For Pete's Sake, Go Get Your Kids Vaccinated Already!

The National Academy of Sciences has just issued yet another report supporting the safety of vaccinations. From the press release

An analysis of more than 1,000 research articles concluded that few health problems are caused by or clearly associated with vaccines.  A committee of experts convened by the Institute of Medicine to review the scientific literature on possible adverse effects of vaccines found convincing evidence of 14 health outcomes -- including seizures, inflammation of the brain, and fainting -- that can be caused by certain vaccines, although these outcomes occur rarely.  It also found indicative though less clear data on associations between specific vaccines and four other effects, such as allergic reactions and temporary joint pain.  In addition, the evidence shows there are no links between immunization and some serious conditions that have raised concerns, including Type 1 diabetes and autism.  The data were inadequate to reach conclusions about other suggested adverse effects. ...

Six vaccines -- MMR, varicella, influenza, hepatitis B, meningococcal, and the tetanus-containing vaccines -- can trigger anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction that appears shortly after injection.  And, in general, the injection of vaccines can trigger fainting and inflammation of the shoulder, the committee noted.  

The evidence suggests that certain vaccines can lead to four other adverse effects, although the data on these links are not as convincing, the report says.  The MMR vaccine appears to trigger short-term joint pain in some women and children. Some people can experience anaphylaxis after receiving the HPV vaccine.  And certain influenza vaccines used abroad have resulted in a mild, temporary oculo-respiratory syndrome characterized by conjunctivitis, facial swelling, and mild respiratory symptoms.

The committee's review also concluded that certain vaccines are not linked to four specific conditions.  The MMR vaccine and diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP) do not cause Type 1 diabetes, and the MMR vaccine does not cause autism, according to the results of several studies.  The evidence shows that the flu shot does not cause Bell's palsy or exacerbate asthma.  Suggestions that vaccines can lead to these serious health problems have contributed to parental concerns about immunization for their children. 

Look, vaccines are not perfectly safe. Nothing is. But the scientific evidence clearly shows that the health benefits strongly outweigh the costs. Consider that up to 30 percent of people who get bacterial meningitis die. And especially note that yet another report finds no evidence for a link between vaccination and autism. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hank||

    Look vaccines are not perfectly safe.

    Better than contracting a nasty case of Look.

  • Hank||

    Joke killed by a timely re-edit! You win this round, Reason...

  • Landlubbertarian||

    Anyway, vaccinations are fine and dandy just so long as it isn't The Government doing the advising. If They tell me I have to vaccinate my child, I'm going to disobey Them on principle. Fuck the kids. I can have more.

  • ||

    A good friend of my wife's just had bacterial meningitis. Fortunately, she is going to be okay. It used to be unheard of. Now it is becoming more common. Thanks a lot you dirty fucking hippies and disgustingly ignorant soccer moms. And a special thank you to Jenni McCarthy, you stupid fucking whore.

  • fish||

    Go fuck yourself!

    Did she have the inoculation? Why not?

    She did have the shot? Then how did she get bacterial menengitis?

    Oh it wasn't a strain the the vaccine works against.

    Shit must have been those fucking hippies again?

  • ||

    Go fuck yourself you idiot. This shit comes back because morons don't vaccinate their kids and that allows it to flourish where it would otherwise be unknown.

    Yes, any person who doesn't get their kids vaccinated is a superstitious piece of shit deserving of nothing but scorn and blame.

  • fish||

    Hey Pinhead try answering the question. Did she have the inoculation for meningitis? If not, why not?

  • Coeus||

    Come on, fish. Everybody knows that hippies are responsible for bacterial meningitis. Also, little known fact, they also cause all known cases of warts and gout. True story.

    Oh, and this one time, one turned me into a newt.

  • fish||

    I think I'll change my nom de keyboard to "Phish" in solidarity.

  • sarcasmic||

    I phart on your Phish.

  • fish||

    I phart in your general direction...

    (said with my best Monty Python faux French accent)

  • sarcasmic||

    Seriously though - Lemonwheel was a good time.

  • notfish||

    phaux Phrench

    This one needs to get run right into the ground right now.

  • ||

    If people got their vaccinations, it wouldn't matter since the bacteria causing it would die out like small pox. I don't know if she did or not. If not, bad on her. Regardless, everyone who didn't get their vaccinations bares a share of the responsibility for the resurgence of these illnesses.

    I know since your IQ hovers around 50, that is probably a hard concept for you to fully understand. But try hard and maybe you can do it.

  • fish||

    Fortunately I'm arguing with a Nobel Prize winning bacteriologist so I'll have to defer to your wisdom regarding the die off mechanisms of bacteria.

    You say she got bacterial meningitis (probably didn't get the shot did she) sounds to me like she's superstitious piece of shit deserving of nothing but scorn and blame. Hey "Man of Science" you might want to sick Child Protective Services on her for being a poor mother. After all if she hasn't has her shots why would we think she got the kids theirs. Shit while you're at it try the fucking Humane Society...maybe she forgot the pets too! I hope you didn't shake her hand... no telling where that's been and now that there seems to be evidence that she lacks the capacity to maintain proper personal hygiene maybe you can have her committed.

    Oh thank you John...just for being you!

  • MNG||

    "I don't know if she did or not. If not, bad on her."

    Holy shit, that is some classic, undiluted John there. He didn't know whether she got her vaccination or not but used her getting ill as a springboard to project the RAGE at hippies and soccer moms.

    It's like Spiro Agnew with half the IQ and integrity but twice the loosely directed rage.

    Classic.

  • Mainer||

    Wherever John goes, MNG follows

  • MNG||

    Ah, if you weren't his fellow GOP lover you'd see how classicly hilarious that is too.

    John: Those damned hippies and ignorant soccer moms not getting their shots may have caused my wife's friend to get sick.
    Questioner: Dude, how did she get sick, did she have her shots.
    John: Er, I don't know about that. Damn hippies!!!!

    You can't make this shit up!

  • ||

    Not to support John on this, but people who don't get their kids vaccinated are retarded. Maybe they are hippies. Maybe they are soccer moms. Or, maybe they are just the stunningly be-titted Jennny McCarthy. I don't care. They are retarded.

  • shorter MNG||

    Oh, I agree it is stupid to not get your kids or self vaccinated (unless you are one of the few people who can't do that). And like with AGW I trust that the experts on vaccines are right when they say it is safe. I just find it hilarious when John gets the RAGE when he doesn't even have the basic facts down.

  • ||

    Fact: An inoculation doesn't induce immunity in 100% of those who receive one.

    So, John is correct.

  • ||

    Vaccines do not work on everyone the same way. I've had the MMR and a separate Rubella shot but when they check I have no immunity to it. Just because you comply with getting vaccinated does not mean you're protected. I have to count on herd immunity, unfortunately for me not enough kids get the MMR to keep me safe in an outbreak.

  • Vaccine Ignorance||

    Vaccines serve two purposes, individual immunity (making the vaccinated person resistant to the disease) and herd immunity (making the entire population resistant to the disease)

    If the vast majority of the population is vaccinated against a particular disease strain, the disease will not be able to effectively propogate and can be eliminated in that population. If a significant portion of the population isn't vaccinated, the disease will be able to survive, resulting in recurring outbreaks.

    Several points:

    1. Some people are immune compromised and cannot be vaccinated. They are entirely reliant on herd immunity for protection.

    2. Vaccines are never 100% effective. Some people who have been vaccinated will not develop immunity and will ultimately be dependent on herd immunity.

    3. The larger the population that is transmitting a disease around, the more opportunity for the disease to mutate into new strains. When you fail to eliminate an infectious disease it will continue to evolve, potentially into strains that the vaccine no longer protects against.

  • robc||

    While everything you say is true, I have no responsibility to the herd.

