics (real, not pseudo) that documents the DPT and MMR shots have some of the highest rates of complications among vaccines. There is also mounting evidence that at least the mumps part of the MMR shot is not effective, the measles part is only partially effective, and the DPT shot is either not effective or is effective for only a few years.
If you talk to immunologists, at least some of them say that giving vaccinations to babies under one year is futile because the babies' immune systems are not developed enough to respond properly to the vaccinations and they will not develop any immunity. Yet the vaccination schedule pushes a lot of shots into that first year, at least partially so that the large number of recommended vaccines can be given before the baby is exposed to real pathogens in daycare or school. In a similar fashion, the elderly often have compromised immune systems which mean vaccinations are ineffective for them, yet the doctors go on giving them the shots anyway.
If you look at reality what you will discover is that sanitation probably has a larger effect on a population's health than vaccines do. That isn't saying vaccines can't have significant benefits, but you need to keep things in perspective.
Let's stop treating vaccines as being magical.
This is a fantastic idea and I can see it applied to a lot of different areas! Global warming skeptic? Well, you obviously hate your children, so off to the "science course" with you. Don't think GMO food is all that bad (or at least preferable to starving)? What on earth are you feeding your kids? Off to science camp! Teach them that a supreme being created heaven and earth? Pfft, can't have such superstition distracting the young workers from their service to the state. Science!
Seriously, if they're going to opt to not vaccinate their kids, they should be obligated assume liability for every child their unimmunized kid gets sick.
As such, they should also be obligated to take out an insurance plan to actually PAY for the medical bills of children made ill because of their decision.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
...child. And chickenpox.
As proved by numerous television programmes, films and books, of the 1970s... which unfortunately for you, you can't just erase from history.
Vaccination in UK TV programmes and books, pre 1980s: ... ...
'The masters or sitcom' by Ray Galton and Alan Simpson, p161:
BILL: Go round kissing all the babies. That'll get the votes.
ANDREE: How is he doctor?
KENNETH: Oh, it's nothing to worry about, just a slight case of measles. Plenty of rest, he'll be all right in a week or two.
TONY: (Disgusted) Measles. Whose bright idea was it to go round kissing all the babies?
BILL: Well, I'm sorry, Tub.
TONY: 'Don't forget the one with the freckles,' he says. Aaah... If I get half as many votes as I've got spots, I'll sweep the country.
Doctor at Large, Series 1 Ep. 25, 2:14 Dr. Upton is taken ill and says "Feels like mumps. I had mumps. I had it when I was eight." ...Really, Flo, you can't possibly remember that." Flo; "I can! Of course I can, George. Mother let me stay up to read you Treasure Island."
Catweazle, series 1, final part, 'The Trickery Lantern', 2:30 Flo (Mr. Bennett's sister); "You were just like this with chickenpox." Mr. Bennett; "Chickenpox?" Flo; "When you were nine." Mr. Bennett; "When I was?
Catweazle, Series 1, Episode 4, 'The Witching Hour', 22:20, Miss Bonnington says "My arch enemy, Mrs. Willougbhy wasn't there." Mr. Bennett (Carrot's father); "Wasn't there?" Miss Bonnington; "Terribly funny, you'd never believe it. She's suddenly gone down with measles!" Carrot; "Measles?" Miss Bonnington; "Funny that - so sudden - several cases in the village of course, but she was perfectly alright this afternoon in the hairdressers. Hope I don't catch it!" (laughing out loud)
Steptoe and Son Christmas Special - Chickenpox, last five minutes.
Robin's Nest, Series 2, Episode 7, 10:10, Robin's brother's got mumps.
Robin's Nest, Series 3, Episode 4, 18:20 - Mr Nicholls said he hadn't had mumps.
The Famous Five - Five Go Adventuring Again, 2:00 - George says "And what with that, and my being ill, he thought it would be a good idea if we all have lessons", Anne says "Your spots have all gone", George replies "I know, I was officially de-measled this morning".
Man About the House - Series 1, Episode 3 - After the Monopoly game, Chrissie says "I haven't had so much fun since I had the mumps".
Larry Grayson on Pebble Mill said he had measles twice.
'The Adventures of Tom Sawyer' directed by Selznick. 10:33,
Tom: Where have you been such a long time. I haven't seen you since we got engaged.
Girl: I had the chickenpox.
