The Anti-vaccination movement!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Anti-vaccination movement!

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Have any antivaxx parents of children that died from a vaccine preventable disease been charged with anything? Not abuse per se but anything dealing with negligence?

# ¿ May 3, 2015 20:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 9, 2024 06:32

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Main Paineframe posted:

How many children who were old enough to be vaccinated against a disease, but weren't for anti-vaxxer reasons, have even died from vaccine-preventable diseases? While it's possible for an older child to be killed or permanently injured by diseases like measles and whooping cough, for the most part these diseases are killers of infants, and children typically won't have effective vaccine-provided protection until they're already out of the most vulnerable period. A seven-year-old getting measles could die, but the risk is trivial compared to the dangers facing an eight-month-old, who wouldn't even have the first MMR shot yet.

The lifesaving powers of vaccines are far more visible in the aggregate, herd immunity-style public health benefits than in personal life protection.

You don't have to convince me. I'm a professional in infectious disease research and do stuff related to vaccine development for a career. I was just wondering about the lawsuit aspect because that particular question I had was an area I don't know much about.

# ¿ May 3, 2015 22:27

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Lote posted:

So what you're saying is that if my child gets measles, it will erase the effect of all the other harmful vaccines I've given my child?

Yes but not the 'tism

# ¿ May 10, 2015 15:04

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Rigged Death Trap posted:

I like how they mention inoculation then continue calling it vaccination.

Good god this is making me quite angry.
'..Parents took the time to research and told they are not qualified'

Yes a layman's research is equal to 8 years of biomedical study plus clinical experience.

Don't forget that this generation has never been sicker.

I remember the yellow fever epidemic delivering the election to Obama as it ravaged the american south, taking out millions of old white voters. Also I am the only surviving child of a family of 12. I had 2 brothers die of tetanus, tuberculosis took out the older sisters and my twin brother died of a dog bite that festered.

# ¿ May 27, 2015 19:25

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Keeshhound posted:

Well you have to mix it with orange juice first, and orange juice is healthy, so that makes orange bleach juice healthy enough to put up someone's rectum. That's just science!

At first I thought this quote was in response to this one:

Hitlers Gay Secret posted:

Jenny McCarthy needs to be stopped.

and giggled for a while.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2015 18:15

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Discendo Vox posted:

They're vaccines. The "flu" is a bunch of different virii that keep changing, so they release a new version of it each year.

Basically this.

It's actually the same virus but some of the components mutate over time so the vaccine is trying to hit that moving target of what kind of combination they think they will see when it starts to hit the Western Hemisphere. Most of the time they predict the vaccine type pretty well and its fine. Sometimes (like last year) it isn't as effective because the virus mutated into a combination that they didn't think was going to be a major one and only was partially effective.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2015 21:11

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Hitlers Gay Secret posted:

Okay, I was misinformed. I assumed because the flu was different from a virus.

Nope, still a virus just one that changes fairly swiftly over time.

Viruses that mutate like that are tough. It's one (of several) reasons that we don't have an HIV vaccine etc.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2015 21:22

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Ahhaahahah prescribing Deepak Chopra

# ¿ Aug 21, 2015 12:29

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

SUPERMAN'S GAL PAL posted:

The whole "avoid what you can't pronounce" pisses me off so much. It's an attempt to control via ignorance and anyone who claims to "educate" based on that idea ought to be fish-slapped then sent to bed with gluten-laden bread and tap water and a dictionary. It's amazing how ignorant a lot of health care professionals still are about certain things and end up spreading that ignorance to patients who have no resources other than to trust the doctor, PA, LPN, or whoever gives them information like those sheets. Even worse there's helpful information mixed in with half-truths and complete bullshit, making it tougher for people to figure out what's real and what's woo.

Speaking of gluten, the same nutritionist who identified non-celiac gluten sensitivity just released a study that proves it may not even exist. Apparently he was dissatisfied with the first one so did another that was much more rigorous than what's usually expected in his field and what do you know, all the self-identified gluten-sensitive people had digestive issues no matter what they ate. Claimed they felt worse with gluten, but nothing in their urine or stool was any different.

B-but ascorbic acid must be bad!

# ¿ Aug 21, 2015 14:04

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Rorac posted:

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

This.

I've got a friend, we met while neighbors in an apartment complex and hung out over several years. Dude's a high school dropout that earned a GED and started a very profitable online business. Decided he hated how the government treated us so left the country and lives very well down in Panama and soon Chile. He's very intelligent overall but has areas that he knows nothing about at all due to the lack of traditional education. He and his wife just had a baby and he wrote me about vaccinations as he has been firmly anti-vaxx (thinks is a big corporate / big pharma kind of thing).

We went back and forth on it and he was very receptive to the whole thing, I explained why they wanted to give his <24h old newborn a Hepatitis vaccine in the delivery room, and why they had the vaccination schedule they do. (I'm an infectious disease researcher and my boss is a pediatric ID MD). He seemed very open to it and we left the conversations amicably.

2 weeks later he posts something about the government enforcement of vaccinations in CA and how he is glad he left the country. This morning he's posted a series of articles about the government conspiracy to cover up alien intervention in the cold war.

I regret wasting my time trying to convince him of anything.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2015 15:02

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

If his kid got any vaccines, you may have saved a life.

I sure hope so. I haven't spoken with him in over a month and he was "deciding what to do" after talking to me. The anti-vaxx / general lunacy rhetoric he's posted since then though don't lead me to believe he's vaccinated his kid.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2015 15:23

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Choadmaster posted:

Yikes. Last time I had a physical I just asked the doctor for the TDAP and it was done in minutes. Maybe it's more common around here because California keeps having outbreaks.

