Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GoFundMe Bans Anti-Vaccine Campaigns (slashgear.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the stopped-by-GoFundMe dept.

An anonymous reader quotes SlashGear: Crowdfunding platform GoFundMe has banned campaigns that seek funds for spreading misinformation related to vaccines, the company has revealed. The platform has been used in the past by anti-vaxxers as part of their mission to promote conspiracy theories related to supposed health issues caused by vaccinations. Current campaigns in violation of this new rule will be removed.

GoFundMe has previously faced controversy for allowing anti-vax campaigns on the platform, including late last year when a mother sought funds for a custody battle allegedly intending to, in part, prevent her kids from being vaccinated. An increasing number of tech companies have cracked down on anti-vaccination content, including Facebook and Pinterest, and now GoFundMe is among them.

171 comments

  1. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's a vack scene?

  2. But my freespeech! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seriously, these crazies think their precious free speech protects them from consequences of their stupid actions at endangering their kids' life.

    Autism has always been around, it was simply never diagnosed as such in the past. These days, every little thing a child does that is somewhat out of normal is considered to be somewhere on the autism scale. Let kids be kids damn it.

    1. Re:But my freespeech! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an autistic person, I'm particularly offended that these parents would rather their child risks death than risks ending up like me.

      Of course, I'm smart and educated enough to know that there's no link between autism and vaccination. I'm also old enough to have not had the MMR vaccine that the twat Andrew Jeremy Wakefield lied about.

    2. Re: But my freespeech! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vaccines don't cause autism. Pesticides do. Look at Eastern Washington State.

    3. Re: But my freespeech! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Autism is genetic. Both my parents had a sibling who would clearly be diagnosed as autistic these days. My parents therefore were carriers of autistic genes, which then recombined in me.

      Now, I'm not read up enough on the problem in Eastern Washington that you're referring to, but I could readily believe (if there's evidence) that exposure to pesticides could cause developmental issues in foetuses or children. However, while it may look like autism, it really isn't.

    4. Re:But my freespeech! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Seriously, these crazies think their precious free speech protects them from consequences of their stupid actions at endangering their kids' life.

      Not as crazy as the people who think the solution to stupidity is to get rid of free speech.

    5. Re:But my freespeech! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the solution to stupidity is to get rid of stupid people. And if that means 90% of the world's population, then so be it.

    6. Re:But my freespeech! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Who will buy our products then? We'd have to go back to making products that were actually useful again.

    7. Re:But my freespeech! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can start by getting rid of you. You are the poster child for "its never too late to abort". Fuck off and die mother fucker

    8. Re:But my freespeech! by ilsaloving · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or people who don't have any understanding of what free speech actually means.

      Even if we completely disregard the details of what "Free Speech" actually means and go by the definition that you are employing, there is not one "freedom" that is unlimited. Not. A. Single. One.

      Last I checked, it's still illegal to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, for example. Incitement to riot is another. Or libel laws.

      These anti-vaxxers are no different, IMO. They are deliberately spreading misinformation, and that misinformation is directly responsible for people either dying or the next best thing to it, from diseases that were declared eradicated for decades. If it was the anti-vaxxers themselves that were killing themselves off, then I'd have no problem with this. But they're not. They're injuring completely unrelated people.

      If you think it's acceptable for this to happen, then you must also agree that all existing laws that restrict any form of speech should not exist. People should be free to scream "Fire" in a crowded theatre. It should be legal to publicly and prominently lie about basically anything. Hell, It should be legal for companies to falsify their quarterly reports, because otherwise you'd be denying them the right to "free speech".

      But I'll say it again since you and presumably others seem unable to understand this basic concept:

      Free speech does exactly one thing: It protects you from criticizing the government. That's it. It does NOT give you a divine right to say whatever idiot thing pops into your head, without any repercussions from other people.

      Please don't make me pull out the XKCD reference.

    9. Re:But my freespeech! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not as crazy as the people who think the solution to stupidity is to get rid of free speech.

      The site is for those who really needs financial help. It is NOT for those who want to promote their agenda, especially on their political side. The purpose of the site is NOT for a free speech either. Period.

  3. Re:Full disclosure on vaccines by EnsilZah · · Score: 3

    Not sure where you're hanging out, but I've yet to see a person jonesing for a dose of weakened measles virus.

  4. Wrong move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The problem with this is that to a conspiracy nut this is proof they're right. It's not going to win "hearts and minds". Make no mistake: What the anti-vaxxers are doing is waging an ideological guerrilla war. In a sense, they're infected with bad ideas. But how do you show them their ideas are bad? You typically don't, but you can take their fertile grounds for new convertees away. And that, this doesn't actually do. It makes it harder to spread their ideas, true, but at the same time it spurs them on, for they're "being repressed", in their eyes for being right. So don't do this. Instead, make sure everyone around the anti-vaxxers understand the issues and why vaccination is a good idea. Some historical documentaries about what life was right before vaccination came about, perhaps?

    1. Re: Wrong move by reanjr · · Score: 2

      Just put all the non-vaccinated kids in the same class. Let biology work its magic.

    2. Re:Wrong move by magzteel · · Score: 1

      Some historical documentaries about what life was right before vaccination came about, perhaps?

      Check out the book "The Cutter Incident", it covers this well.

    3. Re:Wrong move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that a conspiracy nut of that calibre does not adhere to any specific logic. Pretty much anything they're presented with can and will validate their position.
      You don't have to offer them a platform for their opinions if you do not agree with them yourself, just like you don't have to allow anyone into your house and on your property you don't agree with.
      They are free to create their own platforms, where they get to decide who is allowed to be there or not.

    4. Re:Wrong move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why you leave the nut to stew. You need to get to the not-yet-but-possibly-later nutters first and make sure they don't turn into nutters. Do that enough, tipping point, et cetera.

      And sure you can pull out the old "build your own platform" trump card, but again, it doesn't work that way. It's like putting oil on the fire.

    5. Re:Wrong move by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The nuts have always been there. Ignore them. In a decade there will be a different conspiracy fad to occupy their time.

      So what's better, banning gofundme for anti-vacc purposes, or instead allowing them but putting up a disclaimer that says "idiots only"?

    6. Re:Wrong move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that exactly what got us where we are today?
      You can't simply get the net-yet-but-possibly-later-nutters and still have them enjoy their more fundamental freedoms of staying ignorant.

    7. Re: Wrong move by CoolDiscoRex · · Score: 1
      Oddly. You act as if no conspiracy theorie never turned out to be true. They have. The other day I heard someone in my office going on and on about how some nut job had claimed that the US government had confiscated everyone gold. hell, that;s not even a conspiracy theory, thatâ(TM)s just a fact, but ruling-class-wannabe nut jobs can be just as bad as the paranoid. I mean, Iâ(TM)ve also hear that Big Pharma got Congress to hold them not-liable for any damages that vaccines do ___ even if they are accidentally contaminate during manufacture.

      Can you image, no liability whatsoever for Big Pharma? Eh, Iâ(TM)m sure theyâ(TM)ll do the right thing, Youâ(TM)d be a nutjob to think otherwise.

      There are no side-effects to vaccines whatsoever, and anyone who worries about side-effects harming their children should probably be imprisoned or chopped up and sold as meat.

      I mean, how crazy do you have to be not to trust big companies with a get-out-of-lawsuit-free card?

      Pretty damn crazy!

      Thstâ(TM)s My story and I sticking with it.

      Approve of me! Approve of me dammit! Tell me Iâ(TM)m good and not one of the unwashed, uncool working class! I need your affirmation and I need it now! I love the ruling class and all that it stands for!

    8. Re: Wrong move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GP does not read that way. It is you who choose to interpret and depict it as a strawman. Or maybe you are unable to see it differently? I'm not a psychic.

      This strawman or weakman argument is quite popular because it makes use of extremes that only few sane persons can agree with.

      The first fallacy is that the claim that no conspiracy ever turned out to be true was not made. Then the second fallacy is the assumption that all conspiracy theories must therefore be somehow equal or something like that?

      I mean if you are one who possess some common sense you ought to be able to see that there is some gradation here. Believing that the government puts chemicals in our drinking water that turns the frogs gay makes a lot more assumptions than thinking that big and powerful organizations do bad stuff.

      The latter has been observed throughout human history, which is why "Power tends to corrupt" is not a new concept.
      So yeah, we can agree that assuming powerful people doing bad stuff is nothing preposterous but a common sense assumption based upon empiricism.

      The former claim however is a lot more specific. It doesn't have a lot of precedent. And while being a claim that is falsifiable, the lack of evidence is often not taken as lack of evidence but rather than evidence of suppressed evidence.

      A similar thing happens often among anti-vaxxer. Big pharma does questionable things. They turned a good portion of the US population into opiate addicts. Which is arguably a despicable thing to do. And there's also good evidence for this. Even before they pulled this off we knew that opiates are highly addictive, cause related health problems are can easily be overdosed resulting in death. There's no conspiracy theory here. It's just extrapolation of knowledge that already existed.

      However from that common sense assumption that big pharma does bad stuff, this special brand of conspiracy nuts often conclude that these other, specific things of bad actions, are also likely to be true. All while the evidence that supports this assumption is very thin. There's little historic precedent. On the contrary, there's evidence that vaccines can do a lot of good at fighting diseases that have threatened mankind in the past.

      I say precedent is thin because there are some cases where subsets of the pharma industry produced bad vaccines either through negligence or maybe even on purpose. I can't say what it is. They should be punished for their actions nonetheless. So there certainly is the possibility of black sheep operating in this market. But does that mean that all or most vaccines are bad? After all anti-vaxxers usually don't vaccinate their kids against anything.

      At least that is the definition of anti-vaxxer as far as I understand. If you'd vaccinate your children for some of the most important things like measles, mumps , and polio but decide not to have them receive shots against something super exotic. Then you're not an anti-vaxxer. Or if you don't let them have shots for something the pharma industry pretty obviously made up or blows way out of proportion, and where you know that this historically was never a big issue. Then you're also not an anti-vaxxer.

    9. Re: Wrong move by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      A broken watch is right twice a day. It's still useless as a time keeping device. Likewise, just because one of the thousands of conspiracy theories somehow managed to actually describe something that was true isn't a good idea to just go and believe them all.

      It's like prophecies. If I spout utter nonsense 24/7, I am bound to be right at some point in time. Does that mean you should listen to me as the great harbinger of truth?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Wrong move by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      I'm for banning them, then setting them on fire.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    11. Re:Wrong move by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      allowing them but putting up a disclaimer that says "idiots only"?

      This is the equivalent of putting up "no parking" signs. Normal people understand that they shouldn't park there. Idiots still park there, assuming that "no parking" means "no parking, unless I think my reason for parking here is sufficient justification." And then everybody is stuck dealing with the consequences of the idiot that is parked somewhere they shouldn't be, and in a delightful completion to that analogy: Maybe it's no parking because it's a fire line, and if there's a fire someone may get hurt because the fire fighters couldn't do their job.

    12. Re:Wrong move by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      That's why you put up a sign that says "car crushing demo today!"

  5. Re: "Misinformation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The pentagon explicitly fucked over the entire air defense system and created the cooridor for 9/11. No, they are not at all trustworthy.

  6. They're just rewarding them by wyattstorch516 · · Score: 1

    The people who give money to these campaigns will now no longer be able to. That means more money in their pockets but it won't change anybody's mind.

    1. Re:They're just rewarding them by tinkerton · · Score: 0

      It will change many people's minds. It means people will learn that it will become increasingly hard to fund any type of 'unapproved' activism. As trust in the openness of the system disappears you'll find that paranoid theories have only just started.

    2. Re:They're just rewarding them by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, it takes away an incentive from people to start such sky-is-falling bullshit campaigns. Quacks and con artists of all times knew that it's easiest to part a fool from his money, not a person with a hint of knowledge.

      They'll have to find a new con job, I guess.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Re:Full disclosure on vaccines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    addicted to the allopathic medicine i think was the intention

  8. Legal activities should not be blocked by magzteel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think anti-vaxers are misguided but being misguided is not illegal, and neither is their opinion.

    This new trend of blocking things some people disagree with is just wrong,

    1. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Patent+Lover · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Blocking shit that gets children killed is ok by me. If these idiots need money they should find their own site.

    2. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a couple schools of thought here.
      The progressives who think you can have too much of a good thing and the alt-right, who believe you shouldn't be putting random vials of who knows what into kids.
      Maybe anti-vaxxers should self-identify what sort of anti-vaxxer you are.
      I, for example, am perfectly fine administering standard vaccines with full disclosure of the results and side effects in full light.
      I am not at all in favor of random injections of stuff because someone said so.
      Is there middle ground? I couldn't tell you. I don't spend a lot of time talking about vaccines.

    3. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think anti-vaxers are misguided but being misguided is not illegal, and neither is their opinion.

      Their opinions are not illegal, but their actions very well could be and plenty of times have been.

      Also being misguided can certainly be illegal once you involve false advertising with financial gain and medical claims.
      The false advertising doesn't always need to be known as false to the one doing it to be a crime.
      The medical claims made also have to be sourced as proven. It is a crime both when that evidence doesn't exist, and when it does exist and is in contradiction to what is being said.

      So yes the actions of some of these groups and people are criminally illegal.

      That isn't even to mention the civil cases of law involving them causing harm to others.
      While those are not supposed to be referred to as "crime" and "illegal", I don't think it is wrong for a private entity or person to take action based on the outcome of such court cases either.

      The woman who ended up having to pay damages to the foster family caring for the child she paralyzed for life may not be legally a crime, but the civil suit outcome was pretty clear she was in the wrong, and there is no moral issue with shunning such actions.

    4. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      This new trend of blocking things some people disagree with is just wrong.

      So you won't mind if I put my 10-foot tall sign saying you have anal sex with sheep on your front lawn?