Tom: You haven't got it now, have you?
Girl: No, silly, think my ma would let me out if I wasn't all cured?
Oliver Postgage book "Seeing things", page 12: (When he was six or seven) "but I saw little of the place because I almost immediately came down with measles... a day or two later when Grandad himself turned up, really just to pat me and wish me well because by then I was over the worst of the measles."
(This was in 1930-1932)
Pattie Boyd book 'Wonderful Tonight' "The best bit about having the mumps was that my mother came to visit me." Page unknown.
Measles outbreak in a 98% vaccinated population:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646939/
People vote for a con-man whose positions are unknown, whose qualifications are nonexistent, and who is the biggest sham since the Wizard of Oz.
Or alternatively, for a woman who doesn't utter a peep until she's told what words will be most likely to get her votes, and who is as corrupt as Emperor Nero.
Vote (New Mexico Governor) Gary Johnson for president in 2016; he's experienced, fiscally conservative, and according to all accounts, just an all-around-great-guy.
Plus, picking any alternative is fucking insane!
This is absolutely incorrect. Time and time again it has been shown that Andrew Wakefield (the scumbag piece of shit who published the fraudulent report linking vaccines to autism) is a incorrect. Britain yanked his medical license. The very simplest evidence that thiomersal doesn't lead to autism is that it was taken out of vaccines, yet the rates of autism didn't go down.Case closed.
So... you're saying that the evidence of the time *wasn't* indirect?
Further, just because the element mercury is in something doesn't mean it is dangerous. An example analogy is sodium. Elemental sodium reacts violently with water, yet sodium chloride (table salt) doesn't react violently with water.
So... you're saying that the evidence of the time *wasn't* indirect?
You're putting words in my mouth - words I didn't say.
Reread the post and try again.
The government has no business here. Herd immunity is important, but so are ones freedoms and liberties. I'll take this *extremely far*. Kids should not be subjects of there parents or prevented from leaving, holding jobs, driving, or doing other things that are legal for adults to do. At the same time kids should not be forced to be immunized nor should a parent be able to prevent a child from getting immunized.
I'm okay with this. Being part of a society is a compact of violence, so the only proper way of rejecting that compact is with violence. As far as vaccinations go, that horse done left the barn a while ago, but feel free to die for it.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
If you can enforce your individual rights above those of the collective, go ahead. If not, they are necessarily subordinate. I understand that your philosophy is different, but this is one of those cases where the real world tells philosophy to go fuck itself. Empirically, rights are granted by the collective. If you want to argue with the real world, well, that's why you're a nutcase...
...science class for over-religious people/parents.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
The freedom to have your infant contract measles because neighborhood fucknuts wont vaccinate their kids?
Fuck. That.
You want to be petri dishes for diseases that should be functionally extinct, move out to your own deserted island and leave the rest of us alone.
Of course my sample is not representative, but of the people who I know who are, let's say it, are selective on vaccination are biochemical science PhD's (in major pharmaceutical companies), creators of biological medications and medical doctors. There is no denial about benefits of the vaccines, however only selected vaccines are taken and at the age that is ordinarily much later than "recommended" vaccination schedule. Also, vaccines are never mixed.
I will give an example. Right now 6 month infants are "recommended" hepatitis B vaccine. Usually and ordinarily people have Hepatitis B risk, if they are sex workers, prisoners, police and similar.
Who exactly needs to take classes? And what exactly we are going to learn in these classes?
A better solution would be to give the parents polio, and then see if they can make a better-informed opinion about vaccination.
The original polio vaccine was a weakened strain, and it was possible to get the disease from the vaccine. This meant that there was a time when getting polio from the wild was less likely than getting it from the vaccine.
Get your facts right if you want to be trusted.
The first polio vaccine was the inactivated polio vaccine. It was developed by Jonas Salk and came into use in 1955. The oral polio vaccine [attenuated virus] was developed by Albert Sabin and came into commercial use in 1961.
Soon after Salk's vaccine was licensed in 1955, children's vaccination campaigns were launched. In the U.S, following a mass immunization campaign promoted by the March of Dimes, the annual number of polio cases fell from 35,000 in 1953 to 5,600 by 1957.
An enhanced-potency IPV (inactivated polio vaccine) was licensed in the United States in November 1987, and is currently the vaccine of choice in the United States.