    /Individual immunity is good enough for me
    //Except for flu shots, fuck that.

  • Apogee||

    I have no responsibility to the herd.

    I don't agree with that. I don't know how you look at it, but traveling around in public when infected would seem to constitute an aggressive act - It's not like you can actually control where your infection travels once you leave your house.

    If it's a dangerous enough disease, what rights do other individuals have when dealing with an obviously infected individual?

  • robc||

    I would agree, once I know Im infected. At that point, it is wrong not to quarantine myself.

    But there is limits even then, a lot would depend on danger of disease and transmission method. I dont stay home if I have a cold. And Im pretty sure I have spread the flu in the past too.

  • robc||

    I could see opening myself up to civil action if I spread the flu, but not criminal.

  • Apogee||

    I could see opening myself up to civil action if I spread the flu, but not criminal.

    Don't know about that, as individuals with conditions that place them at risk of common seasonal ailments like the flu have a responsibility to take preventative action themselves.

    Although, when I'm sick I tend to stay home out of courtesy.

  • Mensan||

    I could see opening myself up to civil action if I spread the flu, but not criminal.

    Nobody could win that civil suit, however, unless they could prove that you were the only possibly infected person they came into contact with during the time period that they contracted the disease.

  • Coeus||

    Depends. What is "dangerous enough" and how do you determine what disease the individual has?

  • Apogee||

    What is "dangerous enough" and how do you determine what disease the individual has?

    Or if they even knew they had something dangerous? It's certainly not perfectly clear.

    What has usually happened in the past is that a bunch of people died, and then a diagnosis is made about something new, or the return of a deadly old disease.

    It's at that point that I think these questions take place, because with modern communications networks, even grandma would know about it.

    Also, I view the term 'dangerous enough' to constitute the ability to kill or cripple a healthy adult with no existing health conditions.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Remove the head or destroy the brain?

  • trutherator||

    This is a perfectly good and logical argument for putting ALL people that test positive for the AIDS virus into a quarantine colony, like the leper colonies.

  • ||

    I have no responsibility to the herd

    No legal responsibility, perhaps.

    No moral/ethical responsibility? There is no virtue, at all, in doing anything that might benefit a third party unless they compensate you for it, in full?

  • Paul||

    Where's my pile of free guns?

  • ||

    Make your own damn gun. Out of steel you refine yourself - from ore you dig with your own hands, no using steel shovels and picks made from anything the "herd" produced (that would be cheating).

  • ||

    Oh, yes you do have responsibility to the herd. This is one of those cases where libertarians who think one can figure all ethics out from one's armchair using the non-aggression principle go off the rails. Coming up with scenarios that don't fit man's tidy, logical, preconceived models is what nature excels at.

  • trutherator||

    When the herd is led by wolves, then any member of the herd that follows them, those are the ones causing the rest of us harm.

    We have the wolves that hatched HIV out of a laboratory (yep, which ones of those vaccine authorities will tell you about THAT), telling us vaccines are "safe".

    Tell that to the guy I met with polio he got from a virus that hit him in his mother's womb FROM THE VACCINE ITSELF.

    Tell that to the mother I met at a meeting that told of her baby of 3 month getting a screaming fit and extremely violent reaction. The doctor said all the patients that got the shot had the same reaction. He informed the pharmaceutical company (bad batch) and next day, the Feds shut down the pediatrician's practice.

    See the Web memorial for so many vaccine victims:
    http://www.nvic.org/vaccine-memorial.aspx

    Why are the Feds giving money to victims of vaccines and so heading off the compensations that would make headlines? Are they afraid of lawsuit publicity?
    www.nvic.org/injury-compensation.aspx

    Vaccination propaganda is just like the global warming fraud, it's meant to scare the public into submission to whatever the king's men tell them to do. They want to make "scientists" the new theological priesthood, of course with the usual wizard of Oz pulling their strings. Only science that helps the priesthood is allowed. All other theories are just "conspiracy theories". The Central Indoctrination Agency says so.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Vaccines don't always work. Hippies purposefully not using vaccines increases the chance that the disease will be spread to a person whom the vaccine was ineffective. Dirty ass hippies and whore soccer moms.

  • ||

    allergies to peanuts and peanut butter are more common, too. Hippies and soccer moms again?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Hippies and soccer moms feeding all this organic, natural, unprocessed peanut products to infants at too young an age causes peanut allergies. Don't give infants peanuts. Slut bitch hippie soccer cow.

  • Coeus||

    Looks at the angus, looks at john, looks back at angus

    It's like I'm seeing double.

  • Zeb||

    "Hippies and soccer moms feeding all this organic, natural, unprocessed peanut products to infants at too young an age causes peanut allergies."

    What? Did you just make this up or are you joking? I think you have it completely backwards. The problem is more to do with overprotective parents preventing their children from being exposed to things (like dirt, different kinds of food, bacteria) that their immune systems need to properly develop.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Its different for certain allergenic foods. Not recommended before age one at least. The digestive system is not fully developed to process these foods and the body can develop a rejection in the form of allergies.

  • trutherator||

    So now any Mom that doesn't breastfeed her baby is in trouble from the Vaccine Police?

  • ||

    Overprotective soccer moms who insist every surface is 100% germ-free and every molecule of dust or dirt is banished.

    These high rates of allergies--particularly the life-threatening ones, where Snotleigh can die just from inhaling the scent of a peanut butter sandwich--don't really exist outside of Western cultures where everything Snotleigh comes into contact with has to be super clean 'n' pure, all the time.

  • Landlubbertarian||

    Thanks a lot you dirty fucking hippies and disgustingly ignorant soccer moms

    Again with the soccer moms, John. Are they your personal hell?

  • ||

    Have you ever tried to have even a short conversation with one?

  • AGW Denier||

    "But the scientific evidence clearly shows that the health benefits strongly outweigh the costs."

    But we don't KNOW!!! The science isn't settled!!! There's an agenda because the gov't funds some of the people involved in the study!!!

  • Shorter AGW Denier||

    fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap...

  • ||

    Yeah because vaccinating your children is just like imposing a top down command and control system on the economy and dooming 95% of the earth not named Al Gore to abject poverty.

  • MNG||

    "imposing a top down command and control system on the economy and dooming 95% of the earth not named Al Gore to abject poverty."

    Accepting AGW in no way entails accepting any of that, but thanks for demonstrating it's your equating the two that drives your opposition to the former.

  • shorter MNG||

    The science is settled! STOP RESISTING!

  • shorter MNG||

    The science is settled on vaccinations! STOP RESISTING!

  • ||

    when shots are required for school enrollment, isn't that something like "top down command and control"?

  • ||

    Not if homeschooling is an option.

    But some people prefer not to be cooped up all day with their noisy, screaming, plague-spreading spawn. Somehow such people - who fee-yul they owe nothing to the "herd" - believe they have a right to an all-day child minding service provided by the "herd."

  • ||

    AGWD: As you know, anti-vaccine activism is found among people who generally identify on the left-hand side of the political spectrum.

    In this case, "scientific consensus" among government-funded scientists be damned!

  • sarcasmic||

    In both cases correlation is not causation, so who cares what government-funded scientists have to say.

  • BigT||

    Cause and effect are Proven for vaccinations for maybe 150 years. Statistical studies back them up. Not so for the religion of AGW.

  • MNG||

    "As you know, anti-vaccine activism is found among people who generally identify on the left"

    Actually I don't know that Ron. Maybe it's true, and I haven't looked into it, but what proof is there of that claim?

  • sarcasmic||

    what proof is there of that claim?

    The mere fact that they have time to get together and protest.
    That alone shows that they lean to the left.
    People who lean to the right have jobs and families and other responsibilities that prevent them from going to these rallies.

  • MNG||

    Hilarious sarcasmic, you are comedy gold I tells, ya, gold!

  • sarcasmic||

    It's only funny because it contains an element of truth.

  • MNG||

    Yeah, because people on the right wouldn't have time to go to rallies, for example one's named after, say, the Tea Party. They's too busy working!

    Jesus you are stupid.

  • sarcasmic||

    Apparently you don't know what "element" means.

  • ||

    "Element" in this case means "it fits my preconceptions."

  • ||

    I almost got through a Ron Bailey post where I agreed with him. And then he goes and pulls this "it's all left-wingers" out of his ass.

    Not that I'm suggesting you do this, Ron, but a three-hour tour of predominantly-female forums on teh Intarwebs might show you otherwise. Plenty of "OMG oh noes teh VAXEEENZ are ebil, won't summin think of teh CHYLDWUN" hysteria coming from right-wing McChristian posters (i.e. young military wives, who are a simpleminded a pack of People of Walmart) who are suspicious of science and education in general, and unable to muster the attention span or vocabulary required to get through a report of scientific study results.

  • ||

    Them wimminz yer talkin' of are more likely cows of the Oprah watchin' herd than Christians, bigot.

    Betcha dinnit know science was invented by Christians. New Age was invented by hippies an' promoted by Oprah right alongside heaps o'media panic - the stuff John Stossel documents in his books. (You've heard of books, hain'tcha? Them things Christians popularized - scrolls being so B.C. and all.)

  • Apogee||

    But we don't KNOW!!! The science isn't settled!!

    Nice analogy, except that it's backwards.

    "Hey! This scientist says that vaccinations cause autism! We have to STOP this horrible thing!

    What? That research is discredited?

    Ok, then how about THIS research! I mean, they're putting things into these vaccines that are BAD for you! And if a bunch of it is BAD, then obviously a little bit can be blamed for a very complicated result, right?

    We have to DO something!"

  • ||

    If you want to use a global warming analogy, talk to me when a new scientific probe finds that antibody levels in the vaccinated are only a fraction of what was assumed, and thus can not produce the levels of immunity that models had predicted.

  • trutherator||

    Yeah, that's right! Everybody knows that nobody in government has any agenda AT ALL! Right? Say it ain't so, Joe.. John.. George.. Barack.. Lerner.. Memphis.. Ultra..

    No agenda at all...

    Certainly they would never think of letting you get something dangerous in your body.. like aspartame..

  • trutherator||

    ...or raw milk.. or cheese made in wooden vats (unless it's imported..).. And they certainly wouldn't let you get your own DNA tested from a private party unless the private party paid enough proved itself using government-approved researchers with government-approved credentials using government-approved methodologies, negotiated with government-approved fiat money.

    Oh, I feel so much safer now.. I know the shepherd they sent over has a couple of fangs drooling out of its mouth, but he's telling us he's from the government and we're safe now.. The sheeple are safe now...

  • Jenny McCarthy||

    But I'm a washed up hack with no talent! If I don't go on talk shows to spread unscientific anti-vaccination propaganda how will I remain famous?

  • ||

    Um, keep showing your boobs? I know you're no spring chicken, but I think you still qualify for MILF status.

  • ||

    There is decent money in MILF porn. And it is not like becoming a porn star isn't something McCarthy should be adverse to. The whole world has already seen the goods. What difference does it make if they see them in action?

  • Mainer||

    She strikes me as someone who isn't as diligent about personal hygiene as she ought to be. Not sure why, but I don't find her attractive for that reason, no matter how nice her boobies are.

  • sarcasmic||

    Fuck her in the shower.

  • Mainer||

    You're a real problem solver. Thanks.

  • ||

    The "shower" is a euphemism, right?

  • sarcasmic||

    No. I meant it quite literally.
    If Mainer has issues with her hygiene, he can wash her down before having his way with her.
    Problem solved.

  • A girl||

    You should never go full boor, sarcasmic. *wrinkles nose*

  • Pip||

    Muff shots!

  • ||

    You aren't being fair to Jenny McCarthy. She isn't doing this for attention because her career has faded. She's doing this because she's nuts.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Who wrote this? Big Vaccine?

  • fish||

    My thoughts as well.

  • ||

    FoE: It was I. Damned squirrels!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It's always the squirrels' fault, isn't it, Ron?

  • ||

    Who is this "Pete"? Why should I get my kids inoculated for him?

  • ||

    Disney had some movie regarding why you need to be inoculated. Something about dragons...

  • ||

    Off topic, but could someone explain to me why Obama is going to hang out on Marth's Vineyard until the last possible moment? He is hanging out on the beech while everyone else on the Island is running for their lives hoping they don't lose everything they own. Is he really just that fucking detached from reality?

  • ||

    "It's my storm. Though it shook the entire world it could not be more than I wished."

  • robc||

    Obama is the Kwisatz Haderach? I call shenanigans.

  • ||

    Of course not. But he probably thinks he is.

  • Barack Mua'dib||

    Let me be clear. We Fremen have a saying: Republicans destroyed the economy to retrain the faithful. You cannot go against the word of Obama.

  • ||

    I never thought about it like that. By using the spendtrout to encapsulate and isolate money, the economy would become a barren wasteland, producing only the vice, gavage, which his Skimen warriors will control.

  • TheEconomy||

    His name has become a killing word!

  • fish||

    Don't make me break out the "Weirding Modules"!

    (Bad Sci-Fi bona fides established!)

  • ||

    Tell me about it.

  • ||

    His name is a killing word?

    *Yes, I am aware that was only in the movie version.

  • ||

    Quoting the movie rather than the book is an abomination.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    ObXKCD: Too bad they never made a movie out of Dune.

  • ||

    Yes. Too bad.

  • wayne||

    He better get off the island. They are going to shut down the subways and all the bridges will be shut down. He will be stranded and have to face the wrath of the global warming gods.

    Or, he could just call in a Marine helicopter to whisk him away. It's good to be the ONE!

  • ||

    He is issuing an executive order forbidding the storm to hit that area.

  • Mainer||

    He's going to administratively save the island

  • ||

    Save it or create new ones.

  • ||

    He's going to ride out there in a boat and give it a compelling speech.

  • ||

    I'm seeing a new Lacey portrait in this.

  • ||

    maybe he'll remind it of his nomination speech, the part where his coronation signaled the start of the oceans receding.

  • ||

    He will probably leave sometime tomorrow and shut the airport and roads down for a few hours ensuring a few people get trapped on the island to face the storm. But hey they are probably typical white people so what does it matter?

  • ||

    I wonder how much an emergency evacuation of the president and his family, retinue, SS team, staff, and servants would cost? Versus simply going somewhere outside of the storm's path?

  • ||

    Millions. And you have to remember he travels in a convoy of like 40 vehicles full of court eunuchs. It is disgusting. When he decides to leave the Island, the Secret Service will shut down the roads along his entire route to the airport for at least an hour before he leaves. Then the giant motorcade will speed through the city. The airport will be shut down to traffic for at least an hour before and an hour after he leaves, two less hours then to get off the Island via air. And of course you won't be using those roads our petulant boy king will use to get to the airport for two hours.

    This kind of stuff makes me think Obama isn't just stupid and incompetent. That he really is a horrible person. It doesn't take much human decency to look around yesterday and think "hey lets get out of the way so these poor people can prepare."

  • Michelle (very big) O||

    The vineyard is just lovely when nature goes on display like this, let's stay until the last moment!

  • Tman||

    I lived year round on the Vineyard for a few years, and was there when Clinton used to visit. It does completely shut down entire sections of town, and the locals absolutely despise the presidential visits, other than the folks who make money hand over fist in accommodating them. Everyone else wishes they liked Nantucket better.

    Also, Vineyarder's aren't in any way worried about the Hurricane. They've been through several of them and are far more experienced in dealing the effects than the mainland, so it shouldn't be a problem on the Island. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass to move the boats on land and tape all the windows, but it's hardly an emergency-type scenario.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Tape windows? lol. Do people really still do that stupid shit?

  • Tacos mmm...||

    And you have to remember he travels in a convoy of like 40 vehicles full of court eunuchs. It is disgusting. When he decides to leave the Island, the Secret Service will shut down the roads along his entire route to the airport for at least an hour before he leaves.

    Or, he'll just take Marine One.

  • ||

    They will still shut down traffic over the Island. And the court eunuchs will still leave separately and shut down the roads.

  • Zeb||

    This is just another reason why presidents should not be allowed to go anywhere not required for official duties unless he pays his own way, including security, transportation and everything. Do they really not realize what a huge pain in the ass they create for everyone else (and then make them pay for it)?

  • ||

    Or they could just drop the massive entourage and security detail. Like in the old days.

  • nebby||

    Yes, Abraham Lincoln never needed some big security detail... oh wait.

  • Clinton's ego||

    Sounds like a good time to get a haircut!

  • Mainer||

    ...and if that happens, it could become one of those seemingly trivial, yet powerfully symbolic and resonant issues that affects presidential elections.

  • ||

    If the media will report it.

  • MNG||

    "But hey they are probably typical white people so what does it matter?"

    You have to love this. Maxine Walters rails against Obama for not being pro-black while the Beckians rail against him for hating white people.

  • Maxine||

    I was very annouyed when he referred to "typical black people"! What does, "typical", mean?

  • ||

    First, I am no a Beckian whatever the fuck that is. Second, Obama is the one who said "typical white person". He has never apologized for it or tried to explain it. So pretty much he deserves to have it thrown back in his face for all time.

    He also has a sitting AG who openly says he is more interested in justice for "his people" than the country as a whole. So pretty much Obama gets what he deserves.

  • MNG||

    Are you talking about way back in his race speech when he said something about his grandmother as a typical white person?

    I'm afraid I have to agree with the great libertarian Charles Murray who said that was one of the more refreshingly frank and decent discussions of race by a major pol in recent history.

  • ||

    It was a disgustingly patronizing speech that was forgotten within a week and renounced within a month (people forget Reverend Wright was later thrown under the bus), and is remember for that one awful line.

    It doesn't matter what the rest of it says, if you asked the average person about that speech they are going to more likely than not remember "typical white person" if they remember it at all.

    That speech, which to any unbiased observer was awful, was really the high point of Obama idiocy. I will give you credit, you are the only one of the idiots who will still try to defend it. You are nothing if not dogged.

  • MNG||

    "you are the only one of the idiots who will still try to defend it"

    "Take, for example, the treatment of his reference to his white grandmother. Of course you can go after him in all the ways that people have gone after him—if what you want to do is go after him. But suppose you approach Obama’s text under the twin assumptions that (a) he is trying to communicate with you, and, (b) your obligation is to make a good-faith effort to understand his meaning. I read what he said about his grandmother, and his words left me in no doubt about two things: He really loves his grandmother, and he was saying something important about race that I recognized from my own experience. I bet many of the people who have slammed him recognize it from their own experience too. The guy was being honest, and he was being right. What the hell more do you want?

    I can’t vote for him. He is an honest-to-God lefty. He apparently has learned nothing from the 1960s. His Supreme Court nominees would be disasters. And maybe he is too green and has lived too much of his adult life in a politically correct bubble. But the other day he talked about race in ways that no other major politician has tried to do, with a level of honesty that no other major politician has dared, and with more insight than any other major politician possesses."

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....es-murray#

  • ||

    That link is from 2008. I mean no one defends it now. And yes, Charles Murray is an idiot. So what?

  • MNG||

    So libertarian icon Charles Murray, the author of many important books on libertarianism, and back before it was 'cool' btw, is an idiot, eh?

    But yeah John, I'm the only one.

    You're on today!

  • ||

    And he was wrong about Obama's speech. I bet even he admits to it now. Can you do anything but appeal to authority?

  • MNG||

    "you are the only one of the idiots who will still try to defend it"

    "Can you do anything but appeal to authority?"

    You're digging deeper John, deeper!

  • ||

    Noting the fact that you are one of the few people will still defend it is meant as an aside not an argument.

  • MNG||

    "Prominent Republican politicians reacted to the speech as well. Former Arkansas governor and 2008 candidate for president Mike Huckabee praised Obama's speech on the MSNBC program Morning Joe while also commenting on the Rev. Wright controversy. Huckabee argued that Obama "handled this about as well as anybody could" and suggested that it was "a very historic speech." ...Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain also offered a warm reaction to the speech during an interview with Chris Matthews on April 15 at Villanova University, describing it as an "excellent speech,"...Condoleezza Rice, the top ranking African-American in the Bush cabinet responded to the speech on March 28, saying, "I think it was important that he (Obama) gave it for a whole host of reasons."...Rice's predecessor as Secretary of State, Colin Powell, described Obama's speech as "a very, very thoughtful, direct speech" and added, "I admired him for giving it, and I agreed with much of what he said." Independent Women's Forum CEO and MSNBC political analyst Michelle Bernard said it was "the best speech and most important speech on race that we have heard as a nation since Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech."

  • MNG||

  • ||

    I don't care if the whole Republican Party thought it was great. It was a horrible speech for the reasons I give. Moreover, the reaction in 2008 at the height of Obama madness by a bunch of Republicans cowed into not wanting to appear racists is not particularly enlightening. Three years on, the speech looks a lot different.

  • MNG||

    ""you are the only one of the idiots who will still try to defend it""

    "I don't care if the whole Republican Party thought it was great."

    Like fluffy said, John will never, ever admit he was wrong or careless.

    Don't retreat, reload!

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    His Supreme Court nominees would be disasters.

    Well at least he got that right.

  • Wayne||

    You have to admit that it is a bit tone-deaf to give a "race speech" and refer to "typical white people", don't you?

    I mean, after all, Joe hoof-in-mouth Biden simply remarked that the ONE was a, "clean, articulate guy", and it took all kinds of apologists weeks to recertify Joe as a "good guy".

  • MNG||

    I don't think many people took that to mean anything bad about white people or his grandma, only the people that admitteldy really hate Obama for many other reasons saw that.

    It was clear to me that he loved his grandmother and was trying to make a statement about how even his beloved grandmother had some racial views that may not be perfect, but he wasn't going to stop loving her.

  • ||

    It was clear to me that he thought nothing of portraying his grandmother as a racist for his own political gain. The whole point of her "being a typical white person" was the idea that most white people are just racist even if they don't mean to be.

    Fuck him. That is insulting and patronizing. And that turn of phrase deserves to be used against his whinny arrogant ass at every opportunity.

  • MNG||

    It was the idea that, like on Avenue Q, "everyone is a little bit racist."

    Suddenly John is the PC police!

  • Apogee||

    No, what was clear, even at that early point, was that Obama was entirely tone deaf in his communication abilities.

    What wasn't clear was the ability of the smitten to ignore it.

  • MNG||

    "Take, for example, the treatment of his reference to his white grandmother. Of course you can go after him in all the ways that people have gone after him—if what you want to do is go after him. But suppose you approach Obama’s text under the twin assumptions that (a) he is trying to communicate with you, and, (b) your obligation is to make a good-faith effort to understand his meaning. I read what he said about his grandmother, and his words left me in no doubt about two things: He really loves his grandmother, and he was saying something important about race that I recognized from my own experience. I bet many of the people who have slammed him recognize it from their own experience too. The guy was being honest, and he was being right. What the hell more do you want?