      There is nothing wrong with blocking messages you disagree with. The world is not your toilet bowl. Government must not hinder speech (unless it breaks the law) but it's time you all learned the difference between public and private. Gofundme is not the government. They don't owe you a goddamn thing.

      And no, I don't care if some god-bothering jackoff doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake. Go for it, Cletus. Turn away all the customers you want.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by mhotchin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are *NOT* misguided. There is simply too much easily available, high quality information on the risks, the benefits and the working of vaccines.

      These people are *wilfully ignorant*, and their actions put *other people* in danger.

      If anti-vaxxers only risked themselves, no one would care. It would just be a particularly stupid pastime for them. Instead, anti-vaxxer *children* are first in harm's way, and right after that is basically "everyone with a compromised immune system".

      They can continue to spew their stupidity if they want, but the rest of us sane people are perfectly justified in pressuring companies to kick that shit off their sites.

    6. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This new trend of blocking things some people disagree with is just wrong

      Really?

      Can I stand on your lawn and lead a campaign rally for whatever candidate you opposed in the last election?

      No?

      Why not?

      Because you have the right to "block" me?

      Oh. I guess it's OK if you do it, just not if GoFundMe does it. Makes perfect sense. GFY.

    7. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course their opinion is not illegal. But neither is locking them out from the platform owned by you
      That is why they can make their own platforms where they raise funding for their projects. And when someone tries to shut them up on their own platform things venture in legally questionable territory.

    8. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      This new trend of blocking things that reality disagrees with is just wrong,

      FTFY. If you are promoting information that is factually incorrect then it should be blocked for the benefit of society. Sorry, not sorry.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    9. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      people use GoFundMe to pay for abortions, if GoFundMe tried to ban that it would be shut down itself

    10. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Andtalath · · Score: 1

      That is not children.
      Those are fetuses (fetusi?).

    11. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by Andtalath · · Score: 1

      The question is really quite simple.
      Do you believe in science?

      It doesn't really matter if you do, it works REGARDLESS.

      So, basically the question is, are you ignorant?

    12. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Quakeulf · · Score: 1

      I agree. Censorship is the worst part about this.

    13. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Freedom of speech doesn't get children killed. Show me an unvaccinated cold who died of the measles and we'll talk.

      Government regulation kills more kids though. See: Waco

    14. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Falos · · Score: 1

      GFM has the legal right to block it. Moral is debatable. Private censorship gets more complicated.

      Some other posts question the yield of suppression, more than the morality. And they might have a point.

      Perhaps the message doesn't need to be directly silenced. By subjecting themselves to the terms of a private platform, these people sign off on letting GFM attach disclaimers. "This submission may contain misrepresented, deceptive, or even harmful health claims." etc, links to WHO or whatever.

    15. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by magzteel · · Score: 0

      Blocking shit that gets children killed is ok by me. If these idiots need money they should find their own site.

      Oh, It's about the children! What was I thinking.

      Just remember, that same argument is used to justify a lot of things you will disagree with.

    16. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GoFundMe is a private business and they can do what they want, include not promoting anti-science loonies.

    17. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by magzteel · · Score: 2

      So you won't mind if I put my 10-foot tall sign saying you have anal sex with sheep on your front lawn?.

      Why do your fantasies all seem to involve farm animals?

    18. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You aren't responsible for latin/greek plural standards in English. Fetuses is a fine word.

    19. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      You sound very young. I don't know much about antivaxxers but it's a good guess they are similar to with the standard conspiracy theorist. First, they distrust. Second, they are not very smart. The second part makes it easy to dismiss. The first part is the hard part. It is pretty hard to convince someone who doesn't trust you. You say you are a scientist, they say you're working for a big business with its own interests. Chances are you won't even get around to the science part.

    20. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something like not getting a flu shot for you or your children every year does not make you an anti-vaxxer.
      Not getting vaccination against some obscure disease that only occurs in some rare cases half around the world doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer either.

      Anti-vaxxer for example are those who believe that those basic MMR vaccines cause autism and spread that belief.
      Who believe that the compounds used in vaccines are inherently poison and spread that belief.
      Who believe that you are better off living natural, meaning without any of those artificial vaccination, and spread that belief.

    21. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to risk yourself when it's done before you're an adult. That's why parents get to decide for their children, not government.

    22. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it wouldn't, sure it would lose customers but that's part of making business decisions.

    23. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by MadCat221 · · Score: 1

      "Legal activities should not be blocked"? I was unaware that GoFundMe was a government institution.

    24. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think a baby magically appears when sperm enters an egg?

    25. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by thomst · · Score: 1

      Andtalath proposed:

      So, basically the question is, are you ignorant?

      You're close.

      It seems to me the real question is, "Are you deliberately, proudly ignorant?

      I'd put the flat-earthers, the moon landing hoaxers, the biblical literalists, and a myriad or three of other, similar-minded advocates of fairy stories and flat-out, made-up shit in the same, splintery box.

      And drop the box into the Marianas Trench ...

      --
      Check out my novel.
    26. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by thomst · · Score: 1

      mhotchin stated:

      These people are *wilfully ignorant*, and their actions put *other people* in danger.

      Would someone with points please mod the parent post +1 Insightful ... ?

      --
      Check out my novel.
    27. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

      About 6,000 kids per year died of the measles when the deaths first started being tracked in 1812, before vaccines made it a relatively rare disease.

      Even with better medical care in the 50s, 48,000 people were hospitalized every year from the measles and 400-500 died.

      If you want to see unvaccinated kids who died of the measles, grab a shovel and go to a graveyard that was around before the vaccine became available in 1963. There are plenty.

    28. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Wrong in what sense? Gofundme is not a government site, they can legally block whoever or whatever they want from their soapbox. It's dangerous speech so this ban could possibly pass muster in the courts even if the government did it. There has never been a right to say whatever you want in any forum and in any location. Banning this is perfectly moral and ethical.

      Anti-vaccers can create their own funding sites.

    29. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      No, if GoFundMe banned abortion related campaigns it would still be legal and they would not be shut down. Stop believing all the political conspiracies.

    30. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't giving medical advice without a license still illegal?

    31. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This is one of the problems, people don't remember when measles were feared. Modern medicine has made measles much more survivable by those with ready and early access to doctors in first world countries. So people think "what's the big deal?" because their kids go to the doctor regularly, but they're not thinking about people who are poor, homeless, in an area without ready access to good doctors, and so forth.

    32. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      This is a private company, they can block what they want. There isn't a universal block here. The company can ban porn on their forums if they like but that's not the same thing as banning porn everywhere.

    33. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by quenda · · Score: 1

      gamete -> zygote -> embryo -> foetus -> baby -> child -> adult -> corpse .

    34. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      These aren't vials of who-knows-what. We know what's in them, they've gone through safety checks, you can ask to find out more information, and you can opt out with good reasons (or with bad reasons as long as you're ok with your child not being allowed in some schools).

