A quarter of all kindergartners in Washington county aren’t immunized. Now there’s a measles crisis

245

Comments

  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 28,299
    How nice for those lucky enough to be born in safe, secure, wealthy countries to decide that others can't share that.
    Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between.  The concern of some anti-immigration folks is that it is better to have some parts of the world (at least) not be over-population and if you spread everyone around evenly, then all parts of the world become over-populated.  This is overly simplistic of course, because the land is not equitable in it's ability to sustain life.  Phoenix Arizona is a good example.  That area is extremely unsustainable. 

    As a native Californian, I moved to the state of Washington for 3 or 4 years and was not welcomed by many of the long-time residents of that state because it was becoming "Cali-fornicated".  I got it, I get, and although I don't agree with strict anti-immigration viewpoints, I understand some of the concerns and I think it is a big mistake to quickly dismiss some of those concerns. 
    "Hate your job, love your stuff
    If you think that's living, you are
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong"
    -Juliana Hatfield
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.







  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,381
    brianlux said:
    How nice for those lucky enough to be born in safe, secure, wealthy countries to decide that others can't share that.
    Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between.  The concern of some anti-immigration folks is that it is better to have some parts of the world (at least) not be over-population and if you spread everyone around evenly, then all parts of the world become over-populated.  This is overly simplistic of course, because the land is not equitable in it's ability to sustain life.  Phoenix Arizona is a good example.  That area is extremely unsustainable. 

    As a native Californian, I moved to the state of Washington for 3 or 4 years and was not welcomed by many of the long-time residents of that state because it was becoming "Cali-fornicated".  I got it, I get, and although I don't agree with strict anti-immigration viewpoints, I understand some of the concerns and I think it is a big mistake to quickly dismiss some of those concerns

    That's a different situation than what was in the post I was responding to, I think. You moved to California presumably for lifestyle issues (whatever they might have been). You were not fleeing war, famine, or lack of civil rights from a repressive government. It's the sentiments of those who, by accident of birth, live safe lives in a wealthy country and feel they alone deserve that safety and seek to deny it to others that I object to pretty strongly. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • eddieceddiec Posts: 3,022
    brianlux said:
    If we were to take a wholly objective view of vaccinations we might have to come to the conclusion that in the long run, they are not helpful.  The human species is overpopulated partly because we choose to reproduce widely and partly because we have been successful in extending life through medical means- everything from hernia repair to heart surgery to vaccines.  We have cheated basic Darwinism.  I'm not saying I'm except from this.  Modern medicine has likely save my life a few times.  But objectively speaking, is our ability to cheat death good for us?  Can any of us seriously say objectively, this is a good thing in the long run?  I can't.
    This is the cause of so many of earth's problems.  I have no problem saying I'm anti-immigration, legally or illegally.  People need to stay in thier own neck of the woods and start fixing their own problems.  I've had many, many people say Canada is a great big country, we can take in loads ... no, we can't.  Take a look at where most of Canada's population is located.  We are the 2nd coldest country on earth, the vast majority of this country no one wants to call home because of less than ideal weather.  The current government wants to bring 400 thousand a year, and many of these people are coming from countries where childbirth seems to be a hobby...

    In Toronto, Canada largest city people struggle to find affordable housing now...Toronto is likely running out of room to expand because there is a protected greenbelt that hinders Toronto ability to expand...





    Poor people always produce more children. Doesn't matter what country they're from.
    Are you asking poor people to fix the problems of their government?
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,180
    Maybe some of you do not realize the US and Canada were not well off nations when my ancestors arrived, but my ancestors fought in wars that helped Canada become the nation it is, helped build this nation by doing back-breaking work long before automation eased the strain...

    Now I will be the very first to admit it's not our land originally, but we can not change that ... but we can settle land claim agreements, fix housing on the reserves and provide 1st nations people clean drinking water as a start.  It also doesn't help our first nations people when Jody Raybourn Wilson, a 1st nations MP from Vancouver was demoted from Justin Minister to Veterans Affairs to where she resigned her cabinet position.

