Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Congressional Committee Casts a Harsh Eye On Vaccination Science

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the are-you-or-have-you-ever-been dept.

Medicine 858

The Bad Astronomer writes "A recent hearing of the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform became a bully pulpit for antivaccination rhetoric when Representatives Dan Burton (R-Ind.) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh.) made speeches connecting vaccines to autism — a connection that medical experts have shown does not exist. Although there were actual medical researchers there as witnesses, they were mostly berated by the Congressmen on the panel. Vaccines are one of the most successful medical advancements in human history, having saved hundreds of millions of lives, and after copious studies have been shown to have no connection with autism. Despite this, a vocal antivax lobby exists, including, clearly, members of Congress. In part this is why preventable and potentially fatal diseases like pertussis and measles are once again on the rise."

cancel ×

858 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Congress Sucks (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181275)

Enough said...

Re:Congress Sucks (0, Flamebait)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181365)

And people want them even MORE involved with our health care. At least we won't have to worry about pregnancies from forcible rapes, or autism from vaccines now. Ugh.

Re:Congress Sucks (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181433)

No, instead we get people denied life-saving treatments because the insurance company bean counters refuses to pay for it and people going in debt hundreds of thousands of dollars since the other choice is death.

Re:Congress Sucks (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181643)

And this is going to cease just because the government got involved?

Re:Congress Sucks (3, Informative)

s73v3r (963317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181723)

It is far less prevalent in nations with Universal Health Care.

Re:Congress Sucks (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181727)

Yes, when the system is not deliberately setup to fail by one party's ideological motivations. People in pretty much all other first-world countries with single-payer system do not have to chose between death and crushing debt from medical bills.

Re:Congress Sucks (1)

Squiddie (1942230) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181743)

The beautiful thing is that you wind up screwed either way.

Just doing their part-- (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181805)

cleaning up the gene pool, one preventable death from infectious disease at a time.

Re:Congress Sucks (5, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181843)

Nope. Contrary to what the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys would have you believe almost no one in other first-world countries would trade their health care system for that of the US. And, yes, this is even with the errors that happen.

Re:Congress Sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181487)

Them? No, I didn't vote for them, nor did the persons I wanted to be in office get elected. That is itself a separate problem though.

Nor are they the ones writing the healthcare regulations, that should be an independent group with a specific charter.

Re:Congress Sucks (1)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181681)

2 or 3 congress people out of 575 are spouting some nonsense

this isn't congress holding a hearing, this is a subcommittee of some committee holding a hearing. chances are whatever is said will be forgotten before they have dinner

Hey! Now we know (5, Funny)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181277)

Pundits have been asking how we can overcome the deadlock in congress, and finally get things done.

Now we know. There is full bipartisanship on stupidity.

Re:Hey! Now we know (1, Interesting)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181329)

This is why I am perfectly happy with gridlock. Anything that allows either party to move forward with their platform just means more spending and more stupidity.

Unfortunately, now they've gone and turned on the nuclear bomb timer and are now arguing about how they want to turn it off. Who knew that the only thing they could agree on was a way to ultimately destroy the government?

Re:Hey! Now we know (1)

alphatel (1450715) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181347)

Pundits have been asking how we can overcome the deadlock in congress, and finally get things done.

Let them keep breeding without vaccines. Things will get done even faster when they die off.

Re:Hey! Now we know (3, Informative)

LunaticTippy (872397) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181411)

The loss of herd immunity affects everyone, even if you are vaccinated. Vaccines need to be nearly universal in order to have the full effect.

Insane (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181287)

Kookcinich has proven over and over that he's 100% insane

Re:Insane (4, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181641)

1. Dennis Kucinich's Politifact record [politifact.com] : He's about 17% wrong, as he is in this case. That's a considerably better record than many.
2. He's lost his seat. You don't have to deal with him past January.
3. For what it's worth, I've met the man, and I've seen no signs that he was 100% insane. And I've met people that were pretty insane.
4. He's been frequently right when most of Congress was wrong. For instance, he firmly believed that Iraq had no WMDs.
5. Ron Paul doesn't think he's nuts, and worked with him regularly on bipartisan initiatives.
6. He's turned his political career into a small fortune and marriage to a really hot redhead [flickr.com] , so his goals are reasonable enough.

Re:Insane (1)

Gr33nJ3ll0 (1367543) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181699)

Between the hot redhead, and the not quite 100% insane he almost sound human! :)

Re:Insane (4, Insightful)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181761)

For what it's worth, I've met the man, and I've seen no signs that he was 100% insane. And I've met people that were pretty insane.

