|
What sort of background and experience do you have in the biological or medical sciences? What are you defining as "unnatural" and "inorganic"?
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:As a parent I...  More seriously, in my neck of the woods, all the anti-vaxxers sound like Cashe Cab here. They're anti-anything they find "unnatural" or "inorganic" (how's your anemia coming along?), and tend towards the anti-corporate as well. While the latter isn't so bad, they seem to believe that every scientist and doctor out there is trying to make a buck off of killing people while at the same time refusing to support increases to publicly funded scientific research organizations like the NIH, CDC, NAS and NASA. But if someone out there wants to talk about how raspberry leaf tea will strengthen the uterus for labor, they lap it up. I know there are a lot of libertarian folks out there who don't want anyone to tell them what to do, I more frequently see this attitude among the political left.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Vaccines are great for the lethal stuff, but they are medical treatment and do carry risks, and it's really unnecessary to take those risks for something as minor as chicken pox (unless there's some other risk factor that might make it worse for you). Sometimes just sucking it up and dealing with itchy blisters for a week is really the best course of action. Chicken pox really fucks with a developing fetus. Just because a disease isn't lethal doesn't mean that that symptoms such as malformed organs should be tolerated.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Which is a really great argument not to use a vaccine that pushes the window of susceptibility back to the age when most people are trying to have children. Yes, pregnant women are never, ever around children. Nor do pregnant women breathe air which may contain the virus. Come on.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:And as one final note, the anti-vaxx movement [url=http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/01/29/vaccination-is-neither-red-nor-blue/]knows no political boundaries. It is shared by crazy "all-natural" hippies and science-hating Tea Party moms alike. This may be true, but it shouldn't stop me as a leftist from calling out my fellow leftists when they start adopting anti-science positions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:This topic is so frustrating, because it seems like there is literally nothing one can say that will convince the true believers (reminds me of debating climate change, guns, abortion, etc). How does one combat the hucksters, anecdotes, and distrust of modern-medicine/CHEMICALS! that this group sees as evidence? You mock them, you shame them and you make sure that your local politicians make vaccination exemptions as hard as possible. Edit: how would you treat someone who was beating the poo poo out of a kid? Some who was starving a kid? Someone who was denying a kid proper medical care? Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 12:49 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:Yeah they sure used spies pretending to be doctors giving vaccines to undermine confidence and started civil wars, didn't they? They've certainly done enough to undermine confidence in the first world. How about instead of snark, you lay out your point.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:The point is you have no idea what you posted. Polio never went away in a fair amount of the world, mainly in chunks of the world that either just had or are currently still having very violent, messy, civil wars. Civil wars cause breakdown in systems, in most of these areas the systems were already pretty garbage, so yea poo poo like Syria and all now has polio as a 'thing' in a bigger way. Or in Pakistan's case, a bunch of poorly educated people hear a story about a specific military thing and just kinda assume it's a massive thing and start kicking out doctors. You might want to redirect your anger to Neo Rasa, not me. All I wanted was for Aleph Null to actually say what he meant rather than dropping a little snark and then running away.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
The Daily Show had a bit of fun with anti-vaxxers recently. Interestingly enough, they focus on the fact that this is happening in well off, highly educated liberal enclaves.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
Shachi posted:I feel like there isn't an adjective strong enough to classify these people without doing a disservice to the other nouns that the adjective would normally be used to describe. I think the term "child abuser" fits the bill here.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Call CPS, pretty sure they had similiar cases before and they won kept the kids away from the stupid. I don't really give a gently caress, the parents are denying their children medical care. By any common understanding of the term "child abuse", denying a kid medical care falls under that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
It's not just religious communities that are at risk here - here on the west coast it's groups of people that simply don't accept the science of vaccines because they "aren't natural", are made by "big pharma" and so on. To add to the confusion, those folks simply claim a religious or personal exemption to get out of vaccination all together. Washington state used to be one of the worst in the nation because all it took was a simple form.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I'm a fuckin Jew you mouth breather this isn't some dumb internet atheist thing this is a 'this thing literally puts kids in danger without their consent because you think something stupid' thing. Yeah, I just don't see what's so difficult about this issue. Not vaccinating harms, maims and kills people, primarily children. These diseases cause intense suffering, render people deaf, sterile or dead in extreme cases. It's not an extremist view to call parents who refuse to vaccinate their children child abusers.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Caros posted:What are I am not in favour of is the argument that has been made in this thread that we should take away the children of people who have a real faith based belief that God doesn't want them to vaccinate. We take away children who are beaten, who are starved, who are raped and who are not taken care of. A kid who isn't vaccinated is being exposed to dangerous yet easily preventable diseases is being harmed, and as a society we need to protect them. quote:The number of these people is so small that it won't make a real dent in herd immunity, they are in a tiny minority compared to the millions who cannot get vaccinated for other reasons. And as I mentioned earlier it's a really lovely Hill to die on, since the optics of taking a child from her mother because of her religious beliefs will feed the persecution complex and in my view will lead to more idiots trying not to get vaccinated simply out of spite from what the gubberment wants. Two very serious problems with this. 1. You keep ignoring all of the folks who claim a religious exemption for the sake of avoiding the vaccinations in the first place. These well educated and generally liberal enclaves on the west coast aren't like the Amish communities in the east. They are avoiding vaccines because of a naturalistic fallacy, not for religious reasons. 2. You need to save herd immunity for those who cannot medically have a vaccination. People with compromised immune systems, those too young to have the vaccines in the first place, those with rare allergies, that sort of thing. Allowing more people to avoid vaccines because they lack an understanding of modern medicine puts at risk communities in danger. And for what, political capital? That's bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Caros posted:Actually I still have the religious freedom argument, that whether you think these people are stupid or not (I do) that it does heavily impose on their freedom. You can have any argument you want, but it doesn't make that argument well supported. On one hand, we have unquestioned, extremist religious freedom to ignore modern medicine and children sick/maimed/dead from preventable disease. On the other hand, we limit religious freedom to prevent activities that actively cause harm to others, and we don't have children sick/maimed/dead from preventable disease. Is this really what you want to support? Religious fundamentalism and ignorance over the health and well being of innocents?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Denying food to your child causes death. Denying a vaccine to your child is not sufficient to cause your child's death. You couldn't be possibly saying that molesting a child is perfectly fine, because the kid isn't dead afterwards, right? Right?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Relax. There's no argument to be had about any negative effects of vaccination, so all that's left is to explore the nature of narcissistic parents obsessed with having flawless children. Start a new thread, there's plenty of things vaccine related to discuss. Like this, for instance.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I don't understand how this is stupid. The vaccine is cheap and easy to distribute, we only stopped doing it because civilians in the US are almost certainly never going to encounter it, but giving it personnel going abroad is certainly within the budget. I was only in the Peace Corps and they gave me a laundry list of vaccines that most people will never need to get, because seriously why risk it? That and the fact that it's widely known to be vaccinated against in the military serves as a deterrent to try and weaponize it in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Exactly, there's much less deadly poxviruses in the event that we really need to have a live virus to work with (we needed to create a new vaccine, etc). The hypothetical that we need smallpox, specifically smallpox, to perform some unspecified You're advocating purposeful extinction. As someone with a biology background, that's a very difficult course of action to support. * That's a one way road, and I'm just not seeing the problem with keeping small samples locked up in a -80C/LN/etc freezer in a secure facility. The effort to steal such samples seems to be at the same order of magnitude of effort/cost as making your own. * We're all mature enough to understand the difference between eradicating a disease within a specific (human) population and full on extinction, right? No one is going to quote half my post and try to claim I don't support common sense harm reduction and public health policy, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 16:50
