From the (boneheaded) editor: My apologies. I pooched this one in a way that is exceptional, even for me. I humbly beg your forgiveness. The line for torches is on the left, and pitchforks is on the right. Please, move on to the next story and don't waste any further time on this one.
Regards,
cmn32480
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by FunkyLich on Tuesday March 15 2016, @11:06AM
Is it that time of year again, for the social whores bitching about vaccines?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @11:46AM
It actually started earlier this year, when Zika became a thing, and people started blaming Monsanto [slate.com] for the microcephaly. The link between Zika and microcephaly was confirmed in February [usatoday.com].
Meanwhile, anti-vaxxers continue to murder their children [examiner.com] through inaction. In this case, parents tried to cure meningitis with maple syrup. These people are the modern Christian Scientists.
(Score: 2, Troll) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday March 15 2016, @01:37PM
The link between Zika and microcephaly was confirmed in February.
Wait a minute - WHAT? Two babies? They looked at two babies and that's proof? In fact, it's still just correlation, even these two cases don't establish causation.
Meanwhile, anti-vaxxers continue to murder their children through inaction.
Really? It's not the pharmaceutical industry killing people [naturalsociety.com] purely for profit, huh? While they are given blanket immunity for wrong-doing. But, sure, it's parents concerned about their children's health that are the problem. [csmonitor.com]
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @01:42PM
Yep. Big pharma teamed up with Monsanto to infect children in South America.
If it was all about profit, why the fuck would they go to the poorest areas on Earth to infect people with Zika? Why wouldn't they target the rich countries which have patent protection and a population who can afford to pay for them?
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday March 16 2016, @12:12AM
What are you responding to? Zika is nothing - they just like generating fear so they can sell vaccines. And it *IS* the rich countries (like the US) where they have immunity and plan to sell vaccines. Yea, they'll sell them in Brazil, too, but people in Brazil can afford them too.
They aren't KILLING people with Zika or vaccines - just all the other poisons they're pushing through the billion-dollar marketing campaigns in the mainstream media. Who supports them because of all that money.
I am a crackpot
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @11:11AM
Vaccine: Experimental mind-control drug(s).
Quarantine: Validate socialist programming (don't question authority, etc.)
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Tuesday March 15 2016, @07:35PM
Quarantine was used as far back as biblical days.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @11:27AM
Get vaccinated or you put other people's very young children (less than a year, before they can have MMR) at risk of injury or death.
There is no economic, game theoretic, constitutional or other rational reason not to vaccinate - for the above reason alone.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Capt. Obvious on Tuesday March 15 2016, @03:20PM
There is a game-theoretic reason to not vaccinate. Vaccinations cause a negative reaction in a very small percentage of the population. Herd immunity is almost as good as vaccination if everyone else is vaccinated. Therefore, you benefit slightly from not vaccinating. These kind of "I can benefit if I'm the only one to do it" lends itself to game-theoretic solutions.
That said, it's extremely immoral. And even if TFA is correct and the newly vaccinated are the proximate cause, the unvaccinated are the ultimate cause.
IIRC, people on immunosuppresants, or otherwise with compromised immune systems already have their exposure to vaccines and vaccines in their family.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday March 15 2016, @08:42PM
That said, it's extremely immoral. And even if TFA is correct and the newly vaccinated are the proximate cause, the unvaccinated are the ultimate cause.
Exactly, and how did TFS fail to point out that while still having room to make the totally unsupported statement:
the popular press is mostly owned by companies with large stakes in pharmaceuticals
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @08:39PM
The reason they don't vaccinate until 1 year of age is that the baby is already immune due to maternal antibodies. These antibodies protect the child from the vaccine as if its a virus so it is pointless to give it. They used to but the vaccine effect faded so quickly it was figured to be worthless.
Now, there is an issue with vaccinated mothers having weaker (as in wear off faster) maternal antibodies than those infected naturally. For that reason people have been trying to get the CDC/whoever to move up the recommended age (the 1yr is from a long time ago). Unfortunately, government bureaucracies don't like change. We will just have to wait until enough infant outbreaks are caused by their delay so that the loudmouths who point fingers in random directions happen to get it right.
Anyway, that has to be the worst, most ignorant vaccine argument I've seen yet. I'm going to back away slowly from this thread now...
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @11:44AM
Seriously, just get vaccinated. This story is bullshit.
A "live"vaccine is not a full-on infection of a disease, it's one that's been weakened so that you *don't* get ill, but still produce the antibodies.
If there was an outbreak of measles at Disneyland, ITS BECAUSE SOMEONE AT DISNEYLAND HAD MEASLES.
Next up: Homeopathy - it really works!
(Score: 5, Funny) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 15 2016, @12:27PM
Homeopathy does work - it convinces rich idiots to spend tons of money on water, which is the point of the exercise.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by ThePhilips on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:24PM
Laugh all you want, but placebos [wikipedia.org] were shown to have real and lasting effect.
P.S. That finally explains many of the biblical miracles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:34PM
The most disturbing thing about this article is not that it made the front page, but its that the "editor" henceforth in this post known as "Timmy light" actually seems to be defending it by talking up all of the wonderful sources at the bottom of the source "article."
