You did not just say that. Buddy, any point you might have had has now been lost to casual misogyny.
You’re a fuckhead. An ignorant, misinformed fuckhead, at that.
It pisses off a lot of people in the medical field (such as me) and many others as well, yes. And it goes beyond the risks to which ill-informed (or completely misinformed) parents subject their children.
All those diseases that kids used to routinely get before vaccination, and which the great majority of the time didn’t permanently maim or kill them - why shouldn’t parents get to make the call about whether they’ll take that small chance that their kid won’t be blinded or killed by measles or some other preventable disease?
Well, there’s other kids for starters. Epidemics begin when enough children are unvaccinated to diminish herd immunity. The disease is introduced when a non-vaccinated child comes into the community. The larger pool of unprotected kids spreads the disease, and since vaccines are not 100% effective, others come down with it at well.
If one doesn’t care about those other kids, take the large number of adults who are susceptible to preventable diseases - for instance those whose immune systems are damaged or not functioning properly for some reason. This includes those born with immune defects, get infections (like HIV) that damage immunity or are on immunosuppressive drugs (i.e. those who’ve gotten organ transplants, are on chemotherapy or receiving immunosuppressive treatment for potentially crippling or fatal diseases like rheumatoid arthritis or lupus). If they pick up an infectious disease from an unvaccinated child, the results could be fatal.
From an editorial in yesterday’s USA Today:
"So why, many parents may wonder, should they follow new recommendations from a federal advisory panel that children up to age 18 (an expansion from up to age 5) get annual flu vaccinations, either a shot or the more recently approved nasal spray?
For the answer, just look at what happened in Japan. When school children there were given flu vaccines, flu-related deaths among elderly Japanese dropped dramatically. Even if children rarely get deathly ill from the flu, they spread it to people who do."
Like it or not, red_awning, we live in a community and have some obligation to look out for each other.
“Letting your body heal itself” is an acceptable mantra, to a point. When it starts putting the rest of us and our loved ones at serious risk, it becomes unacceptable.
I thought red_awning was female? 
A Presidential candidate has leaped aboard the already-derailed thimerosal-autism train.
John McCain, at a forum in Texas Friday:
*"McCain said, per ABC News’ Bret Hovell, that “It’s indisputable that (autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what’s causing it. And we go back and forth and there’s strong evidence that indicates that it’s got to do with a preservative in vaccines.”
McCain said there’s “divided scientific opinion” on the matter, with “many on the other side that are credible scientists that are saying that’s not the cause of it.”
The established medical community is not as divided as McCain made it sound, however. Overwhelmingly the “credible scientists,” at least as the government and the medical establishment so ordain them, side against McCain’s view.
Moreover, those scientists and organizations fear that powerful people lending credence to the thimerosal theory could dissuade parents from getting their children immunized – which in their view would lead to a very real health crisis."*
Never mind that the preservative in question (thimerosal) has been gone from virtually all childhood vaccines since 2001. Or that the overwhelming weight of medical and scientific knowledge (from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the Institute of Medicine) shows no connection between vaccines (with or without thimerosal) and autism. John McCain knows differently.
This latest idiocy has evaporated a huge chunk of the remaining respect I had for John McCain.
I’m pretty sure what I said was gender neutral. You can be a woman and still engage in misogyny and sexism.
Sorry, I wasn’t being clear. I wasn’t questioning your response, I was questioning the post you responded to.
I see. Gotcha.
It’s probably just a play for the support of Ron Paul’s people. The abovementioned idiot I spoke to described Ron Paul (whose campaign button he was wearing) as an example of a politician who “gets this.” Whether Dr Paul supports that statement I don’t know, but his supporters apparently do.
Just for entertainment, how far does this go for you? Many adults are no longer protected by their childhood vaxes against, say, diptheria and tetanus after all, titers tend to go down with age on some of the others, and most adults are not vaxed at all against, say, Hepatitis, flu, HPV, et al.
Do they also have an obligation to look out for the community – should we have mandatory vaxing for adults?
Jackmannii I agree with your comment. But society doesn’t bear that out now, does it?
If we really cared about the “masses” we’d be sure to reflect the needs of children in this society and their parents. But we do not.
Most kids I know get shuffled off to daycare sick and contageous half the time because mom or dad can’t take the day off from work to take care of them. The limited days off they do have are quickly eaten up as the approved parents that trot out and get their kids meds dump their kids in daycare sick anyway.
So the whole “needs of the many” thing disintegrates pretty quickly.
Its obvious Ms Purl that you thought I was a guy, back pedaling from your hysterical rant doesn’t do anything to change my opinion about how extreme women get when someone doesn’t agree with them and calls them on their bullshit.
The example that was given about the child hooked up to a respirator and my opinion being what it was because I wasn’t holding a dying child in my arms was melodramatic corn pie.
And its very typical tactic of women in debate to use such comments to try to guilt or manipulate a person into feeling like a “bad” person for having a different opinion. In my experience most men don’t use this tactic in a debate.
And I think regardless of what is written on here most people will agree with my observation.
No they won’t.
Yes they will. You might not but most people will.
Talk about anecdotal bullshit.
That’s as poorly thought-out as the rest of your posts. I’ve known plenty of men who try to pull the emotional card in the midst of an argument, and plenty of women who are analytical & purely rational.
If Winfrey has attempted to draw links between vaccines and autism, then that bothers me. She has a great deal of influence, and knows it, and oft seeks to use that influence to change the world as she thinks it should be. Now, that last part doesn’t bother me–but I think if you’re going to try to change the world, you should make an effort to know what the fuck you’re talking about.
Of course, but its usually the other way around. Anyway its true, just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it true.
If you are having an argument and someone says or writes
“Tell that to little Jimmy Doohickens as he’s strapped up to a respirator gasping for his last breath”
9 times out of ten its gonna be a woman talking and not a man, and its so lame that women still pull this crap when its SUCH a woman thing to do that when one does its even more lame.
Yeah, women do this constantly. Don’t you just hate that they can’t think as clearly as men do?
:rolleyes:
It was not “lame” to talk about the actual effects of diseases the anti-vaxxers are so ludicrously quick to belittle. Whooping cough is not a minor illness in a small baby. The disease carries a very real risk of serious complications. Before the vaccine roughly 5,000 - 10,000 people died in America alone. However ugly, little babies on respirators is just a fact when it comes to pertussis.
You want to see hysteria? Go read the idiotic comments on the link Jackmanii brought up about McCain’s ill informed remarks on thimerosol. The anti-vax movement is just filled with over the top stories about Johnny’s alleged immediate descent into gibbering idiocy five seconds after his first shot.
Its not about thinking clearly. Its about using emotion in the middle of a discussion that has nothing to do with emotion.
Very much a female tendancy although I’ve known a fair share of men in my life like this. Wow seems I have a groupie.
WHy is it that widdle baby coughing all over his pampers isn’t “anecdotal” but my experience with people I know and 14 years of parenting is.
Most children don’t die of diseases like measles and whooping cough. I do think that vaccines are useful. I’ve already stated that I’m not against vaccines. But one kid dying isn’t that big of a deal.
I detect a lot of emotion and bias in this sentence by red-awning:
“Most kids I know get shuffled off to daycare sick and contageous half the time because mom or dad can’t take the day off from work to take care of them. The limited days off they do have are quickly eaten up as the approved parents that trot out and get their kids meds dump their kids in daycare sick anyway”
Just sayin.