  • ||

    I am sure he was being honest MNG in that he considers most white people racist. Good for him. But that is a pretty tone deaf and stupid think for him to say. And it is a horrible thing for someone who supposed to represent the entire country to believe.

  • MNG||

    Again, as Murray points out, any person who was coming at it with the assumptions he points too would see that he was arguing that everyone harbors some ideas that someone could see as racist and overreact to. He was actually condemning the rush to yell racist, as you often do, when, of course, you are not rushing to yell racist yourself (reverse racism of course!)

  • Apogee||

    The guy was being honest, and he was being right. What the hell more do you want?

    From some guy giving a speech? Not a problem. From a president? A LOT more.

    This isn't 2008 anymore, as the DNC is reminded every day.

  • Wayne||

    OK, Minge, how about a slight twist on Obama's speech. Suppose he had used the example of his father, a black man who had fathered a son and then abandoned him, and suppose he had referred to his father as a "typical black man"? I imagine that would not have been shrugged off so easily, although it does fit the stereotype.

    By the way, I do not think the pres is racist. I think true racists are quite rare.

  • ||

    Nah, that'll be Nanny Bloomberg.

  • ||

    I tried that...didn't turn out so well.

  • Jeffersonian||

    It's a violation of the commerce clause

  • MNG||

    Why doesn't he just deny the existence of hurricanes and forecasts of them? I mean, all those government funded scientists may say they exist and are coming, but they just want to pump up FEMA, NOAA and other alphabet soups to run our lives from stinking DC!

  • ||

    That is a great idea. Because to deny the validity of anything put forth under the rubric of science is to deny everything.

  • MNG||

    It's got all the elements:

    1. Climatologists and meteorologists, immature science, whadda they know?
    2. Government funding and agencies a plenty (incentives!)
    3. Many people say the effects will require massive government aid and control

    I mean, if you're going to deny stuff you don't know much about, go all out man!

  • ||

    Except for that fact that weather forecasters actually make verifiable and sometimes accurate predictions. If you don't believe the hurricane is there, you can go look for yourself. As oppose to the unicorn farts that climatologists swear exist and are proven by their models.

  • MNG||

    So I guess you believe in evolution because you can go look for yourself and see it happening...And "sometimes accurate" in a comparative defense of meteorology vs. climatology, whew, my sides are splitting.

    You're a riot dude.

  • ||

    It is easy to see evolution. You can go look at the fossil record and it can be easily explained. And evolution makes predictions about what the fossil record we haven't seen should look like and those predictions have been proven.

    Climate science tells you what you want to hear. So as a result you made no demands of it like you would any other science. Everyone knows where you are coming from MNG and that there is nothing climate scientists could tell you that you wouldn't believe provided that it supported your biases.

    Why do you constantly need to piss on our legs and swear it is raining?

  • MNG||

    I've said many times I don't want to hear that AGW is true. It can't possibly be good for what I support. More importantly, what is it I 'want to hear' from that? You continue to equate the scientific fact of AGW with the political claims some make around it. There are quite prominent libertarians who accept AGW while denying those claims (John Adler on Volokh and Ron Bailey here for example). Accepting AGW just means you are banking that experts in the field likely are correct in what they say, it entails no policy choices.

    So nice try.

    As to evolution, as even Stephen Jay Gould pointed out, you can't show that using only the fossil record dude. This is why creationists are not averse to debating the fossil record.

  • ||

    "the scientific fact of AGW..." Really? No, it's not a fact; it's not even a theory since theories leave open the possibility of the evidence not supporting them. "The science is settled" pretty much precludes that part.

  • ||

    " it's not even a theory since theories leave open the possibility of the evidence not supporting them. "

    If it's warmer, that's global warming. If it's colder, that's "climate change", which is global warming. What's to disprove?

  • Apogee||

    MNG - so you're making travel plans for August 2018 based on hurricane predictions - wait, what?

    These same meteorologists will admit that they have no predictive capability that far into the future? Even as to general incidence rate?

    What gives? What could possibly be the weak point in a theory that attempts predictions in a complicated system over a century? Even when such theory is constantly updated with revisions that threaten the viability of the entire theory?

  • sarcasmic||

    He is hanging out on the beech

    Racist!
    Insinuating he climbs trees like a monkey!
    Racist!
    Racist!

  • Sparky||

    He's going to show that storm how much of a badass he is. And if he thinks of coming inland I'll drive out there and prod him back with a pitchfork.

  • ||

    If the hysteria around Katrina taught me one thing, it's that the President has a machine in the White House that controls hurricanes. The storm's path of destruction is entirely at the direction of the Commander in Chief. Obama has nothing to fear.

  • sarcasmic||

    And especially note that yet another report finds no evidence for a link between vaccination and autism.

    But, but, but... freaking mer-cer-ree!

    Like AGW it's another irrefutable hypothesis.
    Just as human activity must be causing climate change because belching all those gasses into the atmosphere must have an effect because it must, vaccines must be causing harm because injecting all that stuff into the body must have an effect because it must.

    Conclusion->data->experiment->hypothesis

    It's the anti-scientific method.

  • moses||

    I bet you DENY the earth was created in 7 days, just six thousand years ago too, don't you?

  • sarcasmic||

    Guilty as charged. I am a creationism denier.

  • Moses||

    Harumph!

  • ||

    Next time you see him comin' man, you better run.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The toxicity of (pure) mercury is overstated. Since it isn't water soluble, it's not absorbed well by the body unless it's vaporized (do not try to vacuum mercury spills). Organo-mercuric compounds are far more easily absorbed, and far more toxic. (Minimata disease).

    Young children are far more sensitive to mercury. However, if the mercury was damaging, the symptoms would almost certainly be both more common and more severe than autism.

  • ||

    Mercury? You're soaking in it.

  • fish||

    Pro Lib you owe me a new keyboard! If you'll excuse me I need to go get all the coffee out of my nostrils now.

  • Coeus||

    do not try to vacuum mercury spills

    Even with a carpet cleaner?

  • Coeus||

    (Serious question BTW)

  • fish||

    Yeah even with a carpet cleaner! Even with a HEPA equipped vac from a scientific supplies firm! Amalgamate it first (like a dental filling.....shit that's going to start a threadjack isn't it) and dispose (in an approved legal manner) of the chunks. Wear proper PPE when you do that part of the clean up. Probably best not to mess with it if you can avoid it.

  • BakedPenguin||

    No. Never try to clean mercury or mercury compounds with anything that has the potential to vaporize the mercury. Instructions for a broken thermometer, although I'm sure they'd do fine for a light bulb.

  • ||

    Uh, also the part where the vaccines being blamed DON'T EVEN HAVE MERCURY IN THEM AND HAVEN'T FOR YEARS.

  • PantsFan||

    *grabs popcorn, presses F5 continually*

  • MNG||

    Shouldn't libertarians get in on the vaccine denial? I mean, a lot of progressives use public health concerns to call for larger, more intrusive government. Why not do the AGW thing here and just start denying?

  • ||

    I think Libertarians could rightfully say the government shouldn't force people to have vaccinations but then heap scorn on the idiots who choose not to get them.

    The problem also is that there really is an externality to not getting them. Even if you get the vaccine you don't magically become immune. Your body is weakened for a few days or weeks while your immunity builds up. During that time, you can catch the sickness. So what has happened in several places is kids who didn't get vaccinated have given a disease to kids who did. You really are endangering more than just yourself by not getting vaccinated.

  • MNG||

    I'm just curious, what is the principle that we should heap scorn but not force? I mean, according to you their idiocy is actually threating the health and lives of others.

  • ||

    Because there is a huge difference between civil society and government. Civil society is mores and manners. Government is force and law. Being a libertarian does not mean you think everyone can do what they like without being wrong. It just means you don't think the government should as a general rule stop them from doing it via the force of law.