A guy walking down the street wearing a bathrobe chanting odes to aliens that resemble giant bunnies is only dangerous to the extent that motor vehicle collisions might occur due to the distraction of the spectacle. Conversely, people who generally appear stable and sane, but hold deeply ingrained lunatic views and occupy seats of power are the ones you need to worry about.

Re:Insane (2)

sycodon (149926) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181769)

He's turned his political career into a small fortune...

Is it just me, or is this a bit disturbing?

5.4.3.2.1... (1)

aztrailerpunk (1971174) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181293)

Queue the anti vaccine crazies in 5.4.3.2.1...

Re:5.4.3.2.1... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181511)

Hey, cut that out. That's my luggage combination!

Re:5.4.3.2.1... (5, Funny)

Andrewkov (140579) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181523)

Yeah, don't they know autism is caused by wifi??

SAY NOTHING (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181311)

Let their brats die, and there will be fewer idiots about in a genberation.

Re:SAY NOTHING (2)

aztrailerpunk (1971174) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181385)

The problem with this is we need their children to be vaccinated as well. see Herd Immunity [wikipedia.org]

Re:SAY NOTHING (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181469)

If it only affected their brats, I'd agree with you. The problem is that once you break herd immunity, others may die. There are people who for various reasons cannot take vaccines. Providing almost everyone they come into contact with is vaccinated, there is little likelihood of infection. Once herd immunity is broken, such individuals are at grave risk.

Re:SAY NOTHING (5, Interesting)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181679)

Exactly. If only children of anti-vaccination parents got the diseases, I'd say this was the parents' personal call and keep the government out of it. But when a parent says "I'm not vaccinating my kids", they expose other kids (too young to get the vaccine, vaccine didn't "take", or has a valid medical condition keeping them from getting the vaccine) as well as senior citizens who grew up pre-vaccines to the disease. People DIE because of this. All caps just seems too small to emphasize this. If you don't vaccinate your kid, you might be responsible for someone else's baby dying.

And, even if you are heartless and don't care about anyone else's kids, get your kids vaccinated. To quote Penn and Teller: Even if vaccines caused autism - WHICH THEY DON'T - but even if they did, it would be much better for your child to get autism than to DIE from the disease.

(Note: I'm a parent of a child with autism, albeit high functioning autism, and I likely have autism myself.)

Re:SAY NOTHING (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181891)

Quite frankly I don't think it should even be a choice. We limit liberties in other ways for the general good; you can't throw toxic waste into water systems, you can't drive the wrong way down the highway, you can't shout "fire" in a theater and you shouldn't be allowed to move freely through the populace unvaccinated.

Re:SAY NOTHING (1)

Amouth (879122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181693)

And I thank everyone for taking their vaccines. I happen to be one of the people who can't get them anymore due to medication i'm on, and yes it would suck if the general public wasn't mostly vaccinated.

*facepalm* (2)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181319)

What next? Jenny McCarthy and the doctor who carried out the fradulent study that started this madness [time.com] get called as expert witnesses?

Hasn't this been solved? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181335)

Didn't a recent study connect autism with flu during pregnancy? Hasn't the vaccine angle been debunked?

Re:Hasn't this been solved? (5, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181485)

More than debunked, Andrew Wakefield (I refuse to use the epithet Dr. for this vile repugnant and thoroughly evil man) has been outed as a con artist who was attempting to undermine the use of MMR vaccines so he could push his own vaccine combo.

Broken System (4, Interesting)

RichMan (8097) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181339)

The US electoral system runs on corporate money. Corporate money prefers politicians that can be manipulated. In some cases you get the direct results of the manipulation, in other cases you get the results because the politicians are not fact driven.

There is full bipartisanship on stupidity, and it is because the system is broken.

Re:Broken System (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181455)

It's only broken because the electorate is mostly made up of idiots. If most people could approach issues in a rational manner, it wouldn't matter how much money was thrown at them. In the end the truth would win out. But the basic voter is utterly stupid and can easily be manipulated quite simply with basic emotions. You don't even need money if you can pull the right heart-strings.

Re:Broken System (-1, Troll)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181777)

OK, so the big evil corporations who make vaccines are intentionally buying off politicians to berate vaccines so that those big evil corporations lose money... or something...

