Kind of died when the platform of both parties became "spend more, engage in more corruption, screw the little guy, blame the other side, and win the next election."
Most things that are new inventions usually have a few lead visionaries behind them. Who are often let go as soon as they develop their idea.
Now part of that may be that thousands of patents are issued a year when I think maybe a few dozen constitute actuall inventions of note.
***
I guess it is only fair that I give you my alternative to our current patent system.
1. Only individuals can receive patents.
2. Patents in no way prohibit others from creating a product. If you can build a better mousetrap for cheaper, do so. The world needs better mouse traps.
3. Patent holder can manufacture his product at a significant reduced tax rate. Essentially, whatever company employs an inventor for a given patent, can produce their products at a discounted tax rate. This means, that if two companies can build equivalent products at about the same edge. The one who employs the patent holder can sell their product cheaper.
4. Patents are for life or 50 years. Whichever is longer.
Advantage of this system. Innovation is NEVER stifled by patents. Seeing as innovation is the sole justification for patents, this is very important.
Companies can benefit financially by employing patent holder.
Patent holder receives employment ($$$) for being patent holder. Companies will add inventors on payroll just to receive the tax deduction. Meanwhile, this will lead to inventors having steady flows of income and allowing them to expend their time working to further new inventions.
The above system provides a much more true to the purpose solution than our present system. So why wasn't this enacted during the signing of the Constitution? Simple, it wasn't a viable option back then. Huh what? That's right. Our tax base wasn't as high as it is now, thus there were not the savings to be gained. Now, that tax break is like gold to a manufacturing company.
***
Furthermore, patents would cease to cover evolutionary changes of technology (CD & DVD, not patentable. Patent would only apply to original optical disc invention.) Touch screens have been invented, newer algorithms for greater finesse and control would not constitute a patentable invention. Likewise, auctions have existed for millenium. Migrating to a new medium, such as the internet, would not be patentable. Nor would a process, (ie: one-click shopping). Biology would not be patentable (ie: no patenting genes, vaccines, etc). Software, which is essentially algorithms and behavior would cease to be patentable.
Completely new inventions utilizing older technologies could potentially be patentable. Radio, is patentable. FM, AM, variances on radio and transmission is not. Nor would encrypting a signal, TDMI, etc. But utilization of radio waves to construct an energy beam to cut or fuse steel might be patentable.
The idea is to allow innovation to flow freely again, so companies don't have to spend $8 billion buying other legal companies to fight against ridiculous patent portfolios.
***
Lastly, public domain submissions. Patent office would have to allow anyone to submit an idea, concept, invention or design into public domain at no cost. Patent office does not need to do anythign with submission other than store it, and allow it to be searched by content and keywords.
This way, when people like me have ideas that 5 years later we see companies suing each other over. We can point to the public domain and say "Hey, that idea has already been shared with all of humanity. So go re-holster your lawyers please."
Everyone is saying there is nothing new here. But not the patent. It's the ability to do these things and now use a finger gesture.
Um, that may be harder to find prior art for. But I think I've found an example of prior art for Apple that's been used since the advent of mobile phones used in cars.
At one time X-rays were used with pregnancies the way we use ultrasounds. It was claimed to be totally safe. Until it was later determined that unborn infants suffered greater risks from X-rays, including higher cancer rates.
***
Also, excuse me if I am a tad suspect whenever millions of $$$ are involved in an industry. And a government that has repeatedly made mistakes and hid them.
That said, I still believe that generally vaccines are safe, and that they are beneficially for society. But should not be required unless highly communicable.
"Point taken, but sometimes we have to go with what we know and change it when we learn more."
I agree. It's why I think vaccines for highly communicable diseases are acceptable requirements. And when they mandated, I had few objections. But it's starting to become "every vaccine" is mandated policy.
Establish two categories of vaccines:
1. Required due to high level of communicable risk.
2. Recommended, not required until age 10 when risk is higher.
I'd be fine with such a rational policy as above.
"I haven't heard anyone, anywhere suggesting mass vaccinating toddlers with HIV vaccines."
Nor I, but such does exist regarding HepB & HPV. And in a discussion a few months ago, I saw the question arise. "What if there was an HIV vaccine." If it passes, I'll wager you a silver piece that the issue will come up.
If it is effective, than I am all for it, once my children are a little older. Not two. Not needlessly when they're immune system is still in development. I take that risk with most virus' because there is an immediate danger of both infection and spread. That immediate danger is not posed in these cases.
"Having raised three children, I feel confident in stating that they will find ways to bleed on each other that adults never imagined."
Correct me if I am wrong. But that has repeatedly, and repeatedly been expressed as not being a vector. Same is true of saliva. They have repeatedly told us that such poses little to no risk.
You are right, HIV, is not only an STD. Not sure any disease is only an STD. But it is a disease that requires bodily fluid exchange. Versus one that is exchanged via air or bodily contact. There is a significantly different riskset with those two vectors. One is a high risk vector, the other extremely low, so as to be non-statistically significant within certain demographics.
"All in all, you seem like a prudent parent. I just think it's a good idea to follow the advice of the experts in most cases. It's usually the safest bet. Never 100% safe, but life doesn't give us many 100% sure things."
I agree. And in most cases I do. (Blast it OREO.....they tell me not to eat you, but I can't STOPPPP!!!);-)
***
FYI, I wasn't as big on this issue until this year. We had registered my 4 year old daughter for pre-school. She was so excited. My wife really needed a break time from being home with the kids all day. It was a private pre-school.
My daughter's vaccinations were current, she had everything but the HepB. We decided we wanted to wait on that. First day of school comes, and they refuse to allow my daughter to attend. There is no real risk of contagion. My daughter returned home disappointed, and my wife in tears. All our plans were pretty much shot down. And it was too late to enroll in any other pre-schools.
My daughter lost out on education (at a private school mind you), because she didn't receive one vaccination that is for a disease that is not a highly communicable disease.
That's when I realized something is rather wrong with the system. We're not talking a public school, get our free education only if you abide by our rules. But a private institution. That leaves no option but home-schooling.
There is always an element of risk with any vaccine. Needle contamination, bad nurse sticking the wrong spot, bad manufacturing batch, etc. (Thought there may or may not be some potential issues with HepB.)
The point is, where there is a legitimate risk of concern, it makes sense to me to give my daughter a vaccine.
When there is essentially zero risk cases for a toddler age 2-10 to contract the disease. It doesn't make sense to me to subject her to the procedure.
I am actually a skeptic of vaccine dangers. My wife who is a nurse was rather laughable at those silly to fear them. That was until she began researching them a bit more. Apparently, there's been a lot of question into the practices the FDA uses to determine deaths related to vaccines.
Individuals who have lost infants within 24-48 hours of subjecting them to vaccinations find their children are not counted in the statistics. Dismissed as SIDS (unknown diagnosis).
Also, while it is easy to determine effect and safety over a large group of children, it is very hard to make that determination individually and universally.
All the tests had shown children's cough medicine to be safe. ALL tests made this conclusion. To say otherwise was considered near lunacy.
However, the death of one child whose mother refused to accept a diagnosis of SIDS brought forth an unusual discovery - the child had toxic levels of one of the cough medicine chemicals resulting in a drug overdose. That almost got the mom arrested for drug overdose of her child. Until a further review of the toxicology report revealed that only one chemical was at overdose levels all the others were not.
That's when the doctors realized that the child's body had failed to metabolize one of the chemicals. They realized there was no neglect or overdose, rather an previously unknown risk had manifested. Had that one mom not persisted, her child would have just been one of many SIDS cases.
Hundreds of thousands of kids had taken cough medicine without harm. But will we ever know how many SIDS cases were tied to cough medicine? I don't think so.
Likewise, with vaccines, it is hard to know for sure that a death was in response to a vaccine. But I'd wager that anytime a young undeveloped immune system is forced to cope with a reaction to a virus or vaccine, that it takes a tremendous toll.
As a parent, I've watched the misery of my kids for that 1-2 day period after vaccinations. They're miserable, sore, cranky and in discomfort. So clearly there is a physical toll on their body. I am all for taking necessary risks. Just don't see why I should take unnecessary risks.
When my daughter is 10, with a much more developed immune system, I'd be much more likely to consider such STD related vaccines as HepB, HPV, and HIV.
"I find the cause of the mishap was the MP's [mishap pilot] failure to recognize and initiate a timely dive recovery due to channelized attention, breakdown of visual scan and unrecognized spatial disorientation."