Yeah same. That's odd no one would give you a TDAP, it's incredibly common and a required booster for adults who work in hospitals etc so there shouldn't be any restrictions on availability.

# ¿ Apr 8, 2016 11:11

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

corax posted:

Obviously, the safe alternative to dangerous vaccines is homeopathy.

"In fact, babies under one year of age cannot make antibodies,"

:cripes:

# ¿ May 25, 2016 01:48

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Fireside Nut posted:

Expecting our first child fairly soon. We are full believers in vaccines and plan on giving baby all of them on schedule. However, my mom lives with my sister and her baby who are strongly anti-vaxx. Herein lies the dilemma: We are asking all of our visitors to be up-to-date on their TDaP before seeing the baby. My sister is, for all intents and purposes, making my mom not get a booster because she fears it will put her unvaccinated kid at risk (I know, I know).

So in the end, my mom will likely not get a booster. I really want her to be able to visit in the first few months, but I also don't want to put our baby at risk because of ridiculous anti-vaxx fears. Would it even make anything safer if my mom wore one of the protective respiratory masks when visiting? Are we being too over the top as parents asking for visitors to be up-to-date on their TDaP? Neither of us tend to be alarmists, but after seeing videos of babies with whooping cough I just want to minimize that risk as much as possible, if we can.

Thanks, thread.

Without getting into how completely idiotic this is (sorry you have to deal with this), if you want them to truly be protected then they need to be wearing a respirator, latex gloves and don't let them use the bathrooms in your house.

It's highly unlikely they will actually be carrying B. pertussis or spreading it, but if that's your concern then that's the best way of protection.

# ¿ Aug 7, 2016 20:47

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Fireside Nut posted:

Thank you for the response. I mean, are we being unrealistic or alarmist by asking folks to be current on their TDaP before visiting the baby in the first few months? Or is the chance so low that my mom could likely visit without having that be a concern? Having not been a parent before I simply don't have a good feel for this and have never given it much thought until now.

After hearing about the "dangers of formaldehyde and mercury in vaccines" I would never want to turn around and give a similarly absurd/alarmist response without being cognizant I am doing such a thing.

Thanks again.

Talk with your pediatrician about the practical risks vs total. It's highly unlikely your mom would be carrying the bacteria for whooping cough. But, you also don't want to put your child at risk and are totally justified in taking a stand and saying "no seeing the baby until vaccinated or until baby's immune system is better developed."

# ¿ Aug 8, 2016 02:04

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Typhoid grammy

# ¿ Aug 8, 2016 18:42

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Grandma had cancer but we told her if she got chemo instead of taking cannabis oil she was out on the street. :shrug:

# ¿ Aug 8, 2016 18:43

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Cranappleberry posted:

Your example is extreme and has no bearing on this case. Not vaccinating a child is negligence.

Ding ding ding.

Dead Reckoning posted:

No it's not. It's an argument in favor of a government with limited, enumerated powers that operates based on rule of law. It's an argument that just government requires adhering to equality under the law, and respecting the rights of others, rather than trying to carve out exceptions based on our personal prejudices.

Children dying of an easily preventable infectious disease has nothing to do with 'personal prejudices'.

Dead Reckoning posted:

OK, so in what other circumstances can the state take children away from parents and inject them with foreign substances on the basis of the parents having beliefs you disagree with?

That's the thing, though. You can't cut specific scenarios away from governing principles and decide them in isolation in order to avoid morally difficult questions. That's pretty much the definition of special pleading.
If you feel that being consistent along related issues is unnecessary to construct a moral or legal framework, then IDK what to tell you.

"Beliefs you disagree with" really doesn't mean poo poo in the face of proven facts regarding vaccinations. If more people choose not to vaccinate their children then more children WILL die and those children before they are dead WILL put vaccinated children at greater risk due to the continued breakdown of herd immunity.

This isn't up for debate. This is a proven fact. There is no 'middle ground' on this.

The alternative if you wish to protect some rights for neglectful parents is to ostracize those parents and their children from the rest of society. If you are fine with that then special snowflake parents can probably get what they want in respect to vaccinations.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2016 11:58

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm OK with it because it's a response to exigent, immediate circumstances, e.g. the kid is going to bleed to death. I'm much less willing to endorse interventions in situations that are not immediately life-threatening.

Dead Reckoning posted:

That's the thing, though. You can't cut specific scenarios away from governing principles and decide them in isolation in order to avoid morally difficult questions. That's pretty much the definition of special pleading.
If you feel that being consistent along related issues is unnecessary to construct a moral or legal framework, then IDK what to tell you.

# ¿ Aug 17, 2016 11:55

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

Prurient Squid posted:

Didn't Monsanto make Agent Orange, the defoliant that lead to birth defects in Vietnam? Anyway, that's not my point, you can swap Monsanto for any scummy pharmaceutical corporation. All I'm saying is if option A is supporting corporate malpractice and option B is supporting dangerous pseudoscience then I'm going for option C!

I thought that was mostly Dow chemical. Could be wrong.

# ¿ Aug 18, 2016 20:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 9, 2024 06:32

That Works: Jul 22, 2006; Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy

fishmech posted:

Agent Orange contracts went out to most of the major agrichemical and just plain chemical companies. Dow probably was the biggest manufacturer just because they've always had the most capacity for manufacturing about anything, but not because they really loved agent orange or anything.

Ah, not surprised.

# ¿ Aug 19, 2016 11:48

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Anti-vaccination movement!