Yeah, you got the standard "I hate corporations we need 100% government control of everybody's lives right now in the name of 'freedom'" positive mods. Interesting that your post had about as much logical content as the rantings of the aforementioned politicians....

Understanding Burton (5, Informative)

kadams54 (855417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181379)

This is mostly a side note, but I grew up in Dan Burton's district. He has a grandson with autism and has made the anti-vaccination a personal cause. That's not to excuse his ignorance, but rather to help provide understanding. Powerful emotions are at work here, which is why confronting them with rational logic will not work. To be honest, I wish his constituents would vote him out of office; his district includes a number of employees at the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly (headquartered in Indy) and his anti-vaccination stance puts him at odds with their best interests.

Re:Understanding Burton (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181525)

There are millions of parents of autistic children who are smart enough to understand that there is no connection between vaccines and autism. The fact that he has an autistic child doesn't help provide understanding. He's an idiot plain and simple.

Re:Understanding Burton (2, Insightful)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181863)

Wait a minute... I thought we were only supposed to like politicians that stood up to big evil corporations*. Here we have a politician who is standing up to big evil pharmaceutical corporations, shouldn't we be applauding him?

* Note that I never said it had to be *logical* to stand up to them, just that you bash them as "evil." The word "corporation" has replaced "jew" as an acceptable target of pogroms in the modern age.

Dumb fundie article (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181399)

Stupid typical slashdot science fundie article.

For everyone of you who claim that vaccines saves lives, tell that to the parents of children who develop autism for no reason and within days of getting a vaccination shot.

Are you 100% certain that the vaccine shot that you are willing to take, or that you are willing to give your children is really safe enough to put into your body?

Another thing, why is it that vaccinations that are given to children are the same dose that are given to adults? Is that really safe for children?

The last thing, do you really think that the companies that make these really care if you have ANY health problems from whatever vaccine they make for you when in the US they are protected by law from harming you?

Re:Dumb fundie article (3, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181471)

How about you people explain why the only studies showing any links were to due to fraud [time.com] and any legitimate study shows no links?

Re:Dumb fundie article (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181503)

Shut up troll. The MMR-autism link was Wakefield's fabrication.

Re:Dumb fundie article (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181561)

You're probably trolling, but in case you aren't (and for those who agree with you): suck my cock you fatuous imbecile.

Why should anyone put in the effort to convince you? Look up the facts yourself.

Facts are facts are facts, and the fact is that vaccines don't cause autism.

Meanwhile, dipshits like you increase the risk for the rest of us by creating more space for disease to live.

It's demoralizing having to listen to the various anti-fact groups - intelligent design, global warming skeptiks, vaccine skeptiks (or whatever the fuck you call yourself), tea party no-taxoids. You are the very definition of 'squeaky wheel gets the grease'. You have no point to make but you won't shut up so we have to waste time and energy on you simply to preserve the gains we've already made and prevent you from fucking things up.

YOU ARE A WASTE OF TIME.

Re:Dumb fundie article (2)

maeglin (23145) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181621)

Stupid typical slashdot science fundie article.

For everyone of you who claim that vaccines saves lives, tell that to the parents of children who develop autism for no reason and within days of getting a vaccination shot.

At least they didn't die of pertussis. Unless that's your goal -- eliminate autism by letting more children die? Do you hate autistic children only, or all children?

Are you 100% certain that the vaccine shot that you are willing to take, or that you are willing to give your children is really safe enough to put into your body?

I am 100% certain the vaccines are safer than the diseases they prevent. That's all that is required of them.

Another thing, why is it that vaccinations that are given to children are the same dose that are given to adults? Is that really safe for children?

I don't know. Maybe because vaccines aren't medicines? Is your assertion even true? Who knows.. Go ask a scientist. It's strange that you seem to think your ignorance is a valid argument against science. What was that meme?... "Fucking magnets, how do they work?"

The last thing, do you really think that the companies that make these really care if you have ANY health problems from whatever vaccine they make for you when in the US they are protected by law from harming you?

No. Do you really think their goal is to spread autism?

Re:Dumb fundie article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181665)

Jenny McCarthy, is that you?

Re:Dumb fundie article (4, Interesting)

denobug (753200) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181735)

Stupid typical slashdot science fundie article.

For everyone of you who claim that vaccines saves lives, tell that to the parents of children who develop autism for no reason and within days of getting a vaccination shot.

Are you 100% certain that the vaccine shot that you are willing to take, or that you are willing to give your children is really safe enough to put into your body?

Another thing, why is it that vaccinations that are given to children are the same dose that are given to adults? Is that really safe for children?

The last thing, do you really think that the companies that make these really care if you have ANY health problems from whatever vaccine they make for you when in the US they are protected by law from harming you?

I don't usually make such direct and opinionated comment but you sir, is an idiot. Many vaccinations in discussion here are well proven with plenty of track records on their effectiveness and potential side effects. This records spans multiple DECADES and all over the globe. The United States Congress is running a race to the bottom while the rest of the world is trying to vaccinate every kids in their country to improve their public health. Yet someone like you is standing behind a position with very little proven science and are very much in a position to prevent the stability of public health.

We are not just talking about funding studies here on the side effect, which most would agree to be a beneficial thing (even if they don't agree with it). In fact we are talking about STOPPING current vaccination programs, which has been proven to be HIGHLY effective as far as public health goes. This goes a farther than than the individual expression. Public health at large must be properly protected with programs well run and supported by the professionals with good knowledge and experience. Right now the majority of the experts says vaccination is a good thing. We need to trust their ability in their field. There are very little reason why would majority of medical professionals would lie together on issues such as this.

I also don't normally make this request but some with mod points please mod this post down to negative (I don't mind if you do mod mine down as well). This post has zero benefit to the readers and is nothing but flame bite.

For the record I took all the vaccination required and it has no ill effect on me.

Re:Dumb fundie article (1)

s73v3r (963317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181803)

For everyone of you who claim that vaccines saves lives, tell that to the parents of children who develop autism for no reason and within days of getting a vaccination shot.

I would ask them whether they'd have a child with autism who is still alive, or a child that developed Polio. One of those children could still live a healthy, full life. The other one would be dead before they hit puberty.

Another thing, why is it that vaccinations that are given to children are the same dose that are given to adults? Is that really safe for children?

Show us your research that it's not.

Re:Dumb fundie article (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181845)

NO proven link between the two. Until you can show solid proof, you have no standing. You might as well say autism is caused by foul aethers.

Re:Dumb fundie article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181911)

For everyone of you who claim that vaccines saves lives, tell that to the parents of children who develop autism for no reason and within days of getting a vaccination shot.

That has never actually happened. You can't catch autism like the flu. If a case looks that way, then likely the doctor noticed something was strange during the visit and discovered the autism soonafter. It's hard to diagnose autism in infants, what with all the flailing and lack of language and all.

Are you 100% certain that the vaccine shot that you are willing to take, or that you are willing to give your children is really safe enough to put into your body?

Yes, because doctors created it and science back it up. They're the experts, you and I aren't. Are you 100% certain that the free range vegetables that you are willing to buy and feed your children with are really safe enough to put in your body?

Another thing, why is it that vaccinations that are given to children are the same dose that are given to adults? Is that really safe for children?

Let's let the experts decide on dosage here, please?

The last thing, do you really think that the companies that make these really care if you have ANY health problems from whatever vaccine they make for you when in the US they are protected by law from harming you?

Yes they do. Because no matter how regulated the medical industry or how evil you think big pharma is, if people are legitimately dying from your vaccinations, nobody's going to want to buy them. Killing your customers is bad for business.

Sigh.

Americans are stupid people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181403)

At least they're well represented in congress

I really wish they would try this (-1, Troll)

chucklebutte (921447) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181421)

Send all the uneducated religious people south of the Dixie line, us educated, non secular folk go north. Give it 15 years and see how each side turned out.

Re:I really wish they would try this (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181507)

OK, now that you have separated the religious people into geographical regions according to whether or not they are educated (non-secular is another way of saying religious), what is your plan for the secular (non-religious) people?

Re:I really wish they would try this (0)

chucklebutte (921447) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181653)

The country is already divided pretty equally down the middle. Religious zealots want pro life, guns, war, and no Gubberment. Non religious sensible folk want universal health care, no war, no class warfare, etc. Basically you can choose to progress to the future or regress to a cave, depending on which side you choose.

Re:I really wish they would try this (1)

Amouth (879122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181733)

So as one of the educated people why not send the uneducated up north to deal with the winter, and the rest of us head south where the weather is a lot more hospitable?

Maybe someday (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181429)

Maybe someday we can back in time and prevent these people from receiving vaccines as children, and hopefully they won't survive long enough to become politicians.

I read the subject as (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181437)

"Congressional Committee Casts a Harsh Eye On Vacation Science" and though it was a right-wing conspiracy to outlaw paid time-off.

this is an old, old, story (5, Informative)

crgrace (220738) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181443)

Anti-vaccination rhetoric is nothing new... in fact at the turn of the 20th century there were huge struggles regarding the smallpox vaccine. It's a fascinating instance of the struggle between liberty and social responsibility and the rights and the responsibilties of the individual with respect to the state.

There's an amazing book about the early-20th-century smallpox vaccination campaigns and the associated anti-vaccination campaign called Pox: An American History.

I can't recommend it enough. Says so much about the United States and how people's opinions have change (and how for some, they haven't!).

Anyway, here's the link: http://www.amazon.com/Pox-American-History-Penguin-Life/dp/1594202869 [amazon.com]

Feel free ..... (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181893)

...to have those "mystery" vaccines shot into you which were concocted in those dirty bathtubs by sub-sub-subcontractors in China --- you ever follow the current news, ever?????

Self-healing system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181465)

Nothing to worry:

These quacks don't vaccinate their kids.

Most in the same camp don't want general healthcare.

Give this combination some 10-20 years, and the Grim Reaper will darwinize the gene pool.

Problem solved.

Also fixes the number of folks in population who appreciate what Darwin has proven.

Re:Self-healing system (2)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181545)

Problem with this idea, is that these monsters endanger kids and very sick immunocompromised patients in hospital.

IF enough people opt out, herd immunity is destroyed (i.e. there's enough unvaccinated people around for a disease to propagate and linger in a population), and the death rate will soar. It's already happening.

*shrug* I think I could object less if only rabid libertarians died of vaccine preventable diseases; but it just doesn't work that way.

Re:Self-healing system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181799)

I think I could object less if only rabid libertarians died of vaccine preventable diseases

You think this is all because of rabid libertarians? This is all because of rabid idiots. Rabid libertarianism != anti-vaccination.

These people infuriate me, way more than... (4, Informative)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181467)

These people annoy me more than rabid moon landing denyers.

The people that believe the autism link, are really out there. I've seen interviews with people that believe this, and no matter what facts/figures/papers you put in front of them they believe they are wrong or lies. Yet they're sure the one report they heard about or read is 100% the truth.

What's more aggravating is when they invite you to prove them wrong, PLEASE prove them wrong, I don't want this to be true and don't want to fear this. Then someone does, and that same person just ignore them.

Penn and Teller had a great episode about this on Bull Sh*t. It's quite insane.

I mean, I have an easier time understanding people that believe the moon landing was a hoax. I don't subscribe to that theory, but I can at least understand them. It was a big deal, we really only have the government's say-so that it happened and that they didn't just send a probe to land stuff. Just 1 source: the government. Fine, be paranoid. It's not really hurting anyone if a person doesn't believe we landed on the moon.

But these people, they have tons of independent studies, investigations, saying that the link was faked or just plain wrong It would be one thing if just ONE party was saying the autism link was bunk... but we have LOTS of different / independent / smart people debunking it. And they don't want to believe it. Meanwhile children suffer.

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than... (4, Informative)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181569)

What's more aggravating is when they invite you to prove them wrong, PLEASE prove them wrong, I don't want this to be true and don't want to fear this. Then someone does, and that same person just ignore them.

And then, when you do prove them wrong, they move the goalpost (the "reason" why they think vaccines cause Autism) and then tell you that you need to prove them wrong again. If you refuse at any point, they take it as a sign that they've won. No, anti-vax proponents, you can't just think up wilder and wilder explanations as to why/how vaccines cause autism and claim that everyone else needs to disprove you or you are correct. It is up to you to present evidence. Real, testable evidence. (And, no, "thinking of something in your head" or "listing something that goes into vaccines at some point in the process" isn't real, testable evidence.)

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181697)

Make it like this. When the vaccine is offered, and they refuse, make it a note in their medical files. When the shit hits the fan, refuse them or charge them through the roof.

It might sound harsh, but this needs to be nipped in the bud early on, or it won't be only their children suffering. God knows how those things might mutate, when the same idiots decide to medicate themselves.

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than... (1)

MachDelta (704883) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181757)

Penn and Teller had a great episode about this on Bull Sh*t.

This one? [youtube.com]
It's cute. (And also NSFW without headphones). Doesn't really address the core argument in any way, but it's still a fun demonstration.

Re:These people infuriate me, way more than... (1, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181767)

I have no direct knowledge and I, like most of everyone else, simply have to trust in my medical professionals.

But I have a concern. We know that mercury is poison. Why is it needed for vaccine? Perhaps someone here actually knows the answer and would share? Surely there are other elements or chemicals which could be used in place of mercury?

That said, I recognize that we get more mercury from fish than we get from vaccinations. After all, most people eat more fish than they take vaccines. Also, there is the occasional broken flourescent bulb... especially popular now are the CFLs right? We have ample sources of mercury so refusing vaccinations on that basis is kind of ridiculous in a sense... you're getting your USRDA of mercury in other forms.

Freedom of choice (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181483)

I do not care what you put into your body but I do care if you try to force me or my family to take something against their will.

- Are you a nurse or a doctor? Some hospitals require you to take a shot.
- Are you student in a public school? Staff claims that it's "the law" to take shots. Some schools do not even ask permissions, they just give shots.
- Are you in the military? Good luck denying taking shots.
- You have a newborn? Good luck trying not to have your baby taking shots.

These are just simple examples how vaccines are pushed, in many times against persons will. May not happen near you but they do happen. And if you think vaccines are greatest thing ever, you might not even care enough to notice.

And one last thing: in many cases medical companies lobby and outright finance drug approval agencies, just like with any big business. Medical business is no different from military, finance or oil. If you don't trust these industries why the hell would you trust medical?

Re:Freedom of choice (3, Interesting)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181565)

I agree that you shouldn't be obligated to get vaccinated, provided you lock yourself into your house and never touch or breathe on anything in public ever .

Re:Freedom of choice (0)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181833)

So how about we reverse this...

You have HIV or other disease... we lock you in your house, if you come out. We shoot you.

Same logic, but I'll bet you'll be outraged by that option.

Re:Freedom of choice (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181875)

People already do get quarantined if they carry highly infectious diseases. What's your point?

Re:Freedom of choice (2)

khb (266593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181575)

"I do not care what you put into your body but I do care if you try to force me or my family to take something against their will."

The problem is that unvaccinated people create a repository for the disease. It harms the entire "herd" for some to not be vaccinated. Vaccination isn't a panacea, some people can get sick (although typically less seriously than if they'd been vaccinated)

Perhaps the way to "split the difference" is to set up "reservations" for people who don't want to be vaccinated. Or perhaps a single state. Then you will all only have each other to infect. Also, it will provide compelling evidence ... if you are right, you'll all be healthier than the rest of us. If you aren't, at least we won't be suffering because of poor choices you've made.

Re:Freedom of choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181583)

Because people don't get Polio anymore?

Re:Freedom of choice (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181619)

Fine. Keep yourself and your brats away from other people and their kids if you want to be disease carriers. You have no right to harm others because of your stupid decisions.

Re:Freedom of choice (0, Flamebait)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181899)

Wait...so keep your vaccines away from our children. Cause you have no right to harm my children either.

Your logic is fail...

Let them die. That's what natural selection is for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181493)

If the idiots don't want to be vaccinated, just let them. But tell them they can't come back and whine later.

Everyone sane will leave the country soon anyway. (Because they are too smart to have the confidence to compete with the stupidity/insanity-fueled over-confidence of the nutjobs [wikipedia.org] .) Then only them and their sadly doomed offspring will remain. (Nature is a cruel bitch.) But not for long, considering their ignorance of reality, and the embargo that will ensue. And when they haven't fucked the place up too much, then a couple of years later, the refugees can come back and build a new, functioning nation.

Re:Let them die. That's what natural selection is (2)

codewarren (927270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181725)

That's not how vaccination works. No vaccination provides 100% immunity to 100% of recipients. Instead it relies on getting enough people vaccinated to make it difficult for the pathogen to find fertile ground. This is known as "herd immunity". If large swaths idiots refuse vaccination, that in turn puts the non-idiots at risk.

Well... (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181501)

Looks like fucking idiots are well represented in Congress.

Congrats to the American people for electing these utter fuckwits to office. Pat yourselves on the back.

Fraud never seems to die (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181519)

The Lancet, a British medical journal, withdrew a 'study' on this when the data were found to be bogus, the subject children abused, and the 'researchers' in the pay of lawyers trying to drum up new business based on fear. Even though the scientific community tries to prevent the lie from spreading, the Urban Legends that drive much thinking still prevail in some spots.

Antivaccination frauds are murderers (-1, Troll)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181533)

And should be prosecuted as such. By convincing people to not vaccinate themselves, they are responsible for tens of thousands of preventable deaths each year from viruses like influenza.

Typical (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181535)

This is the same organization that prays before meetings, wants evang christianity inserted into everything, and wants to regulate everything. No newsflash that they did something flaky. Next week look forward to pi() being defined as "3" and a repeal of the law of gravity.

Idiocracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181539)

nuff said

Re:Idiocracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181703)

Brawndo, It's got electrolytes!

Anti-Science party is...? (1)

superdave80 (1226592) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181593)

And here I thought it was just Republicans that were anti-science. Looks like the Dems are trying to join the club as well.

Re:Anti-Science party is...? (3, Interesting)

GungaDan (195739) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181737)

Kucinich wasn't an anti-science rep. Hell he claimed to have seen a UFO from Shirley MacLaine's house. Science fiction is kinda like science, right?

"a vocal antivax lobby exists" (3, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181599)

So they're against out-of-date computers?

Please don't try to invent bad catch phrases that don't make any sense. Nobody refers to vaccinations as "vax". Yes, we get it - "vax" rhymes with "tax", and there's overlap in the two groups. Really clever, we're all in awe of your wordplay prowess.

Really, Really, I call BS on your science... (0, Flamebait)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181625)

Actually no, I just call BS on your implementation of science.

-----

Okay, so let's be a little bit more honest.

HPV vaccine, it's now REQUIRED by some states at urging of FDA. And yet, my wife who is 27, is unable to get the vaccine. Nor am I...

So the FDA feels that vaccines are safe enough to push for mandates for my kids; but then is afraid to let me take it.

Seriously Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!?!

***

As for the science, well considering how few vaccine related incidents are ever even attributed to vaccines. I am skeptical, the analysis can be right. But if the data is poor, the science means very little.

My daughter received a multi-vaccine for resperatory diseases (croup and diphtherea). Within 24 hours we were in the ER with my 18 month old getting breathing treatments. I bet you $50 even though I submitted that incident to VARS, that it's not associated or listed. Even though the fact is, it was clearly a 'possible vaccine related illness'. No, I am not saying it's a 100% assured to have been vaccine related. But the causality argument for it is pretty strong.

But here's what happens. Doctors believe that there is almost no vaccine related issue. So when they're presented with an issue that is probably vaccine related. They dismiss it. And so the data is a very very poor sampling.

So sorry, I am pro-science. Pro-vaccine. Just have issue with how the FDA handles and mandates some of them. And even more issue with the fact that we give 18 month old immune systems up to 6 vaccines in a single office visit.

And if you think that's a scienfically smart practice. You need to pull your head out of the textbook which is stuck in your arse.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science... (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181801)

And if you think that's a scienfically smart practice. You need to pull your head out of the textbook which is stuck in your arse.

So if it's not "scientifically smart" then you can clearly point out the medical studies to show this, right? Otherwise your just spouting empty rhetoric.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science... (1)

silentquasar (1144257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181831)

I wish I could vote this up. I think the whole Autism freakout thing unfairly devalues the argument that the science on vaccine safety is severely lacking.

I also am not against vaccines on principle, but am nervous about them in practice.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science... (1)

Slippery_Hank (2035136) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181849)

The causality argument for a single observation is NEVER strong, especially when that observation was a clinical treatment and not a controlled scientific experiment. If for every 1000 vaccines a doctor sees there is a single complication, then he is right to dismiss it as a statistical anomaly. Causal relationships don't exists if they are only present 0.1% of the time.

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science... (4, Informative)

Ichoran (106539) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181887)

The VAERS database is open. You can check yourself to see if your entry is there (assuming you know enough to find it in anoymized form).

    https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index [hhs.gov]

Re:Really, Really, I call BS on your science... (1)

hondo77 (324058) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181905)

Data being poor is exactly why you and your wife are unable to get the HPV vaccine. CDC to the rescue: [immunize.org]

If a 30-year-old female patient insists that she wants to be given HPV vaccine, can I give it to her?

HPV vaccine is not FDA-licensed for use in women older than age 26 years at this time [emphasis mine]. Studies are currently being conducted in women age 27 years and older. ACIP does not recommend the use of this vaccine outside the FDA licensing guidelines; however, many physicians administer this vaccine as off-label use. There is no reason to believe the vaccine would be any less safe for women in this age group than for younger women. Clinicians should decide if the benefit of the vaccine outweighs the hypothetical risk.

You should have gotten off your pro-science arse and done a quick Google search.

One sided (3, Interesting)

TelavianX (1888030) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181651)

I am not anti-vaccine by any means. I am just anti all vaccines for a newborn baby. Why pump a human, at its most critical stage, with a bunch of foreign chemicals? Does a newborn really need to be vaccinated against STD's? Why not wait until the child is more robust?

Re:One sided (2)

Ichoran (106539) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181779)

It's because compliance rates are higher for younger children, all else being equal. So if you _can_ vaccinate at 6 months, the argument goes, why wait until, say, 12 years, when the chance you'll actually get it done is lower?

Re:One sided (4, Informative)

241comp (535228) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181915)

Assuming you really want to know and aren't just asking to start an argument: It is because newborns are at greatest medical risk if infected by one of the many diseases for which they are vaccinated and because for some diseases (such as Hep B), once it is contracted it can be a lifelong illness which later vaccination cannot prevent/cure. From the WHO:
"Young children who become infected with the hepatitis B virus are the most likely to develop chronic infections:

90% of infants infected during the first year of life develop chronic infections;
30–50% of children infected between one to four years of age develop chronic infections."

Ignore the lawyers behind the curtain (1)

xanthos (73578) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181713)

Helicopter mommies don't buy congressmen, lawyers do.

Product liability lawyers don't want this potential cash cow to die just yet. All they need is a judge who doesn't believe in science because they personally "know better."

Unfortunately... (1)

Nexion (1064) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181809)

It will likely take proving out what causes autism to quell concerns about vaccinations. I personally believe that it is unlikely that vaccines cause autism and can only assume that it is something genetic. Perhaps it is just that we coddle people too much these days so they don't have to integrate. Maybe we just saw the worst cases as "insane" people and properly diagnose now. I do take objection to forced medication however as I believe it is unethical. Yes, it is sad that children suffer the choices made by a parent. Sadly they are too young to make an informed choice themselves. Would I vaccinate my child? Yes, of course. The benefits far outweigh the potential consequences IMHO. Do I know for certain that vaccines cause absolutely no harm? No, and nor does anyone else.

God damn it (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181817)

I used to have respect for Kucinich, too.

Isn't there anyone in Congress who has the people's best interest at heart AND has a brain in their head?

The two traits are so uncommon in Congress that I suppose it would be wishful thinking to imagine that there was any overlap.

More propaganda from the Big Pharma (1, Troll)

sgt_doom (655561) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181873)

".. a connection that medical experts have shown does not exist."

Sonny, you ever actually read any real scientific studies? Any actual research protocols of studies you claim to prove otherwise??
Those "medical experts" from those companies which have racked up the largest criminal penalties in the history of humanity: GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Merck, etc, etc., ad nauseum?

Over the past several years I, and numerous others, have posted links to well-respected and reputable studies by scientiest throughout the planet --- one of the recent ones was the French study detailing the correlation between incidents of childhood autism and the number of vaccinations administered to very young children under the age of 2 years, etc.

Unless you cite an overwhelming number of verified, and verifiable, studies with proper protocols having been followed, to bolster your point, you are just another voodoo-hoodoo stooge.

You remind me of that propaganda sister station to FoxFiction, NPR, which last year, on the anniversary of the Kennedy Assassination in November, broadcast a pure fiction as fact interview with a retiring crackerhead from South Carolina, who claimed to be a "journalist" and wrote the Rambler column for a major Southern newsrag.

This clown claimed to have run into a woman in Tennessee who had served in the military back in the 1950s, and while practising on the firing range at the base she was stationed in at Japan, frequently saw a young quiet Marine who came almost every day to practise firing his rifle. The Rambler claimed this woman told him she later recognized him again as Lee Harvey Oswald, on the day of Kennedy's assassination in November of 1963.

Problem? Women weren't allowed on any military firing range back then, and not even back in the late 1960s and 1970s when I was in the bag (in military and combat). Fiction is fiction, sonny, no matter how many times you spin it....

Jenny McCarthy sucks! (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181895)

Ok, you know what I meant.

Epic Rap Battles of History stated it best... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181901)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDj7gvc_dsA&hd=1&t=44s

Require basic IQ test and science background.... (0)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181903)

for anyone running for office. I'm sorry, but in a modern world, if you can't do arithmetic, don't have a basic comprehension of the sciences or have an IQ under 100, you are simply not fit for office. Admittedly, this would decimate our current crop of politicians, however, I rather look forward to them all getting jobs more aligned with their natural talents. My house needs cleaning and my grass needs cutting, after all.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>