I vote from now on if timmy-light is going to approve a story he has to READ THE ENTIRE THING FIRST. Because even though timmy-light tells us to read the fine "article" in the summary, only a fool could have read that "article" and not smell the BS coming from it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @08:48PM
i vote that fat lazy pieces of shit like yourself pitch in and help once in a while instead of whining like a pussy
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday March 15 2016, @07:28PM
Sorry, but many vaccines DO cause one to be slightly infectious. It's generally an extremely mild form of the disease, and unlikely to spread, but contagion is possible.
If you get some vaccines you are cautioned to stay away from young children and pregnant women for a week or so. (I think how long depends on the vaccine.) This is *probably* unnecessary, as the disease is so mild that it's probably difficult to catch it from you, but it is possible, so they warn you.
I can envision that someone who was vaccinated ignored the warnings and passed the disease onto someone else who hadn't been vaccinated BEFORE the visit to Disneyland, and then that someone visited Disneyland while fully contagious. That could happen, and some people do ignore warnings.
It would still be the disease being spread by and among those who were unvaccinated, of course.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Informative) by moondrake on Tuesday March 15 2016, @11:56AM
Most of the scientific studies at the bottom do not support the statements in this article though.
Several talk about immunodeficient people being at risk. If I would be immunodeficient, I would want me to be quarantined, not vaccinated people...
Others talk about the occurrence of infections under vaccinated people. Although rare, this indeed happens. No vaccine gives 100% protection.
Very few papers mention very few cases of transmission of live vaccine to unvaccinated people. In several papers this resulted in no symptomps (as the vaccine was obviously meant not to make people sick...).
In one case I see mention of a rota-virus that became virulent again. This would be a problem, but it seems an isolated case, and transmission was to an unvaccinated individual.
I think the measles paper is most interesting, as its an example of vaccine failure many years after being infected. Although its unknown how the student became infected (she worked in a theater frequented by tourist), there is no evidence that the vaccine is at fault. Its more likely and discussed in the paper in fact that her immune system responded weakly. Perhaps the quality of the original vaccine was not so good, but we can only speculate. The secondary cases that were immunized all showed a strong immune response (note: if you are vaccinated, you still get infected, that is normal you are just not expected to die from it.), and there were no tertiary cases.
Some papers (e.g. ref 5,7,12 perhaps others) seem also completely irrelevant.
OP: perhaps be a bit more critical. I am sorry but it is simply not true that the recently vaccinated are the main cause of outbreaks. It may happen that vaccines fail, in very rare cases, but again the unvaccinated or immuno-compromised are most at risk. Swallowing lots of vitamins is not going to save you (and are sold anyway to you by the same companies you dislike).
(Score: 5, Funny) by snick on Tuesday March 15 2016, @01:03PM
Wait.
Instead of regurgitation tribal talking points you actually read and evaluated the information presented?
Who are you and what are you doing on the internet?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @01:05PM
Most funnily, transmission of the weakened live vaccines to people no vaccinated actually means they will get the immunity (not as reliably, but with a certain chance). So that case is more "works better than expected".
There were cases of oral live vaccination with polio, where contact with the feces of the people vaccinated could infect you with the real thing.
But that was mostly translated into "oral vaccination is a really bad idea", also because you need so much that it increases the risk of some becoming live again.
(Score: 1) by Dr. Manhattan on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:24PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pTamok on Tuesday March 15 2016, @12:00PM
that SoylentNews is promoting such a deeply misleading scare story about vaccinations. It should never have got through the editorial filter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @12:02PM
Vaccines may not cause autism, but they do cause people who make comments on the Internet to accuse others they disagree with of having autism.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday March 15 2016, @12:12PM
I'm pleasantly surprised that "the other side" of the story is getting told at all, anywhere. There is a full court media blitz surrounding vaccines, almost as extreme as "aliens are out there" - do I believe that the US government has a flying saucer in a secret military base? I'll go with 99.9% no, I don't think that's true - but I'll also go out on a limb here and say that somewhere in the local super-cluster, there are other life forms with at least as much space travel capability as we have, and probably quite a bit more.
The "Vaccinate NOW" rhetoric is so fever-pitched that it has that "something to hide, conspiracy" feel to it. I think it would be a lot more credible if it weren't so often pushed as "don't argue, just do it, the science is settled," while simultaneously painting the other side as Jenny McCarthy acolytes.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by SecurityGuy on Tuesday March 15 2016, @01:27PM
These things swing back and forth. For a while, there was an "OMG! Vaccines are bad!" that yes, was driven by idiots like McCarthy who have no scientific credibility but did have a platform. Sure, it'd be nice if we ever had a populace that's scientifically literate enough to hold on to a kernel of skepticism while also accepting that the science is really, really solid that vaccines are a net good. Since we don't, if we have to have an overreaction, I'd rather have an overreaction that promotes doing the sensible thing over the stupid thing.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Osamabobama on Tuesday March 15 2016, @07:41PM
Public opinion has a lightly damped, second-order response to vaccine news.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @01:32PM
If you had one iota of evidence that vaccines were dangerous you would have a leg to stand on. This article contains no such evidence and the sources listed do not agree with the articles positions. Until the point that some reliable evidence is put forward that there is a serious danger from vaccines you really are nothing more then a Jenny McCarthy acolyte.