    Big difference between helping build a modern country and a modern economy in 150 years or so.  So why can't these other countries get their shit together?  

    The real question should be, why are so many of these countries struggling?  Many reasons, corruption, lack of educational opportunities, thinking childbirth is a hobby, and on and on...

    A few weeks ago there was a story about Syrian Refugee whining that it was tough to live off the $3000 the government was giving them.  They had 3 children, added 2 more since arriving.  Really who does that, who has more kids until you are settled and supporting yourself?

     

    The wealthy countries can not just throw money at these countries, the time has proven it fixes nothing.  We sure as hell can not take in every unfortunate soul.

    The change has to come within.  

    I am not OK with tax dollars being wasted on foreign aid and the UN.  Take a look at some of these northern Canadian reservations...the living conditions are appalling.  

  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon In My PlacePosts: 18,897
    "why can't these countries get their shit together?" you can't be serious. 
    Headstones Fan Boy
  • eddieceddiec Posts: 3,022
    edited February 12
    Maybe some of you do not realize the US and Canada were not well off nations when my ancestors arrived, but my ancestors fought in wars that helped Canada become the nation it is, helped build this nation by doing back-breaking work long before automation eased the strain...


    Big difference between helping build a modern country and a modern economy in 150 years or so.  So why can't these other countries get their shit together?  

    The real question should be, why are so many of these countries struggling?  Many reasons, corruption, lack of educational opportunities, thinking childbirth is a hobby, and on and on...

    A few weeks ago there was a story about Syrian Refugee whining that it was tough to live off the $3000 the government was giving them.  They had 3 children, added 2 more since arriving.  Really who does that, who has more kids until you are settled and supporting yourself?

     

    The wealthy countries can not just throw money at these countries, the time has proven it fixes nothing.  We sure as hell can not take in every unfortunate soul.

    The change has to come within.  

    I am not OK with tax dollars being wasted on foreign aid and the UN.  Take a look at some of these northern Canadian reservations...the living conditions are appalling.  

    First off- Wow.
    I think most people here have a grasp of history and know what the Americas were like before our ancestors raped and pillaged it from the natives.
    America and Canada can't get their shit together, you expect third world nations to?





  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 28,299
    brianlux said:
    How nice for those lucky enough to be born in safe, secure, wealthy countries to decide that others can't share that.
    Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between.  The concern of some anti-immigration folks is that it is better to have some parts of the world (at least) not be over-population and if you spread everyone around evenly, then all parts of the world become over-populated.  This is overly simplistic of course, because the land is not equitable in it's ability to sustain life.  Phoenix Arizona is a good example.  That area is extremely unsustainable. 

    As a native Californian, I moved to the state of Washington for 3 or 4 years and was not welcomed by many of the long-time residents of that state because it was becoming "Cali-fornicated".  I got it, I get, and although I don't agree with strict anti-immigration viewpoints, I understand some of the concerns and I think it is a big mistake to quickly dismiss some of those concerns

    That's a different situation than what was in the post I was responding to, I think. You moved to California presumably for lifestyle issues (whatever they might have been). You were not fleeing war, famine, or lack of civil rights from a repressive government. It's the sentiments of those who, by accident of birth, live safe lives in a wealthy country and feel they alone deserve that safety and seek to deny it to others that I object to pretty strongly. 
    Just to verify: I move from California not to California. 

    No, of course my situation was not as severe, yet, in some ways, it seemed like it.  I'm old enough to have seen California be invaded and degraded from what was once a beautiful place to the overcrowded, often dangerous, polluted, resource stripped, broken state that it is today.  And then I saw the same thing happening to Washington and Oregon because people like me were moving there.  So I moved back to my home sate. 

    It is, therefore, very true that if you have too many people moving into an area to maintain a healthy ecological balance, you will degrade that place.  Perhaps those who fully support immigration (I am moderate that way, not strongly aligned on either side) believe that it would be more fair if every place on earth were equally fucked up.  I'm much more in favor of having every place equally healthy and, in it's own way, beautiful.  I believe if we do not strive for that, we will have to settle for the equally fucked up equation.  I know these statements will rankle some of the more politically correct here, but I say this with absolute concern for the well being of all people and of the earth.  Especially of the the earth.
    "Hate your job, love your stuff
    If you think that's living, you are
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong"
    -Juliana Hatfield
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.







  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,381
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    How nice for those lucky enough to be born in safe, secure, wealthy countries to decide that others can't share that.
    Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between.  The concern of some anti-immigration folks is that it is better to have some parts of the world (at least) not be over-population and if you spread everyone around evenly, then all parts of the world become over-populated.  This is overly simplistic of course, because the land is not equitable in it's ability to sustain life.  Phoenix Arizona is a good example.  That area is extremely unsustainable. 

    As a native Californian, I moved to the state of Washington for 3 or 4 years and was not welcomed by many of the long-time residents of that state because it was becoming "Cali-fornicated".  I got it, I get, and although I don't agree with strict anti-immigration viewpoints, I understand some of the concerns and I think it is a big mistake to quickly dismiss some of those concerns

    That's a different situation than what was in the post I was responding to, I think. You moved to California presumably for lifestyle issues (whatever they might have been). You were not fleeing war, famine, or lack of civil rights from a repressive government. It's the sentiments of those who, by accident of birth, live safe lives in a wealthy country and feel they alone deserve that safety and seek to deny it to others that I object to pretty strongly. 
    Just to verify: I move from California not to California. 

    No, of course my situation was not as severe, yet, in some ways, it seemed like it.  I'm old enough to have seen California be invaded and degraded from what was once a beautiful place to the overcrowded, often dangerous, polluted, resource stripped, broken state that it is today.  And then I saw the same thing happening to Washington and Oregon because people like me were moving there.  So I moved back to my home sate. 

    It is, therefore, very true that if you have too many people moving into an area to maintain a healthy ecological balance, you will degrade that place.  Perhaps those who fully support immigration (I am moderate that way, not strongly aligned on either side) believe that it would be more fair if every place on earth were equally fucked up.  I'm much more in favor of having every place equally healthy and, in it's own way, beautiful.  I believe if we do not strive for that, we will have to settle for the equally fucked up equation.  I know these statements will rankle some of the more politically correct here, but I say this with absolute concern for the well being of all people and of the earth.  Especially of the the earth.
    Preventing people fleeing from war and other such tragedies will not make the environment of the Earth any better, it just keeps our little corner of it nicer and makes our little worlds nicer, while increasing the suffering of others.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 28,299
    brianlux said:
    brianlux said:
    How nice for those lucky enough to be born in safe, secure, wealthy countries to decide that others can't share that.
    Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between.  The concern of some anti-immigration folks is that it is better to have some parts of the world (at least) not be over-population and if you spread everyone around evenly, then all parts of the world become over-populated.  This is overly simplistic of course, because the land is not equitable in it's ability to sustain life.  Phoenix Arizona is a good example.  That area is extremely unsustainable. 

    As a native Californian, I moved to the state of Washington for 3 or 4 years and was not welcomed by many of the long-time residents of that state because it was becoming "Cali-fornicated".  I got it, I get, and although I don't agree with strict anti-immigration viewpoints, I understand some of the concerns and I think it is a big mistake to quickly dismiss some of those concerns

    That's a different situation than what was in the post I was responding to, I think. You moved to California presumably for lifestyle issues (whatever they might have been). You were not fleeing war, famine, or lack of civil rights from a repressive government. It's the sentiments of those who, by accident of birth, live safe lives in a wealthy country and feel they alone deserve that safety and seek to deny it to others that I object to pretty strongly. 
    Just to verify: I move from California not to California. 

    No, of course my situation was not as severe, yet, in some ways, it seemed like it.  I'm old enough to have seen California be invaded and degraded from what was once a beautiful place to the overcrowded, often dangerous, polluted, resource stripped, broken state that it is today.  And then I saw the same thing happening to Washington and Oregon because people like me were moving there.  So I moved back to my home sate. 