The inactivated polio vaccines are very safe. Mild redness or pain may occur at the site of injection. Oral polio vaccine results in vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis in about three per million doses.
Polio vaccine
The oral vaccine is inexpensive and easy to distribute in third world environments --- where I very much doubt the risk of an encounter with the disease in the wild has ever been less than the risk of the vaccine.
The government should group these parents into cohorts and hold the science classes at camps. Reeducation camps. These parents need to be reeducated to conform to the will of the state. What harm is there in this?
When we had to rush my son to the hospital after a bad reactions his vaccination (MMR), the doctors just said, "this is so rare, like one in a million". He had to have an inhaler for years after that. So when it came time to vaccinate our daughter, I asked for insurance. A million to one chance of bad reaction they say, so I figured give the vaccine manufacturer 2:1 to make money, I offered to buy insurance for $1000, so that if my daughter has any complications , $500,000,000 goes into her healthcare fund. Guess what, no takers. So we declined. It seems when they tell you bad reactions are so rare, they are obviously lying, or they could make good money selling insurance. No class will convince me how low risk this is until you can find an insurance company willing to back those stats up by selling insurance - make them sit through a class and see if their actuaries are convinced.
A google search shows this NIH study:
An alternative approach was to attenuate the wild-type virus and render it safe as a replicating antigen. Both were successful and today there are two forms of the vaccine: the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), which is administered by the parenteral route, and the live attenuated vaccine, which is administered orally and hence is known as the oral polio vaccine (OPV).
Shortly after the licensure of IPV in 1955, the vaccine manufactured by Cutter was found to cause paralytic disease. It contained residual infectious virus. The reason was traced to the method of inactivation. At that time the dynamics of the inactivation process were not fully understood, and the U.S. government's requirements for vaccine production were ambiguous. All of these problems have since been corrected.
And from this 1978 study:
Another view of the incidence of paralysis following oral poliovaccine (OPV) shows that the risk is about 1.6 cases per 10(6) nonimmune children given OPV and that this rises to about ten cases per 10(6) nonimmune adults exposed to OPV.
The risk was quite real, and non-zero. About 1-in-100,000
In the US in 1978 (the year of the 2nd study), the number of polio cases in the US was 15, against a population of 222 million.
Thus, the odds of getting polio induced paralysis from the vaccine is 1-in-100,000, while getting polio in the wild was 15-in-222 million.
In 1978, you were 148 times more likely to be paralyzed by the vaccine than to get polio.
Get your facts right if you want to be trusted.
Help me out here. If not the NIH studies above, which sources of information should I trust?
I want to be as knowledgeable and trustworthy as you are...
Better solution - make them sit for hours while listening to people who remember seeing friends catch polio.
Catweazle was released in 1970. Not many people were vaccinated for measles and mumps back then. Every year you'd hear about a local kid or baby that died or had lifelong complications from one or the other.
This sound so Canadian, :) Very proud to be one. A very Trudeau thing... It will make the parents give it a little more thought before making the decision. They will need to do their homework and be completely honest.
Take a look at HR folk stalking employees on Facebook for a similar example of pointless busywork. Sometime you need HR and sometimes you need CPS, but if either start looking for something to do and have a lot of power to abuse then there can be trouble.
Talk about ignorance, how about 100 million deaths in 1918?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Off to science class for you.
1: This is a good reason for term limits and not just for elected officials but their underlings as well. You let people be in power for too long, they think they are the government and own the public.
2: This is also a good reason to abolish teachers unions. You let them form a career and get entitled, all of a sudden they think they own your children.
3: The parents are making the judgement between the risk of their kids contracting a disease that has all but been eliminated, and the risk of disease from the vaccine itself. It's like requiring we get vaccinated for the bubonic plague; we used to have a risky vaccine for that, the FDA took it off the market, and nobody's heard of anyone getting the plague since.
There's a hundred other cajoling arguments to be made here between the vaccine manufacturers having no skin in the game and the necessity of ongoing immunity. Frankly, this looks an awful lot like is someone is getting a pay-off by an industry to pass another one of these "nudge" laws, only problem is they're in the taxpayers infinite pocket yet again. You get what you pay for; you want socialized medicine, you get government "cost-controls"; they control the costs and you pay out the wazoo.