- President of the AIB, Brig. Gen. James Browne
[TRANSLATION: "Yuri Gagarin was not the first Russian in outer space. However, we do not mention the other for he was not loyal enough to hold his breath when the oxygen recycling system failed."]
Right, and that's why I accept mandatory vaccines for highly communicable diseases. If my child didn't have her measles vaccines she could pass it on to other children.
The same is not true for diseases that are not highly communicable such as STDs.
"Plus, noone is being held down at needle point, just being denied privileges that they can be replaced with private sources."
No Sir, this is where I get f***** g*d d**n annoyed. Everyone retorts this....but it gets applied to private schools. Which are pressured by the states to adhere to the state policies. And many of which, believe they have to adhere to the policies.
So NO, we don't have a private friggin alternative to turn to. Thanks to my daughter not getting her HebP vaccine (only one she doesn't have) she was denied entry into a private pre-school because of State law.
If I had a private alternative, I wouldn't speak up over it. So let's reverse this whole paradigm.
My child not receiving the HepB vaccine will in no way harm your child. (Unless they're having toddler sex.) But your policy of needlessly protecting your child is hurting my child's well-being.
Yes, if one decides they don't want a vaccine, the only option is to stay home and home-school. Can't even go to a private school.:-(
Fine, give the vaccinations. Maybe at 10 years of age. But requiring toddlers to have STD vaccines is kind of pushing it.
Currently, Hep B and now in some regions the HPV vaccines are mandated.
My argument is taking away the opportunity to educate your child is not a fair or morally justified policy. Not for non-infectious diseases.
***
"But just imagine the disadvantage of completely unknown long-term vaccine affect applied to the entire human race."
Imagine if 15 years later we discover every adult who receives the vaccine is fine. But every child has become sterile. Sucks to be the human race.
My point is not that this isn't a great thing. I think it is. And hopefully, we're not greedy bastards who make it way over-priced and prevent it from reaching those in Africa.
My point is this mandatory requirement, that says if you do not give you child a vaccine for a non-infectious disease, then your child cannot be educated.
We're not just talking public schools. But even private schools.
Our daughter has every vaccine but Hep B. Because we had not given her Hep B vaccinations, she was refused entry into a private pre-school. I can understand about measles, mumps and other highly communicable diseases. But I'm not too worried about STDs with 2 year olds.
1. Define proven safe for 2 year olds. Cough medicine was proven safe for 2 year olds. It wasn't until one mother refused to accept a diagnosis of SIDS that it was discovered that some children had not developed the ability to metabolise certain compounds.
In other words, we often know what is safe for most 2 year olds, but not all.
2. Yes, blood transfusions, and toddler drug parties. Just to name a few.
3. We're not asking for personal freedom without consequence. We're just asking that our toddlers be allowed to attend pre-school without being required to have STD vaccines.
There is a significant difference between a highly infections disease like TB or the Measles, versus a disease with very very limited transferrence.
For example, HepB, basically falls into two main infection categories. Older kids who may have begun being sexually active or IV drug users OR infants born to infected mothers.
Outside of that, infection rate is pretty much non-existent. Nor likely to be spread to other children. So negating a child's ability to attent pre-school over an STD vaccine seems to be consequence without personal freedom.
PS - I am not opposed to vaccinations. I believe them useful. But I do think that sometimes our policies and implementations leave a lot to be desired. We will give children 2-5 vaccines in a single Dr. visit. That's a lot of the worst diseases we know all at once, for a little undeveloped toddler immune system to cope with.
My children have received most all of their vaccines, we've just taken the time to spread them out with 1-2 vaccines every couple of months.
If human trials look good. Field test in Africa. Some regions have a 1 in 3 infection rate. Almost any reduction, even with side affects, would probably be beneficial in that region.
In fact, I think if approved. I'd like to see a President/Congress with the balls to purchase and donate a few million doses for Africa.
My guess, the second batch of volunteers will be those in marriages/committed relationships with HIV+ positive spouses (eg: married to a nurse who got pricked, a spouse who had a bad blood transfusion, victim of rape, etc, etc).
How long until this vaccine is mandatory for 2 year olds?
I figure, if it passes clinical trials, 5 years later we'll require every toddler to have it before they can attend pre-school. (Got to stop all that pre-school sex.)
I think the above commentator meant his comment as further explanation. Giving a more layman explanation of the above. And doesn't warrant modding down.
Perhaps instead of "a side note" he should have said "
Project began in 1986. My wife was yet to be born. What constitutes newly designed?
1/4 of a century?
I think that sums up the problem with our government. 10 years to design, and a 1/4 of a century later and it's still buggy.
Um, seriously, there is something inherently wrong with our production cycles here. Just like the Seawolf, by the time design, production, etc is complete. The design is obsolete. Perhaps it's best of world. But we cancel the programs.
We need to go back to square one, shake up these big companies. And bring some fresh blood into the military development cycle.
Is not will we discover an earth gravity (size is meaningless, it's the gravity that's an issue) planet at earth temperature from it's sun, but when.
And more importantly, when will we find one with 25 light years from Sol.
NASA's primary focus right now IMHO should be giving out X-prizes for corporate achievement in space flight and endeavoring to devise means for reaching stars:
- how to get a probe up to near light speed. - how to maintain communication with said probe (most likely via entangled diamonds) - get us off this rock (within 150 years)
Slashdot Mirror
Kind of died when the platform of both parties became "spend more, engage in more corruption, screw the little guy, blame the other side, and win the next election."
Would that constitute as a WMD?
Millions gone blind after accidentally being re-directed to naked photos of Newt Gingrich.
Eh, I think there are a lot more and a lot worse dirty tricks in Washington elections.
But this is an utter DUMB mistake on the part of Newt's internet campaign manager.
No excuse....
I disagree...
Most things that are new inventions usually have a few lead visionaries behind them. Who are often let go as soon as they develop their idea.
Now part of that may be that thousands of patents are issued a year when I think maybe a few dozen constitute actuall inventions of note.
***
I guess it is only fair that I give you my alternative to our current patent system.
1. Only individuals can receive patents.
2. Patents in no way prohibit others from creating a product. If you can build a better mousetrap for cheaper, do so. The world needs better mouse traps.
3. Patent holder can manufacture his product at a significant reduced tax rate. Essentially, whatever company employs an inventor for a given patent, can produce their products at a discounted tax rate. This means, that if two companies can build equivalent products at about the same edge. The one who employs the patent holder can sell their product cheaper.
4. Patents are for life or 50 years. Whichever is longer.
Advantage of this system. Innovation is NEVER stifled by patents. Seeing as innovation is the sole justification for patents, this is very important.
Companies can benefit financially by employing patent holder.
Patent holder receives employment ($$$) for being patent holder. Companies will add inventors on payroll just to receive the tax deduction. Meanwhile, this will lead to inventors having steady flows of income and allowing them to expend their time working to further new inventions.
The above system provides a much more true to the purpose solution than our present system. So why wasn't this enacted during the signing of the Constitution? Simple, it wasn't a viable option back then. Huh what? That's right. Our tax base wasn't as high as it is now, thus there were not the savings to be gained. Now, that tax break is like gold to a manufacturing company.
***
Furthermore, patents would cease to cover evolutionary changes of technology (CD & DVD, not patentable. Patent would only apply to original optical disc invention.) Touch screens have been invented, newer algorithms for greater finesse and control would not constitute a patentable invention. Likewise, auctions have existed for millenium. Migrating to a new medium, such as the internet, would not be patentable. Nor would a process, (ie: one-click shopping). Biology would not be patentable (ie: no patenting genes, vaccines, etc). Software, which is essentially algorithms and behavior would cease to be patentable.
Completely new inventions utilizing older technologies could potentially be patentable. Radio, is patentable. FM, AM, variances on radio and transmission is not. Nor would encrypting a signal, TDMI, etc. But utilization of radio waves to construct an energy beam to cut or fuse steel might be patentable.
The idea is to allow innovation to flow freely again, so companies don't have to spend $8 billion buying other legal companies to fight against ridiculous patent portfolios.
***
Lastly, public domain submissions. Patent office would have to allow anyone to submit an idea, concept, invention or design into public domain at no cost. Patent office does not need to do anythign with submission other than store it, and allow it to be searched by content and keywords.
This way, when people like me have ideas that 5 years later we see companies suing each other over. We can point to the public domain and say "Hey, that idea has already been shared with all of humanity. So go re-holster your lawyers please."