    It is, therefore, very true that if you have too many people moving into an area to maintain a healthy ecological balance, you will degrade that place.  Perhaps those who fully support immigration (I am moderate that way, not strongly aligned on either side) believe that it would be more fair if every place on earth were equally fucked up.  I'm much more in favor of having every place equally healthy and, in it's own way, beautiful.  I believe if we do not strive for that, we will have to settle for the equally fucked up equation.  I know these statements will rankle some of the more politically correct here, but I say this with absolute concern for the well being of all people and of the earth.  Especially of the the earth.
    Preventing people fleeing from war and other such tragedies will not make the environment of the Earth any better, it just keeps our little corner of it nicer and makes our little worlds nicer, while increasing the suffering of others.
    That's not what I propose to do.

    Moving on.
    "Hate your job, love your stuff
    If you think that's living, you are
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong"
    -Juliana Hatfield
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.







  • Thoughts_ArriveThoughts_Arrive Melbourne, AustraliaPosts: 13,742
    Stupid antivaxxers. 
    Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
  • SmellymanSmellyman AsiaPosts: 3,775

  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,968
    Stupid antivaxxers. 
    Why, because they choose to live differently or because you're superior based on a decision you didn't make for yourself when you were a kid? A lot of actual stupid people in this world, but I don't know that I'd call an antivaxxer one. They are fully aware of their choice(s).

    In short, here on the AMT:

    Antivaxxers = stupid
    Trumpers = stupid and toothless
    Gun Owners = responsible until they're not
    Practicing a Religion = stupid

    There isn't a damn measles crisis. We had a measles "crisis" in MN a year or 2 ago. About 75 cases were reported. How many billios of people live on the planet again? It'll all be ok. It's a great chance for pharma to push people to get even more vaccinations, even if you aren't at risk. :money:

    It's a hopeless situation...
  • tbergs said:
    Stupid antivaxxers. 
    Why, because they choose to live differently or because you're superior based on a decision you didn't make for yourself when you were a kid? A lot of actual stupid people in this world, but I don't know that I'd call an antivaxxer one. They are fully aware of their choice(s).

    In short, here on the AMT:

    Antivaxxers = stupid
    Trumpers = stupid and toothless
    Gun Owners = responsible until they're not
    Practicing a Religion = stupid

    There isn't a damn measles crisis. We had a measles "crisis" in MN a year or 2 ago. About 75 cases were reported. How many billios of people live on the planet again? It'll all be ok. It's a great chance for pharma to push people to get even more vaccinations, even if you aren't at risk. :money:

    It seems like (judging from your ‘short’ section) you’ve learned something on the MT!

    Time well spent.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • SmellymanSmellyman AsiaPosts: 3,775
    tbergs said:
    Stupid antivaxxers. 
    Why, because they choose to live differently or because you're superior based on a decision you didn't make for yourself when you were a kid? A lot of actual stupid people in this world, but I don't know that I'd call an antivaxxer one. They are fully aware of their choice(s).

    In short, here on the AMT:

    Antivaxxers = stupid
    Trumpers = stupid and toothless
    Gun Owners = responsible until they're not
    Practicing a Religion = stupid

    There isn't a damn measles crisis. We had a measles "crisis" in MN a year or 2 ago. About 75 cases were reported. How many billios of people live on the planet again? It'll all be ok. It's a great chance for pharma to push people to get even more vaccinations, even if you aren't at risk. :money:

    Which makes them stupid, not ignorant.  Fully informed bad decisions are stupid.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 28,299
    This thread reminds me that I need to get the new Shingrix shingles vaccine.  Thank you AMT.  I don't need no stinkin' shingles!
    "Hate your job, love your stuff
    If you think that's living, you are
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong"
    -Juliana Hatfield
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.







  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,180
    brianlux said:
    This thread reminds me that I need to get the new Shingrix shingles vaccine.  Thank you AMT.  I don't need no stinkin' shingles!
    I hear they are painful.  Good idea, I think I will get that vaccine.
  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of foreverPosts: 19,881
    There's a nationwide shortage for that.  I've been on "the list" for a month now, just waiting to be called.  The photos alone are frightening, let alone the incredible pain I've heard it causes.

    Other than a few basic vaccinations as a kid, I never had any more until I became ill last year.  Now I not only see and embrace that side, but I'm more than thankful to have barriers against some things that could further fuck with my health.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 28,299
    brianlux said:
    This thread reminds me that I need to get the new Shingrix shingles vaccine.  Thank you AMT.  I don't need no stinkin' shingles!
    I hear they are painful.  Good idea, I think I will get that vaccine.
    My Pop had shingles.  It was nasty!  Definitely don't want to go there!

    hedonist said:
    There's a nationwide shortage for that.  I've been on "the list" for a month now, just waiting to be called.  The photos alone are frightening, let alone the incredible pain I've heard it causes.

    Other than a few basic vaccinations as a kid, I never had any more until I became ill last year.  Now I not only see and embrace that side, but I'm more than thankful to have barriers against some things that could further fuck with my health.
    Yeah, I forgot that.  I'll have to get back in queue.
    "Hate your job, love your stuff
    If you think that's living, you are
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong"
    -Juliana Hatfield
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.







  • mookieblalockmookieblalock Posts: 2,385
    tbergs said:
    Stupid antivaxxers. 
    How many billios of people live on the planet again? It'll all be ok. It's a great chance for pharma to push people to get even more vaccinations, even if you aren't at risk. :money:

    This guy isn’t interested in a cure for cancer. If you’re meant to die, you will die.
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,968
    tbergs said:
    Stupid antivaxxers. 
    How many billios of people live on the planet again? It'll all be ok. It's a great chance for pharma to push people to get even more vaccinations, even if you aren't at risk. :money:

    This guy isn’t interested in a cure for cancer. If you’re meant to die, you will die.
    A lot of truth to that, but at least the in-between is mine ;) We all have options and will decide what to do with them. Each plays the part on both the world and the human race's existence. 


    It's a hopeless situation...
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 4,558
    CM189191 said:
    Not a ringing endorsement for Libertarianism  
    It is a ringing endorsement for Darwinism though.

    I'll play devil's advocate here. 

    The number of vaccines is out of control.  Human bodies were not meant to be assaulted like this during the first 24 months.  It's traumatizing to infants, physically and emotionally.  It's also being driven by big pharma lobbying.  Any idea how much money is made vaccinating entire populations?  (it's a lot)

    The anti-vaxxer movement is a knee-jerk overkill reaction to all of this.  There are way too many vaccines, but they shouldn't be eliminated entirely. 




    First, that chart isn't completely accurate, particularly regarding the influenza vaccination, which is recommended yearly, not every six months.

    Second, on what scientific basis do you say that the current schedule is "out of control" or excessive? Simply having more vaccines than 35 years ago isn't a reason; maybe the schedule in 1983 was too little. Which ones would you say are unnecessary?

    There's no scientific basis to a claim that human bodies can't deal with this level of immunization. Everything an infant is exposed to from the time it's born is a new foreign antigen, and bodies deal with that very well. The immune system could handle far more immunization than the current schedule. 
    CDC recommends 2 flu vaccines per year until 8 years old : https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaxadmin.htm

    What out of control or excessive might look like : 



    "There's no scientific basis to a claim that human bodies can't deal with this level of immunization. "

    This statement represents a big fucking problem with US Health Care.  Here we have to prove something is dangerous for public consumption.  Most other Developed Industrialized Nations require companies a product is safe for public consumption.  There's a lot of daylight between those standards.  

    The human body is capable of enduring all sorts of trauma.  You hear about people who are on the autism spectrum, borderline personality disorders, or mild ADD.  Sometimes a traumatic event such as a head injury, severe illness, death of a loved one, etc is enough to push a person from borderline to certified diagnosed.  Now take 36 shots and give them all to 325 million Americans who live all across the mental and health spectrum. 

    I am not an anti-vaxxer.  I do not think we have adequately weighed the cost-benefit analysis when we give twice as many shots as the average and have a terrible infant mortality rate.  

    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 21,177
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    Not a ringing endorsement for Libertarianism  
    It is a ringing endorsement for Darwinism though.

    I'll play devil's advocate here. 

    The number of vaccines is out of control.  Human bodies were not meant to be assaulted like this during the first 24 months.  It's traumatizing to infants, physically and emotionally.  It's also being driven by big pharma lobbying.  Any idea how much money is made vaccinating entire populations?  (it's a lot)

    The anti-vaxxer movement is a knee-jerk overkill reaction to all of this.  There are way too many vaccines, but they shouldn't be eliminated entirely. 




    First, that chart isn't completely accurate, particularly regarding the influenza vaccination, which is recommended yearly, not every six months.

    Second, on what scientific basis do you say that the current schedule is "out of control" or excessive? Simply having more vaccines than 35 years ago isn't a reason; maybe the schedule in 1983 was too little. Which ones would you say are unnecessary?

    There's no scientific basis to a claim that human bodies can't deal with this level of immunization. Everything an infant is exposed to from the time it's born is a new foreign antigen, and bodies deal with that very well. The immune system could handle far more immunization than the current schedule. 
    CDC recommends 2 flu vaccines per year until 8 years old : https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaxadmin.htm

    What out of control or excessive might look like : 



    "There's no scientific basis to a claim that human bodies can't deal with this level of immunization. "

    This statement represents a big fucking problem with US Health Care.  Here we have to prove something is dangerous for public consumption.  Most other Developed Industrialized Nations require companies a product is safe for public consumption.  There's a lot of daylight between those standards.  

    The human body is capable of enduring all sorts of trauma.  You hear about people who are on the autism spectrum, borderline personality disorders, or mild ADD.  Sometimes a traumatic event such as a head injury, severe illness, death of a loved one, etc is enough to push a person from borderline to certified diagnosed.  Now take 36 shots and give them all to 325 million Americans who live all across the mental and health spectrum. 

    I am not an anti-vaxxer.  I do not think we have adequately weighed the cost-benefit analysis when we give twice as many shots as the average and have a terrible infant mortality rate.  

    What does the “infant mortality rate” include for causes of death? All causes or just those things for which they were immunized for? Further, wouldn’t you have to know total number of immunizations for a certain affliction, measles say, and then the number of corresponding deaths of those immunized for same? You can’t lump them all together and determine efficacy. How many children under 5 die from gun violence in Iceland and are they part of the score?
     
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • RoleModelsinBlood31RoleModelsinBlood31 Austin TXPosts: 4,892
    Smellyman said:
    USA, where people believe fake science and fake news. (the actual fake news Fox, Breirbart, infowars and qnon bullshit)

    Wonder what percentage of kids not vaccinated have parents who are also flat earthers?
    Here in Austin it’s the super liberal parents who don’t vaccinate- at least that’s my pediatrician’s explanation. The real crunchy types, she said. It’s ridiculous and my baby is in daycare with kids who haven’t been vaccinated.  Drives me bonkers.  
    I'm like an opening band for your mom.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,381
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    Not a ringing endorsement for Libertarianism  
    It is a ringing endorsement for Darwinism though.

    I'll play devil's advocate here. 

    The number of vaccines is out of control.  Human bodies were not meant to be assaulted like this during the first 24 months.  It's traumatizing to infants, physically and emotionally.  It's also being driven by big pharma lobbying.  Any idea how much money is made vaccinating entire populations?  (it's a lot)

    The anti-vaxxer movement is a knee-jerk overkill reaction to all of this.  There are way too many vaccines, but they shouldn't be eliminated entirely. 




    First, that chart isn't completely accurate, particularly regarding the influenza vaccination, which is recommended yearly, not every six months.

    Second, on what scientific basis do you say that the current schedule is "out of control" or excessive? Simply having more vaccines than 35 years ago isn't a reason; maybe the schedule in 1983 was too little. Which ones would you say are unnecessary?

    There's no scientific basis to a claim that human bodies can't deal with this level of immunization. Everything an infant is exposed to from the time it's born is a new foreign antigen, and bodies deal with that very well. The immune system could handle far more immunization than the current schedule. 
    CDC recommends 2 flu vaccines per year until 8 years old : https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaxadmin.htm

    What out of control or excessive might look like : 



    "There's no scientific basis to a claim that human bodies can't deal with this level of immunization. "

    This statement represents a big fucking problem with US Health Care.  Here we have to prove something is dangerous for public consumption.  Most other Developed Industrialized Nations require companies a product is safe for public consumption.  There's a lot of daylight between those standards.  

    The human body is capable of enduring all sorts of trauma.  You hear about people who are on the autism spectrum, borderline personality disorders, or mild ADD.  Sometimes a traumatic event such as a head injury, severe illness, death of a loved one, etc is enough to push a person from borderline to certified diagnosed.  Now take 36 shots and give them all to 325 million Americans who live all across the mental and health spectrum. 

    I am not an anti-vaxxer.  I do not think we have adequately weighed the cost-benefit analysis when we give twice as many shots as the average and have a terrible infant mortality rate.  


    No, you're misrepresenting the available data on safety and efficacy.

    And your infant mortality rate has little, if anything, to do with the presence of vaccinations and much to do with generally abysmal prenatal and postnatal care which is tied to the for-profit health insurance system, and lack of supports and education for new parents.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 6,564
    I love this white house. Always gives me something to laugh about and someone to laugh at.
    But still it's  sad that people believe this ignorant shite.......

    Wife of White House communications director pushes false anti-vaccination claims https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/13/politics/darla-shine-measles-anti-vaccination/index.html
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon In My PlacePosts: 18,897
    tbergs said:
    tbergs said:
    Stupid antivaxxers. 
    How many billios of people live on the planet again? It'll all be ok. It's a great chance for pharma to push people to get even more vaccinations, even if you aren't at risk. :money:

    This guy isn’t interested in a cure for cancer. If you’re meant to die, you will die.
    A lot of truth to that, but at least the in-between is mine ;) We all have options and will decide what to do with them. Each plays the part on both the world and the human race's existence. 


    pretty safe bet your opinion would change if you had a loved one you call "weak". 

    getting a disease is not a "weakness". my daughter was stronger at 6 years old than most grown men. no bullshit. 
    Headstones Fan Boy
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon In My PlacePosts: 18,897
    and same with my mom. polio at 4 years old (so one leg is basically an ornament). MS for the past 30. she's also one of the toughest hombres I have ever known. 

    "weak". fuck that. 
    Headstones Fan Boy
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,180
    and same with my mom. polio at 4 years old (so one leg is basically an ornament). MS for the past 30. she's also one of the toughest hombres I have ever known. 

    "weak". fuck that. 
    That's terrible.  Sorry to hear that your Mom had to deal with that.  My Mom, RIP, could not tolerate those anti-vaxxers because she remembers 1st hand what polio was like.  And she always said if people saw 1st hand their opinion would change.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon In My PlacePosts: 18,897
    and same with my mom. polio at 4 years old (so one leg is basically an ornament). MS for the past 30. she's also one of the toughest hombres I have ever known. 

    "weak". fuck that. 
    That's terrible.  Sorry to hear that your Mom had to deal with that.  My Mom, RIP, could not tolerate those anti-vaxxers because she remembers 1st hand what polio was like.  And she always said if people saw 1st hand their opinion would change.
    my mom got it in her leg, her sister got it in her back. luckily, my aunt's went away on its own. no such luck for my mom. but she's a trooper. always a smile no matter what. 
    Headstones Fan Boy
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 10,381
    and same with my mom. polio at 4 years old (so one leg is basically an ornament). MS for the past 30. she's also one of the toughest hombres I have ever known. 

    "weak". fuck that. 
    That's terrible.  Sorry to hear that your Mom had to deal with that.  My Mom, RIP, could not tolerate those anti-vaxxers because she remembers 1st hand what polio was like.  And she always said if people saw 1st hand their opinion would change.

    Exactly. Those who minimize the dangers of infectious diseases are those that were lucky enough not to live during the centuries where the average family lost at least one child to these diseases.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Sign In or Register to comment.