So what does one do when at least some studies indicate that you can't fix stupid? Seems like giving up. https://science.slashdot.org/s... This is one of those areas where personal liberty might just need to step aside. I know that sounds bad but when you consider that the result of exemption is statistically correlated to death and we have laws to discourage and punish homicide, it doesn't seem like that much of a jump to sacrifice personal liberty here...
No, because if most other people are vaccinated they're extremely unlikely to encounter an active carrier, and even less likely to pass it on to another vulnerable person.
It's called herd immunity.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I am sure the class will be completely neutral, fair, unbiased, and totally fact-based, as long as the facts are approved by big pharma, which has perpetuated the biggest scam of all time on the human race.
The real scientific proven fact is that vaccinations are far removed from the public health interest and cause far more problems than they even purport to solve. Also, being vaccinated doesn't do one thing to prevent you carrying the disease and transmitting it to other people, except that because the vaccine masks the symptoms, you don't know you're sick so you don't stay home to prevent transmission.
All of this state-sponsored FUD and misinformation about vaccines has got to stop. We've completely ruined a generation of children by giving them autism, ADHD, and other vaccine-caused illnesses in the name of preventing disease, when we really even haven't prevented disease. All we've done is make it easier for kids contaminated with vaccines to spread disease to healthy unvaccinated kids - yet I'm the devil for not having my kids poisoned by the state.
If you think that mandating vaccination is tyranny, then military conscription is 10x worse. In the case of military conscription, you're being made to take a far higher risk of injury/death and being made to do violence against others.
Given that the vast majority in the US feels like mandatory military conscription is just fine, what's so horrifying about mandated vaccination?
Mandated vaccination is nothing more and nothing less than the military conscription of everyone in a society for the society's common defense--against disease. It also has the benefit that the individuals are far less at risk of the disease, are not made to do violence, and are at far less risk than military service in wartime entails.
Personally, I think mandating both military service and vaccination upon individuals in a society is NOT tyranny but rather are practical necessities of survival of that society. Don't like society? Go live where no society has jurisdiction and live without society's protection. Like society's protections? Then do your damn share to contribute to those protections! Want to live in society but not contribute? Then be prepared to be treated as that society's enemy! Because you are.
And let's face it, we have a lot of societal mandates for the general good. You are "tyrannically" prevented from driving any way you want on the roads, AT GUNPOINT, for the safety of others. Similarly, you can logically be forced to not risk the lives of others by negligently allowing yourself to be a vector of deadly disease.
Fundamentally, you go too far when you start calling slight infringements on your freedom for the common good "tyranny". How about we reserve the word "tyranny" for rules imposed by the minority upon the majority with no input from the majority that oppress the majority for the sole benefit of the minority?
--PM
Well done Ontario!
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -Carl Sagan
These people have generally made up their minds despite all the evidence to the contrary, often down the "I don't trust this vaccine" or the "the vaccine will be worse than the disease" or even the whole disproven autism connection. Despite my attempting to explain the benefits and science behind it, these patients rarely change their minds - and I treat adults. The most commonly given vaccines we give to adults are all either protein, polysaccharide or heat killed and have near zero ability to infect or cause anything beyond local irritation or at worst an allergic reaction in egg- allergic patients for the flu shot. I can explain all that and the immunology and science behind it (if I care to run way over the 20 minutes allotted for a patient visit) and hardly anyone changes their minds. (Clearly, I am a physician)
Not to mention history class. People who are high and mighty on anti-vaccines need to go back and look at the massive amounts of disease and death that lead to vaccinations in the first place.
Oh, boy. Another vaccination thread, and all the usual suspects are out in force declaring anyone who doesn't agree with them stupid, criminal, or both. I know most of the posters here seem to take the an approach like "I can program in C so therefore I know what is valid science and what isn't" so let me leave you with a few numbers you can explain. After all if you know the science you should be able to explain the following:
So let's forget Autism for a bit because that is such an emotional hot button here. How about the following?
And here some statistics all about the stuff you want to punish people for not wanting to pump into their kids at unprecedented rates. Government data base. BTW the number of deaths from measles in the US has been zero for the last 10 years or more.
There is a lot more. I am sure most of you here frothing at the mouth to impose all kinds of penalties on parents will of course dismiss the numbers as pseudo science or whatever. However everything here can be sourced.
I am of an age where we didn't get measles vaccines when we were kids. We got measles, were taken care of, and then developed natural lifetime immunity. The measles vaccine gives you a temporary shaky immunity at best. Why would I want that for my kid?
Such a science class would be good. The parents could ask the presenters to explain the actual molecular biology of how vaccines work. More particularly, they could ask for a molecular biological explanation of how the adjuvents work, what they are and why they are necessary. The course should delve into the molecular biology behind all of this in order to be considered a science class. If the course is merely descriptive or only touts statistics about vaccines, it is not a real science class. It is a sham.
Medicine that is not based on the proper understanding of the underlying molecular biology of the condition is not a legitimate technical discipline.
are doomed to repeat it.
And public health, also.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Not everyone wants to be treated like cattle who are owned by the state and can be forcibly injected with whatever the state demands, on whatever schedule the state chooses, and for whatever reason the state chooses. Such a gross surrender of individual rights to top-down almighty government by eleites can naturally only lead to one place: a government that decides when its people are no longer valuable and should be humanely eliminated. Hitler did not start that vile chain of thinking; it originated with early twentieth century American progressives and their British friends, the Fabians. Here is famous Nobel Prize winning left-wing hero George Bernard Shaw explaining the need for people to justify their existence to the state and advocating for that whole gas chamber idea (using a "humane" lethal gas, of course).
I am personally not an anti-vaxer, and I think such people are frequently idiotic luddites.... but freedom and liberty say that as individuals, they have the right to not be injected. The rest of us have the right to stay away from them where possible, and a responsibility to act responsibly ourselves to avoid contaminating ourselves and our families after we've been exposed to them. As for your assertion that parents have no rights, please to tell why the government has more rights to children than the parents who made them have. You assert that the parents are only custodians....but by what rule is the government made the more-superior and responsible custodian of individual children??? (The Supreme Court has ruled many times that government has NO responsibility to the individual - police are to protect the community but cannot be held to account for protection of any individual. The military has the responsibility to protect the nation, but not individual Americans. Even Social Security is not an obligation to pay money to any particular individual according to the justices.)
The degree to which people like you want everybody to subject themselves to government that, as a baseline assumes totalitarianism as a given, is just amazing. Even the very conversation often includes terms like "herd immunity", which is understandable in a technical sense, but is nevertheless an eye-opener when wielded by people advocating for a powerful government that demands the right to treat its people almost exactly like owned cattle.
Oh, and people on the left love to paint issues like this as "right wing", and "anti-science" but that's the purest form of bull excrement; the anti-vaccine stuff was initially started and is still being fueled by Bobby Kennedy Jr and then made popular by Jim Carrey who was fixated on his porn babe Jenny McCarthy who was ranting because her son had autism (these are left-wingers and their opposition is anti-science). The limited number of right wingers opposed are NOT opposed because of science but rather because they are opposed to the political assertion that government has the right to order people to be injected with stuff (something FAR more invasive than spying on e-mails or cell phones).
"Progressive" educators and politicians are doing a brilliant job of propagandizing an entire generation of younger Americans into believing in the vile "Progressive" political movement that, the last time it arose became so hated it had to go into hiding for decades. These educators and politicians are being very careful to not let the young see just how evil this ideology is and where it leads, which partly explains why the quality of history teaching is plummeting in the schools. Hint for the young: History proves that "progressivism" always inevitably leads to death camps if not abandoned in time. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
since they did not evolve here as a separate species, they're most-decidedly NOT "native Americans".
They were just an earlier wave of immigrants who came from Asia rather than Europe, and unlike the later European arrivals, were too dumb to invent the wheel or make maps and written languages, so they did not even know where they were.
The whole "Native American" thing is a political bit of propaganda cooked-up only several decades ago to imply that this particular group of immigrants (who arrived earlier and violently massacred the earlier wave of immigrants who were also from Asia) has some superior moral claim to the continent. It's a great way to justify exclusions from taxation and casinos in places that would otherwise prohibit them.
Government should be able to examine all your possessions and go through your computer and cell phone at any time and search your home and place of work etc at will without warning.... nobody has ever been killed by these actions but terrorism kills.
Government should be able to ban all dangerous substances like drugs and alcohol, and sugar, and salt, and fat and cholesterol, etc. for the good of the general society, of course
Government should also be able to ban machines that are dangerous, like guns and cars and airplanes and motorcycles and boats - all of which can probably only be safely operated by government employees for the benefit of the ruling class.