      The argument here has never been about vials of who-knows-what. The argument has always been about standard vaccines with full disclosures of the results and side effects. The current wave of anti-vaccines has arisen because of deliberately falsified information that was latched onto by anti-science types. We've always had anti-vacc people from the first days of vaccines, it just has normally been a low undercurrent until Andrew Wakefield's fraud.

    35. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The moon landing hoaxers and flat earthers really don't cause a lot of harm. Well, at least not until they create their own airline or offer trips in their spaceships.

    36. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope your children die. We don't need authoritarian accepting morons to vote here.

    37. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why do your fantasies all seem to involve farm animals?

      To be honest, it goes way back. It all started when your Mom asked me to dress up like Old MacDonald.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    38. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be fine if they cared about the science but they don't they don't. This is pure idealoogy and nothing more. You know damn well vaccines are not 100% safe.

    39. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, it's not a "disagreement", and it's not "opinion" when people die.

      Flat earthers - mostly harmless, although I wouldn't get get one to be in charge of my next satellite launch.
      Anti-vaxers - mostly dangerous, since people are directly affected by their misunderstanding of science.

    40. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by Linux+Torvalds · · Score: 1

      They vote.

    41. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      That's because no one ever feared measles. It's not even remotely kinda sorta close to being in the same league as polio. It's in the same league as the flu.

    42. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But muh SCIENCE(tm)!!1!

    43. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by astrofurter · · Score: 0

      Forced-vax nazis sure do love smugly censoring political speech that disagrees with their scientistic faith.

    44. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Measles is probably the most common vaccine preventable causes of death in the world, today. In 1980, over 2 million people died from it. It is lower now but only because of vaccination programs. Complications from it can be serious, including brain inflammation, and often the immune system is depressed for awhile after catching measles. You will probably require hospitalization if you get the measles.

      Flu can be nasty too don't forget though it usually doesn't have the same complications as measles. Don't confuse flu with a cold. It can be fatal in infants and the elderly, so it's useful to everyone to get the shots for herd immunity.

    45. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, GoFundMe sees nothing wrong with allowing campaigns to raise money in support of assaults on people whose politics it doesn't like.

      #Eggboi

    46. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by mhotchin · · Score: 1

      Of course they're not 100% safe! Nobody with an ounce of knowledge and honesty ever claimed otherwise.

      The well documented claim is that *vaccinating is better than the alternative*. Seatbelts aren't 100% safe either, but you'd have to be pretty stupid to use that as an argument for not using them.

    47. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mooooooooooo!

    48. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If people choose to abort their "fetuses" it does not endanger my already born and living children in school.

      Go found your own anti-vaxxer schools where you can live naturally together.

    49. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clever you. OK. Let's play this game of symantics.

      sperm(human) + egg (human) -> gamete (amoeba) -> zygote (protozoan) -> embryo (chicken) -> fetus (orangutan) -> baby (Human) -> adult (Human) -> corpse (dead, no life, remains of former human).

      The typical pro-abortion argument is that gametes, zygotes, and embryos don't even LOOK human, so they must not be human. Of course
      that argument fails because presupposes a bias regarding what it means to look human. Does an Agent Orange baby not count as human because
      he is missing all four limbs? This argument also fails because fetuses do look decidedly human.

      Oh wait, yes, I see your logic. The birth canal magically transforms a fetus (organgutan) into a baby(human). Of course, surgeons have magical hands too because C-Sections magically transform fetusus(non-human) into babies (human).

      There's this funny little thing called DNA. Humans have human DNA. Orangutans have orang DNA. Amoebas have Amoeba DNA. So, the true sequence is more like this:

      sperm(human) + egg (human) -> gamete (human) -> zygote (human) -> embryo (human) -> fetus (human) -> baby (human) -> adult (human) -> corpse (dead, no life, remains of former human, is it possible to clone him?).

      Basically, you, like all leftists, want to be able to kill babies conscious free, so you pretend that living growing human beings are not human until the moment they are born. Unless you're the governor of Virginia who said that they would refuse to care for born babies which were not wanted by the mother.

      In the old days when college aged pukes could still reason a little, the next phase of the argument would be that a fetus is not "viable". The
      typical pro-life, conservative response is "almost no one is viable by himself. Is the lame, bed-bound, geriatric patient no longer human because
      she cannot take care of herself?"

      Or you come up with the, "it's a parasite on its mother because of the placental connection". To which the conservative replies with the same
      argument as above, is the geriatric patient on tube feeding no longer human because it is a parasite to a machine and medical system?"

      And that leads to the whole Euthanasia debate because pro-abortion folks tend to be pro-euthanasia.

      Myself, I'm a conservative, pro-life, scientist, objectivist, and a Christian. Objectively, life begins at conception. There's no clearer boundary line that that. It is human because it has human parents and (unaltered) human DNA. Both the unborn humans and the disabled humans have fundamental rights to life.

      Oh, now you're going to attack me because to you a Christian cannot be objective nor a scientist. To which I reply poppycock. You obviously know nothing of Christianity, Science, nor objectivity. My faith is completely objective and scientific. I wouldn't be a Christian if I weren't a scientist. Or well, actually, I think that it was Christ who put a love of TRUTH into my spirit. So, it's tough to say which came first.

    50. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about vaccines (such as the Flu vaccine) which have been proven to cause MISCARRIAGES. In other words, you might not even have a child in the first place to worry about the measles. Or you could be a sub-Saharan, black African woman who was given vaccines by Bill Gates et al, vaccines which were tainted by a drug that causes spontaneous abortions. So, yes, by being an ignorant pro-vaxxer, you are choosing to abort fetuses.

    51. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if you are a christian, your words seem very unchrist like.

      I don't know if you're a scientist, your words aren't very scientific.

      I do know that you are a nutter though.

    52. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If they want to be misguided, let them stick with religion or similar nonsense. At least it doesn't endanger anyone else's children.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    53. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      A fetus is basically a parasite that lives inside a female host.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    54. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, mostly because death rates were relatively low compared to other reasons why kids died in those days. Polio was feared because an infection was likely where it was common and the effects were in most cases lasting and often permanent. Complications from measles are like 1 in 1000, back then this was a risk you had to take in life and, well, some didn't come out alive.

      We're not anymore in a time when losing one of the 3 kids you have before they turn 18 was normal, though. Trust me, people would cry bloody murder if measles were still rampart like they were 100 years ago and killed about one in 3000 infected.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    55. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, I do not believe in science. Science is capable of proving what it brings to the table, no faith necessary.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    56. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Can you point to a reputable source that claimed it was?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    57. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Scientistic faith? What's scientistic, by the way, apparently it's not just me that doesn't think it's a word, Chrome autocorrect sides with me here...

      Science needs no faith. Science can demonstrate that what it claims is true. If you want to deal with faith, find a church.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    58. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by quenda · · Score: 1

      Oh, now you're going to attack me because to you a Christian cannot be objective nor a scientist.

      Nah, I know plenty of Christians who believe in a round earth, a universe billions of years old, evolution, and contraceptive rights.
      They are able to separate faith from evidence-based knowledge (ie science) too.

