California Bill Would Ban Vaccination Opt Out Based on Personal Belief

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

This hat will protect me from many things! Were you aware that jet fuel cannot melt tin foil if it has been folded at least twice?

I was not as I unfortunately do not wear hats...tin foil or otherwise. The Overlords have me firmly in their grasp.

[Sargerasraider]

From 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 88, as was linked in a video I posted earlier - "This is not just a change in detection and classification." There is a real increase there, ignoring it because it doesn't jive with your "proven" science is quite dangerous.

Your assertion that this massive increase is due only to changes in 'diagnostic criteria' is completely unsupported by reality.

Actually, as a pediatrician, the actual "increase" in autism spectrum disorder diagnoses is very controversial. There is plenty of data that states that diagnoses of ASDs are increasing, as other diagnoses (e.g. MR, so called learning disabilities) are decreasing. As an example, plenty of former micro-preemies carry a diagnosis of autism, rather than some learning disability, even though the neurological insult (extreme prematurity) is known. I have several colleagues who will label a kid as autistic, because that is the easiest way to get a child with a learning issue the speech therapy / PT / OT that is really helpful.

Here is a good study looking at the public school system, showing that as diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders increased, other similar diagnoses decreased

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or.../1028.abstract

(I don't think Pediatrics is paywalled which is why I picked it... sorry if wrong)

While they do qualify it with, "so rare we don't really know," it is right there on the CDC website. I guess we should ignore the warnings. Pretend they don't exist, that's really for the best.

Asking for an astronomically small theoretical risk to be reduced to zero to appease you, rather than avoiding the larger risk of these preventable diseases is a logical fallacy.

The most convincing argument to me is not to remain unvaccinated, but to adjust the vaccination schedule. It's incredibly concentrated for children in our country right now at an extremely young age, with the only justification I've seen for such a concentrated schedule being that "people don't see the doctor often enough, so we need to make sure they get them all at once."

There is -zero- evidence that the current vaccine schedule is harmful. If you want to nitpick, previous versions of the vaccines in the 60's / 70's had a far larger antigen burden.

[Rennadrel]

People stupid enough to put their own kids at risk to diseases because of their ignorance or religious ideologies don't deserve to be in public places. I hope this bill goes through, though the US government as a whole needs to outright deny social services to people who refuse mandatory vaccines for themselves or their kids.

[Daerio]

So you're just going to ignore the part of my response that points out that you don't have a point? Ok then.

I'm ignoring the part where you went off on an irrelevant tangent, yes.

There is more money to be had in treating sickness than there is in preventing it.

And how much money is there in treating influenza, vs providing new vaccines for it every year?

Or other diseases for which there is no treatment once contracted?

And in order for many of those diseases to actually be more profitable to treat than prevent, there would have to be a massive outbreak. Is that really more profitable than selling a vaccine to every human being, in some cases every year?

The answer is no. I did not claim conspiracy, "you guys" attempted to "head it off" by saying it's more profitable to treat than prevent, and you're still wrong.

Here is a good study looking at the public school system, showing that as diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders increased, other similar diagnoses decreased

If you're still trying to argue the increase from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 88 is purely academic, that's still ridiculous. You're tiptoeing around saying there actually hasn't been an increase in autism, without saying it, because it's wrong.

[Sargerasraider]

If you're still trying to argue the increase from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 88 is purely academic, that's still ridiculous. You're tiptoeing around saying there actually hasn't been an increase in autism, without saying it, because it's wrong.

As I said, it's controversial. The CDC data relies on reports of special needs, and as I stated, most children requiring special needs are now labelled as autistic (often whether or not they meet the official diagnostic criteria).

Here are some other papers for your interest:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ne&aid=9495906

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16919130

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22253308
Last one notes that lots of the increase was in people with higher function.


Regardless, it's irrelevant, as vaccines don't cause autism.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I'm ignoring the part where you went off on an irrelevant tangent, yes.



And how much money is there in treating influenza, vs providing new vaccines for it every year?

Or other diseases for which there is no treatment once contracted?

And in order for many of those diseases to actually be more profitable to treat than prevent, there would have to be a massive outbreak. Is that really more profitable than selling a vaccine to every human being, in some cases every year?

The answer is no. I did not claim conspiracy, "you guys" attempted to "head it off" by saying it's more profitable to treat than prevent, and you're still wrong.

You know what would be a great first step in starting a massive outbreak? Stopping all vaccinations.

As I've stated before...less than 2% of Big Pharma's profits ever year comes from Vaccines. I'm not claiming they don't make a profit from them...but if they stopped selling vaccines tomorrow...they'd barely notice the dip in revenue. Instead they'd just be selling more Cold and Flu Medicine and Painkillers. Vaccinate or not...Big Pharma is going to make a shit ton of money either way.

But, I can keep on repeating that fact and you will keep on ignoring it...because it doesn't line up with your beliefs. You can scream "Vaccines BAD!" as loud as you want...but you have yet to provide even the slightest bit of scientifically verifiable evidence to support your position.

[Daerio]

You know what would be a great first step in starting a massive outbreak? Stopping all vaccinations.

As I've stated before...less than 2% of Big Pharma's profits ever year comes from Vaccines. I'm not claiming they don't make a profit from them...but if they stopped selling vaccines tomorrow...they'd barely notice the dip in revenue. Instead they'd just be selling more Cold and Flu Medicine and Painkillers. Vaccinate or not...Big Pharma is going to make a shit ton of money either way.

But, I can keep on repeating that fact and you will keep on ignoring it...because it doesn't line up with your beliefs. You can scream "Vaccines BAD!" as loud as you want...but you have yet to provide even the slightest bit of scientifically verifiable evidence to support your position.

Yes, when you attempt to frame the numbers that way, it appears small, but the 3.1 billion dollars they made in 2013 (on flu shots alone) certainly doesn't seem as insignificant to me as it apparently does to you. Your statistical manipulation is amusing, but 3+ billion dollars a year is relevant.

[swineflu]

The vaccine industry has grown from 5 to 30 billion dollars a year in the last ten years. I would NEVER take anything at face value when so much money is at stake. The corporate media wouldn't tell you bad news about vaccines would it? The fact is vaccines don't work and vaccines are not safe. All you pro-vaccers are gullible useful idiots for big pharma.

[Deleted]

knock yourself out
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/kre...7_15.02.01.pdf

fact is charities and academia and non profits fund most of the research into vaccination.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Yes, when you attempt to frame the numbers that way, it appears small, but the 3.1 billion dollars they made in 2013 (on flu shots alone) certainly doesn't seem as insignificant to me as it apparently does to you. Your statistical manipulation is amusing, but 3+ billion dollars a year is relevant.

3 billion dollars all on its own does sound like a lot...but it is pretty insignificant when you compare it the to 1 Trillion they made in total. That's 0.3% of the total. In other words...it's a drop in the bucket.

[GodlyBob]

The vaccine industry has grown from 5 to 30 billion dollars a year in the last ten years. I would NEVER take anything at face value when so much money is at stake. The corporate media wouldn't tell you bad news about vaccines would it? The fact is vaccines don't work and vaccines are not safe. All you pro-vaccers are gullible useful idiots for big pharma.

Damnit Daerio, you brought swineflu in here. This was completely preventable if only you had listened to the science!

[Kryctos]

Oh boy maybe we'll get to see a bunch of 20somethings crippled by chickenpox a few years from now.

[Garnier Fructis]

The vaccine industry has grown from 5 to 30 billion dollars a year in the last ten years. I would NEVER take anything at face value when so much money is at stake. The corporate media wouldn't tell you bad news about vaccines would it? The fact is vaccines don't work and vaccines are not safe. All you pro-vaccers are gullible useful idiots for big pharma.

What happened to smallpox then.

[s_bushido]

What happened to smallpox then.

Magic.
10char

[Rhine101]

3 billion dollars all on its own does sound like a lot...but it is pretty insignificant when you compare it the to 1 Trillion they made in total. That's 0.3% of the total. In other words...it's a drop in the bucket.

One of the janitors will have to sell his yacht. Think of the Janitor!!!

[Xeones]

What happened to smallpox then.

That was just a government conspiracy. It never existed

Please don't think this is for real

[Poopymonster]

The second your beliefs endanger others, those beliefs are no longer protected.

If someone's religion dictated that a person bring a live tiger on a leash to school, should they be allowed to?

Of course not, and this is no different.

No they can't. Because Christianity doesn't say to do so.

- - - Updated - - -

On the fact that you're trying to point fingers at "heavy metals".

Heavy Metal? Dammit Satan, I thought we settled that metal shit back in the 80s.

Unless it's GWAR. Then rock on!

[buck008]

I'm ignoring the part where you went off on an irrelevant tangent, yes.

If you're still trying to argue the increase from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 88 is purely academic, that's still ridiculous. You're tiptoeing around saying there actually hasn't been an increase in autism, without saying it, because it's wrong.

I find the fact that you don't actually have a point and that you're arguing in circles for some reason to be fairly relevant. I'd love to hear what your idea is, or what you think should be done about the vaccine issue. Anything that suggests you aren't just being contrarian because it's fun.

To your second point, autism was also recently redefined to include kids that may have previously been labeled as ADD or as Asperger's (sp?). There has been a major shift in the way the disorder is being diagnosed that is leading to more and more kids with the label thanks to the new and expanded definition of what the disorder is.

[GodlyBob]

No they can't. Because Christianity doesn't say to do so.

Generally speaking, I don't think Christianity as a whole has a great love for large cats, if you know what I mean.

[Poopymonster]

TB is a required vaccine afaik. I know I had to get it. I'm a dirty foreigner from The Far North though.

When I worked home health care/hospice, we had to get tested for TB annually.

- - - Updated - - -

What would be the correct number of studies to convince you and why do you feel that you're in a better position to evaluate that than regulatory agencies?

Somehwere between the number of Benghazi reports we need to have before one says "She wuz bad", and the number of times we need to vote to repeal Obamacare before it happens.