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Robert A. Heinlein (Must read, one of the best books ever written IMHO)
Time for the Stars, Robert A. Heinlein (short novella, one of his best IMHO, excellent read and keeps you dreaming)
Tailchaser's Song by Tad Williams (Lord of the Rings meets cats, and one of only three books I've read five times)
1632 series by Eric Flint (history and fun all in one read)
Everyone is saying there is nothing new here. But not the patent. It's the ability to do these things and now use a finger gesture.
Um, that may be harder to find prior art for. But I think I've found an example of prior art for Apple that's been used since the advent of mobile phones used in cars.
m|m
Is a company with balls...
"Patents, we don't need no stinkin' patents."
COURT: You must respect patents.
COMPANY: "You just lost patent refinery #'s 1, 2 & 3."
Seriously, patents need to go the way of the buffalo. No company should be allowed to own a patent. Just individual inventors.
Mother's refusal to accept SIDS diagnosis leads to discovery of metabolic issue with regards to cough medicines
http://articles.cnn.com/2007-10-17/health/cough.syrup.deaths_1_cold-medicines-cough-medicines-child-deaths?_s=PM:HEALTH
Just a list of pulled meds...
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/SelectedEnforcementActionsonUnapprovedDrugs/ucm245106.htm
At one time X-rays were used with pregnancies the way we use ultrasounds. It was claimed to be totally safe. Until it was later determined that unborn infants suffered greater risks from X-rays, including higher cancer rates.
***
Also, excuse me if I am a tad suspect whenever millions of $$$ are involved in an industry. And a government that has repeatedly made mistakes and hid them.
That said, I still believe that generally vaccines are safe, and that they are beneficially for society. But should not be required unless highly communicable.
"Point taken, but sometimes we have to go with what we know and change it when we learn more."
I agree. It's why I think vaccines for highly communicable diseases are acceptable requirements. And when they mandated, I had few objections. But it's starting to become "every vaccine" is mandated policy.
Establish two categories of vaccines:
1. Required due to high level of communicable risk.
2. Recommended, not required until age 10 when risk is higher.
I'd be fine with such a rational policy as above.
"I haven't heard anyone, anywhere suggesting mass vaccinating toddlers with HIV vaccines."
Nor I, but such does exist regarding HepB & HPV. And in a discussion a few months ago, I saw the question arise. "What if there was an HIV vaccine." If it passes, I'll wager you a silver piece that the issue will come up.
If it is effective, than I am all for it, once my children are a little older. Not two. Not needlessly when they're immune system is still in development. I take that risk with most virus' because there is an immediate danger of both infection and spread. That immediate danger is not posed in these cases.
"Having raised three children, I feel confident in stating that they will find ways to bleed on each other that adults never imagined."
Correct me if I am wrong. But that has repeatedly, and repeatedly been expressed as not being a vector. Same is true of saliva. They have repeatedly told us that such poses little to no risk.
You are right, HIV, is not only an STD. Not sure any disease is only an STD. But it is a disease that requires bodily fluid exchange. Versus one that is exchanged via air or bodily contact. There is a significantly different riskset with those two vectors. One is a high risk vector, the other extremely low, so as to be non-statistically significant within certain demographics.
"All in all, you seem like a prudent parent. I just think it's a good idea to follow the advice of the experts in most cases. It's usually the safest bet. Never 100% safe, but life doesn't give us many 100% sure things."
I agree. And in most cases I do. (Blast it OREO.....they tell me not to eat you, but I can't STOPPPP!!!) ;-)
***
FYI, I wasn't as big on this issue until this year. We had registered my 4 year old daughter for pre-school. She was so excited. My wife really needed a break time from being home with the kids all day. It was a private pre-school.
My daughter's vaccinations were current, she had everything but the HepB. We decided we wanted to wait on that. First day of school comes, and they refuse to allow my daughter to attend. There is no real risk of contagion. My daughter returned home disappointed, and my wife in tears. All our plans were pretty much shot down. And it was too late to enroll in any other pre-schools.
My daughter lost out on education (at a private school mind you), because she didn't receive one vaccination that is for a disease that is not a highly communicable disease.
That's when I realized something is rather wrong with the system. We're not talking a public school, get our free education only if you abide by our rules. But a private institution. That leaves no option but home-schooling.
Have you ever watched a toddler after a vaccination. What a miserable creature they are. Trust me, the effects of one is pretty significant at times.
And many adults have been brought low by multiple diseases in combination. That's pretty well documented. In fact, that's EXACTLY how HIV kills.
There is always an element of risk with any vaccine. Needle contamination, bad nurse sticking the wrong spot, bad manufacturing batch, etc. (Thought there may or may not be some potential issues with HepB.)
The point is, where there is a legitimate risk of concern, it makes sense to me to give my daughter a vaccine.
When there is essentially zero risk cases for a toddler age 2-10 to contract the disease. It doesn't make sense to me to subject her to the procedure.
I am actually a skeptic of vaccine dangers. My wife who is a nurse was rather laughable at those silly to fear them. That was until she began researching them a bit more. Apparently, there's been a lot of question into the practices the FDA uses to determine deaths related to vaccines.
Individuals who have lost infants within 24-48 hours of subjecting them to vaccinations find their children are not counted in the statistics. Dismissed as SIDS (unknown diagnosis).
Also, while it is easy to determine effect and safety over a large group of children, it is very hard to make that determination individually and universally.
All the tests had shown children's cough medicine to be safe. ALL tests made this conclusion. To say otherwise was considered near lunacy.
However, the death of one child whose mother refused to accept a diagnosis of SIDS brought forth an unusual discovery - the child had toxic levels of one of the cough medicine chemicals resulting in a drug overdose. That almost got the mom arrested for drug overdose of her child. Until a further review of the toxicology report revealed that only one chemical was at overdose levels all the others were not.
That's when the doctors realized that the child's body had failed to metabolize one of the chemicals. They realized there was no neglect or overdose, rather an previously unknown risk had manifested. Had that one mom not persisted, her child would have just been one of many SIDS cases.
Hundreds of thousands of kids had taken cough medicine without harm. But will we ever know how many SIDS cases were tied to cough medicine? I don't think so.
Likewise, with vaccines, it is hard to know for sure that a death was in response to a vaccine. But I'd wager that anytime a young undeveloped immune system is forced to cope with a reaction to a virus or vaccine, that it takes a tremendous toll.
As a parent, I've watched the misery of my kids for that 1-2 day period after vaccinations. They're miserable, sore, cranky and in discomfort. So clearly there is a physical toll on their body. I am all for taking necessary risks. Just don't see why I should take unnecessary risks.
When my daughter is 10, with a much more developed immune system, I'd be much more likely to consider such STD related vaccines as HepB, HPV, and HIV.
"I find the cause of the mishap was the MP's [mishap pilot] failure to recognize and initiate a timely dive recovery due to channelized attention, breakdown of visual scan and unrecognized spatial disorientation."
- President of the AIB, Brig. Gen. James Browne
[TRANSLATION: "Yuri Gagarin was not the first Russian in outer space. However, we do not mention the other for he was not loyal enough to hold his breath when the oxygen recycling system failed."]
Right, and that's why I accept mandatory vaccines for highly communicable diseases. If my child didn't have her measles vaccines she could pass it on to other children.
The same is not true for diseases that are not highly communicable such as STDs.
"Plus, noone is being held down at needle point, just being denied privileges that they can be replaced with private sources."
No Sir, this is where I get f***** g*d d**n annoyed. Everyone retorts this....but it gets applied to private schools. Which are pressured by the states to adhere to the state policies. And many of which, believe they have to adhere to the policies.
So NO, we don't have a private friggin alternative to turn to. Thanks to my daughter not getting her HebP vaccine (only one she doesn't have) she was denied entry into a private pre-school because of State law.
If I had a private alternative, I wouldn't speak up over it. So let's reverse this whole paradigm.
My child not receiving the HepB vaccine will in no way harm your child. (Unless they're having toddler sex.) But your policy of needlessly protecting your child is hurting my child's well-being.
Yes, if one decides they don't want a vaccine, the only option is to stay home and home-school. Can't even go to a private school. :-(
Fine, give the vaccinations. Maybe at 10 years of age. But requiring toddlers to have STD vaccines is kind of pushing it.
Currently, Hep B and now in some regions the HPV vaccines are mandated.
My argument is taking away the opportunity to educate your child is not a fair or morally justified policy. Not for non-infectious diseases.
***
"But just imagine the disadvantage of completely unknown long-term vaccine affect applied to the entire human race."
Imagine if 15 years later we discover every adult who receives the vaccine is fine. But every child has become sterile. Sucks to be the human race.
My point is not that this isn't a great thing. I think it is. And hopefully, we're not greedy bastards who make it way over-priced and prevent it from reaching those in Africa.
My point is this mandatory requirement, that says if you do not give you child a vaccine for a non-infectious disease, then your child cannot be educated.
We're not just talking public schools. But even private schools.
Our daughter has every vaccine but Hep B. Because we had not given her Hep B vaccinations, she was refused entry into a private pre-school. I can understand about measles, mumps and other highly communicable diseases. But I'm not too worried about STDs with 2 year olds.
1. Define proven safe for 2 year olds. Cough medicine was proven safe for 2 year olds. It wasn't until one mother refused to accept a diagnosis of SIDS that it was discovered that some children had not developed the ability to metabolise certain compounds.
In other words, we often know what is safe for most 2 year olds, but not all.
2. Yes, blood transfusions, and toddler drug parties. Just to name a few.
3. We're not asking for personal freedom without consequence. We're just asking that our toddlers be allowed to attend pre-school without being required to have STD vaccines.
There is a significant difference between a highly infections disease like TB or the Measles, versus a disease with very very limited transferrence.
For example, HepB, basically falls into two main infection categories. Older kids who may have begun being sexually active or IV drug users OR infants born to infected mothers.
Outside of that, infection rate is pretty much non-existent. Nor likely to be spread to other children. So negating a child's ability to attent pre-school over an STD vaccine seems to be consequence without personal freedom.
PS - I am not opposed to vaccinations. I believe them useful. But I do think that sometimes our policies and implementations leave a lot to be desired. We will give children 2-5 vaccines in a single Dr. visit. That's a lot of the worst diseases we know all at once, for a little undeveloped toddler immune system to cope with.
My children have received most all of their vaccines, we've just taken the time to spread them out with 1-2 vaccines every couple of months.
Or 3 years, if you bypass the FDA.
If human trials look good. Field test in Africa. Some regions have a 1 in 3 infection rate. Almost any reduction, even with side affects, would probably be beneficial in that region.
In fact, I think if approved. I'd like to see a President/Congress with the balls to purchase and donate a few million doses for Africa.
The good news....You didn't contract HIV.
The bad news....you did contract syphillis and gonorrhea.
My guess, the second batch of volunteers will be those in marriages/committed relationships with HIV+ positive spouses (eg: married to a nurse who got pricked, a spouse who had a bad blood transfusion, victim of rape, etc, etc).
How long until this vaccine is mandatory for 2 year olds?
I figure, if it passes clinical trials, 5 years later we'll require every toddler to have it before they can attend pre-school. (Got to stop all that pre-school sex.)
Now do it with your brain on no oxygen. (Kind of like now do this with your drain on drugs.)
Yes, this all points to a need to retrofit the fighters. And give Hany a post-humous medal for his discovery of a critical design flaw.
Dear Russia,
We have decided that we will no longer be protecting our little brother to the North. Feel free to invade, we won't stop you. Promise!
- America
PS - They have lots of oil, and wood. Did we mention they have lots of wood, and more wood. And wood...and CARIBOU!!!!
I think the above commentator meant his comment as further explanation. Giving a more layman explanation of the above. And doesn't warrant modding down.
Perhaps instead of "a side note" he should have said "
Project began in 1986. My wife was yet to be born. What constitutes newly designed?
1/4 of a century?
I think that sums up the problem with our government. 10 years to design, and a 1/4 of a century later and it's still buggy.
Um, seriously, there is something inherently wrong with our production cycles here. Just like the Seawolf, by the time design, production, etc is complete. The design is obsolete. Perhaps it's best of world. But we cancel the programs.
We need to go back to square one, shake up these big companies. And bring some fresh blood into the military development cycle.
Simpler reason actually...
We endure buying useless books for 4 years. We listen to music and watch films for the rest of our lives.
One has a great impact. We decry textbooks while students. But ceased to be concerned upon graduation as it passes.
RIAA/MPAA is a persistent hemmoroid on the remainder of our lives.
Is not will we discover an earth gravity (size is meaningless, it's the gravity that's an issue) planet at earth temperature from it's sun, but when.
And more importantly, when will we find one with 25 light years from Sol.
NASA's primary focus right now IMHO should be giving out X-prizes for corporate achievement in space flight and endeavoring to devise means for reaching stars:
- how to get a probe up to near light speed.
- how to maintain communication with said probe (most likely via entangled diamonds)
- get us off this rock (within 150 years)