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.
Oh ya...u jus try to lern me them ther science and I'll lern you 'bout my rifle.
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?...
My view as well. As I say above, children are wards of their parents, they are not slaves of their parents, and in other cases where parents refuse to provide the basic necessities or where they try to block necessary treatments (like blood transfusions or chemo) courts do step in to insure that the child's life is protected, whatever religious or pseudo-scientific crapola the parents may believe.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I actually like this, because it gives them a different view on things that they might not ever actually see or have seen. Sadly, usually once someone believes something, be it religion, theories, or even science, they will most likely search for information that support their opinion instead of trying to find a reasonable counterargument. I really wish this was applied more often instead or with a penalty for breaking whatever law.
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).
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.
There are a subset of children who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. The percentage of people that this is true for is quite low, and they benefit from the immunity of the vast majority of people around them. Theoretically, even those who have medical reasons to not get vaccinated could pose the same risks as those who would voluntarily choose not to, but as I said, the percentage of those people is quite low, and herd immunity keeps them all healthy, If, however, you allow people to freely choose whether their children that go to public school are vaccinated or not, then the percentage of unvaccinated rises substantially... enough that those who would not have been able to get vaccinated for actual medical reasons can no longer take advantage of the herd immunity as a means of avoiding becoming sick.... the result is that a very large number of children can get sick (and sometimes even die) that otherwise would not have.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
So what about infants and children who can't be vaccinated for various reasons? The whole point of herd immunity is that the very young and children with immune disorders that prevent vaccination are protected.
How about this. Any parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated must be pony up $10,000 per child, which will be put in a fund to pay for any children who couldn't be vaccinated due to age or health reasons and then gets sick from one of these preventable diseases. If you can't fork over $10,000, your kid gets the jab.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
There are a subset of children who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.
There's also a subset for whom the vaccination isn't effective. For most diseases the immunity rate after the course is 95-99%.
Between these people and those who can't have it for medical reasons, there just isn't much slack - because the risk to the vulnerable members of the population rises exponentially as the vulnerable population increases. This effect is called "herd immunity", as you mentioned.
I don't read AC A human right
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!!!
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.
My view as well. As I say above, children are wards of their parents, they are not slaves of their parents, and in other cases where parents refuse to provide the basic necessities or where they try to block necessary treatments (like blood transfusions or chemo) courts do step in to insure that the child's life is protected, whatever religious or pseudo-scientific crapola the parents may believe.
The above assumes that you are the arbiter of all things in the world.
That is the sort of thing ISIS would do. Yes, I went there, because you don't get it. You don't understand how completely dangerous your viewpoint really is.
People are entitled to their religious beliefs, even if they disagree with yours. If you want to take away people's rights, prepare for a war... because plenty of people are happy to kill you to stop your stupidity...
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.
...science class for over-religious people/parents.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
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.
Not optional? Or else what, you'll shoot me? Strap me to a table and try and stick me with a needle? Which one of you idiots gets to get shot trying?
The problem with your viewpoint is you ignore the "or else what" part...
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?
The line is drawn where the life and well being of the child is endangered by the stupidity of the parents.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ok, then how about that: You want child support, you vax.
You want my money, you dance to my tune!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A better solution would be to give the parents polio, and then see if they can make a better-informed opinion about vaccination.
Measles outbreak in a 98% vaccinated population:
Did you look at the date on that report? 1987. Vaccines and regiments have changed in the last 30 years.
Or else you can't make use of public services. Like public schools.
The tetanus vaccine is good for somewhere around 10 years (I think if you travel they recommend a booster every 5 to make sure). The Ontario vaccination schedule calls for a tetanus vaccine in infancy and a booster when you're 15. Adults are recommended to get one every 10 years.
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.
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.
My view as well. As I say above, children are wards of their parents, they are not slaves of their parents, and in other cases where parents refuse to provide the basic necessities or where they try to block necessary treatments (like blood transfusions or chemo) courts do step in to insure that the child's life is protected, whatever religious or pseudo-scientific crapola the parents may believe.
The above assumes that you are the arbiter of all things in the world.
"All things in the world" is a strange way to describe child abuse. No, it's not legal to starve your kids to death, no matter how religiously it's done. The "arbiter of all things in the world" in this case would be the government that usually outlaws shit like that, not the guy you replied to.
That is the sort of thing ISIS would do.
Trying to prevent child abuse is akin to ISIS (or FLDS) raping 12 year old girls? Or is ISIS dragging kids from your house to get vaccinated or something? Something's not quite right with your logic.
Yes, I went there, because you don't get it. You don't understand how completely dangerous your viewpoint really is.
Religion is not an excuse to kill kids. Yeah, that's right, I'm dangerous.
People are entitled to their religious beliefs, even if they disagree with yours.
But they're chopping off heads! I can't even waterboard my kids over here but they get to chop heads!
If you want to take away people's rights, prepare for a war... because plenty of people are happy to kill you
I've met plenty of religious people, so I can believe that.
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."
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)
are doomed to repeat it.
And public health, also.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
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.
Not optional? Or else what, you'll shoot me? Strap me to a table and try and stick me with a needle? Which one of you idiots gets to get shot trying?
The problem with your viewpoint is you ignore the "or else what" part...
And I demand the right to cure my children by torturing their bodies until the demons possessing them flee back to Hell. Which one of you idiots gets to get shot trying to stop me?
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
And I demand the right to cure my children by torturing their bodies until the demons possessing them flee back to Hell. Which one of you idiots gets to get shot trying to stop me?
Joke all you like, but you're closer to the truth than you think...
Read up on "Faith Healing" and the states that allow parents to withhold medical care for their children and provides immunity to charges for abuse or neglect, even if the child dies due to lack of medical care.
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.
And I demand the right to cure my children by torturing their bodies until the demons possessing them flee back to Hell. Which one of you idiots gets to get shot trying to stop me?
Joke all you like, but you're closer to the truth than you think...
Read up on "Faith Healing" and the states that allow parents to withhold medical care for their children and provides immunity to charges for abuse or neglect, even if the child dies due to lack of medical care.
Indeed. There's a fuzzy line between freedom of religion and child neglect. Jehovah's Witnesses and their attitude re transfusions, for example. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08... and http://news.discovery.com/huma... for another. kind of goes along with the "spare the rod and spoil the child" school of child abuse. sorry, child rearing.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
'Subset', do you have an accurate number of people involved?
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Says the panicking herd...
Now wait for the stampede...
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
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.