(Score: 2) by Lunix Nutcase on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:00PM
The link is not an article. It's a newswire press release.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:03PM
I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt calling it an article.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:44PM
The vaccination injury compensation fund is not only evidence but acknowledgement of significant harm coming from vaccines. Are injuries rare? Yes. Are they significant to the people and families they happen to? Extremely. As a collective species, are we better off with vaccinations or without? The science is clear: as a collective species, vaccinations are beneficial.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Tuesday March 15 2016, @03:22PM
Exactly this.
Given the choice, I will have (and have) my kid vaccinated. Most of the time it's safe and the benefits to everyone else out weighs the potential issues. That said, I can see how some people wouldn't want to risk it. We can't say there aren't ANY risks involved because we know there are some people (egg allergies and compromised immune systems come to mind) who can't get vaccinated. The idea is people who can, should, for the benefit of those people who can't.
I'm of the opinion though that that's a personal choice, you can't force someone to risk someone else's life, especially their own children. And that's why these debates always go south so quickly.
One side has science and probabilities on their side and they're not being asked to take that risk, or may not even be aware there's a risk at all, they just do it and nothing happened to them, so why shouldn't everyone else. The way others see it though is they're being asked/ordered by others to take that risk. It's very unsettling to know there's even a small chance you could be seriously putting your kid in any danger at all, even if the chances are really good it'll be beneficial overall. Which was my reasoning for having my kid vaccinated. Without the vaccines there's still a chance she could get sick, so in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation I chose public and personal safety with small risk over just personal safety, also with small risk.
But people need to stop butting in on parents, butting into other people in general, responsibilities. If you think it's ok to force people that disagree with you to do things they don't want to do, just remember you could be on the other side of that situation some day and you're creating the framework that will let people get away with it.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:47PM
You have an odd definition of "significant."
How many petitions have been awarded compensation?
According to the CDC, from 2006 to 2014 over 2.5 billion doses of covered vaccines were distributed in
the U.S. For petitions filed in this time period, 3,389 petitions were adjudicated by the Court, and of
those 2,146 were compensated. This means for every 1 million doses of vaccine that were distributed, 1
individual was compensated.
reference [hrsa.gov]
(Score: 1) by Osamabobama on Tuesday March 15 2016, @07:48PM
...but the compensation, when awarded, averaged (medianed?) around $600k. There is a $0.75 fee for each vaccine to pay for the fund, which pays out about $0.54 on average, so it's solvent, at least.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday March 15 2016, @08:56PM
$600K compensation on average... that's significant to the people who receive it, and not everyone who is eligible is interested in fighting the fight to receive compensation.
Also, 1/million vaccines, is more like 1/100,000 people.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @06:20PM
No, it isn't. It is an acknowledgement that we live in a litigious society where injury lawyers are regularly chasing after ambulances in hot pursuit of a big payola.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @01:51PM
Wow, what a moron.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Lunix Nutcase on Tuesday March 15 2016, @01:57PM
The proof of the dumbing-down of society is in the parent's post.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:09PM
I'm not sure there is much dumbing-down. Most people in society were always quite dumb.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @07:18PM
It's just that the intellectual 1%-ers grabbing an ever larger proportion of the world's knowledge.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:35PM
"I'm pleasantly surprised that "the other side" of the story is getting told at all, anywhere."
The thing is, there is no "other side", at least, not any more than there is another side to the theory of the earth being a globe. Sure, there are flat-earthers, but they deserve all of the ridicule they get. So do the anti-vaxxers.
Aside from anti-vaxxer sites making stuff up, there is no evidence of vaccinated people being contagious. And if someone does get ill, that's a sure indication that they, themselves, were not vaccinated. Unless they are a young infant, or immune compromised, then it's their own damned fault.
"The "Vaccinate NOW" rhetoric is so fever-pitched..." If true, it's out of irritation. Where I live, lots of medical personnel refuse to get vaccinated. Totally inexcusable - as far as I am concerned, that should be a firing offense. Because they then get sick, and during the first few days they may well come to work while contagious, risking the lives of their (already ill) patients.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:49PM
Here's some evidence of another side to the story:
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/ [hrsa.gov]
I agree with the "very rare" statement in their website, but one in a million is very rare, and is still affecting hundreds of people in the U.S.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:20PM
1 in a million is no more then a statistical anomaly.
These people take higher risks driving the Prius to the grocery store.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday March 15 2016, @05:09PM
Yes, just like there is "another side" to seatbelts. Once in a great while, someone is trapped in a burning car, because they cannot release their seatbelt. Or wearing a helmet during dangerous sports - once in a weird while, I'm sure you can blame the helmet itself for an injury.