    Do you honestly not understand that distinction? I guess since you are a leftists you really can't see anything beyond government and government coercion.

  • sarcasmic||

    I guess since you are a leftists you really can't see anything beyond government and government coercion.

    Allow me to quote Bastiat.

    Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

    We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
  • ||

    Great quote.

  • sarcasmic||

  • ||

    I'm just curious, what is the principle that we should heap scorn but not force?

    The non-aggression principle?

  • ||

    Such bitterness, MNG. Its unbecoming.

  • MNG||

    It's not bitterness, indeed, it's funny.

    See, once you start go all 'armchair scientist' and start denying the consensuses of experts in a field with political implications then where do you draw that line? If I'm to believe that the AGW consensus is bunk because there is a government funded cabal of scientists behind it pushing big government, then why not with the consensus on vaccines? Certainly the deniers there make very, very similar arguments as Ron notes above.

  • ||

    "consensus". There you go again. Consensus is NOT science and it's not a method. It is a belief.

  • MNG||

    ""consensus". There you go again. Consensus is NOT science and it's not a method. It is a belief."

    So those who disbelieve what most experts on vaccines say about vaccines are being totally rational. Thanks for making my point!

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Unrelated to the topic here, ask Louis Frank about consensus. He is dancing the "fuck consensus" jig now. His book was the best criticism of the politicized process out there.

  • Apogee||

    If I'm to believe that the AGW consensus is bunk because there is a government funded cabal of scientists behind it pushing big government, then why not with the consensus on vaccines?

    Because each movement - AGW and AntiVac, is a break from established science, contrary to your protestations. And AGW is anything but a consensus. AGW's big break? The claim that they have the computer modeling capability to predict such a complex system over a long period of time, despite repeated demonstrations of error in their models.

  • MNG||

    "AGW and AntiVac, is a break from established science, contrary to your protestations. And AGW is anything but a consensus"

    Ah, so all those statements in support of AGW from nearly every large organization of professional scientists are fabricated or something...

  • Apogee||

    Ah, so all those statements in support of AGW from nearly every large organization of professional scientists are fabricated or something...

    How are support papers science? The break occurs in the belief that there exists a testable model or predictive theory.

    All I ever see are support papers from organizations.

    It seems to get very quiet in the area of positive data that result from previous predictions. In fact, one of the chief problems with AGW is the actual lack of any actual scientific evidence whatsoever.

    This theory is so vague, and changes so often that it is entirely laughable.

    All you have to go on are these organizations. If there existed reliable data, they wouldn't need papers of support, now would they?

  • sarcasmic||

    And AGW is anything but a consensus.

    It is among the accepted scientific community. A condition of being a part of that community is professing a belief in AGW.

    There is also a consensus among Christians that Jesus will return. A condition of being a Christian is believing Jesus will return.

  • Apogee||

    The people I know in the scientific community complain about the pressure of always showing a link to AGW in their work.

    You know, so's nobody gets hurt. Capice?

  • sarcasmic||

    If I'm to believe that the AGW consensus is bunk because there is a government funded cabal of scientists behind it pushing big government

    No. You are to disbelieve it because it is not science.
    The point about where the funding comes from is to point out your intellectual dishonesty in that you would distrust it if "government" was replaced with "business".

    AGW is not science. It is politics.
    There is a thing called the scientific method.

    Hypothesis->Experiment->Data->Conclusion

    *not*

    Hypothesis->Conclusion->Data->Computer Models->Vote

    That ain't science.

  • MNG||

    "You are to disbelieve it because it is not science."

    If you don't mind, just like in the vaccine debate, I'll take the opinion of all those scientists about whether AGW rests on science over yours. Thanks.

  • sarcasmic||

    They have not used the scientific method.
    That is a fact.
    Therefore it is not science.

    No scientific method, no science.

  • sarcasmic||

    In the vaccine debate the scientific method has been used, by the folks claiming that the vaccines do not cause the harm that the Jenny McCarthy types say they do.

    Hypothesis->Experiment->Data->Conclusion

    Without that it is not science.

  • Pasteur||

    Because there is legitimate, repeatable, science that backs up the germ theory of disease?

  • MNG||

    Dude, you know as little about bacteriology as you do climatology, so forgive me if I don't take your word about either.

  • ||

    You do understand you have reduced yourself to a credentialist clown in your mindless belief in this shit don't you? I mean really. You couldn't even write a parody of your posts if one tried.

  • MNG||

    It's credentialism to argue that people with experience and training in a subject are more likely to know about that subject than people who lack both? Well, if that is so then yes I guess I am a credentialist...

  • sarcasmic||

    It's more like religious faith.
    What the AGW folks present has not been tested or arrived at by the scientific method, therefor it is not science.

  • Apogee||

    I guess I am a credentialist...

    Who spends quite a bit of time arguing over questions of science with fallacious appeals to authority.

    What you don't admit, however, is that a scientific principle is disproven by only one instance of falsification.

    For your arguments to stand, there needs to be complete consensus - and that's not the case. Your arguments fail on their own, since by your own admission you are not qualified to decide who is and who is not 'accepted' into the consensus.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Shouldn't libertarians get in on the vaccine denial? I mean, a lot of progressives use public health concerns to call for larger, more intrusive government. Why not do the AGW thing here and just start denying?

    You could take the fact that libertarians generally don't deny the fact that vaccines work despite the apparent political problems it causes for them as evidence that their sometimes-rejection of AGW isn't politically motivated either. I mean, you're right - if libertarians were given to rejecting science on political grounds they'd probably reject vaccine science as eagerly as they reject AGW. The fact that libertarians are totally on board with vaccine science testifies to their intellectual honesty.

  • ||

    Hokae.

    It probably says nothing about their blindspots, right?

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Right. I was just having fun with the MNG's idea that libertarians should be more dishonest to be consistent.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    And especially note that yet another report finds no evidence for a link between vaccination and autism.

    But... but... Jenny McCarthy! Jim Carrey!! Indigo Children!

  • sarcasmic||

    Matt Damon!

  • pasteur||

    Because there is legitimate, repeatable, science that backs up the germ theory of disease?

  • Coeus||

    Ah, vaccinations. One of the few areas where most of our principled regulars seem to forget what the fucking term libertarian means.

    Question, anyone here for mandatory vaccinations? Realize that while, exceedingly rare, vaccinations can result in death. If so, are you for any other coerced government intervention in the name of safety?

    Crazy people kill others every day. Preemptively locking up anyone who acts a little weird would save lives too. Where do you draw the line and why?

    (and to get it out of the way, threats to shoot me will be met with derisive laughter at your impotent keyboard rage. For some reason (drink? close enough), I get several threats of death almost every time this issue comes up.)

  • robc||

    I agree. As I just said above, I have no responsibility to the herd.

  • ||

    I have no responsibility to the herd.

    The Hindmost would like to speak with you about that.

  • ||

    Large numbers of people not getting vaccinated can result in the death of people who have gotten themselves vaccinated but haven't fully developed the immunity.

    Last I looked Libertarianism didn't give you the right to harm other people with impunity.

  • sarcasmic||

    Persuasion, not force.

  • Coeus||

    There is a similar rational to banning peanuts.

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    You're talking about pre-crime. Yes there's a chance they could give others the disease...just as the OP correctly pointed out that there's always a chance a crazy person might go on a shooting spree, particularly if Sarah Palin sends them subliminal messages in their dreams of cross-hairs over certain districts (I desperately want to hack her website and put the biohazard symbol over some city suffering an outbreak, to watch people try and blame the spread on her).

    Eventually your statement would devolve into treating everyone who gets sick and doesn't isolate themselves as committing aggression. After all, they could confine themselves to their homes until they get better, but they may choose not to. So where does it end?

  • ||

    If I had a deadly enough disease, say a reappearance of the plague, you very well may treat someone like that.

    Lots of actions are criminal because they intentionally endanger people even if they don't actually cause harm. If I am go out and drive 100 mph the wrong way up a freeway, I am rightfully guilty of reckless driving and reckless endangerment even if by some miracle I don't cause any harm.

    It is the same principle here. If by not getting a vaccination, I endanger other people, I am guilty even if I don't actually infect someone.

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    The flu kills more people than exotic diseases every year. How are you going to determine what counts as "dangerous" enough?

  • Coeus||

    It is the same principle here. If by not getting a vaccination, I endanger other people, I am guilty even if I don't actually infect someone.

    If by not getting regularly psychoanalyzed, I could become crazy and endanger other people. I am guilty even if I don't actually hurt someone.

  • ||

    That is just reductio absurdum. It is not an argument. We don't have the kind of scientific certainty and knowledge associated with psycho analysis that we do with disease and vaccinations, which is of course why you choose it. So your might as well be talking about mickey mouse and unicorns.

    Make an analogy that is apt and we can talk. As it is, you are just engaging in juvenile sophistry and wasting everyone's time.

  • Coeus||

    As it is, you are just engaging in juvenile sophistry and wasting everyone's time.

    Says the tard who compares not getting a vaccine to driving 100 miles an hour down the freeway in the wrong direction.

  • fish||

    I guess I have to say it again....Go fuck yourself!

  • fish||

    That was for John not you Coeus.

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    And a further thought, how do you determine if the person knew they had a dangerous illness? What if they just thought they had a bad headache that day? What if they thought it was just the common cold?

  • ||

    You would have to prove that they knew or should have known in court. BFD. We do it all of the time. In the case of vaccinations, we know not getting them creates a risk. If you choose not to take them, you are knowingly subjecting other people to risks (albeit smaller risks) just as much as if you drove that car the wrong way up the free way.

  • robc||

    Wrong. Going out in public with sneeze-aids is the same as driving the wrong way on the interstate.

    Not getting the vaccine for sneeze-aids is a choice. Like choosing not to get drivers training.

  • ||

    In principle they are both acts which needlessly endanger other people. The only difference between the two is the amount of risk associated with the two acts. But change the facts, suppose that my sneezes were the early onset of a contagous disease that had an 80% mortality rate. I would say going to school under those circumstances would be very akin to driving the wrong way on the freeway. You are confusing quantity with quality.

  • fish||

    Good lord but you are the "Tony" of the right!

  • ||

    I am sorry you are retarded ananopussy. If you can't understand the similarities between endangering someone with a car and endangering someone with a fatal contagious disease, I am thinking my initial estimate of your IQ being around 50 might be a little bit high.

  • fish||

    I have a clarification for you up thread....let me restate it here....Go fuck yourself!

  • Wayne||

    Fish, that is low. Nobody should be accused of being similar to Tony.

  • robc||

    But change the facts, suppose that my sneezes were the early onset of a contagous disease that had an 80% mortality rate. I would say going to school under those circumstances would be very akin to driving the wrong way on the freeway.

    Isnt that exactly what I said?

    It is the going in public with the deadly disease that is equivalent to driving the wrong way on the interstate, NOT the act of not getting vaccinated.

    [Note: possible threading fail, but John should know to quote the specific person he is responding to once we are this deep - Im assuming he is responding to me]

  • ||

    Sorry Rob. I misread your post.

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    Point taken, but I still would like to hear how you determine risk when a disease is more prone to kill some people than others. Using the flu example, should a healthy young male face penalties for giving the flu to an elderly AIDS patient on the bus if it kills them?

    I get your point, but what I'm trying to say is, there are just so many variables to this that are impossible to prove. If someone hits someone with their car, that's an establishable fact. If someone gets sick, you have no idea how many people they passed that day who may have given them the illness. No idea if someone said, "but I was vaccinated!" but it didn't work on that particular person for whatever reason.

    The only thing I can see is maybe some kind of discount on health insurance if you get the vaccine, v. those who don't. But that still doesn't address liability for others, which is the point of this particular sub-thread.

  • ||

    I don't think we could ever hold them legally responsible because you could never prove in most cases this person caused this other person to get a disease.

    But I will say that it does argue for legally requiring vaccinations in some cases, where the disease is serious and very contagious. I would never argue for say mandatory flue vaccination (absent some kind of pandemic). But I might argue for mandatory small pox vaccination if the disease or one as serious ever reappeared.

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    This is honestly not a subject I'd given much thought to before, so I'm kind of playing devil's advocate to flesh out some thoughts. I'll have to read some more on the subject before forming a firm opinion.

  • robc||

    mandatory flue vaccination

    Exactly what are you burning in your fireplace?

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    Diseased bodies. And lots of them.

  • T||

    bacteria, obviously.

  • ||

    Why is that a problem? The only people you could infect are those that chose not to get vacinated and that is the consequence of their choice.

  • sarcasmic||

    By not eating right and getting enough exercise you increase the risk of preventable illness whose cost would be socialized, costing everyone money.
    Therefore bad diet and lack of exercise should be criminalized.

  • luvmyboys||

    exactly!!!

  • fish||

    Large numbers of people not getting vaccinated can result in the death of people who have gotten themselves vaccinated but haven't fully developed the immunity.

    Gee sounds to me like vaccination science needs some work.

    Bad news John, eventually something is going to get you.

  • ||

    I love this argument, also. Everyone must get vaccinated to prevent the spread of disease, but that doesn't actually prevent the spread of disease because said vaccinations "fail". So, I must not only get a vaccination to protect "the herd" it will not even necessarily protect me and may even have negative effects?!

    This is the very definition of "Collective".

  • T||

    The usual method for forcing vaccinations is school attendance. If you can find a school that will let you enroll a non-vaccinated child, go for it.

  • robc||

    Home schools.

  • Coeus||

    home school

    As someone who has taught public school, I would recommend it anyway.

  • fish||

    If you can find a school that will let you enroll a non-vaccinated child, go for it.

    It's remote and not many people live there but schools in a little place called California will exempt you from required shots under religious, philosophical and health exemptions.

  • ||

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39.....est-years/

    And that little place has things like whooping cough outbreaks thanks to the high concentration of retarded and superstitious parents in the state.

  • fish||

    And that little place has things like whooping cough outbreaks thanks to the high concentration of retarded and superstitious parents in the state

    ...and democrats John....lots and lots of democrats...run away run away!

  • T||

    I've heard of this land, and am reliably informed any public policy undertaken there is most likely one sensible folks should not emulate.

  • fish||

    I'm forced to agree with you regarding your statement on most aspects of California politics. I'm forced to differ on the vaccine issue.

  • ||

    The usual method for forcing vaccinations is school attendance. If you can find a school that will let you enroll a non-vaccinated child, go for it.

    In my experience, this isn't true. School districts don't like to tell you, and they resist, but you can usually claim that it is against your personal beliefs and they let it go at that. Churches, Boy Scouts, summer camps, ect all send you the form and they say "this immunization form MUST be filled out" and when you say "well, my child wasn't immunized" they respond "then you have to sign this form."

    Public school teachers are reason enough to home school.

  • ||

    Actually, I think that public health issues are not open-and-shut issues for libertarians.

    If someone is a threat to public safety, libertarians are generally cool with locking them up. Go around hitting people, go to jail.

    That's not so far from "go around infecting people, go to jail".

  • Coeus||

    That's not so far from "go around infecting people, go to jail".

    Not getting vaccinated is not the same as going around and infecting people. You could get vaccinated and still infect people, and you could not get vaccinated and still not go around infecting people.

