Slashdot Mirror


GoFundMe Bans Anti-Vaccine Campaigns (slashgear.com)

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.

84 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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 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"?

    4. 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!

    5. 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.
    6. Re:Wrong move by lactose99 · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    7. 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.

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

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

  4. 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 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.
  5. 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 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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

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

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

    8. 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?

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

      I agree. Censorship is the worst part about this.

    10. 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.

    11. 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?

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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.

    20. 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.

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

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

    22. 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.

    23. 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.

    24. 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.
    25. Re: Legal activities should not be blocked by Linux+Torvalds · · Score: 1

      They vote.

    26. 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.

    27. 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.

    28. 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.

    29. 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.

    30. 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.
    31. 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.
    32. 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.
    33. 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.
    34. 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.
    35. 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.
    36. 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.

    37. 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
    38. 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.

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

      Forgot to login. That's my reply above.

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

      Spoken like a man of strong faith!

    41. 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.

    42. 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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!

  8. 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!

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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?

  12. Re:Full disclosure on vaccines by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Codeword for conspiracy theorist?

  13. 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"
  14. Re: "Misinformation"? by murdocj · · Score: 1

    Da, Boris, da!!!

  15. 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?

  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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?

  20. 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.

  21. 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 ]
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.