This is not a sensible argument against seatbelts, or helmets, or vaccinations.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by HiThere on Tuesday March 15 2016, @07:34PM
It's not a sensible argument against vaccinations, but it is, if honestly presented, a valid "other side". Few things are either all positive or all negative.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 16 2016, @01:04AM
Finally a sane, non-extreme comment.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 16 2016, @12:44PM
Let me lead with "and I still think vaccines are a generally good thing", but take a shot at your seatbelts and helmet analogies: seatbelts and helmets first do no harm, and then increase your odds of a good outcome in the event of a (rare) accident. Administering a vaccine is more like running a crash-test on your child, and usually coming out with a good result that makes them safer in the future.
I do have a problem with physicians who ignore the Hippocratic oath, and lots of them do when "science" predicts better outcomes down the road.
"Science" is generally good, but when differential reimbursement is thrown into the decision tree - I do personally know more than one licensed physician who errs on the side of getting paid.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:51PM
http://graphics.wsj.com/infectious-diseases-and-vaccines/ [wsj.com]
This shows better than anything why to get vaccinated. We went from nearly eradicating some diseases to them becoming a thing again.
This seems to be a generational thing. "the greatest generation" knows. Ask them about how many brothers, sisters, and friends they lost to particular diseases. Ask them about quarantine houses. Diseases where it is not common knowledge what the symptoms are anymore (we have to look it up). When I was younger my grandmother would take us to the gravesites of her dead brothers and sisters. It was a special part of a cemetery. It was quite full of very old grave markers of children that died before they were 5.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @05:47PM
Interesting link. While I agree that vaccinations are probably a huge contributing factor to the decline in many of these diseases this does not necessarily mean it is the only reason alone why these diseases have been in decline. It could also be that an increased awareness of these diseases and how they spread has also improved our ability to detect and stop their spread through earlier detection and prevention. Things like disinfectants, advancements in the manufacturing of and improvements in the use of disinfectants to prevent the spread of a disease when it's present based on what we learn about it, improvements in our ability to prevent air born diseases in hospitals by improving ventilation systems and creating better quarantine systems, improvements in sanitation systems, etc... have all probably contributed as well.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday March 15 2016, @06:31PM
And if someone does get ill, that's a sure indication that they, themselves, were not vaccinated. Unless they are a young infant, or immune compromised, then it's their own damned fault.
I disagree. Anyone under the age of 18 is not a legal adult and their parents make medical decisions for them, so they can't be blamed either, when their parents refuse to get them vaccinated.
Where I live, lots of medical personnel refuse to get vaccinated.
What horrible place is this?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:42PM
I think it's because there is almost zero reason not to be vaccinated. Reasons not to get vaccinated are mostly made up bullshit. If you have a compromised immune system then you can still get vaccinated. You'll just want the dead version instead of the live (and more effective) version. If you are allergic to one of the key ingredients then you may not be able to be vaccinated, but that is nothing against vaccines and is against the delivery method. If there was a credible reason not to be vaccinated then the majority wouldn't be so "don't argue, just do it".
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:04PM
If there was a credible reason not to be vaccinated then the majority wouldn't be so "don't argue, just do it".
I was a new parent during the "mercury wars" (in the 2001-2005 timeframe) at the beginning there was a strong "don't argue, just do it" sentiment about mercury in vaccines, fillings, light bulbs, etc. The majority opinion in early 2001 was that only kooks are worried about mercury, and it was even stronger in the mid 1990s. Fast forward 10 years and all the same actors who were saying "don't worry about mercury" have reversed position and you'd now be a kook if you accepted mercury in almost anything that has an alternative.
We've gone through similar "revelations" about industrial lead, arsenic, asbestos, and DDT if your memory goes back that far - it starts with a general "technology X is beneficial, benefits far outweigh the risks or negative consequences, only very rare edge cases ever show any negative impact..." and slowly swings around to ads on billboards for lawyers who will get your family compensation for injury related to exposure...
I'm not saying that all vaccines are about to be revealed as some sort of health catastrophe. Their benefits clearly far outweigh the negative consequences to society as a whole, but the parallels in public opinion for vaccines and other "miracle technologies" that have later been abandoned are striking.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday March 15 2016, @05:29PM
That's a very fair assessment. But i think you can't excluded where the message is coming from. Monsanto telling you something is good to eat is different than the FDA and that is different than the (actually independent) scientific studies. Neonicotinoids, i'm looking at you!
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @07:29PM
Holy Jebbush, you appear to not have realised that the FDA is in the pockets of big agro and big pharma. I wouldn't trust the FDA further than I could check the source of the funding behind the studies they promote.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday March 15 2016, @10:16PM
Scientific studies are also in the pockets of big agro. So please notice my ordering from least reliable to greatest.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @03:22PM
o I believe that the US government has a flying saucer in a secret military base? I'll go with 99.9% no, I don't think that's true
You're just ignorant, some top secret flying saucers were built in Canada, as the declassified reports show. [popularmechanics.com] "Aliens" are just cover story for top secret flying machines. UFOs are unidentified flying objects, and of course they exist.
Furthermore, the USAF has a form of holographic projection [archive.org] which is what most of those glowing lights which change direction too fast to be an air craft are. Note its uses are listed as cloaking, and for PSYOPS -- like convincing people aliens are real. China has been demonstrating theirs as well [youtube.com] (and no, these are not "phantom morgana", as those only occur near the horizon). They're military grade versions of water(vapor) projection systems. [youtube.com] To cause the darkened buildings you lighten surrounding screen / vapor / cloud then block the light to create the buildings.
Now, if you're that fucking ignorant about flying saucers and holographic PSYOPS, why the fuck would I listen to your opinion on anything, let alone vaccines? Someone like you should start down the rabbit hole by reading UN Agenda 21 and UN Agenda 2030. Maybe get a different perspective on why the Hammond Ranch and similar incidents occur. [vimeo.com] Then do some research on the aforementioned depopulation agendas. Only then will you begin to have valuable opinions on population-wide programs. Get back to me after you've studied the unnatural pattern of outbreak of Ebola, and realize that HIV shares the same cellular infection vector though the viruses are vastly different in size and evolutionary path. We now have a cure for Ebola. In fact, Texas A&M wanted to make a batch to help with the outbreaks in Africa, but the patent holder said no. Well, if we have a cure for Ebola, and HIV has the same infection vector, then where is the cure for -- Ahhh, too far. Go read the depopulation agenda's first.
(Score: 2) by J053 on Wednesday March 16 2016, @01:10AM
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Tuesday March 15 2016, @03:29PM
It is. The one study that said the MMR vaccine has been disavowed by every scientist who was involved in its writting and review with the exception of the main investigator, the one who had patented a new MMR vaccine that the market wasn't adopting because it was worse.
(Score: 1, Troll) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:10PM
I'll go along with "Wakefield was corrupt" and his results were never replicated, etc. But what bothers me is that we didn't simply have a half dozen independent researchers go out, reproduce and extend the experiment and publish conflicting findings that outweighed Wakefield - that would be science, that would be worthy of basing decisions on. What bothers me is that the whole thing became a huge media spectacle, with personal attacks, destruction of careers, giant smear campaigns with "talking heads" shouting each other down on television. Why so much emotion before the science was in? Can you trust the science when it is such a politically hot topic?
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @05:42PM
There have been tens if not hundreds of studies that refute wakefield, not to mention the ease at which his study is picked about primarily for its minuscule sample size.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @06:30PM
And you can add on top of that the millions of lives that have been saved by vaccination. It is astounding to me how the anti-vaxxers will stubbornly refuse to see the evidence all around them. Perhaps they are all too young to remember when MMR were real killers?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 16 2016, @12:58PM
They did that. The thing was, Wakefield and the people paying him had already gone to the press with his brand new study, because the purpose of the brand new study was to be able to sue the heck out of MMR vaccine manufacturers on behalf of the autistic kids' parents, even though that wasn't actually true.
1. As previously mentioned, it was a huge media spectacle before the first contradicting study came out.
2. Wakefield deserved to have his career destroyed. Not because he got something wrong (lots of honest scientists have that happen), but because he was paid to produce a particular result and made stuff up to get that result. Which isn't science, it's propaganda masquerading as science.
3. I agree it should not have been TV talking heads shouting at each other. Instead, it should have been a simple report with a reporter saying "All the science has made it abundantly clear that our previous reports about a link between vaccines and autism was completely wrong. This happens with science: Sometimes they get a result, run more tests, and find out that they were wrong." They don't do that because news organizations like having talking heads shouting at each other even if one of those talking heads is completely demonstrably wrong e.g. evolution vs creationism.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 16 2016, @02:17PM
I agree that (given the evidence I have access to, it appears that) Wakefield should have gone down in flames. The media really shouldn't have allowed Wakefield all the access they did based on his first study, but they can be gullible that way.
Tangent: I lived near the kook who was going to burn a Quran on the anniversary of 9-11, he actually managed to get Obama to react to him in the press, the first time. A year later he pulled a similar stunt, but I only heard about it because I was local - thankfully the media learned on that one.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @06:17PM
The other side is a bunch of Jenny McCarthy acolytes. Seriously, do you know of any credible evidence that vaccines cause autism/whatever? The only one research paper I know of has now been thoroughly discredited and it is now disavowed by all the authors except the one author looking to promote his own brand of vaccine! In contrast, vaccination is known to save lives. Literally millions of lives have been saved by vaccination. So tell us, why should we believe Ms Jenny McCarthy's version of "science" over the proven results of vaccination?
(Score: 2, Informative) by korla_plankton on Tuesday March 15 2016, @03:25PM
Sites like Soylent and, once upon a time, Slashdot are read as much or more for the comments than the summaries. I applaud the editors for letting this perspective through the 'filter' and I applaud some of the commenters for discussing the issues with that perspective. Carry on, Soylentils!
(Score: 5, Informative) by Gravis on Tuesday March 15 2016, @12:07PM
While the popular press likes to promote a witch hunt against the unvaccinated (which makes sense when you realize that the popular press is mostly owned by companies with large stakes in pharmaceuticals)
from the Big Pharma perspective, vaccines make up around 1.82% of their total expected revenues in 2013 [skepticalraptor.com]
(≧∇≦)/ [tumblr.com]
(Score: 2) by Lunix Nutcase on Tuesday March 15 2016, @01:58PM
Silly person and your "facts". Jenny McCarthy says vaccine are bad and so that settles the argument.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:51PM
Hmm, I'm not sure. I mean GP makes a good argument, but lots of people seem to give credence to this Jenny McCarthy person. I don't know who to believe.
Which one has the bigger tits?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by axsdenied on Tuesday March 15 2016, @12:09PM
Wow, this is one very biased summary of one very biased article which seems to jump from warning to immunocompromised to everybody in one sentence.
OP, can I please have a source of this quote:
"...it is equally (or even more) likely that the recently vaccinated are the cause of the outbreaks..."
It sounds like statements that anti-vaxxers like to pull out of their asses.
And another "interesting" quote from the linked article:
"...the best protection against infectious disease is a healthy immune system, supported by adequate vitamin A and vitamin C."
And I thought maple syrup was the ultimate cure?
(Score: 5, Informative) by pTamok on Tuesday March 15 2016, @12:11PM
mercola.com, naturalsociety.com, and vaccineimpact.com are not credible sources. Any article that cites them as anything other than examples of misleading pseudo-science is not credible itself.
Anti-vaccination campaigners can be very sincere in their beliefs. Unfortunately, being sincere doesn't mean that you are right, no matter how vehemently you defend your position.
In any case, the immunocompromised very much want (other) people to be vaccinated, as their very survival can depend on 'herd immunity' - enough people being immune to certain diseases to prevent outbreaks from escalating.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Hartree on Tuesday March 15 2016, @12:30PM
It's not even an actual story, it's a press release from an advocacy group.
Are we next going to start posting press releases from young earth creationism groups?
(Score: 3, Funny) by schad on Tuesday March 15 2016, @12:44PM
I kind of hope so. That would be hilarious.
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Tuesday March 15 2016, @03:46PM
> Are we next going to start posting press releases from young earth creationism groups?
Not quite: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/02/09/0610228 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @12:46PM
There is no such thing as "live" vaccine. You get live ATTENUATED virus, or killed virus. Attenuated means it will not give you (or anyone else) the disease as it is no longer virulent. If you manage to spread this attenuated virus the recipient should thank you for providing them with a vaccine/booster free of charge.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by coolgopher on Tuesday March 15 2016, @01:02PM
I'd like to use a mod point to mark this so called "article" -1 BS. I'd settle for -1 Propaganda.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @01:20PM
Uh, this is what Soylent is going to post? I'm trying to move from slashdot... you are not helping.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by RedBear on Tuesday March 15 2016, @06:57PM
I'm afraid I have to strongly second this disapproval. I had previously given cmn32480 an "editor demerit" (as a joke) for letting a previous bullshit article through. But this is far worse. I know the editors are volunteers and all, but perhaps we should think about giving cmn32480 a brief rest break from editor duties. This post is incredibly embarrassing.
This kind of thing along with the dangerously inflammatory title of the post, without even a question mark at the end, is pure anti-science FUD that I really do not appreciate waking up to see on a site that I am supporting with a subscription. Next we'll be "discussing" whether the Earth is really a "ball" hanging in empty "space" surrounded by thousands of man-made "satellites" that orbit the "ball" under the influence of "gravity". And all of the other things the New World Order are lying about, right? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
It's facepalms all the way down today.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Wednesday March 16 2016, @03:20AM
Wow, retracted, really? Was not expecting that, and not entirely sure I'm on board with it. Still, it takes a lot to publicly own up to making a mistake. Apology accepted. Now that you're older and wiser you can take off the pointy cap and come out of the corner.
Maybe you can even have a cookie. I'm sure you'll do better next time. Don't take my complaining too seriously, by the way.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 16 2016, @04:51AM
I'm opposed to actual story retractions like this. The comments addressed the issues. Take the lumps, do better next time, but move on.
It'll be fun watching the Mighty Buzz's reaction to this, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @01:48PM
This is absolute rubbish, and probably the last article I read here.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by zeigerpuppy on Tuesday March 15 2016, @01:59PM
Can we vote on retracting this story?
It's pure scaremongering about a very serious issue.
Vaccines aren't perfect but any rational assessment of their utility leaves little doubt of the benefits.
Also the summary and article are full of factual errors (e.g. Shingles is reactivated chickenpox not another disease).
Editors, please retract or give us the chance to vote on binning this bullshit.
(Score: 2) by khchung on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:00PM
I second this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @03:42PM
I move to have this article edited to apologize for letting such shit make it the front page.
(Score: 3, Informative) by kbahey on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:16PM
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning [2bits.com].
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Tuesday March 15 2016, @07:19PM
They deserve smallpox.
(Score: 1) by modal-dialog on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:38PM
The "article" is a redistributed GlobeNewswire press release from these guys:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_A._Price_Foundation [wikipedia.org]
Any asshole with $150 can write a press release that gets picked up by lazy sites like CNBC:
https://globenewswire.com/Home/Pricing [globenewswire.com]
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday March 15 2016, @05:18PM
Despite the ridiculous "story" - a blatent press release, I'm heartened by the comments on SN debunking it.
I am not heartened by CNBC though, I bet they didn't even get paid for this advertisment. Here's the original press release:
http://www.westonaprice.org/press/public-health-officials-know-recently-vaccinated-individuals-spread-disease/ [westonaprice.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @05:31PM
I'm posting this AC for obvious reasons.
Like many things, people who don't vaccinate come in many flavors. Some people have religious issues. Some people believe they don't work. Some people question the business of mass vaccination. I can't speak to the first two because that is not where I am.
I don't question the efficacy of vaccines, seriously that's just bad science most stuff is proven to be 70-99% effective in guarding against stuff in the near term. Long term protection is contested in some cases (Varicella, for example). I do, however question the safety of certain vaccines and the entire business around vaccines. The business of vaccinations is corruptible in the same way that the intersection of Big Business and Government always is. Some facts which not-distputable:
.
There are other things that make you think:
.
When you put all of the above together, it's easy to see how many people feel that Companies are working only for their own best interest. They can create something, get it approved with less oversight than there should be and then lobby to get it added to recommended vaccine schedules, and lobby to get more of their product mandated by law.
Is the above a giant conspiracy theory? Perhaps, except you'd be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees that the Fossil Fuel Industry or Giant Telecoms do the exact same thing. Why is the Pharmaceutical industry any different?
If anyone is interested, take a look at the fact sheet of the manufacturer for DTaP http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM101580.pdf [fda.gov] (there is sheet out there for every shot your kid gets), some are more interesting than others.
Here's a link that shows the ingredient list of all major vaccinations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vaccine_ingredients [wikipedia.org] Depending on how you feel about medical use of aborted human fetuses, do some research on MRC-5.
Some also question the quantity of shots we're giving our kids. In 1980, kids got less than 10 shots over 5 years. Today they get almost 50 shots over the same time period, many times getting two or three at a time. Even my very pro-vax pediatrician concedes that's a lot for a little body to handle and recommends spacing them out over several weeks.
Regarding the 'shedding' thing and how you can be contagious after a vaccination, this is true in at least one case: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM133539.pdf [fda.gov]
I also used to not question it, until I had kids and started really giving a crap about the stuff they're exposed to. This led to research and questions and fence-sitting on this stuff. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, just give you a glimpse into mine, to so that the next time you hear about someone who doesn't vaccinate, your knee-jerk reaction isn't "IDIOT!", but rather, "What would cause someone to feel that the cure is worse than the disease?", so to speak, because it's not an easy decisions and there has been a lot of thought put into it. I completely accept that many people would go on the same journey of research and come to a difference conclusion.
(Score: 3, Informative) by pTamok on Tuesday March 15 2016, @06:36PM
In this instance, your pediatrician is an idiot.
Sorry, let me rephrase that: your pediatrician seems to be providing incorrect advice.
The immune system, even in infants, has the ability to respond to a lot of different challenges, and it is not a case of lining each disease up serially to be knocked off by the child's immune system, one-by-one. People have looked into the so-called benefits of 'staging' vaccines, and they are non-existent. The longer the child remains unvaccinated, the greater the chance of the child succumbing to the disease it is meant to be being vaccinated against. This has been investigated. Staging is baloney. See: ama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=200499 (Timeliness of Childhood Vaccinations in the United States)
We found that 11% of children were undervaccinated for measles for more than 6 of a possible 8 months during the first 24 months of life and another 3% were undervaccinated for 3 to 6 months. Because only a single dose of measles vaccine is recommended in early childhood, these delays represent a period of complete lack of protection against measles. Elimination efforts have greatly reduced the incidence of measles in the United States to only 56 reported cases in 2003.31 However, risk of importation remains high due to global measles circulation, high rates of transmission, and the large volume of travelers to and from the United States.32 With each imported measles case, population immunity is tested and an outbreak or epidemic could result if there are enough susceptible hosts due to delays in vaccination, lack of vaccination, or inadequate immune response to vaccination. The US measles epidemic in 1989 to 1991 was caused by a failure to provide timely vaccination,33 and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “only a sustained effort to provide age-appropriate vaccination will prevent another resurgence of measles.”2
Pertussis is another example of the importance of timely vaccination. During 2003, 11 647 cases of pertussis were reported in the United States31; incidence was highest among infants who were younger than 6 months34 and infants accounted for the highest proportion of pertussis-related hospitalizations and deaths.35 Among infants who contracted pertussis during the 1990s, at least 44% were undervaccinated for their age. Furthermore, among the 25 pertussis-related deaths in infants aged 2 to 11 months, 15 had not received any doses of pertussis vaccine.36 While these children were too young to have received the complete 4-dose series of DTaP, data suggest that the risk of pertussis-related hospitalization is decreased if children have received 1 or 2 doses of vaccine.35 Furthermore, because siblings are a source of transmission to infants too young to be vaccinated,36,37 timely vaccination of these children can indirectly protect young infants by decreasing their exposure. We found that 16% of children were undervaccinated for DTaP for more than 6 of the first 24 months of life and another 14% were undervaccinated for 3 to 6 months.
The capabilities of the immune system were illustrated when Paul Offit made his infamous 10,000 vaccines remark. It is worth reading and understanding what he actually said, rather than relying on third-party reporting:
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2015/10/06/to-all-who-use-paul-offits-10000-vaccine-paper-to-scare-others-put-up-or-shut-up-and-that-means-you-age-of-autism-and-all-your-team/ [leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @06:51PM
"Vaccine Manufacturers were indemnified against any lawsuits in the 1980's"
This isn't exactly true. The Wikipedia article is worth reading (I don't want to rehash the details when you can simply read them on Wikipedia).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court [wikipedia.org]
To think of this from an economics perspective there is a difference between
Manufacturing Cost
Producer surplus
Consumer surplus
So lets say the cost of a drug is $10 million (hypothetical numbers for simplicity of course).
Lets say the drug company receives $20 million in revenue
That's $10 million profits.
Now the key here is consumer surplus. Say consumers pay $20 million but the net social benefit is $100 million. That's $80 million in consumer surplus (gross consumer surplus) that the drug manufacturers do not get money for. Which is a good thing, consumer surplus is why we have economies.
Now lets say the people that are negatively impacted by vaccines are damaged by $20 million. So the net consumer surplus is then $80 gross - $20 million damages = $60 million.
If the pharmaceutical corporations had to pay those damages out directly their cost would be $30 million vs a $20 million revenue. They would operate at a loss by $10 million.
So they threaten to stop producing vaccines. If they stop producing vaccines the total loss in net consumer surplus would then be $60 million. So the government offers to step in and help pay for some of the damages to maintain the overall benefits in consumer surplus.
At least that would be the theory behind why it might make sense for the government to help.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @06:21PM
I did some Googling to find arguments against vaccinations and I will post some of the sites here. While I find most of these sites to be extreme and their arguments to be questionable and I think they should mostly be taken lightly I thought at least some counter arguments are worth mentioning since they are on topic.
Like the first or second link that comes up is the following
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/six-reasons-to-say-no-to-vaccination/ [thehealthyhomeeconomist.com]
#1 reason is kinda funny
"#1: Pharmaceutical Companies Can’t Be Trusted"
Fair enough but I don't think that alone is reason against vaccination altogether. It's a very general statement that doesn't provide any specific data.
To move on I found this link that I found interesting.
http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/judge-lawsuit-against-mercks-mmr-vaccine-fraud-to-continue/ [healthimpactnews.com]
One part says
"a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled in favor of whistleblowers who have accused Merck of lying about the efficacy of its mumps vaccine ... This week, U.S. District Judge C. Darnell Jones II ruled that the whistleblowers had sufficiently pled that Merck might have provided false statements to the government and that the direct purchasers had shown enough evidence to establish that these falsehoods could have helped the company gain a monopoly.
Most people in the U.S. do not even realize that U.S. law prevents anyone damaged by vaccines from suing the manufacturer. In 1986, Congress passed a law preventing legal liability to vaccine damages, because the drug companies manufacturing vaccines blackmailed them, by threatening to stop manufacturing vaccines without legal protection. There were so many lawsuits resulting from vaccine injuries and deaths prior to this time, that it was no longer profitable for them to continue marketing vaccines without legal protection."
OK, so there is a drug manufacturer that may have exaggerated the effects of a specific vaccine at one point to get approval. No surprise there. Drug manufacturers can't be trusted. Still no reason to say that all vaccinations are bad.
I would be interested in what sources they have to show that there were so many lawsuits and vaccination related deaths. But I find it interesting that vaccine manufacturers should be shielded from lawsuits if true (and that's not exactly how I understand it). So I tried reading more and it seems this claim is exaggerated (and some people have have discussed this here) so I found the Wikipedia article more informative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court [wikipedia.org]
Worth reading.
Yes, the system isn't perfect as no system is and some improvements could be made but I don't think it's as bad as these anti-vaccination sites make it out to be either.
(Score: 1) by Mr. Slippery on Tuesday March 15 2016, @08:31PM
This is not a report by CNBC. This is a press release from the wackjob "Weston A. Price Foundation".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Common Joe on Wednesday March 16 2016, @04:44AM
I'm late to the party so I didn't see the article, but I love the apology. I had a good laugh about the locations of the torches and pitchforks. Kudos to you, cmn32480. And thank you to the editors at SN for being willing to fess up and correct mistakes.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday March 16 2016, @08:28AM
I humbly beg your forgiveness.
Gladly given, though I think it might have been better to leave the story intact on the main page (with apology) and to edit, rather than replace, the headline. Transparency and all that!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Wednesday March 16 2016, @10:01AM
Check the original Sub link. The only addition to it was some quotes from the article.
Nothing to see here. Move along, citizen.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson