|
Some Anti-Vaxxers are just the worst: http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/news...d5c6c5d1db25516
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
Apparently Robert Kennedy Jr., noted busybody fuckface, is also an anti-vaxxer who believes that thimerosal causes autism because he "is comfortable reading science" and has read studies on it! Even Bill Maher, with his own crazy-rear end views on the issue, seemed a little put off by it. Hopefully this means that no one has to give that halfwit the time of day when he pisses and moans about any of his other pet causes, sticking his nose where it doesn't belong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Some Anti-Vaxxers are just the worst: http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/news...d5c6c5d1db25516 What would possess someone to harass grieving parents by defacing a memorial for their dead child? Like, even if some grieving parents were promoting something really disgusting, like say anti-vax, because of their kid's tragic death, I'd never for a minute consider attacking or humiliating them. In fact, I'd feel sorry for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Well remember the Sandy Hook truthers? This world sucks a lot sometimes. Seriously gently caress all these assholes. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Apr 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:What would possess someone to harass grieving parents by defacing a memorial for their dead child? Like, even if some grieving parents were promoting something really disgusting, like say anti-vax, because of their kid's tragic death, I'd never for a minute consider attacking or humiliating them. In fact, I'd feel sorry for them. My theory is that some people are natural assholes, and are 'acting' nice in society simply because they know others would frown upon their attitude and they would be ostracized from society. Internet allows them to act upon their true nature thanks to the anonymity it provides and they use that to bully others and show their true faces. Since most countries do not have any law regarding these type of behaviors, these people get to act with total impunity. In a few rare case, when these assholes go over the limit and it becomes harassment, judges will force ISP's to divulge the identity of the the person doing the harassment, and they can be sued in civil courts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, the first comment on that article:quote:Tonya
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 12:34
|
|
)
|
Scathach posted:Holy poo poo, the first comment on that article: Doesn't it warm your heart, knowing you share breathable air on this planet with whoever the gently caress wrote that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
Scathach posted:Holy poo poo, the first comment on that article: "Vaccines don't prevent pertussis they just make it suck less!" ... I'm totally OK with that, let's keep doing it. What even was the point of that? "They're lying, pertussis isn't cured by it just reduced!" Yes how terrible that the treatment for a disease actually loving works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:"Vaccines don't prevent pertussis they just make it suck less!" Did you read the next sentence? If someone has a disease but don't know that they have it because they aren't showing symptoms, that can actually be a really bad thing, especially if they interact with vulnerable populations. The most famous example of someone who had a disease but wasn't showing symptoms is Typhoid Mary. The commenter is saying that the parents caught pertussis but didn't show symptoms because of the vaccine, leading them to spend time with the baby and infect it, whereas if they hadn't been vaccinated they would have realized they were infected and stayed away. Of course, in reality, vaccines don't work like that, but in that commenter's fantasy world based on what they think is true, the baby's death was actually the vaccine's fault, because that person thibks the vaccine turned the parents into symptomless carriers who unknowingly infected the baby. And since that commenter thinks that the death of the baby was actually the fault of vaccines and could have been avoided if the parents were unvaccinated, he or she is pissed off that mean old evil Big Pharma is using the tragedy as a way to push those same vaccines. Of course, that's all wrong. Vaccines don't work like that. But how do you expect to debunk an argument you can't understand?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Of course, that's all wrong. Vaccines don't work like that. But how do you expect to debunk an argument you can't understand? Apparently, with bad spelling and enthusiasm, works for antivaxxers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:"Vaccines don't prevent pertussis they just make it suck less!" It's like saying "bulletproof vests don't prevent getting shot, they just prevent you from dying from a shot". "So therefore no one should wear bulletproof vests".
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Apparently, with bad spelling and enthusiasm, works for antivaxxers. Or have an overly emotional Californian scream over the top of all contrary viewpoints.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Some recent hits from the FB feed; it was a big weekend: http://www.naturalnews.com/049503_GMOs_public_schools_propaganda.html http://asheepnomore.net/2014/10/01/unvaccinated-children-appear-immune-mysterious-virus-currently-spreading-midwest/ http://vactruth.com/2014/10/05/bill-gates-vaccine-crimes/ http://sharylattkisson.com/what-the-news-isnt-saying-about-vaccine-autism-studies/ And this glorious thing. Yes, they posted it with the sides cropped out. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It's like saying "bulletproof vests don't prevent getting shot, they just prevent you from dying from a shot". "So therefore no one should wear bulletproof vests". You joke but that argument was seriously used during WW2 when head injuries suddenly went up when new helmets were used. Also the Airforced doesn't know where to place armor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
WAKE UP AMERICA
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It's like saying "bulletproof vests don't prevent getting shot, they just prevent you from dying from a shot". "So therefore no one should wear bulletproof vests". They're actually so good at stopping shots, that you can walk around with a bullet in you and not even know, until bam! One day you gut-stretchingly overeat and the bullet pops out and kills your undefended newborn. If only you hadn't worn a vest, this wouldn't have happened.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
Does the global vaccine industry seriously only collect 20 billion in revenue annually? I mean that's nothing for an industry related to medicine, even if its just the US, it's got to be more right? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:Does the global vaccine industry seriously only collect 20 billion in revenue annually? I mean that's nothing for an industry related to medicine, even if its just the US, it's got to be more right? Probably. That's like $67 per American so in the grand scheme of things it isn't a huge sum of money. It's really really easy to make people freak out about anything with "billion" in it though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Probably. That's like $67 per American so in the grand scheme of things it isn't a huge sum of money. It's really really easy to make people freak out about anything with "billion" in it though. If I wanted to make serious bank as a drug company, why would I push out stuff that *prevents* disease? Wouldn't the real money be made in treating symptoms without ever actually curing the person? I don't have a dollar figure on how much cough syrup is sold annually but I bet *that* is in the billions of dollars worldwide.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Tochiazuma posted:If I wanted to make serious bank as a drug company, why would I push out stuff that *prevents* disease? Wouldn't the real money be made in treating symptoms without ever actually curing the person? Remember, that's what the anti-vaxxers (and a lot of "alternative" medicine folks) think is going on anyway. Vaccines are useless or cause disease, so Big Pharma can get more money "treating" those diseases by actually just stifling symptoms while draining the wallet of the people that are suckered by their bunk. Never mind that evidence-based medicine often involves courses of treatments that only have to be done once, while alt-med often requires a lifetime of supplements and "treatments" to "maintain" their benefits at a greater lifetime cost than even some major surgeries, it's Big Pharma that's the evil one just out to make money at the expense of your health.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Tochiazuma posted:I don't have a dollar figure on how much cough syrup is sold annually but I bet *that* is in the billions of dollars worldwide.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:Revenue from alternative medicine is well into the billions these days - it isn't a rational argument. By all the major drug companies too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
SB277 passed the Judiciary Committee today. Now it's moving on to Appropriations. I didn't get to hear all the testimony but what I did hear was pretty goddamned insane. Claims that "biological vaccination status is like skin color, you can't discriminate based on that!" and "this will violate my child's right to FAPE" (FAPE is a special education term - Free and Appropriate Public Education, which is guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It's also a ridiculous argument because FAPE doesn't mean your kid gets a free and appropriate public education if you choose to not comply with standard admissions requirements.) Committee chair had to cut off an NYU law professor several times during testimony after she said the requirement was coercion tantamount to rape and then somehow wandered into a fantasy land where parents in California would be jailed for not vaccinating. The opponents who testified were all quick to point out that their "child with a biological vaccination status of "unvaccinated" isn't a threat or a danger to anyone." An hour after the vote came in (5:1, Anderson's a dumbass who somehow still thinks Catholics can't vaccinate and children who can't be vaccinated due to medical reasons shouldn't be allowed an education), I got a call from my son's school. We have an active pertussis case in a PBE waivered, non-vaccinated student! We also have a medically fragile classroom, with 8 students with severe, complex medical conditions who will now likely all be missing school until the incubation period is passed...so basically up to 21 days from now. Not a threat. Nosirree.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:You joke but that argument was seriously used during WW2 when head injuries suddenly went up when new helmets were used. If I remember right, that was one of the classic questions of operations research. The original plan was to place armor on the parts of planes that were most damaged. The problem with that is that their sample set included only bombers that survived. The damaged areas on survivors represent non-vital areas. The decision was made to increase armor on the areas that were undamaged, on the basis that those points were most likely to lead to a destroyed aircraft if hit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:If I remember right, that was one of the classic questions of operations research. Survivorship bias Another example: Blood donors are healthier than average so it must be healthy to donate blood. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Remember, that's what the anti-vaxxers (and a lot of "alternative" medicine folks) think is going on anyway. Vaccines are useless or cause disease, so Big Pharma can get more money "treating" those diseases by actually just stifling symptoms while draining the wallet of the people that are suckered by their bunk. Never mind that evidence-based medicine often involves courses of treatments that only have to be done once, while alt-med often requires a lifetime of supplements and "treatments" to "maintain" their benefits at a greater lifetime cost than even some major surgeries, it's Big Pharma that's the evil one just out to make money at the expense of your health. Let's also not forget that a significant chunk of "alternative medicines" literally do nothing. It's the same tactic the right wing uses, actually; do something but then scream nonstop about how the other side does that same thing all the time so they're the ones that can't be trusted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 09:14
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Probably. That's like $67 per American so in the grand scheme of things it isn't a huge sum of money. It's really really easy to make people freak out about anything with "billion" in it though. The cost of a hospitalization if you land in the ICU is $1000+ a day. Medication alone will cost a few hundred. Where the vaccines "make" money is in preventing the serious complications or death. For every 1 person that dies of measles, about 10 have to go to the ICU (~1%) for example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:40
|
|
|
Lote posted:The cost of a hospitalization if you land in the ICU is $1000+ a day. Medication alone will cost a few hundred. Where the vaccines "make" money is in preventing the serious complications or death. For every 1 person that dies of measles, about 10 have to go to the ICU (~1%) for example. An ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure, as they say.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
constantinople posted:KE UP AMER FTFY
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
THE VACCINE HOLOCAUST IS HERE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfQfIkCC2x0 How the hell does this guy have one million subscribers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Parents who try to heal their children through prayer and then have their children die are often prosecuted for manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide. Will this happen when an anti-vaxxer has a child that dies of a vaccine-preventable disease? At least the heal-through-prayer people have a flimsy freedom of religion defense. Anti-vaxxers have nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
il serpente cosmico posted:Parents who try to heal their children through prayer and then have their children die are often prosecuted for manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide. Will this happen when an anti-vaxxer has a child that dies of a vaccine-preventable disease? At least the heal-through-prayer people have a flimsy freedom of religion defense. Anti-vaxxers have nothing. Freedom from intellect maybe? I can imagine a lawyer arguing that in court: "Your honor, my clients are idiots who did not know better."
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
To Battle posted:THE VACCINE HOLOCAUST IS HERE Alex Jones has forged a commercial and broadcasting empire by successfully and simultaneously marketing to and pandering to essentially every flavor of paranoid conspiracy theory in the united states. If you've ever heard of "Infowars", that's his enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Freedom from intellect maybe? I can imagine a lawyer arguing that in court: "Your honor, my clients are idiots who did not know better." Only works if it's a legitimate medical condition or disability equaling a non compos mentis condition defence. If we're talking a criminal case. While lack of vaccination could be sufficient to prove negligence, it's kind of hard to argue that it was apparent and inevitable that the child get [disease] if they didn't get a vaccine. After all, there are those with legitimate medical reasons for not vaccinating, and with the benefit from herd immunity they usually don't suffer the disease. Things get even more muddled if the parents were misinformed by a source that they trust; should the courts (for instance) really accept the argument that being misled by a trusted source constitutes negligence? Then, where would you draw that line? When is it negligent to not inform yourself with valid medical science? Is it sufficient that they ignore the advice of a physician? What if they can't afford one (a valid concern in the US)? What if they have a physician who doesn't urge them to vaccinate, or frames it like a choice? It's really not that simple a case, and I haven't outlined half the potential problems with prosecuting parents for not vaccinating - short of sweeping legislation that defines non-vaccination as child abuse/reckless endangerment etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Freedom from intellect maybe? I can imagine a lawyer arguing that in court: "Your honor, my clients are idiots who did not know better." Negligence has a pretty low mental-state threshold. I'm just looking at Oregon laws here, and they vary from state to state, but here's the definition for criminal negligence: quote:Criminal negligence ...means that a person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. So it doesn't matter if you don't know that something is bad if a reasonable person should know that it's bad. Manslaughter here must involve recklessness, which is more severe than negligence, but also has a relatively low mental-state threshold: quote:Recklessly...means that a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. Seems like the state could certainly charge someone if it ever occurs. Nice piece of fish posted:Only works if it's a legitimate medical condition or disability equaling a non compos mentis condition defence. If we're talking a criminal case. Many of these issues could be brought up in a heal-through-prayer case, though, and they are successfully prosecuted. il serpente cosmico fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
il serpente cosmico posted:Many of these issues could be brought up in a heal-through-prayer case, though, and they are successfully prosecuted. Not really? Assuming their defence is arguing adherence to religious authority/guidance, I can see why that wouldn't be accepted. The argument for recklessness in terms of vaccines disregarding religious exemption would (in the case of manslaughter) have to be an across-the-board requirement for a "reasonable person" to aquire the means and knowledge to vaccinate regardless of misinformation, and I can imagine a great number of extenuating circumstances as well. Do you imagine such a rule would be clear-cut? No vaccination = recklessness? I'm honestly unsure if most states would accept that kind of criminal liability for parents. Then again, I wouldn't know, because I am not a lawyer (in the US).
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Not really? I was specifically looking at this issue: Nice piece of fish posted:Things get even more muddled if the parents were misinformed by a source that they trust; should the courts (for instance) really accept the argument that being misled by a trusted source constitutes negligence? Say the trusted source is a pastor who's telling you that prayer is all you need to heal your child? Or maybe your coven leader tells you all you need to do is perform a magick to heal your kid? Would you say that denying medical care on the advise of these sources constitutes negligence? Nice piece of fish posted:Assuming their defence is arguing adherence to religious authority/guidance, I can see why that wouldn't be accepted. The argument for recklessness in terms of vaccines disregarding religious exemption would (in the case of manslaughter) have to be an across-the-board requirement for a "reasonable person" to aquire the means and knowledge to vaccinate regardless of misinformation, and I can imagine a great number of extenuating circumstances as well. I think you'd need to look at it case-by-case. Obviously, if someone has no access to medical care they should not be held culpable. If they'd been advised by a doctor not to vaccinate they should not be held culpable. But that isn't the case with most anti-vaxxers, I'd guess. il serpente cosmico fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
So on a related note, what happens in cases where one parent wants to vaccinate and the other doesn't, assuming both parents have some form of custody? Would the pro-vaxxer parent get in trouble for getting the kids vaccinated against the wishes of the anti-vaxxer parent?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
il serpente cosmico posted:I was specifically looking at this issue: Well, yeah. But what if the authority is someone claiming to have medical knowledge? What if it's a chiropractor or a acupuncturist? Is it reasonable to trust them? How about a anti-vax campaign? Celebrity? Actual doctor warning you against vaccines and citing bogus (but to you, genuine) studies to back up his claim? And even then, given an unreasonable response and negligence on part of the parents; is this a level of recklessness sufficient to pursue manslaughter-charges? Or should it be prosecuted as reckless child endangerment? Child neglect? I'd assume the US has enough criminal codes that apply to child neglect and endangerment that there are several possible charges to be brought against the parents - and the applications I imagine would vary depending on the severity of recklessness shown. But cutting down to the bone: Is not vaccinating by itself negligent (legally speaking)? Is it reckless? Wilful disregard? Intentional? Not giving required care is most certainly medical neglect, and pray-for-health cases have correctly been brought against the parents in such cases, but not giving required care has a guaranteed outcome. Not vaccinating doesn't. Not until the problem is widespread enough for herd immunity to significantly weaken - ironically leading to not vaccinating being more negligent/reckless than before. Not being an american lawyer, I really can't answer most of these questions but if you're going to claim (and equivocate) that non-vaccination is by itself a criminal act or omission, then those questions have to be answered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:So on a related note, what happens in cases where one parent wants to vaccinate and the other doesn't, assuming both parents have some form of custody? Would the pro-vaxxer parent get in trouble for getting the kids vaccinated against the wishes of the anti-vaxxer parent? I was discussing anti-vaxx with my younger sibling last night and they brought up this same scenario, as well as if the parent of an ill child could sue the parent of an unvaccinated child if proven they were the source of the ill child's infection. Sibling also sent me this, referring to what Fionnoula was talking about earlier namely equating vaccination and rape and how frustratingly STUPID that is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 23:20
|
|