      My faith is completely objective and scientific.

      That is a contradiction in terms. If you are unable to separate faith from fact, you must be both a bad scientist, and a bad christian.

    59. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's not enough to go on here from your secondary claims, but a Christian who believes in evolution is probably inconsistent.

    60. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fetus != child

      moron

    61. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      Science isn't faith, its objective truth.

      If you understood science you'd know

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    62. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if that was widespread enough to be considered to be a real concern, people around here usually do not get flu shots if they are healthy adults.
      Those are for the elderly and at risk children and maybe people who have to work with those groups. Small children and the elderly don't have to worry about pregnancies and medical personnel as well as care givers are well enough informed about the risks and demands of their jobs.
      Healthy adults however were vaccinated at a young age against other stuff that is dangerous during pregnancies like rubella and chicken pox.

      So take your black and white logic shove it up your place where the sun does not shine.

    63. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      I agree. Screaming fire in a crowded theatre should not be illegal either, since the person may sincerely think that there was a fire.

      The fact that innocent people are suffering grievous injury or death as a direct result, is completely tangential to the issue.

    64. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The unwashed hordes of "but muh SCIENCE(tm)!!1!" bros have (automatic, unquestioning) faith in official "science" (as a mechanical process, and as received doctrines expounded by credentialed authorities). They have (violent) contempt for the enquiring spirit and skeptical attitude that underly true science.

      These faithful practice the cult of scientism. It's an established word - scientistic faith has bedeviled man at least since the dawn of the machine age. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

    65. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Forgot to login. That's my reply above.

    66. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a man of strong faith!

    67. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously are speaking from ignorance. I said that the protesters wouldn't understand if they didn't understand Faith, Science, and Objectivity. Faith totally has objective elements. Faith is totally reproducible. Faith has a cause-effect. Seek Jesus with all your heart, soul, & might, and he will reward you. You sir, have not sought Jesus sufficiently, if at all. Ergo, you don't understand. Just because a blind man cannot see, doesn't mean that it is logical for a blind man to deny the testimony of millions who claim to have an ability to see.

      QED.

      To the poster below:

      Evolution is a means to an end. It doesn't preclude a creator from making use of it. Why did that gene change? Was it chance? Or was it the Hand of God?

      To the poster below that:

      Jefferson was a heretic. He was a deist at best. If you don't believe in the Trinity and the divine nature of Jesus, you are a heretic. During his life, and throughout history people have believed in Jesus because he preached peace, justice, & truth, he healed the sick, raised the dead, and fulfilled OT prophesies. Jefferson didn't believe in miracles such as divine healing and prophecy. To Jefferson, Jesus was nothing more than a more energetic and more eloquent Mr. Rogers.

      To all the other posters: I realize that this thread is most likely dead.

    68. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that childhood vaccine is likely not working for you any more. Why else would college students need MMR boosters if the shot at childhood worked. Why on Earth would anyone ever need any boosters at all if they worked so well?

      Healthy adults are totally being routinely vaccinated for the flu, pregnant women are even being encouraged to get the flu vaccine! You cannot work in health care or schools without a flu vaccine; it's not about information, it's about twisting your arm into compliance.

      But you would know that if you didn't have your head in the place that you seem to like to reference so politely.

    69. Re:Legal activities should not be blocked by quenda · · Score: 1

      To all the other posters: I realize that this thread is most likely dead.

      If you want anyone to read your posts, log in, as AC posts are hidden by most.
      I only see you because you replied to me.

      > Why did that gene change? Was it chance? Or was it the Hand of God?

      A good question, and a scientific one, because it makes testable predictions. People have looked for evidence of intelligence affecting evolution of genes - while proving such a vague notion as "god" is impossible, there should definitely be evidence of such guiding because "Hand of God" would have long-term goals.
      Natural evolution does not plan ahead. It relies on each incremental step succeeding on its own merits. Yes this is slow, but it means we have legs made from modified fish fins, rather than wheels.

    70. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      That's just obviously untrue. Measles is NOT some terrifying deadly disease. Never was. It's more like the common cold. A minor annoyance.

      Like EVERYONE here over 40, I speak from personal experience. Absolutely everyone I grew up with had measles at some point. It's super annoying but basically harmless. Measles killed zero people among tens of thousands of kids - who all caught it - in my hometown. These big scare stories are flat out lies.

      Now does that mean you should skip the measles vaccine? Not necessarily - that's up to you. (Personal choice!). It just means that the Big Pharma shills and forced-vax nazis are LYING when they claim measles is in the same league as polio, and use that wild scare story to justify forcing people to undergo a potentially risky medical procedure against their will.

      I'm starting to think this measles-focused nazism is less about medicine or "science", and more about being yet another shibboleth of the kakistocracy. Whole hearted belief in the absurd is a sign of great faith.

  9. Re:Full disclosure on vaccines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whenever someone uses the term "allopath," you know right away that a nutbar is speaking. That's the term they use for a real doctor.

  10. Polarization is making this worse... by SirAstral · · Score: 0

    This pro-vax vs anti-vax baloney needs to stop.

    The anti-vaxxers constantly come off as a bunch of wacky conspiracy theorists that are doing more damage to their cause than good with constant accusations that vaccines contains chemicals that have been removed for a while now to stoke fear.

    The pro-vaxxers constantly come off as a bunch of pharma shills that are actually ADDING to the ranks of the anti-vaxxers with their vitriolic rhetoric and constant claims that they are perfectly safe. If they were actually that safe they would be over the counter instead of behind a medical industry process, so there is obvious risk being under played.

    Stop treating each other like trash, it is not helping! Human fear is an irrational beast and everyone has these kinds of fears and the reasons they have them are because they have a component of truth which makes lies so damn effective when it feeds someone's confirmation bias. Trying to silence your opponent only leads to people asking why you think that is necessary considering the history of silencing people is mostly used as a form of oppression. For the longest time there was a strong anti-socialist anti-communist movement in American, it has failed spectacularly. Instead of constantly talking about the issues people just called them bad names and never listened to them. So instead they found a different way to subvert things and now there are active self proclaimed socialists getting voted into office and for now. Any attempt to silence people almost always backfires, because when you do... you start piquing other folks curiosity... because if they are actually wrong... why do you need to silence them?

    1. Re:Polarization is making this worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      re: what you said about pro-vaxxers, the reason they're not over the counter is because while safe it doesn't mean any fool should be able to administer them any time either

      (btw being OTC has little bearing on overall safety, just take Tylenol, that stuff is basically poison)

      pro-pharma shills? I mean seriously, such profits as pharma makes from childhood vaccinations are so tiny as to be less than a rounding error. The total revenue, so before profits, world-wide, of childhood vaccinations is less than 1% of total pharma revenue

      the short version there are plenty of reasons to hate on pharma but vaccinations ain't one of them

      now on the other hand, I haven't heard of a single case of a pro-vaxxer making death threats against an anti-vaxxer but there are loads of instances of the reverse, so the reason anti-vaxxers get treated like crazies is because a whole lot of them are acting like crazies, maybe it's a minority, but you associate with nuts, you get labeled a nut too

    2. Re: Polarization is making this worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno. Blacklisting communist supporters in the US worked pretty well to silence the group. They started coming back when blacklisting stopped.

    3. Re: Polarization is making this worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a pharma shill. Someone who understands scientific method, herd immunity, and the germ theory of disease.

      It's not so hard.

    4. Re:Polarization is making this worse... by SirAstral · · Score: 1

      "btw being OTC has little bearing on overall safety"
      #1. This is a Strawman fallacy, I am not making the claim that OTC means it's perfectly safe, the claim I am making is that accusations of vaccines being perfectly safe are obviously bunk when they are not even over the counter, they also have special contraindications as well.
      #2. OTC does actually have a LOT of bearing on overall safety as well as why there are 7 schedules of drugs dealing with their safety and addiction attributes.

      Yes, even OTC drugs can kill you, but so can water and salt as well. But they are still considered safe enough that average people should be able to self administer with simple instruction.

      "pro-pharma shills? I mean seriously, such profits as pharma makes from childhood vaccinations are so tiny as to be less than a rounding error."

      Making large amounts of money per is not the only way to make money, drumming up enough outrage to get laws passed so that everyone are legally required to get them will create such a scenario at least of an increase in sales, and this is still if they can resist the temptation to jack up the price if getting vaccinated becomes compulsory! It is quite possible that the current cost is because they are readily available and not compulsory.

      "the short version there are plenty of reasons to hate on pharma but vaccinations ain't one of them"

      I will agree with you there, but I am just trying to explain to those like YOU that offensive pro-vax behavior is helping to foment these kinds of problematic contrarian beliefs. Start looking at anti-vaxxers like they are humans instead of like they are subhuman primates that you should be controlling and telling what to do.

      "but you associate with nuts, you get labeled a nut too"

      Seriously? Guilty by association? At least you freely admit that you can only think like a bigot. There have been lots of innocent people that have been harmed by folks like you and your bigotry. A few racists come to mind... like the KKK, they didn't like white folks hanging out with black folks either... you sound just exactly like them with trash talk like that!

    5. Re: Polarization is making this worse... by SirAstral · · Score: 1

      Being in or out of a closet has nothing to do with going away or coming back. The only thing blacklisting does is create a black-market for it.

      Things usually do not fester in the light of day, but instead in dark corners where people avoid looking out of fear of being falsely accused!

    6. Re: Polarization is making this worse... by SirAstral · · Score: 1

      You are when you feel the need to defend against the observation.

      Let me ask you this.

      Put yourself in the shoes of an educator and ask yourself... Would you talk to your students the same way pro/anti-vaxxers talk to each other? If so, why? If no, why?

      I hope you can start to get the idea now. This is not just about attracting more bees with honey rather than vinegar, it is also about not trying to act superior to others with different ideas, beliefs, or understandings about things right or wrong.

    7. Re:Polarization is making this worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Agreed, vax is peanuts for pharma. They are looking for the next 85 grand cure for HEP-C. I forget who had it, but that company had like 50% of revenue off one drug. I'd also point out the irony that India is in an aggressive campaign of immunization across the entire country while we in the much better country of the US are trying to allow people to not get vax'ed. Crazy times, flat earthers, anti-vaxer's etc. All on the interwebs, arguably a platform only available since science has come as far as it has. Crazy times.

    8. Re:Polarization is making this worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All arguments do not have equal merit - particularly ones that are based on false or misleading non-evidence. This "both sides" bullshit has to stop.

    9. Re:Polarization is making this worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Up until very recently, the only study conducted on the safety of themerisol in vaccines was conducted by Lilly in the 1920s on 10 meningitis patients who all died. They concluded back then that it was meningitis which killed them, and therefore it was safe. Even the CDC cannot state publically that vaccines are safe. The truth is its about statistics, and that with the current data its *more* safe to have them, and avoid disease, than to have an adverse reaction.

      Please stick to facts. Its a way better way to solidify your argument.

    10. Re:Polarization is making this worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What in the hell is a pro-vaxxer pharma schill? Did you just make that up? People want other people to be vaccinated to prevent the spread of disease. Nobody needs to be paid to say this is a good idea, because it's common sense. It's up there with spaying and neutering pets for Christ's sake.

      Don't pretend you are in the middle of some big debate between two sides. There are people irrationally opposed to vaccinations, and there is everybody else.

    11. Re:Polarization is making this worse... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      To quote a comedian, I could say it nicer that it's bullshit ... but I don't know why I should, it doesn't become any less of a pile of bullshit that way.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Re:Full disclosure on vaccines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait. People get addicted to vaccines now?
    Just because opiate based pain killers are a type of "medicine" and vaccines are also a type of "medicine" does make them any more similar than a human to a cat, because they are both mammals.

  12. Climate change discussions should also be banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Conspiracy theorists love forcing climate change down our throats. It gets old, really.

  13. Let's let ECONOMIC FACT silence YOU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the longest time there was a strong anti-socialist anti-communist movement in American, it has failed spectacularly. Instead of constantly talking about the issues people just called them bad names and never listened to them. So instead they found a different way to subvert things and now there are active self proclaimed socialists getting voted into office and for now. Any attempt to silence people almost always backfires - by SirAstral ( 1349985 ) on Sunday March 24, 2019 @04:03PM (#58326122)

    See subject: SOCIALISM? Who will PAY FOR IT?? An eroding middle OR working class whose GOOD PAYING JOBS get sent away by the "CONTROLLERS"???

    THE CONTROLLERS (as I call them)????

    (Who never pay their fair share of taxes & wrote up loopholes galore & put puppet politicians in place to do so OR use of blackmail + other types of coercion to do so)?????

    NO.

    Will the "WELFARE MONKEY JUNKIES" PAY FOR IT???

    HELL NO!

    They need to get UN-LAZY & get real, get OFF THE WELFARE is what is needed & this CHANGE has to happen @ THE TOP OF THE "FOODCHAIN" or it NEVER will!

    * THOSE @ THE "TOP" NOW?

    Here is what they THINK OF YOU, ME & even their own DUPED "brownshirts" of TODAY https://science.slashdot.org/c...