|
|
research
|
disheveled posted:With respect to infectious disease, but especially with respect to viruses, and especially especially with respect to smallpox, no, I do not think that is a given at all. There is a reason there is continuous debate about this. You're misunderstanding me. I'm only saying that I have a background in biology, and that background makes me feel very uncomfortable about the idea of purposeful extinction. The rest of the post is just window dressing. I'm not dismissing other arguments as out of hand, and I'm certainly not trying to say there's no reason for debate.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The argument that eradicating smallpox *is extinction* and therefore wrong is no better than the argument that abortion "is killing" and therefore wrong. Last time I checked, an abortion doesn't forever eliminate every living example of a particular species. Quit being so disingenuous. Dropping your lovely attitude might make this a more productive discussion. quote:Still waiting to here what we're actually going to accomplish using smallpox that we can't accomplish with other very similar pox viruses. disheveled posted:That said, it looks like present research efforts are sufficient to justify keeping live smallpox. This was like two posts down, why did you ignore it?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Sweet, now anti-vaccination bullshit has crept into the vitamin K shot that all newborns receive to prevent internal bleeding to the brain.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
the JJ posted:And what is Mom's profession? Any guesses? It feels like every time this issue comes up on Facebook (my brothers like to tag me in the comments and watch what happens when I notice...) there's a nurse there talking about how terrible vaccines are. It never fails! Is this kid an indigo child as well, and how strictly do you follow the diet plan? My fave though was some dumbshit from high school that was going on and on about the doctor she worked for said no to vaccines, and of course the "doctor" was in acupuncture. Usually I get a few good hits in before my buddy from college jumps in with "MY PARENTS HAD loving POLIO VACCINATE YOUR KIDS YOU rear end in a top hat" which is always good times.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:So what you're saying is.... The flu loving sucks, don't be a dumbass like me, forget to sign up for it at work and then catch it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Ran into the following OP about non-autism-delusion skepticism of vaccines. I love how concern over not wanting kids to live in an iron lung is nothing more than a "bad attitude". Sure, I'm willing to bet the author has no problem addressing the real concerns of people who beat the poo poo out of their kids or starve them as well. Choosing to deny your kid basic healthcare is no less abuse and it boggles my mind that it's not more commonly treated as such.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
copper rose petal posted:Yeah, I know that. From the outside it's easy to say he should just divorce the nut but it's still his wife and he's trying to find a way to keep her happy and his kids safe. She's obviously dealing with some severe anxiety around the whole thing. I'm looking for ways to help him do that, at the end of the day I can't force him to do anything but I would like to help him try to change her mind. Ignore the divorce stuff for a minute and understand that as a parent, a child's safety is of paramount concern - end of story. Your friend needs to get that prescription filled NOW, make sure the kid takes the ENTIRE COURSE of antibiotics, and then get the kids vaccinated. If you want to help convince your friend that yes, this is serious poo poo. If you can't, call CPS. As far as the wife's anxiety is concerned, that poo poo comes later. Right now a kid is sick from an easily treatable illness that if goes on for too long can have serious health consequences. This is something people regularly died from before antibiotics came about, so time is kind of important here! I mean, I don't loving get this - the discussion should have ended at "the kid is sick and a parent is denying access to basic medical care". What would you do instead if the mother were starving, beating to the point of breaking bones, or sexually abusing the child instead? I'm not going to sit here and quantify which is worse, but denying a child basic medical care is certainly in the same league.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Go open a thread about this in Goon Doctors, they should have the best advice for you in this situation. I don't think calling CPS should be the first step, tearing up a family just to get a kid to take some "maybe" necessary antibiotics is not in the best interest of both of the kids and may only further drive the mother away from evidence based medicine. This is an incredibly hosed up view to hold. If CPS comes and decides to, as you put it "tearing up a family", it's because the kids are in serious danger. If they are in serious danger, it doesn't matter than mommy doesn't like "unnatural things". Individual departments may have less than stellar records, but this idea that CPS goes around loving things up on a whim is incredibly uninformed and dangerous. The rest of the advice is fine, though I'm still concerned that there's a greater focus on Mom's dangerous beliefs rather than the health of the children. Dad has legal authority to authorize healthcare for his kids, so why isn't their health the primary concern?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
torpedan posted:I do not expect the dad to be a rational actor in this situation. He is trying to 'win' and come out ahead on every front (I am going to take a guess and assume that a divorce would be pretty messy and drawn out). He may interpret calling CPS or taking non-mom consented action that would result in a large martial rift a no starter and ignore any useful advice after that point. If anything the kid needs a follow up doctors visit ASAP as it might give the pressure needed to get the kid medical treatment. I would expect that having a seriously sick (or worse) kid would do much worse things to the relationship than allowing proper medical treatment. You can always ask for forgiveness/counseling/etc after the fact, but the very idea of risking your own kid's health to walk on eggshells around these beliefs simply boggles my mind. Look, all the people telling me to have kids can't stop talking about "how much it changes their life" and "how they never understood what love was until their first held their own kid" etc so why is this even a question for Dad? I assume he feeds and clothes his children, and would continue to do so despite any misgivings from his wife, right? Why is basic medical care treated by the law or society in general differently than food, water, shelter, clothing or a safe and nurturing environment?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:I don't think were at step 6 yet with this. My post was eaten, but thanks for the clarification. I have to ask though, we have a sick kid and explicit instructions from the doctor to fill and administer a prescription. If this isn't #6, what does #6 look like? A kid in the hospital due to parental inaction?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I suppose it is novel in a sense, since she's using a combination of rectangles and triangles instead of trapezoids for some stupid reason (therefore it's totally not the trapezoidal rule, guys) I'm guessing it's because the area of a trapezoid is too difficult for the author to calculate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Our pediatrician has a mandatory vaccination policy. He'll work with parents on staggered schedules if they want that, but bottom line, if you are anti-vaxx, you are free to get a new doctor. Hey Actus, since you're a publicity funded law-talking type, maybe you can clear something up for me. It seems to me that providing vaccines for children is a part of basic healthcare, much like making sure a broken arm is mended or bacteria inflections are treated with proper medicine, etc. There have been cases in the past where children whose parents choose to deny their kids this basic care have been sent to jail when serious harm came to their children as a direct result of this. Why then are parents who don't vaccinate and their children catch measles or whooping cough treated in a similar manner, scaling to the harm caused to the child? The other aspect I want to point out is that unlike other widely recognized forms of child abuse - say starvation or physical abuse - by not choosing to vaccinate a child, you're not only possibly harming the child, you're putting others at risk as well. Is there any precedent for legally sanctioning parents for choosing to put people at risk in this manner? If not, is there a good reason not to that I'm not seeing?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:But bottom line, vaccinate your drat kids. I'm totally interested in the nitty gritty 1st amendment/negligence issues if folks don't otherwise mind. I can see where outside of having a program to provide free vaccinations requiring them becomes problematic, but wouldn't Medicaid and CHIP (nee SCHIP) take care of this issue? Not to be all, "aren't there still workhouses?!" mind you, affordable health care is still a serious issue for many. As far as any slippery slope issues, I think one can draw the line at the public health issues vaccinations protect against (versus say personal dental work, etc). Outside of collecting bacterial/viral samples of vaccine protected diseases from victims and tracing the lineage (I used to work in food safety where we did this to trace the source of nationwide food-borne contamination - E. coli/Listeria/Salmonella/etc) back to an unvaccinated victim and nailing the parents there, it does seem difficult to assign a specific cause. However, we know quite well that clusters of people who don't vaccinate their kids (usually clusters of private schools or home school co-op programs) lead directly to outbreaks and harm to immunocompromised communities, so what's the answer here? Have the government just come in and vaccinate children who don't have a medical reason to say no? Also, could/should these private schools/co-ops/communities of unvaccinated groups be held under similar models/frameworks/regulations that are already placed on other locations that are dangerous to those nearby, like laws against keeping wild animals as pets or localized pollution laws? Again, thanks for the insight, this is a side of the vaccination issue that hasn't really been discussed here before. EDIT: Just to add to the scope of unvaccinated communities, here's a report from the Hollywood Reporter showing private schools with high percentages of "Personal Belief Exemptions". High as in 80%+ high. At this point, is the school creating a substantial risk to the point that legal action should be taken by the government? Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You're making a lot of assumptions there. I mentioned it in my last response, but wouldn't Medicaid and CHIP take care of the issue of vaccination cost for poor children? Or are those programs lacking even in that basic area?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That's not how the calculation works. It's not aggregate societal risk, it's risk to the specific child under analysis. What about kids who are attending schools (like the ones in the previously mentioned Hollywood Reporter piece) where 70-80% of them have vaccine exemptions? Could a situation like that start to turn the tables, from a legal point of view?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:3. Aggressively go after people like Dr. Wakefield with all available license revocation/criminal sanctions available This is something we need to take more seriously in the United States in general. The fact that folks like Dr. Oz can still practice medicine should be a crime.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Isn't he like an insanely skilled heart surgeon, though? I'm not sure what his specialty is, but someone of his caliber should understand the unethical nature of his show and the widespread harm he causes because of it. As he can't seem to handle the responsibility that comes with being a doctor, he should no longer be allowed the privilege of that license.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:In a district where 70-80% of kids have vaccine exemptions, who do you think juries/voters/etc will side with? The antivaxxer parents or the mean old judge/politician/CPS agent who wants to take away kids for not being vaccinated? The areas with high concentrations of antivaxxers aren't just the most dangerous, they're also the most able to fight any legal sanction imposed against antivaxxers. It's too late to just assume the system will be wholly on the side of vaccination, or that we will simply be able to end a social movement through legal fiat - or that it is genuinely desirable to do so. These aren't whole school districts, they're specific private schools.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2013/09/06/more-california-parents-opting-out-of-vaccines-look-up-your-school-online/ Just to be clear, I'm simply referring to the Hollywood Reporter piece I posted previously. I didn't know it was this widespread in the public schools as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:there's also an issue re: whether the state can compel someone to do something to their kid for the benefit of someone else's kid. The parental duty is to their own child, not the other kids in the community. So "but it hurts the herd immunity" is not going to be considered in a case of alleged parental neglect. now, what the state can do is exercises it's police power to protect the safety of public spaces by not allowing unimmunized kids in state licensed day cares, schools etc...but "this is dangerous to others" is not a factor in a parental neglect analysis. It has to be specific harm to the specific child. Here's a bit of a hypothetical: Lets say during an outbreak of whooping cough, a state health agency collects or otherwise has access to bacterial cultures from each patient. Using some basic genetic analysis*, we can trace a rough timeline as to who was infected first and how the infection spread. If such an analysis could show that the source or a significant source of infections are coming from children whose parents are not vaccinating, does this change anything from a legal perspective? *Obviously this would require a significantly large database of whooping cough samples and enough time/money/manpower/lab capacity to do, but the science itself is sound. I worked in a lab where we did this very thing with E. Coli and several other strains of food contaminants to trace major outbreaks. I'm more interested in seeing if such data would clear the legal hurdles that have been brought up.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 02:24 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:If there was truly an outbreak, it might change the "significant risk" analysis for purposes of a "were you negligent to your own child" if *your child* got sick, but generally a parent doesn't have a legal duty to protect other people's kids. I just can't wrap my brain around the idea that even if we can show that Parent A's inaction directly led to the child of Parent B to be infected, maimed or killed by a vaccine preventable disease that Parent A has no legal responsibility for damages.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 20:29
|
|