Jay Cutler wont vaccinate kids because of autism (1 Viewer)

[Henry Ford]

The chicken pox numbers are just staggering. Four million down to 216,000. Amazing.

I'm 44. Was there a chicken pox vaccine when I was a kid? As I remember it, getting chicken pox was sort of a rite of passage. I think I got it when I was around ten.

Just googled it. No there was not.

Right. You and I had to just deal with it - kids today are soft.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Like I said earlier, I'm not anti-vaccine. All three of my kids are vaccinated. But I think there are questionable things that need to be debated before vaccinations should be mandated by law. Unfortunately the Alex Jones crowd is dominating the "no" side of the debate with ridiculous accusations. Making any real discussion of the issue impossible.

Are these "questionable things" backed up with any science? Or are they "questionable" just because?

Do you consider natural selection to be backed up with science?

What? I have a feeling you are digging yourself into a deeper hole here.

 

[rockaction]

See, there's a secret plan to put liberal juice in vaccines and inject it into your kids

I KNEW it!

It would be interesting to see the statistics and political affiliations of those who are anti vaccine. I only know one person vehemently against vaccines, and he is a tea bagger, conspiracy theorist, NRA gun apologist, wacko.

My old neighbor, the most rabid anti-vaccine nut I know, just compared Obama to Hitler on her facebook page this morning. Guess what side of the aisle she falls on?

Anecdotal, but the only anti-vaxxers I know are the hippy, vegan, homeopathy-believing types who say it's not "natural."

I'm pretty sure they aren't on the same side of the aisle as your neighbor.

I'd always assumed that, too. That and people who have a deep distrust of corporations and medicine for profit.

Guess we're all wrong around here.

 

[sn0mm1s]

See, there's a secret plan to put liberal juice in vaccines and inject it into your kids

I KNEW it!

It would be interesting to see the statistics and political affiliations of those who are anti vaccine. I only know one person vehemently against vaccines, and he is a tea bagger, conspiracy theorist, NRA gun apologist, wacko.

My old neighbor, the most rabid anti-vaccine nut I know, just compared Obama to Hitler on her facebook page this morning. Guess what side of the aisle she falls on?

Anecdotal, but the only anti-vaxxers I know are the hippy, vegan, homeopathy-believing types who say it's not "natural."

I'm pretty sure they aren't on the same side of the aisle as your neighbor.

I have come across all types... I generally just label them as idiots.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

Pre-Vaccine Era Most Recent
Estimated Annual Reports of Percent
Disease Morbidity* US Cases Decrease

Diphtheria 21,053 1 >99%
H. influenzae 20,000 30 >99%
Hepatitis A 117,333 2,890 98%
Hepatitis B 66,232 18,800 72%
Measles 530,217 55 >99%
Mumps 162,344 229 >99%
Pertussis 200,752 48,277 76%
Pneumococcal 16,069 1,800 89%
disease
Polio 16,316 0 100%
Rotavirus 62,500 1,250 98%
Rubella 47,745 9 >99%
Congenital 152 3 98%
Rubella
Syndrome
Smallpox 29,005 0 100%
Tetanus 580 37 94%
Varicella 4,085,120 216,511 95%

I know this is actual data, so I fully expect for any anti-vax wackos to dispute the truth.

The chicken pox numbers are just staggering. Four million down to 216,000. Amazing.

And the numbers are comparing Pre-Vaccine "Morbidity" to Post-Vaccine "Reported Cases". It does not say whether the "Reported Cases" resulted in death. I would imagine that they are just that -- reported cases. They may or may not have resulted in death. So likely the the post-vaccine morbidity is even lower than the number of "Reported Cases".

Morbidity is just the rate of disease.

You're right. I was thinking mortality.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Anecdotal, but the only anti-vaxxers I know are the hippy, vegan, homeopathy-believing types who say it's not "natural."

Outbreak of liberal idiocy.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Like I said earlier, I'm not anti-vaccine. All three of my kids are vaccinated. But I think there are questionable things that need to be debated before vaccinations should be mandated by law. Unfortunately the Alex Jones crowd is dominating the "no" side of the debate with ridiculous accusations. Making any real discussion of the issue impossible.

Are these "questionable things" backed up with any science? Or are they "questionable" just because?

Do you consider natural selection to be backed up with science?

Going to need you to flesh this out for me.

 

[Freelove]

Like I said earlier, I'm not anti-vaccine. All three of my kids are vaccinated. But I think there are questionable things that need to be debated before vaccinations should be mandated by law. Unfortunately the Alex Jones crowd is dominating the "no" side of the debate with ridiculous accusations. Making any real discussion of the issue impossible.

Are these "questionable things" backed up with any science? Or are they "questionable" just because?

Do you consider natural selection to be backed up with science?

Going to need you to flesh this out for me.

Yeah, I didn't see this one coming.

 

[igbomb]

See, there's a secret plan to put liberal juice in vaccines and inject it into your kids

I KNEW it!

It would be interesting to see the statistics and political affiliations of those who are anti vaccine. I only know one person vehemently against vaccines, and he is a tea bagger, conspiracy theorist, NRA gun apologist, wacko.

My old neighbor, the most rabid anti-vaccine nut I know, just compared Obama to Hitler on her facebook page this morning. Guess what side of the aisle she falls on?

Anecdotal, but the only anti-vaxxers I know are the hippy, vegan, homeopathy-believing types who say it's not "natural."

I'm pretty sure they aren't on the same side of the aisle as your neighbor.

I'd always assumed that, too. That and people who have a deep distrust of corporations and medicine for profit.

Guess we're all wrong around here.

Huh. The opposite is true in my experience. I guess it takes all kinds of idiots to maintain the anti-vaccine movement.

 

[Politician Spock]

Like I said earlier, I'm not anti-vaccine. All three of my kids are vaccinated. But I think there are questionable things that need to be debated before vaccinations should be mandated by law. Unfortunately the Alex Jones crowd is dominating the "no" side of the debate with ridiculous accusations. Making any real discussion of the issue impossible.

Are these "questionable things" backed up with any science? Or are they "questionable" just because?

Do you consider natural selection to be backed up with science?

Going to need you to flesh this out for me.

As I've said, it's impossible to have any real discussion on these kind of questions. Just the hint of engaging in it by some people in thread has already produced numerous negative responses. Even though I chose to vaccinate my kids, I find the questions to be interesting and don't even have a side that I exist on. But I do not find it interesting enough to take the barrage of negativity for engaging in such questions. The people who have taken a black and white stance on the issue are in mock and destroy mode.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

Like I said earlier, I'm not anti-vaccine. All three of my kids are vaccinated. But I think there are questionable things that need to be debated before vaccinations should be mandated by law. Unfortunately the Alex Jones crowd is dominating the "no" side of the debate with ridiculous accusations. Making any real discussion of the issue impossible.

Are these "questionable things" backed up with any science? Or are they "questionable" just because?

Do you consider natural selection to be backed up with science?

Going to need you to flesh this out for me.

As I've said, it's impossible to have any real discussion on these kind of questions. Just the hint of engaging in it by some people in thread has already produced numerous negative responses. Even though I chose to vaccinate my kids, I find the questions to be interesting and don't even have a side that I exist on. But I do not find it interesting enough to take the barrage of negativity for engaging in such questions. The people who have taken a black and white stance on the issue are in mock and destroy mode.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

Does this mean that you are of the "man evolved from apes" crowd?

 

[Politician Spock]

Like I said earlier, I'm not anti-vaccine. All three of my kids are vaccinated. But I think there are questionable things that need to be debated before vaccinations should be mandated by law. Unfortunately the Alex Jones crowd is dominating the "no" side of the debate with ridiculous accusations. Making any real discussion of the issue impossible.

Are these "questionable things" backed up with any science? Or are they "questionable" just because?

Do you consider natural selection to be backed up with science?

Going to need you to flesh this out for me.

As I've said, it's impossible to have any real discussion on these kind of questions. Just the hint of engaging in it by some people in thread has already produced numerous negative responses. Even though I chose to vaccinate my kids, I find the questions to be interesting and don't even have a side that I exist on. But I do not find it interesting enough to take the barrage of negativity for engaging in such questions. The people who have taken a black and white stance on the issue are in mock and destroy mode.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

Does this mean that you are of the "man evolved from apes" crowd?

I'm patiently waiting for the missing link to be found.

 

[Freelove]

There do exist positions that are legitimately mockable. There's a big difference between defending the defensible against a crowd with a variety of subjective opinions, and defending the indefensible against a crowd with unassailable scientific evidence on hand.

ETA: I think there's a little wiggle room on the vaccine front. A little. But not so much in your other example.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Like I said earlier, I'm not anti-vaccine. All three of my kids are vaccinated. But I think there are questionable things that need to be debated before vaccinations should be mandated by law. Unfortunately the Alex Jones crowd is dominating the "no" side of the debate with ridiculous accusations. Making any real discussion of the issue impossible.

Are these "questionable things" backed up with any science? Or are they "questionable" just because?

Do you consider natural selection to be backed up with science?

Going to need you to flesh this out for me.

As I've said, it's impossible to have any real discussion on these kind of questions. Just the hint of engaging in it by some people in thread has already produced numerous negative responses. Even though I chose to vaccinate my kids, I find the questions to be interesting and don't even have a side that I exist on. But I do not find it interesting enough to take the barrage of negativity for engaging in such questions. The people who have taken a black and white stance on the issue are in mock and destroy mode.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

I'm not mocking. I'm asking. What does natural selection have to do vaccines?

 

[rockaction]

Like I said earlier, I'm not anti-vaccine. All three of my kids are vaccinated. But I think there are questionable things that need to be debated before vaccinations should be mandated by law. Unfortunately the Alex Jones crowd is dominating the "no" side of the debate with ridiculous accusations. Making any real discussion of the issue impossible.

Are these "questionable things" backed up with any science? Or are they "questionable" just because?

Do you consider natural selection to be backed up with science?

Going to need you to flesh this out for me.

As I've said, it's impossible to have any real discussion on these kind of questions. Just the hint of engaging in it by some people in thread has already produced numerous negative responses. Even though I chose to vaccinate my kids, I find the questions to be interesting and don't even have a side that I exist on. But I do not find it interesting enough to take the barrage of negativity for engaging in such questions. The people who have taken a black and white stance on the issue are in mock and destroy mode.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

One thing that was weird back at the turn of the century were that the same assurances that smallpox vaccines were "safe" were given to people by state and city governments. That said, many people wound up really sick or dying from the vaccines. I don't think anyone should mock those that are legitimately concerned about introducing foreign diseases into their systems to build up antibodies.

I'm pro-vaccine, like Spock, but I also share his sentiments about ridicule and snark. It shouldn't be a lightly-decided decision to vaccinate one's self or their children. It's an introduction of a disease into your system. Reason should give one pause.

Again, I'm very pro-vaccine. I can just see the other side, and that's where Willrich, in the book I cited before, tread some really good ground.

 

[joffer]

Time to shut it down

 

[rockaction]

Time to shut it down

If you're laughing at me, you're way off-base.

 

[Politician Spock]

Like I said earlier, I'm not anti-vaccine. All three of my kids are vaccinated. But I think there are questionable things that need to be debated before vaccinations should be mandated by law. Unfortunately the Alex Jones crowd is dominating the "no" side of the debate with ridiculous accusations. Making any real discussion of the issue impossible.

Are these "questionable things" backed up with any science? Or are they "questionable" just because?

Do you consider natural selection to be backed up with science?

Going to need you to flesh this out for me.

As I've said, it's impossible to have any real discussion on these kind of questions. Just the hint of engaging in it by some people in thread has already produced numerous negative responses. Even though I chose to vaccinate my kids, I find the questions to be interesting and don't even have a side that I exist on. But I do not find it interesting enough to take the barrage of negativity for engaging in such questions. The people who have taken a black and white stance on the issue are in mock and destroy mode.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

I'm not mocking. I'm asking. What does natural selection have to do vaccines?

I'm asking too. I can see it to some degree, but not enough to make an argument on either side of the debate. Those that were trying to discuss it have been mocked out of the thread. I was interested in seeing how that discussion would go, but see that it's impossible for them to have it without being mocked endlessly like they're the conspiracy theory crowd.

 

[rick6668]

The chicken pox numbers are just staggering. Four million down to 216,000. Amazing.

I'm 44. Was there a chicken pox vaccine when I was a kid? As I remember it, getting chicken pox was sort of a rite of passage. I think I got it when I was around ten.

Just googled it. No there was not.

Nope. 44 here as well. Never got it as a kid. Got it when I was 21 and it was brutal. Missed work for 2 weeks.

 

[B-Deep]

I'd like to beat jay cutler senseless with jenny mccarthy

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

Isn't Vanderbilt supposed to be the smart SEC school?

That's kind of like being the fastest white sprinter.

Christo, what's your take on this vaccination issue?

I don't have kids so I don't care.

Fair enough, I don't have kids and don't care much about anything. However, that doesn't prevent me from thinking about things and forming an intelligent opinion. The anti-science trend here just baffles me.

Nothing anti-science about this. Outside of the fact that a bunch of so called "evolutionists" don't really understand how evolution works.

Where does scientific research suggest we should avoid vaccines because they increase the odds of autism? I'm pretty sure scientific consensus is to vaccinate your kid almost in every case.

About 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, meaning associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death. According to the CDC, infants (children less than one year old) are at greatest risk for adverse medical events from vaccination including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome.

That didn't answer his question, at all.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

Wait, we have a Jenny McCarthy on this board. F me....I thought we were better than this.

Why would you think that? This place is a f'n window-licker magnet.

 

[B-Deep]

Some pediatricians around here now refuse to accept new patients if they are not vaccinated and may dismiss patients who refuse them

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Like I said earlier, I'm not anti-vaccine. All three of my kids are vaccinated. But I think there are questionable things that need to be debated before vaccinations should be mandated by law. Unfortunately the Alex Jones crowd is dominating the "no" side of the debate with ridiculous accusations. Making any real discussion of the issue impossible.

Are these "questionable things" backed up with any science? Or are they "questionable" just because?

Do you consider natural selection to be backed up with science?

Going to need you to flesh this out for me.

As I've said, it's impossible to have any real discussion on these kind of questions. Just the hint of engaging in it by some people in thread has already produced numerous negative responses. Even though I chose to vaccinate my kids, I find the questions to be interesting and don't even have a side that I exist on. But I do not find it interesting enough to take the barrage of negativity for engaging in such questions. The people who have taken a black and white stance on the issue are in mock and destroy mode.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

I'm not mocking. I'm asking. What does natural selection have to do vaccines?

I'm asking too. I can see it to some degree, but not enough to make an argument on either side of the debate. Those that were trying to discuss it have been mocked out of the thread. I was interested in seeing how that discussion would go, but see that it's impossible for them to have it without being mocked endlessly like they're the conspiracy theory crowd.

Seriously, why did you bring up natural selection and what does it have to do with vaccines?

 

[NCCommish]

A new study published in the journal Pediatrics identified Patient Zero in the new measles epidemic as a 30-month-old child from Minnesota who had recently traveled to Kenya.

The unvaccinated child of Somali descent lived within an immigrant community in Minneapolis that had a low rate for measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination, and contracted the disease while overseas. The child presented few symptoms of the disease upon reentering the United States, and proceeded to spread the infection to one member of the household and three children in a day-care center.

By the time the infant was diagnosed, over 3,000 people were exposed to the disease — most of them in the Somali subpopulation, where the vaccination rate had dropped from 91 percent in 2004 to 54 percent in 2010. Of the 21 cases in which an exposed individual presented with symptoms, 16 of them were not vaccinated.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

The chicken pox numbers are just staggering. Four million down to 216,000. Amazing.

I'm 44. Was there a chicken pox vaccine when I was a kid? As I remember it, getting chicken pox was sort of a rite of passage. I think I got it when I was around ten.

Yep. Still remember the bumps on my sack.

Nevermind, that was last week. And syphilis.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

I'd like to beat jay cutler senseless with jenny mccarthy

The chicken pox numbers are just staggering. Four million down to 216,000. Amazing.

I'm 44. Was there a chicken pox vaccine when I was a kid? As I remember it, getting chicken pox was sort of a rite of passage. I think I got it when I was around ten.

Yep. Still remember the bumps on my sack.

Nevermind, that was last week. And syphilis.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Chickenpox sucked and to add insult to injury I got it on the last day school.

 

[butcher boy]

Like I said earlier, I'm not anti-vaccine. All three of my kids are vaccinated. But I think there are questionable things that need to be debated before vaccinations should be mandated by law. Unfortunately the Alex Jones crowd is dominating the "no" side of the debate with ridiculous accusations. Making any real discussion of the issue impossible.

Are these "questionable things" backed up with any science? Or are they "questionable" just because?

Do you consider natural selection to be backed up with science?

Going to need you to flesh this out for me.

As I've said, it's impossible to have any real discussion on these kind of questions. Just the hint of engaging in it by some people in thread has already produced numerous negative responses. Even though I chose to vaccinate my kids, I find the questions to be interesting and don't even have a side that I exist on. But I do not find it interesting enough to take the barrage of negativity for engaging in such questions. The people who have taken a black and white stance on the issue are in mock and destroy mode.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

One thing that was weird back at the turn of the century were that the same assurances that smallpox vaccines were "safe" were given to people by state and city governments. That said, many people wound up really sick or dying from the vaccines. I don't think anyone should mock those that are legitimately concerned about introducing foreign diseases into their systems to build up antibodies.

I'm pro-vaccine, like Spock, but I also share his sentiments about ridicule and snark. It shouldn't be a lightly-decided decision to vaccinate one's self or their children. It's an introduction of a disease into your system. Reason should give one pause.

Again, I'm very pro-vaccine. I can just see the other side, and that's where Willrich, in the book I cited before, tread some really good ground.

I agree, but doing maybe an hour's worth of research on the internet on the topic should lead any reasonably sane person to choose to vaccinate. The people being mocked are the people who come to the conclusion that not vaccinating is the way to go despite the overwhelming data telling them that's wrong.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Seriously, why did you bring up natural selection and what does it have to do with vaccines?

I'm curious about this as well. Politician Spock and DrJ have both mentioned stuff about evolution in this thread. I don't see a connection between evolution and vaccines, but I'm hoping I'll have an a-ha moment when somebody explains it.

 

[B-Deep]

are we really SURE smoking causes cancer?

I think i want to let my kids smoke

 

[B-Deep]

Seriously, why did you bring up natural selection and what does it have to do with vaccines?

I'm curious about this as well. Politician Spock and DrJ have both mentioned stuff about evolution in this thread. I don't see a connection between evolution and vaccines, but I'm hoping I'll have an a-ha moment when somebody explains it.

any argument of natural selection pertaining to human beings is not going to go very far

 

[Bucky86]

are we really SURE smoking causes cancer?

I think i want to let my kids smoke

Kids that don't smoke get cancer. Therefore we can't blame smoking.

 

[rockaction]

Like I said earlier, I'm not anti-vaccine. All three of my kids are vaccinated. But I think there are questionable things that need to be debated before vaccinations should be mandated by law. Unfortunately the Alex Jones crowd is dominating the "no" side of the debate with ridiculous accusations. Making any real discussion of the issue impossible.

Are these "questionable things" backed up with any science? Or are they "questionable" just because?

Do you consider natural selection to be backed up with science?

Going to need you to flesh this out for me.

As I've said, it's impossible to have any real discussion on these kind of questions. Just the hint of engaging in it by some people in thread has already produced numerous negative responses. Even though I chose to vaccinate my kids, I find the questions to be interesting and don't even have a side that I exist on. But I do not find it interesting enough to take the barrage of negativity for engaging in such questions. The people who have taken a black and white stance on the issue are in mock and destroy mode.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

One thing that was weird back at the turn of the century were that the same assurances that smallpox vaccines were "safe" were given to people by state and city governments. That said, many people wound up really sick or dying from the vaccines. I don't think anyone should mock those that are legitimately concerned about introducing foreign diseases into their systems to build up antibodies.

I'm pro-vaccine, like Spock, but I also share his sentiments about ridicule and snark. It shouldn't be a lightly-decided decision to vaccinate one's self or their children. It's an introduction of a disease into your system. Reason should give one pause.

Again, I'm very pro-vaccine. I can just see the other side, and that's where Willrich, in the book I cited before, tread some really good ground.

I agree, but doing maybe an hour's worth of research on the internet on the topic should lead any reasonably sane person to choose to vaccinate. The people being mocked are the people who come to the conclusion that not vaccinating is the way to go despite the overwhelming data telling them that's wrong.

I also agree with your bolded point and can't stress it enough; it's just too much communal shaming and snark for my liking. IMO, people have an autonomy that needs to be respected up to a point. That's a personal preference along the continuum of communitarianism/individualism, which we still get to have.

 

[SeaDogStat]

The deeper question...why is Cutler procreating??? GD it!

 

[B-Deep]

Like I said earlier, I'm not anti-vaccine. All three of my kids are vaccinated. But I think there are questionable things that need to be debated before vaccinations should be mandated by law. Unfortunately the Alex Jones crowd is dominating the "no" side of the debate with ridiculous accusations. Making any real discussion of the issue impossible.

Are these "questionable things" backed up with any science? Or are they "questionable" just because?

Do you consider natural selection to be backed up with science?

Going to need you to flesh this out for me.

As I've said, it's impossible to have any real discussion on these kind of questions. Just the hint of engaging in it by some people in thread has already produced numerous negative responses. Even though I chose to vaccinate my kids, I find the questions to be interesting and don't even have a side that I exist on. But I do not find it interesting enough to take the barrage of negativity for engaging in such questions. The people who have taken a black and white stance on the issue are in mock and destroy mode.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

One thing that was weird back at the turn of the century were that the same assurances that smallpox vaccines were "safe" were given to people by state and city governments. That said, many people wound up really sick or dying from the vaccines. I don't think anyone should mock those that are legitimately concerned about introducing foreign diseases into their systems to build up antibodies.

I'm pro-vaccine, like Spock, but I also share his sentiments about ridicule and snark. It shouldn't be a lightly-decided decision to vaccinate one's self or their children. It's an introduction of a disease into your system. Reason should give one pause.

Again, I'm very pro-vaccine. I can just see the other side, and that's where Willrich, in the book I cited before, tread some really good ground.

I agree, but doing maybe an hour's worth of research on the internet on the topic should lead any reasonably sane person to choose to vaccinate. The people being mocked are the people who come to the conclusion that not vaccinating is the way to go despite the overwhelming data telling them that's wrong.

I also agree with your bolded point and can't stress it enough; it's just too much communal and snark shaming for my liking. IMO, people have an autonomy that needs to be respected up to a point. That's a personal preference along the continuum of communitarianism/individualism, which we still get to have.

some things deserve snark, and this seems like one of them

If my neighbor doesn't vaccinate i am gonna tell him he is an idiot

if he thinks we did not land on the moon, i'll tell him he is an idiot

if he thinks that his unvacinated child's gerbil is communicating the will of ancient aliens to him through dreams about ancient Rome, I am going to tell him he is an idiot

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Seriously, why did you bring up natural selection and what does it have to do with vaccines?

I'm curious about this as well. Politician Spock and DrJ have both mentioned stuff about evolution in this thread. I don't see a connection between evolution and vaccines, but I'm hoping I'll have an a-ha moment when somebody explains it.

I'm thinking either:

1) We're messing with natural selection by vaccinating and we should stop.

2) The anti-vaccine crowd gets dismissed, laughed at and mocked like anyone who questions evolution does.

 

[Politician Spock]

Seriously, why did you bring up natural selection and what does it have to do with vaccines?

I'm curious about this as well. Politician Spock and DrJ have both mentioned stuff about evolution in this thread. I don't see a connection between evolution and vaccines, but I'm hoping I'll have an a-ha moment when somebody explains it.

Like I said, I don't have a side on the issue to argue. But there are a couple aspects of it that intrigue me.

One being the question of whether humans as a species is being made weaker as those nature would have selected to die before reproducing are now living on and reproducing due to science.

The other apsect is kind of on the Jurassic Park/Ian Malcome view where he argues "life finds away". He was making the argument that large dinosaurs cannot be controlled by man's scientific control of their genes, and that "life expands to new territories, painfully, perhaps even dangerously". Granted it's just a movie, and he wasn't talking about micro-organisms specifically, but I still find the question intriguing as it applies to disease.

And to respond to those who will assume I am saying that parents should should not have their kids vacinnated, I'm not. I'm saying while it's easy to look at your kid and make the decision to get them vaccinated (at least it seems to be an easy decision, and I don't understand the conspiracy nuts who don't), when I remove my emotional attachment to my kids in how I think about it, I wonder if we are actually devolving humanity and evolving dieseases with what we are doing. Again, I don't know enough to really now. But it's fascinating to me to think about it.

 

[rockaction]

Like I said earlier, I'm not anti-vaccine. All three of my kids are vaccinated. But I think there are questionable things that need to be debated before vaccinations should be mandated by law. Unfortunately the Alex Jones crowd is dominating the "no" side of the debate with ridiculous accusations. Making any real discussion of the issue impossible.

Are these "questionable things" backed up with any science? Or are they "questionable" just because?

Do you consider natural selection to be backed up with science?

Going to need you to flesh this out for me.

As I've said, it's impossible to have any real discussion on these kind of questions. Just the hint of engaging in it by some people in thread has already produced numerous negative responses. Even though I chose to vaccinate my kids, I find the questions to be interesting and don't even have a side that I exist on. But I do not find it interesting enough to take the barrage of negativity for engaging in such questions. The people who have taken a black and white stance on the issue are in mock and destroy mode.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

One thing that was weird back at the turn of the century were that the same assurances that smallpox vaccines were "safe" were given to people by state and city governments. That said, many people wound up really sick or dying from the vaccines. I don't think anyone should mock those that are legitimately concerned about introducing foreign diseases into their systems to build up antibodies.

I'm pro-vaccine, like Spock, but I also share his sentiments about ridicule and snark. It shouldn't be a lightly-decided decision to vaccinate one's self or their children. It's an introduction of a disease into your system. Reason should give one pause.

Again, I'm very pro-vaccine. I can just see the other side, and that's where Willrich, in the book I cited before, tread some really good ground.

I agree, but doing maybe an hour's worth of research on the internet on the topic should lead any reasonably sane person to choose to vaccinate. The people being mocked are the people who come to the conclusion that not vaccinating is the way to go despite the overwhelming data telling them that's wrong.

I also agree with your bolded point and can't stress it enough; it's just too much communal and snark shaming for my liking. IMO, people have an autonomy that needs to be respected up to a point. That's a personal preference along the continuum of communitarianism/individualism, which we still get to have.

some things deserve snark, and this seems like one of them

If my neighbor doesn't vaccinate i am gonna tell him he is an idiot

if he thinks we did not land on the moon, i'll tell him he is an idiot

if he thinks that his unvacinated child's gerbil is communicating the will of ancient aliens to him through dreams about ancient Rome, I am going to tell him he is an idiot

I wouldn't. Not on something as personal as owning your own body or deciding for your child. It's the balance between communitarianism and autonomy that interests me.

I guess where we draw the line on the respect for autonomy differs. At the point it becomes a public health crisis, though, I probably side with the S. Ct. that forced inoculations are constitutional. But there were serious religious/autonomy challenges to the point, and, IMO, they're to be respected.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Seriously, why did you bring up natural selection and what does it have to do with vaccines?

I'm curious about this as well. Politician Spock and DrJ have both mentioned stuff about evolution in this thread. I don't see a connection between evolution and vaccines, but I'm hoping I'll have an a-ha moment when somebody explains it.

Like I said, I don't have a side on the issue to argue. But there are a couple aspects of it that intrigue me.

One being the question of whether humans as a species is being made weaker as those nature would have selected to die before reproducing are now living on and reproducing due to science.

The other apsect is kind of on the Jurassic Park/Ian Malcome view where he argues "life finds away". He was making the argument that large dinosaurs cannot be controlled by man's scientific control of their genes, and that "life expands to new territories, painfully, perhaps even dangerously". Granted it's just a movie, and he wasn't talking about micro-organisms specifically, but I still find the question intriguing as it applies to disease.

And to respond to those who will assume I am saying that parents should should not have their kids vacinnated, I'm not. I'm saying while it's easy to look at your kid and make the decision to get them vaccinated (at least it seems to be an easy decision, and I don't understand the conspiracy nuts who don't), when I remove my emotional attachment to my kids in how I think about it, I wonder if we are actually devolving humanity and evolving dieseases with what we are doing. Again, I don't know enough to really now. But it's fascinating to me to think about it.

That is an interesting discussion that belongs no where near a thread about morons not vaccinating. Your 'argument' should also be directed at medicine in general; not vaccines.

 

[NCCommish]

Seriously, why did you bring up natural selection and what does it have to do with vaccines?

I'm curious about this as well. Politician Spock and DrJ have both mentioned stuff about evolution in this thread. I don't see a connection between evolution and vaccines, but I'm hoping I'll have an a-ha moment when somebody explains it.

Like I said, I don't have a side on the issue to argue. But there are a couple aspects of it that intrigue me.

One being the question of whether humans as a species is being made weaker as those nature would have selected to die before reproducing are now living on and reproducing due to science.

The other apsect is kind of on the Jurassic Park/Ian Malcome view where he argues "life finds away". He was making the argument that large dinosaurs cannot be controlled by man's scientific control of their genes, and that "life expands to new territories, painfully, perhaps even dangerously". Granted it's just a movie, and he wasn't talking about micro-organisms specifically, but I still find the question intriguing as it applies to disease.

And to respond to those who will assume I am saying that parents should should not have their kids vacinnated, I'm not. I'm saying while it's easy to look at your kid and make the decision to get them vaccinated (at least it seems to be an easy decision, and I don't understand the conspiracy nuts who don't), when I remove my emotional attachment to my kids in how I think about it, I wonder if we are actually devolving humanity and evolving dieseases with what we are doing. Again, I don't know enough to really now. But it's fascinating to me to think about it.

Well taken to it's natural conclusion this argument ends with no medical care ever

 

[NCCommish]

Like I said earlier, I'm not anti-vaccine. All three of my kids are vaccinated. But I think there are questionable things that need to be debated before vaccinations should be mandated by law. Unfortunately the Alex Jones crowd is dominating the "no" side of the debate with ridiculous accusations. Making any real discussion of the issue impossible.

Are these "questionable things" backed up with any science? Or are they "questionable" just because?

Do you consider natural selection to be backed up with science?

Going to need you to flesh this out for me.

As I've said, it's impossible to have any real discussion on these kind of questions. Just the hint of engaging in it by some people in thread has already produced numerous negative responses. Even though I chose to vaccinate my kids, I find the questions to be interesting and don't even have a side that I exist on. But I do not find it interesting enough to take the barrage of negativity for engaging in such questions. The people who have taken a black and white stance on the issue are in mock and destroy mode.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

One thing that was weird back at the turn of the century were that the same assurances that smallpox vaccines were "safe" were given to people by state and city governments. That said, many people wound up really sick or dying from the vaccines. I don't think anyone should mock those that are legitimately concerned about introducing foreign diseases into their systems to build up antibodies.

I'm pro-vaccine, like Spock, but I also share his sentiments about ridicule and snark. It shouldn't be a lightly-decided decision to vaccinate one's self or their children. It's an introduction of a disease into your system. Reason should give one pause.

Again, I'm very pro-vaccine. I can just see the other side, and that's where Willrich, in the book I cited before, tread some really good ground.

I agree, but doing maybe an hour's worth of research on the internet on the topic should lead any reasonably sane person to choose to vaccinate. The people being mocked are the people who come to the conclusion that not vaccinating is the way to go despite the overwhelming data telling them that's wrong.

I also agree with your bolded point and can't stress it enough; it's just too much communal and snark shaming for my liking. IMO, people have an autonomy that needs to be respected up to a point. That's a personal preference along the continuum of communitarianism/individualism, which we still get to have.

some things deserve snark, and this seems like one of them

If my neighbor doesn't vaccinate i am gonna tell him he is an idiot

if he thinks we did not land on the moon, i'll tell him he is an idiot

if he thinks that his unvacinated child's gerbil is communicating the will of ancient aliens to him through dreams about ancient Rome, I am going to tell him he is an idiot

I wouldn't. Not on something as personal as owning your own body or deciding for your child. It's the balance between communitarianism and autonomy that interests me.

I guess where we draw the line on the respect for autonomy differs. At the point it becomes a public health crisis, though, I probably side with the S. Ct. that forced inoculations are constitutional. But there were serious religious/autonomy challenges to the point, and, IMO, they're to be respected.

No they aren't. You religious rights end when they affect my child. Period. Full stop.

 

[B-Deep]

Seriously, why did you bring up natural selection and what does it have to do with vaccines?

I'm curious about this as well. Politician Spock and DrJ have both mentioned stuff about evolution in this thread. I don't see a connection between evolution and vaccines, but I'm hoping I'll have an a-ha moment when somebody explains it.

Like I said, I don't have a side on the issue to argue. But there are a couple aspects of it that intrigue me.

One being the question of whether humans as a species is being made weaker as those nature would have selected to die before reproducing are now living on and reproducing due to science.

The other apsect is kind of on the Jurassic Park/Ian Malcome view where he argues "life finds away". He was making the argument that large dinosaurs cannot be controlled by man's scientific control of their genes, and that "life expands to new territories, painfully, perhaps even dangerously". Granted it's just a movie, and he wasn't talking about micro-organisms specifically, but I still find the question intriguing as it applies to disease.

And to respond to those who will assume I am saying that parents should should not have their kids vacinnated, I'm not. I'm saying while it's easy to look at your kid and make the decision to get them vaccinated (at least it seems to be an easy decision, and I don't understand the conspiracy nuts who don't), when I remove my emotional attachment to my kids in how I think about it, I wonder if we are actually devolving humanity and evolving dieseases with what we are doing. Again, I don't know enough to really now. But it's fascinating to me to think about it.

soooo

yeah, where to go with this

lets just try this

i have an emotional attachment to people which leads me to believe we should be protecting them even if it lowers our genetic stock somewhat, i am funny that way

when you start talking about natural selection with humans you start treading into territories you just should not go.

does allowing disabled people to procreate make us weaker?

how about little people?

how about dumb people?

who should decide who lives and dies to make us strong?

see how it goes downhill real fast, all to allow a few people to believe a disproven theory that vaccines cause autism

 

[B-Deep]

Like I said earlier, I'm not anti-vaccine. All three of my kids are vaccinated. But I think there are questionable things that need to be debated before vaccinations should be mandated by law. Unfortunately the Alex Jones crowd is dominating the "no" side of the debate with ridiculous accusations. Making any real discussion of the issue impossible.

Are these "questionable things" backed up with any science? Or are they "questionable" just because?

Do you consider natural selection to be backed up with science?

Going to need you to flesh this out for me.

As I've said, it's impossible to have any real discussion on these kind of questions. Just the hint of engaging in it by some people in thread has already produced numerous negative responses. Even though I chose to vaccinate my kids, I find the questions to be interesting and don't even have a side that I exist on. But I do not find it interesting enough to take the barrage of negativity for engaging in such questions. The people who have taken a black and white stance on the issue are in mock and destroy mode.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

One thing that was weird back at the turn of the century were that the same assurances that smallpox vaccines were "safe" were given to people by state and city governments. That said, many people wound up really sick or dying from the vaccines. I don't think anyone should mock those that are legitimately concerned about introducing foreign diseases into their systems to build up antibodies.

I'm pro-vaccine, like Spock, but I also share his sentiments about ridicule and snark. It shouldn't be a lightly-decided decision to vaccinate one's self or their children. It's an introduction of a disease into your system. Reason should give one pause.

Again, I'm very pro-vaccine. I can just see the other side, and that's where Willrich, in the book I cited before, tread some really good ground.

I agree, but doing maybe an hour's worth of research on the internet on the topic should lead any reasonably sane person to choose to vaccinate. The people being mocked are the people who come to the conclusion that not vaccinating is the way to go despite the overwhelming data telling them that's wrong.

I also agree with your bolded point and can't stress it enough; it's just too much communal and snark shaming for my liking. IMO, people have an autonomy that needs to be respected up to a point. That's a personal preference along the continuum of communitarianism/individualism, which we still get to have.

some things deserve snark, and this seems like one of them

If my neighbor doesn't vaccinate i am gonna tell him he is an idiot

if he thinks we did not land on the moon, i'll tell him he is an idiot

if he thinks that his unvacinated child's gerbil is communicating the will of ancient aliens to him through dreams about ancient Rome, I am going to tell him he is an idiot

I wouldn't. Not on something as personal as owning your own body or deciding for your child. It's the balance between communitarianism and autonomy that interests me.

I guess where we draw the line on the respect for autonomy differs. At the point it becomes a public health crisis, though, I probably side with the S. Ct. that forced inoculations are constitutional. But there were serious religious/autonomy challenges to the point, and, IMO, they're to be respected.

if my neighbor tells me he has his kid drink tons of pepsi because pepsi cures cancer, i'll call him an idiot

that's about as legit as saying vaccines cause autism at this point.

 

[datonn]

One being the question of whether humans as a species is being made weaker as those nature would have selected to die before reproducing are now living on and reproducing due to science.

I think the answer to this question is almost certainly yes. However, you be the person to tell a couple not to breed (so inferior genetics can slowly die out), or to let their kid suffer/die. Heck, to tell people to submit to detailed DNA testing/analysis, so we can reduce or even eliminate certain diseases from the simple fact of being able to attach a giant neon sign to someone's forehead which says "300% more likely to have their children develop breast cancer," or "50% more likely to have their children develop Alzheimer's." My guess is, while that would actually be best of our species?! You might not find 0.5-1.0% of Yea votes for it at the polls. And if you found out that you yourself shouldn't breed...and that you'll likely be a major personal burden to society as you age, due to some genetic disposition to ___________, you probably would look for ways around your own rules/recommendations. Or look to avoid being a "volunteer" to be taken out behind the barn and put-down...for the good of the species.

 

[rockaction]

"No they aren't. You religious rights end when they affect my child. Period. Full stop." - B Deep

It almost didn't break that way. Period. Full stop. Honestly, read something about the issue before such self-assured declarations. I've been trying to make that point this whole thread. Back up. Take a breath. Recognize the issues at play.

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/05/135121451/how-the-pox-epidemic-changed-vaccination-rules

 

[NCCommish]

"No they aren't. You religious rights end when they affect my child. Period. Full stop." - B Deep

It almost didn't break that way. Period. Full stop. Honestly, read something about the issue before such self-assured declarations. I've been trying to make that point this whole thread. Back up. Take a breath. Recognize the issues at play.

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/05/135121451/how-the-pox-epidemic-changed-vaccination-rules

That was me. And I don't care how it almost didn't go .

 

[Politician Spock]

Seriously, why did you bring up natural selection and what does it have to do with vaccines?

I'm curious about this as well. Politician Spock and DrJ have both mentioned stuff about evolution in this thread. I don't see a connection between evolution and vaccines, but I'm hoping I'll have an a-ha moment when somebody explains it.

Like I said, I don't have a side on the issue to argue. But there are a couple aspects of it that intrigue me.

One being the question of whether humans as a species is being made weaker as those nature would have selected to die before reproducing are now living on and reproducing due to science.

The other apsect is kind of on the Jurassic Park/Ian Malcome view where he argues "life finds away". He was making the argument that large dinosaurs cannot be controlled by man's scientific control of their genes, and that "life expands to new territories, painfully, perhaps even dangerously". Granted it's just a movie, and he wasn't talking about micro-organisms specifically, but I still find the question intriguing as it applies to disease.

And to respond to those who will assume I am saying that parents should should not have their kids vacinnated, I'm not. I'm saying while it's easy to look at your kid and make the decision to get them vaccinated (at least it seems to be an easy decision, and I don't understand the conspiracy nuts who don't), when I remove my emotional attachment to my kids in how I think about it, I wonder if we are actually devolving humanity and evolving dieseases with what we are doing. Again, I don't know enough to really now. But it's fascinating to me to think about it.

soooo

yeah, where to go with this

lets just try this

i have an emotional attachment to people which leads me to believe we should be protecting them even if it lowers our genetic stock somewhat, i am funny that way

when you start talking about natural selection with humans you start treading into territories you just should not go.

does allowing disabled people to procreate make us weaker?

how about little people?

how about dumb people?

who should decide who lives and dies to make us strong?

see how it goes downhill real fast, all to allow a few people to believe a disproven theory that vaccines cause autism

I can't fot the life of me ever see me supporting the idea that government should be in the business of determining survival of the fittest, despite the question that vaccines might be eliminating nature from that capacity.

 

[rockaction]

"No they aren't. You religious rights end when they affect my child. Period. Full stop." - B Deep

It almost didn't break that way. Period. Full stop. Honestly, read something about the issue before such self-assured declarations. I've been trying to make that point this whole thread. Back up. Take a breath. Recognize the issues at play.

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/05/135121451/how-the-pox-epidemic-changed-vaccination-rules

That was me. And I don't care how it almost didn't go .

Quelle surprise.

 

[Politician Spock]

One being the question of whether humans as a species is being made weaker as those nature would have selected to die before reproducing are now living on and reproducing due to science.

I think the answer to this question is almost certainly yes. However, you be the person to tell a couple not to breed (so inferior genetics can slowly die out), or to let their kid suffer/die. Heck, to tell people to submit to detailed DNA testing/analysis, so we can reduce or even eliminate certain diseases from the simple fact of being able to attach a giant neon sign to someone's forehead which says "300% more likely to have their children develop breast cancer," or "50% more likely to have their children develop Alzheimer's." My guess is, while that would actually be best of our species?! You might not find 0.5-1.0% of Yea votes for it at the polls. And if you found out that you yourself shouldn't breed...and that you'll likely be a major personal burden to society as you age, due to some genetic disposition to ___________, you probably would look for ways around your own rules/recommendations. Or look to avoid being a "volunteer" to be taken out behind the barn and put-down...for the good of the species.

Like I said, the only way I can see the questionable nature of the decision is when I remove the emotional aspect of the issue.