    1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

    APK

    P.S.=> It seems like YOU are championing "socialism" & PUTTING THOSE IN FAVOR OF IT IN CONTROL based on what I quote from you - answer my questions above, let's let FACT silence YOU (by you going silent OR using some HORSESHIT vs. facts I use above - HARD, REAL ECONOMIC FACT - because in reality? The world doesn't OWE YOU SHIT so why should ANYONE have to pull ANYONE ELSE'S DEAD WEIGHT as a leech on welfare?? You seem to overlook WELFARE is like a NARCOTIC for many - not just a "leg up" because you FUCKED UP (or not, outsourced jobs is not fault of workers) BUT THEY TURN IT INTO A CAREER or CUNTS that have "10 baby mama daddyo chillinz" FOR A WELFARE CHECK (& they wonder WHY 'gangsta fails' HATE WOMEN calling them "hoes" - IF You were BORN A WELFARE CHECK YOU MIGHT TOO, even if subconsciously)... apk

  14. Re: Climate change discussions should also be bann by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another silly phrase. Climate change referring specifically to increases in temperatures around the globe, seems to be happening. Is it worth panicking about because some greedy tool seed a money making opportunity? No
    As it refers to specific locations changing in climate? Yes it seems to be happening although not at the rate some fear, which raises some doubts as to the eventual nature of climate change.
    Referring to mass migration of species and fauna suddenly from one location to another? No, not real

  15. Re: Climate change discussions should also be bann by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, it isn't like Exxon hasn't paid billions to hide the research!

  16. smelly aryans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because are as stinky as hindo-chimps/n1g3rs/asians. its like damn boiii, take a fuckin shower.

  17. holy grokparsefailure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    prease2engrish.

    1. Re:holy grokparsefailure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read and understood it. You can't because you are a welfare waste and APK silenced you by economics https://science.slashdot.org/c...

  18. Re: Climate change discussions should also be bann by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol sheep. Do you really believe a multi-billion dollar company would use its power to distort science like that?
    It's the scientists themselves. They're part of a global conspiracy to take our pickups to further their queer technocratic agenda.

  19. Re:"Misinformation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, I see you too grow your own food and dig your own water sources. We should discuss the surveillance methods we use to make sure no one has ever tampered with them.

  20. Hey fucker: I silenced your bullshit ass... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. https://science.slashdot.org/c...

    * :)

    (Funny you replied to ANOTHER ac like me but AVOID MY POST LIKE MAD, eh? Not - you got SILENCED by ECONOMIC FACT vs. your BULLSHIT highly economically IMPRACTICAL 'socialism')

    APK

    P.S.=> You SMARMY little shitweasel... apk

  21. First they ignore you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First They Ignore You, Then They Laugh at You, Then They Attack You, Then You Win

    1. Re:First they ignore you... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Win what exactly? Dying of measles?

      Yeah. That's ... great I guess?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  22. Re:Full disclosure on vaccines by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    Do you refuse all vaccinations, only some, or do you go along grudgingly while disliking big pharma?

  23. If vaccines are safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is there such a concerted propaganda effort to deny the harm they have done?

    1. Re:If vaccines are safe by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You might want to go into detail, considering that it would be trivial to point out the good they've done the world over. I'm fairly sure you never saw a smallpox or polio victim. And you're used to your kids surviving to adulthood. Take a wild guess why.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. Re:Full disclosure on vaccines by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Codeword for conspiracy theorist?

  25. Whats next for a consideration by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Topics like:
    The history of the Communist party in China?
    That Taiwan is the real China?
    German history?
    Catalonia?
    Do cults and faiths get to ban what they consider spreading blasphemy?
    Whistleblowers?
    DRM?
    Crypto?
    Movie reviews that are too political?
    Everyone will have a reason why a campaign should not be allowed about their faith, rules, laws, crypto, DRM, politics, nation, past, products ...

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  26. Re: "Misinformation"? by murdocj · · Score: 1

    Da, Boris, da!!!

  27. Re: No collusion by murdocj · · Score: 1

    trump? The fox who is in the henhouse? The guy who can't form a coherent sentence? The guy Russia wanted as president, knowing how crappy he'd be? That trump?

  28. Please don't by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

    Please don't ban anti-vaxxers. You're hindering evolution.

    People stupid enough to get on board with that don't deserve to continue to contribute to the gene pool. Let them have their cake, and eat it too, right out of the gene pool.

    Censorship of stupidity will render the internet a blank page, ok?

    1. Re:Please don't by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Evolution doesn't work that way. And neither does intelligence. (Idiocracy was not a documentary.)

      If these idiots were hurting themselves, I'd be fine with it. But they're hurting innocent children. Children who, despite what bad pop science might have you believe, are likely to be as intelligent as the next random person.

      They're also hurting unrelated people who cannot, for legitimate medical reasons, get vaccinated.

      I don't care how libertarian you are, that doesn't pass the "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" test.

    2. Re:Please don't by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Sorry, we replaced evolution with civilization and would try to save their dying spawn. With my tax money, too.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  29. The danger of censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My front door neighbor (50 yrs old) turned into a vegetable after the flu vaccine. I really don't see how anyone can logically defend a product that needs improvement. Since when did big-pharma get such extraordinary lobbyist support from the average ignoramus?

    There is never a good enough reason to silence free speech. You can always claim someone lost their life from listening to "dangerous ideas". At the end of the day, you will only end up living in a perfect police state or a world resembling Idiocracy (the movie).

    Maybe big-pharma should develop safer vaccines instead. That would be a better way to diffuse the anti-vax movement.

    1. Re:The danger of censorship by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      If the product is a net benefit, shouldn't it be used even if it has some danger itself?

      The "precautionary principle" kills more than it saves often, so you have to consider that.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:The danger of censorship by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Flu vaccines and MRR vaccines are two very, very different beasts.

      Flu vaccines are a race against the clock. You have to understand that the development of a vaccine isn't something you do in a couple hours. We're talking a lead time of many months, sometimes up to a year. With a fast mutating virus like the flu virus, this is an eternity. There is even a good chance that the vaccine you eventually have isn't very potent against the virus you're dealing with the next year anymore because your predictions and projected mutations were wrong. Plus, testing is something you also do in a hurry. You'll hence notice that all the scare stories you get to hear about are from Flu shots that went wrong somehow. And you'll also notice that recommendations to get Flu vaccinations usually only come when there is already an outbreak with some serious lasting effects somewhere else and there is a good chance that it's gonna jump the border soon. Exactly because Flu shots can be a risk.

      MRR is a vaccine that doesn't change much. You're looking at a vaccine that has been developed about half a century ago, pretty much any side effects that could somehow possibly happen would have happened by now. We do know the possible side effects pretty well and we also know what to look for to detect them early and how to deal with them.

      Vaccines are a matter of statistics. How likely is an infection? How likely are lasting negative effects of an infection? How likely are lasting negative effects of a vaccination? And for MRR, the statistics for this is clearly on the side of getting it. For Flu shots, less so. And for, say, malaria it would be insane to get vaccinated if you don't plan to leave Michigan in the foreseeable future.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  30. Re: Full disclosure on vaccines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whenever someone says "conspiracy theory", you know they are a credulous bootlicker.

  31. Bitcoin user not affected by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

    Bitcoin will allow you to raise money for such campaigns.

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  32. Re:refusal of service on the basis of political vi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I'm pretty sure that this is little more than a flamebait, I'll bite.

    You're using the idiotic SJW logic (fallacy) that dictates if someone is oppressed somehow, it automatically makes their position truer; no matter all the other facts that surround the issue. It's popular among people prone to believing in conspiracy theories.

    Being oppressed by the system psychologically makes anyone who stands up to it into a hero. Better even a martyr if they do something stupid enough to warrant a Darwin Award.

    The underlying problem with that logic is that you can justify any stupid conspiracy theory shit. Neonazis are the oppressed ones. So maybe suddenly there actually is something to what they believe? Jihadists are the oppressed ones. So maybe suddenly there actually is something to what they believe?

  33. Are you serious? by Musical_Joe · · Score: 1

    The pro-vaxxers constantly come off as a bunch of pharma shills that are actually ADDING to the ranks of the anti-vaxxers with their vitriolic rhetoric and constant claims that they are perfectly safe.

    So you think everyone should lie and say they're not perfectly safe so they sound more believable? Or just make the claim less often so the anti-vaxxer crazies don't always have to listen to that terribly off-putting constant barrage of sense, insight, truth, logic and statistically, experimentally and theoretically provable science?

  34. Re:Full disclosure on vaccines by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

    What makes you think they make much money from vaccines? The whole field would collapse without government money, boner pills and blood pressure meds are more profitable.

  35. Wrong. You need to get rid of STUPID people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not those who don't pander to your self serving screams of "MUH FREEZE PEACH!!!" which you only scream when YOU want to hear that lunacy (or feel you can attack others with it). That rather makes you one of the stupid people.

    Oh, and no, free speech doesn't mean gofundme has to carry yours. Go round door to door begging instead.
    Since when did you rightwing nutjobs hate private property and think that the public should have ownership rights over it? Oh, yeah, I know, when you were the ones being excluded from someone's private property, rather than the "lesser peoples" you hated, feared and looked down on.

    1. Re:Wrong. You need to get rid of STUPID people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really drives me nuts to hear people complain about "free speech" when essentially they want someone else to facilitate that for them with that thrid person having no say of waht they are facilitating.

      Facebook could decided to completly shut down and thee would be nutters all for forcing them to stay running cause of thier "free speech."

  36. Why did the accusatio sting so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guilty conscience? You also avoided answering the question, is it fine to put that noticeboard in your front yard? It's pure unadulterated free speech, so you should be fine hosting the massive billboard out your window telling the world your hidden shame!

  37. The kid next room by DrYak · · Score: 1

    The problem is while Darwin's selection is doing its work among the kids in the anti-vaxx classroom, there are risk of collateral damage in the neighbouring class, for the couple of kids whose parent aren't against vaccination but for some reason (e.g.: non-working immune system, other incompatibilites preventing vaccination, or simply hasn't been vaccinated yet, etc.) the kid isn't properly immunized.

    cf. Herd immunization.

    You wouldn't want to to hurt those.

    -----

    (And in practice, the firm anti-vaxx believer will find a way to put the blame on the school and hospital why their kid died - Hey, the doctor put the kid on all these unnatural chemical drugs while trying to save it, instead of trying to put the kid on all natural 100% raw-vega hyper doses of Vitamin C like I read in some forum on my favorite conspiracy theroy website !)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  38. EVERYTHING is proof to a conspiracy nut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alex Jones insists he is targeted by the evil globalists who have killed to silence people in the past but not him. And as proof of his being threatened, he says the fact he hasn't proves they're too scared now he's outed them to do so and prove him right.

    So, please, tell me what DOESN'T count as proof to a conspiracy nut?

    Because EVERYTHING IS PROOF OF THE CONSPIRACY, so how the hell can shutting them down cause proof?

  39. Re:Full disclosure on vaccines by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Is that the new FUD? I don't keep up with the scare program, but since the thing with Autism fizzled, is now the new spin that we get addicted to vaccinations?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  40. Re:Full disclosure on vaccines by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure you can point to some sort of eviden... hell, I take a harebrained speculation at this point.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  41. The only mental illness the left has by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that the rightwingers are not even human in their disregard for their claimed positions when it comes to policing their own. It completely baffles the left that the right is so completely brazen and two faced about their protests and proclamations and that no matter what their side does, it is only ever the fault of the left, if it is even acknowledged that such things happen.

    The left really do not understand how something can look so human yet evince none of those special traits of humanity like self reflection, morality and higher grade thinking over that of, say, the lizard.

  42. Well, that too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the biggest issue is that it's so two faced. Usually from the right, but the extreme left (in the USA the right are extreme, so technically you could claim the extreme right but you only ever see hear or read about that part of the rightwing since they're so noisy).
    When it comes to slating gays or blacks or some minority (or even feminists and SJWs), they demand the freedom for someone to speak offensively to and/or about them, yet when someone does it about someone they treat with honour and respect, suddenly they complain "Look at how evil the left is! Derangement Syndrome!!!". Occupy Wall Street was also vilified by the right who quote Voltair when they want to pretend some sophisticated reason for trogoldyte toxic speech they like to see (because it hurts people they themselves hate), but not one of them fought to defend them in their speech. Rather they whined and complained that they were disrupting honest people and DESERVED the government assaults.

    They brazenly display the fact that they only use free speech to keep what violent and abusive rhetoric they approve of on air, but will even pretend violence or abuse exists in rhetoric from those they want silenced.

  43. Nope, they just accept that the bible is fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But since to be a christian you ONLY have to believe in jesus christ, you can still be a christian without believing in the bible. Jefferson took all the ridiculous magic out of the bible. He still believed that Jesus Christ was Lord (tm), he just didn't believe the bible.

  44. These are a few of my favorite things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get ready for sites to ban any opinions disagreeing with the "science" of climate change.
    Or disagreeing with the "fact" that Israel is an apartheid state.
    Twitter already bans anyone who does not think that a trans "woman" is a woman.
    Soon you will be banned if you disagree with the science that says saturated fat causes heart disease, or that eggs do.

  45. Re:Full disclosure on vaccines by Quakeulf · · Score: 0

    Flu shots every year.

  46. Re:Full disclosure on vaccines by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    And ... you think you get the flu if you don't get one this year because you got one the last year?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  47. Give me a handout! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck give me a hand out sites in all of their incarnations.

    I hope these leech parasitic useless talentless fucks all get deleted.

    Oh you won't let me collect a hand out? Aren't you a greedy fucking jew with an agenda. Glad I did use your Kike-site!

  48. Suppression of the Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suppression of the truth is an early step in the subjugation of a people. The fact, that vaccines are a total fraud and just a smokescreen to force us to accept mind-altering chemicals that make us more compliant and susceptible to manipulation by the government, is the biggest threat to their control. The fact, that the government has steadily increased the amount of mind-controlling drugs in vaccines to the point that a significant number of our children are damaged beyond repair (by being given autism), is the next one that will be covered up and suppressed outright.

    Don't buy the smokescreen.

  49. "misinformation" = "truth" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jenner was a fraudster. What scientific research did he do? Compare medical science in Jenner's day to today. What control groups did he use? Where was his laboratory? Oh wait, he didn't have one. What scientific qualifications did he have? None.

    http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen1.html

    Nobody has rebutted any of the Dr Hadwen's talks about the fraud that is 'vaccination'. But please, do your best.