  • Mr. Soul||

    This discussion is perfect. People trying to influence each-other and not compel. Im for vaccines but for freedom more.

  • ||

    If the Beltway neocons at Reason say to get a shot, I won't. Ron Paul is My God and I'm not getting a vaccination unless he tells Us too. The One is the only One who can compel me to do anything.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    But the swine flu vaccine contains a little bit of swine flu virus. Swine flu comes from Mexico. I don't want to be poisoned by Mexicans!

  • T||

    Don't eat in a restaurant, then.

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    The vaccine will be administered via frijoles.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Shit, I go away for a few weeks and then finally decide to pop back in for a quick visit, and what do I find?

    John
    MNG
    John
    MNG
    John
    MNG
    John
    MNG
    John
    MNG

    ...ad nauseam

    See ya.

  • Charlotte Sometimes||

    Try going away for a few months and dropping back by in the middle of PWN'D 'FEST!!

  • Landlubbertarian||

    I blame Episiarch.

  • robc||

    incif is your friend.

    I have found you only need to filter one of them, it handles their shitfests.

  • Wayne||

    I like their "shit fests".

  • kinnath||

    Doing a simple risk analysis shows that getting a vaccination is a no-brainer, but if people wish to choose not to get vaccinated that should be their choice. But private organizations must also have the right to exclude people that choose not to vaccinate. You employer should be allowed to demand you get vaccinated or don't come to work. Your church should be able to shun if you choose not to get vaccinated.

    There is, of course, the issue of public places. In general, I don't believe that state can ban people from being in public places if they don't get a vaccination {there may be exceptions for extremely deadly and contagious diseases}. So free individuals have to make the choice to go to a public place where some percentage of the population is not vaccinated.

    The real problem is when the state compells you to be in a public place (like a school) and then compells you to get a vaccination.

  • Apogee||

    there may be exceptions for extremely deadly and contagious diseases

    I think that's what most people are talking about. Since the flu doesn't kill the majority of people it infects, it isn't treated the same way.

  • Mensan||

    It doesn't need to kill the majority of people who are infected to be extremely deadly. Mortality estimates of the Spanish Flu pandemic place the death toll around 50-100 million, and that was only about 20% of the people who were infected. If a similarly virulent pandemic occured to day the death toll would be about 700 million.

  • Apogee||

    It doesn't need to kill the majority of people who are infected to be extremely deadly.

    You're right - bad wording on my part. The connotation 'deadly' doesn't always directly relate to the mortality rate, either. Some diseases are more insidious (and more difficult to stop) if they gestate over a long period of time and mutate often (AIDS) than if they burn out quickly because of high mortality and immediate symptoms. (Ebola Zaire, Marburg)

  • Mensan||

    Lead in on the local news this afternoon (emphasis mine):
    "You've heard that the MMR vaccine causes autism, well one new study says that may not be true."

    That doesn't exactly say the same thing as: "An analysis of more than 1,000 research articles concluded that ... the MMR vaccine does not cause autism ...."

  • Coeus||

    While I've seen nothing that indicates that vaccines cause autism, I have a problem with meta-analysis studies (no idea if this is the right term). Look at the second-hand smoke meta-analysis studies. Collecting a bunch of hand-picked shit together doesn't make it vaild, it just makes it a big pile of shit.

  • Wayne||

    Ron Paul polling at the top of the ticket for Republican nomination!!!

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ti.....45109.html

  • ||

    I doubt the fainting is actually caused by the vaccine but rather a reaction to taking a needle in general.

  • ||

    Time to hit it up JD, go boi.

    www.real-anon.at.tc

  • luvmyboys||

    where's all the evidence to support their claims???... I hate reading fear mongering articles like this that include no supporting evidence and just cuz they say so, so there. it works though.. a lot of people believe this to be the gospel truth, even though it is far from it.

  • ||

    The government's position (and the medical community and drug companies) are afraid of mass rejection if they told us the truth. Understood. So they ask us to place our children's health at risk for the public good. You can take their counsel as an act of faith, or you can educate yourself.

    This article, though, does not make me want to vaccinate my children.

  • Wayne||

    You grew up in a world without smallpox, polio, diptheria, tetanus, plague, measles, mumps, rubella...

    Say thanks to the herd. Hope your kids don't pay the price for your stupidity.

  • ||

    Vaccines work, but not 100%. And they could be made better, but apparently aren't (leaving mercury in the vaccines after packaging them in single does vials doesn't give me much confidence).

    Some kids have conditions that increase the probability of serious side-effects from vaccines. No one seems to write about that much, either.

    So continue to shout down those of us pushing for new technologies in vaccine preparations. And I hope your kids don't contract encephalomeningitus.

  • Randall Hoven||

    Bailey's comment has nothing to do with, and is in fact counter to, the excerpt from the NAS. Before condescending to us, how about giving us some facts. For example: your 5 year survival rate if you get the vaccine, and if you don't. We need numbers, not platitudes.

  • ||

    Are most vaccines still prepared like in days of Pasteur, rodent brain tissue and what not and contain a lot of ballast proteins that can provoke autoimmune reactions against people’s brain tissue?

    Are new ways of developing vaccines without ballast proteins being explored?

  • ||

    So you are saying that one can be vacinated for bacterial meningitis? I have not heard that.

  • ||

    There have been several cases when vaccines caused small-scale epidemics of encephalitis in Russia. I imagine that this has happened in Europe and America as well, but is reported as a vague "adverse result" like in this article.

  • ||

    I'd wager that you imagine a lot of things.

  • ||

    I'd wager that you have never heard of the WHO manual by Anderson & May titled “Infectious diseased of humans: Prevention and control”.

  • Mensan||

    "So you are saying that one can be vacinated for bacterial meningitis? I have not heard that."

    It depends on which bacterium causes it. Meningitis is inflammation of the meninges (the connective tissue sheaths that cover the brain and spinal cord), and it can be caused by several different bacteria and viral infections; and even by some parasitic worms, amoebae, and cancers.

    The most common bacterial causes of meningitis are Neisseria meningitidis Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Haemophilus influenzae against which the meningococcal, pneumococcal, and Hib vaccines, respectively, are very effective. It’s also frequently caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (the same bacteria that causes tuberculosis) in Africa and Southeast Asia. There is a vaccine against M. tuberculosis, but it’s not very effective.

    There are vaccines against some causes of viral meningitis, the MMR vaccine for rubeola and the mumps, the Salk vaccine for poliovirus, and the varicella vaccine for HHV-3 (chickenpox). Epstein-Barr is a frequent cause of meningitis, and a vaccine for it was still in clinical trials the last I read. Other frequent causes are West Nile virus and HIV, but there are no vaccines against those.

  • ||

    Yeah, the meningitis caused by neissera and strep pneumo at least.

  • Lee Reynolds||

    The problem with parents who don't get their kids vaccinated isn't that their own kids are more likely to die, that's just a Darwin award by proxy. Parents who are that stupid, ignorant, emotionally incoherent, or prone to magical thinking deserve to have their offspring removed from the gene pool. We don't need future Feng Shui consultants or healing crystal specialists.

    No, the problem is that these parents put all of us at risk by undermining herd immunity. I've had all kinds of shots when I was a kid for all kinds of diseases, but the immunity those vaccinations created is not always life-long.

  • ||

    As A Person With Asperger's Syndrome, a form of mild autism, it outright offends me when someone says that Vaccines cause autism!Its a condition, not a sickness! You can't catch Autism, it just Happens!

    Fuck You Jenny McCarthy!

  • WB||

    Vaccinations are fine when they work. But, there have to be safeguards in place that prevent manufacturing problems. There are documented people in the past that were made retarded by a bad batch of vaccinations.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement