The alleged doctor that caused this anti-vax bullshit admitted it wasnt supported and lost his medical license.
I have my local news station in my FB feed so I can read comments and be aware of how many mouth breathers live near me. One of them posted about California's bill, and there was much weeping and gnashing of teeth - more from people worried about government control and religious freedom than anti-vaxxers, which I thought was interesting. This was the biggest turd in the pile:
But isn't your kid vaccinated? Why would you worry about him catching the diseases he's been vaccinated for? (I'm not anti-vaccine, it's just a question.)
Vaccines are not 100% effective. The reason Measles was virtually eradicated was because of a combination of vaccines and herd immunity. If everyone is immune, the disease can't get a foothold to spread. It is called Herd Immunity. In addition, there are special cases where kids CANT get the vaccines (I.e. A kid with leukemia, or just too young). They depend on herd immunity to not catch a disease that would almost immediately be fatal due to their compromised immune system. If no one else has it, they can't get it. If my kid ends up being one of the 3% that is vaccinated but still gets it (highly unlikely but not impossible, see the Disney outbreak), I'd be livid. Here is an article about the Disney outbreak. Most were unvaccinated, but a handful had been vaccinated and still got it. http://www.wired.com/2015/01/vaccinated-people-get-measles-disneyland-blame-unvaccinated/
I actually had a sentence typed up about kids too young for the shots or those that otherwise can't get them, but didn't like the wording so I removed it. Sorry you had to type all of that.
I don't really have a better answer than what D26 posted, but I wanted to emphasize that this line of thinking is one thing that a lot of anti-vaxxers claim - "well it's my choice, so just get your own kids vaccinated and my choice won't affect you." It's patently false. It doesn't just affect those who have chosen to not get vaccinated (as you and D26 pointed out, young people, immuno-compromised people, and some others can't receive vaccines). It doesn't even just affect those who aren't vaccinated, since the effectiveness of individual vaccines varies a lot.
One the more Machiavellian lines of reasoning, at least part of the reasoning in a tin foil hat sense, I see in this vaccination bill is a deft political move from the left to pin the issue on republicans. In general the antivaxxers are your west coast affluent natural fiber retards that see this as a big pharma money plot to poison us. It's an issue where, even John Stewart, has hammered them for being anti science, the same argument usually reserved for right leaning religious types. With this bill they've entered in the public discourse a government mandate that requires children to be vaccinated. You have a seemingly no brainer idea containing the loaded wording they know Republican's can't resist shooting themselves in the foot over. If it catches fire in other states it'll be put to republicans in the press what their stance is on big government requirements like this, throw in the religious freedom angle as discussed in the linked article, and suddenly it becomes a Republican issue of derision. Republicans have sort of backed themselves into a corner being as unbending as possible at any hint of government intrusion into your lives. You still have Hollywood retards shooting their mouth off, but it still feels like they are framing this perfectly for the wider debate as we enter an election year.
That'd be cool if it were true: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ence_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html The only real wiggle room here is that, per this poll, Democrats are more likely to agree with a law that mandates vaccination. There will be the same amount of objection on pure anti-vaccine grounds from the electorate on both sides, but an objection on an individual rights basis is more likely to come from Republicans. For what it's worth, the dude who proposed the legislation is a pediatrician.
Ill cede that fact, my interpretation of East Coat libs thing has been more influenced by what Ive seen in the media on the subject and less from actual polling numbers. The point Im making is that I think it is going to be be politicized regardless, something the article mentions with a link on the subject. Which in the end benefits no one. It can, and I think will, be turned into another wedge issue that is focused on over much more pressing issues.
I think it's funny that it gets turned into a political issue. Watching these human sacks of excrement hem and haw over a seemingly logical topic of discussion is funny. It has gotten to the point that something like vaccination is now being looked at as a matter of government intervention rather than just normal and preventative child care.
More than that... 3 days ago he ate a gun. His office was raided by the FDA and the Georgia Drugs and Narcotics Agency, and before they made it to his house, he offed himself. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/authorities-anti-vaccine-doctor-dead-in-apparent-suicide/ Make of that what you will, but I'm guessing that the shit he was doing along the "anti-vax" line of thinking was illegal and fraudulent, and he knew the end was near. Good riddance, if you ask me.
I saw an interesting take from a gay Republican about how the gay marriage ruling was actually a win for conservatives, in so much that it represents another step in saying the government shouldn't dictate how you live your life and your personal choices (abbreviating and paraphrasing of course). It was just interesting cause he mentioned how the religious right has obscured the actual political angle of this act and its at odds with the stances of the Republican Party as a whole. Which is basically a perfect encapsulation of why politics is so fucked to begin with right now. Idiots like Huckabee or Santorum are hateful bigots who have less in common with your typical government/fiscal minded Republican than a normal Democrat has with some wild, anti-wealth socialist.
Yep. It's sad that wanting a politician that will stay out of both my home and my wallet is too much to ask.
Andrew Wakefield was the British doctor who basically started the whole "vaccines --> autism" thing, not this guy. Wakefield published a study that, among other things, had more authors than subjects, and that involved some rather invasive testing of the rectums of autistic kids. He failed to declare a rather significant conflict of interest, in that he was acting as an expert witness to some lawsuits about vaccine injuries at the time. So, when you read between the lines, the study was performed so that he could bolster his credibility in a courtroom to testify about the very thing he was studying. Pretty much all of his co-authors jumped ship before the Lancet retracted the study, and Wakefield later had his license to practice stripped from him. Of course, to the anti-vaccine community, he's nothing short of a martyr / Julius Caesar figure. The fact that the study has been retracted hasn't done much among the true believers. People still say that "there should be a study!" on vaccines and autism, because there isn't enough evidence yet. That study has been done, and can be found here: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134 but once you're convinced, nothing will be good enough. It used to be that thimerosol caused autism; once thimerosol was removed from most vaccines, it was something peculiar about the MMR vaccine, or the scheduling of vaccines, or amount of vaccines, or the amount received at the same time, or I don't know what else they're going to think of next. It isn't a matter of scientific ignorance or lack of education, it's a conspiracy theory. Here's a neat fact: you get more mercury from a typical tin of tuna than you do from the flu shot. And the form of mercury in the tuna isn't readily eliminated by your body, while the mercury in the thimerosol is rapidly eliminated.
I don't know if Huckabee or Santorum are actually hateful bigots or if they've just failed to realize the point in your first sentence. Because, most of their line of thinking was always under the old "family values" idea, and that conservative core should include a "family" that consists of one man married to one woman who raise their children with solid moral standards. What always distorted this type of message from gaining good foothold, is the fact that in reality there was so much divorce, spousal abuse, child abuse, infidelity and all manner of other things that ran counter to that message in these supposed one man / one woman homes. They should have latched on to promoting "healthy families, fidelity, loving homes, and strong parental involvement" instead. All of which can be done whether the parents are gay or straight.
Never heard of Wakefield, but I thought Bradstreet was the guy who wrote the "study" (or wrote about the "study") that described the link between vaccinations and autism that the likes of Jenny McCarthy latched onto and made famous in the US. Or am I misunderstanding that? Wasn't this the guy that offered all sorts of alternative (quacky/illegal) therapies for autism to a number of the celeb-anti-vaxxors?
Wakefield was the first one with the big study that really launched the vaccine-autism quackery. Wakefield did work with Bradstreet a few years after that study, however. I'm sure Bradstreet has published a few things that Jenny McCarthy quoted, but as far as I can tell, Wakefield was the first one to make things famous. But the more important question - is there an address where I can send a letter to express my approval of that man's funeral?
Anyone want to talk about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)? If you haven't heard of it, it's a trade agreement currently being worked out that involves 12 countries around the Pacific that, in total, account for 40% of the world's GDP. Obama got fast track authority (my terminology might be off) for it, meaning when the agreement is done, congress can only votes yes or no - they can't change it or delay it. Once it is done and presented, the full deal will be made public for 60 days before congress votes on it. I try to stay away from tinfoil hats, but is there any reasonable explanation why this isn't in the news? Anyway, this is exactly why I love the internet. The info is out there, we just need to get better at finding and sharing it in an intellectually honest way. If CNN doesn't want to report on it, fine, we still have the means to do our own research. I think that's awesome. Here's a (long) cartoon that explains some stuff pretty well (I think) Here's a good post reining in the knee-jerk idiots who read 2.5 headlines and decide they're definitely positive that the Illuminati lizard people are behind this and the moment it's signed the world will plunge into anarchy And Wikipedia What do you guys and girls think about this?
It's not news because, according to Wikileaks, anyway, 5 pages are about trade, and 30 or so pages are about companies forcing governments to enforce their revenue models. This includes major copyright infringement legislation that would supposedly put heavy controls on the use of the internet, among other things. All of the major news outlets are owned by media corporations that benefit from this international copyright enforcement/control, therefore it's not in their best interest to make waves about it. Among other things it also allows corporations to sue countries for lost profits should the country put legislation in place that would impact their revenues. Just about every politician involved has been bought to the tune of millions of dollars. It is corporate purchase of legislation and control, behind closed doors, out of view of the public. It will be, I believe, the tipping point for lobbying reform.
Its not in the news because American news sucks, and American news is a reflection of the American TV viewer. Apparently a significant portion of Americans who watch the news want to hear about weather 10 times in 50 minutes, local human interest stories, and lurid crimes. I guess people ain't got no time for that real news shit. I remember when that woman had her womb cut open and the baby ripped out in Fort Collins, which is north of of here. I wake up for work at 5:30 and what is all over the news? This story, but not even a synopsis of it, every gory detail imaginable was talked about over and over and over again. Who wants to hear about the gory details of this story that early in the morning? Apparently Americans. Edit: And maybe possibly Net is more right than I am. Everyone has a price