Anybody who objects is clearly a dangerous idiot who should be killed, oops, sorry, you used a better euphemism: "culled"
Please do not even pretend to have principles and be opposed to government spying on people while simultaneously advocating for government sticking needles into them and pumping substances into them and killing anybody who resists.
When I was growing up, nobody in America was this evil and so willing to publicly advocate for such evils. Even in the '60s, the young rebels were anti-government and opposed to "the man". Now it seems that the entertainers and heroes of the youth are FOR massive tyrannical government, and all the youth are being groomed like little Hitler Youth to eagerly support the most evil ideologies ever to arise in the bitterest of human souls. This, it seems, is what the death of humanity and civilization looks like.
Evil, is ALWAYS peddled with great-sounding justifications about some "greater good" and references to the masses as "the people" while planning the oppression of and ultimately the destruction of actual individual people.
We all benefit from others being vaccinated, and being that it is more or less mandatory we should (but currently do not) have a compensation program in place for those who suffer from vaccine injury. In fact we gave a precedent set by the Supreme Court of Canada that the state cannot be held responsible. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-...
Off-topic: I was looking through some old posts, and see you ran into "khayman80" and some of his cronies.
Sorry about that. But if you do so again, you should be aware of his tactics. He has been known to distort old comments out of context, resort to personal attacks, and otherwise do whatever he felt would discredit or get the other party to shut up. I have archives full of him doing that kind of stuff. I've had to put up with his BS for years.
He even tracked down who I was, followed me to other forums, and tried to attack me there, too. Apparently just because that's the kind of guy he is.
It's usually just irritating but he's been pretty nasty at times. Be warned, and I suggest keeping copies of everything in case he goes too far. He has, more than once. A paper trail could be useful in that event.
Don't back down.
Next we could make folks that think you can spend your way out of debt take an economics class, and those that claim (falsely) that global temperatures are rising or hurricanes more frequent/severe to take a science class!
Do you realize that nearly every modern study on the safety of vaccinations is invalid?
Nearly every study conducted uses the VAERS data - this data is scientifically worthless.
https://vaers.hhs.gov/index
You see, it's not mandated reporting. When reactions occur, even ones documented as potential reactions to a given vaccine, doctors will refuse to report it. Most doctors dismiss nearly any claim or concern of potential reactions out of hand. Responding, that incidents are rare. Of course, the basis for that statement is the VAERS data, which as we've just stated is not being reported to by doctors. And why would doctors not report such incidents?
1. Normalcy bias, they are indoctrinated that vaccines are safe, they have been told they are and so they believe they are. And most of them, most of the time... ARE...but not always.
2. Doctors receive a lot of kickbacks and perks from big pharmaceutical corporations. Who wants to lose those?
3. Wait, I am a doctor, I am already paying a small fortune in malpractice insurance. Why would I ever optionally report an incident with a vaccine I have administered and put me at risk for a lawsuit. When I can simply say its not the vaccine and move on.
The truth is, vaccines cause way more incidents than are documents. Incidents may even be occurring which we do not even have associated. Many of the outbreaks are NOT due to anti-vaxxers. Think about it., most kids have been vaccinated. In most of the country you cannot attend school if you have not (yes, exceptions are available, religious waivers, etc. but these are in fact rarely used).
But but....but I saw an article that stated the individuals were not vaccinated. No...they just couldn't provide records of the vaccinations. Most parents would have a tough time coughing up copies of records for the nearly hundred vaccinations their kids have received. Lack of record, doesn't mean they weren't vaccinated. Was there a waiver on file with the school? Nope? Oh, then they probably were in fact vaccinated, or they wouldn't be in the school.
Okay, so what's really going on with these outbreaks of old diseases? Well consider this scientific principal....viruses evolve. Many of our vaccines were originally formulated decades ago. Meanwhile, every year these virus have altered themselves. Eventually they diversify enough that the old vaccines are less effective against new strains. Oh , but if that's the case why wouldn't they create a new vaccine?
One, we have millions of doses stockpiled. Admitting that their efficacy is reduced and they need to be replaced, would require the disposal of all those doses. That's a significant financial loss.
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/...
Second, it's a long and laborious process to get a new vaccine formulation approved. MMR has it's roots in a 1968 development formulation. That is almost 50 years, which in the life span of a virus is like tens of thousands of years.
It's far easier to claim that the outbreak is due to anti-vaxxers who weren't vaccinated. Then to initiate what would amount to disposal and re-formulation at the costs of billions of dolars.
$
$$$
$$$$$
Does this mean I oppose vaccines. Heck no, but many of those claiming science, are about as much BS as the anti-vaxxers. And the truth is, children are hurt and die from vaccinations, and were we more honest, we could greatly reduce the quanity and risk of such incidents.
Herd immunity protects the following:
1. Anti-vaxxers who did not take the vaccine, and never are encounter it because it's largely been eradicated for their community.
2. Children and immuno-compromised individuals who have not had the vaccine or who's immune systems are no longer functioning.
Herd immunity is irrelevant to the vaccinated. If your children are vaccinated, and there are outbreaks of "measles", than clearly there is an issue with your vaccine (most likely that it's from 1968 and hasn't been updated to account for the evolution of the virus over tens of thousands of generations).
Do you realize that nearly every modern study on the safety of vaccinations is invalid?
Nearly every study conducted uses the VAERS data - this data is scientifically worthless.
https://vaers.hhs.gov/index
You see, it's not mandated reporting. When reactions occur, even ones documented as potential reactions to a given vaccine, doctors will refuse to report it. Most doctors dismiss nearly any claim or concern of potential reactions out of hand. Responding, that incidents are rare. Of course, the basis for that statement is the VAERS data, which as we've just stated is not being reported to by doctors. And why would doctors not report such incidents?
1. Normalcy bias, they are indoctrinated that vaccines are safe, they have been told they are and so they believe they are. And most of them, most of the time... ARE...but not always.
2. Doctors receive a lot of kickbacks and perks from big pharmaceutical corporations. Who wants to lose those?
3. Wait, I am a doctor, I am already paying a small fortune in malpractice insurance. Why would I ever optionally report an incident with a vaccine I have administered and put me at risk for a lawsuit. When I can simply say its not the vaccine and move on.
The truth is, vaccines cause way more incidents than are documents. Incidents may even be occurring which we do not even have associated. Many of the outbreaks are NOT due to anti-vaxxers. Think about it., most kids have been vaccinated. In most of the country you cannot attend school if you have not (yes, exceptions are available, religious waivers, etc. but these are in fact rarely used).
But but....but I saw an article that stated the individuals were not vaccinated. No...they just couldn't provide records of the vaccinations. Most parents would have a tough time coughing up copies of records for the nearly hundred vaccinations their kids have received. Lack of record, doesn't mean they weren't vaccinated. Was there a waiver on file with the school? Nope? Oh, then they probably were in fact vaccinated, or they wouldn't be in the school.
Okay, so what's really going on with these outbreaks of old diseases? Well consider this scientific principal....viruses evolve. Many of our vaccines were originally formulated decades ago. Meanwhile, every year these virus have altered themselves. Eventually they diversify enough that the old vaccines are less effective against new strains. Oh , but if that's the case why wouldn't they create a new vaccine?
One, we have millions of doses stockpiled. Admitting that their efficacy is reduced and they need to be replaced, would require the disposal of all those doses. That's a significant financial loss.
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/...
Second, it's a long and laborious process to get a new vaccine formulation approved. MMR has it's roots in a 1968 development formulation. That is almost 50 years, which in the life span of a virus is like tens of thousands of years.
It's far easier to claim that the outbreak is due to anti-vaxxers who weren't vaccinated. Then to initiate what would amount to disposal and re-formulation at the costs of billions of dolars.
$
$$$
$$$$$
Does this mean I oppose vaccines. Heck no, but many of those claiming science, are about as much BS as the anti-vaxxers. And the truth is, children are hurt and die from vaccinations, and were we more honest, we could greatly reduce the quanity and risk of such incidents.
Regarding "Herd Immunity"
Herd immunity protects the following:
1. Anti-vaxxers who did not take the vaccine, and never are encounter it because it's largely been eradicated for their community.
2. Children and immuno-compromised individuals who have not had the vaccine or who's immune systems are no longer functioning.
Herd immunity is irrelevant to the vaccinated. If your children are vaccinated, and there are outbre
And that is so small a percentage, as to essentially be irrelevant to the real conversation ....
Maybe those vaccines did do something to you after all. I'm so sorry - I had no idea. You poor dear. I hope society is going to take good care of you.