patrick.net

HydroCabron says

Shut up, bitch.

What an ironic expression coming from someone who has a dog for avatar.

By citing the irrelevant numbers, you are only proving your own poor logic ability. Take the first item in your list for example, Smallpox, unless you are planning on giving birth to a child between the years of 1900-1904, after cranking up your time machine, it's pointless to get a smallpox vaccine for your newborn. Guess what? Most people born in the last 30 years indeed have not been afflicted with the smallpox vaccine that leave unsightly scars on their arms.

Call it Crazy says

Do you have any idea what the recommended age for the MMR is

Of course. That's my point idiot.

Reality says

The benefit vs. risk analysis of whether giving an infant measles vaccine is highly dependent on the infant's environment. If the infant is being raised a 3rd world country where measles are an ongoing concern, then the odds are highly in favor of immunizing. However, for a child being raised in an upper middle class to upper class family, rarely in public outside the house, and the household has both parents and full-time baby sitter fully immunized with MMR vaccine for decades, the odds are in favor of delaying even a relatively benign vaccine like MMR to after 1yr old, when the child's brain is better developed. I did not give my child MMR until she was 4 and ready to attend pre-school.

Again--you completely missed the point. If there weren't a bunch of anti-vaxxers around, it would be OK to wait until the child is 4. But now, babies are getting it at daycare when they're under 1.

This actually brings up a good question for the vaxers: why aren't you giving yourself a Smallpox Vaccine now? and putting an unsightly scar on your arm?

tatupu70 says

Again--you completely missed the point. If there weren't a bunch of anti-vaxxers around, it would be OK to wait until the child is 4. But now, babies are getting it at daycare when they're under 1.

What the hell are they doing putting babies in daycare before they are 1 year's old? The parents in that case should be shot, in order to immunize against far greater problems for the rest of the society: such as kids growing up to be criminals due to lack of parental supervision and care.

Not even the CDC recommends MMR before 1 year's of age. Vaccines have side effects: overloading immune system causing autoimmune disease, chemicals damaging a fledgling brain, as well as one guaranteed downside: pain infliction on a child who is not yet fully verbal and doesn't quite understand why the parents are not protecting him/her from the prick.

Reality says

What the hell are they doing putting babies in daycare before they are 1 year's old? The parents in that case should be shot, in order to immunize against far greater problems for the rest of the society: such as kids growing up to be criminals due to lack of parental supervision and care.

OK--so your solution is to never bring the baby out of the house? Great plan. It was daycare this time. Next time it could be at the grocery store. Or an airplane.

Reality says

Not even the CDC recommends MMR before 1 years of age. Vaccines have side effects: overloading immune system causing autoimmune disease, chemicals damaging a fledgling brain, as well as one guaranteed downside: pain infliction on a child who is not yet fully verbal and doesn't quite understand why the parents are not protecting him/her from the prick.

No kidding. That's my point!! That's why you need to eradicate the disease so that babies can't get it BEFORE they are immunized.

tatupu70 says

OK--so your solution is to never bring the baby out of the house? Great plan. It was daycare this time. Next time it could be at the grocery store. Or an airplane.

I rarely brought my child out of the house into enclosed public space with re-circulated air. There are tons of diseases that do not have vaccine. Which part of MMR not recommended for child under 1 years old don't you understand? You are obviously unfit to be a parent.

tatupu70 says

No kidding. That's my point!! That's why you need to eradicate the disease so that babies can't get it BEFORE they are immunized.

LOL, so did you take the Smallpox vaccine? Did you insist your kids take the Smallpox vaccine? Eradicated and nearly eradicated mean that for many kids in the appropriate parental environment the vaccine is no longer necessary.

Reality says

I rarely brought my child out of the house into enclosed public space with re-circulated air. There are tons of diseases that do not have vaccine. Which part of MMR not recommended for child under 1 years old don't you understand? You are obviously unfit to be a parent.

Unlike you I understand it completely. I understand why it's important for society to get vaccinated to protect babies from catching the disease before they are able to get the vaccine.

What part of that do you not understand?

tatupu70 says

Unlike you I understand it completely. I understand why it's important for society to get vaccinated to protect babies from catching the disease before they are able to get the vaccine.

What part of that do you not understand?

You apparently don't understand the simple logic that when the disease is non-existent or nearly non-existent, the reward/risk ratio of vaccinating against it drops precipitously.

That's why I asked you, did you get yourself or your kids vaccinated with the grand-daddy of all vaccinations: the Smallpox Vaccine. And why not?

Reality says

Guess what? Most people born in the last 30 years indeed have not been afflicted with the smallpox vaccine that leave unsightly scars on their arms.

Google "smallpox victim" - not that you will - and click "Images". Enjoy.

Consider the diphtheria line in that chart, stupid:

Diphtheria - 175,885 annual cases before; 1 case after vaccine introduced

The mortality rate for diphtheria is 5-10%. Assuming 5%, that's 8794 baseline deaths per year before vaccination.

Reality says

That's why I asked you, did you get yourself or your kids vaccinated with the grand-daddy of all vaccinations: the Smallpox Vaccine. And why not?

Smallpox no longer exists outside of lab storage. The remote chance of side effects from the vaccination dwarfs the far more remote chance of getting the disease.

This argument does not apply to any of the diseases we currently vaccinate for: in all cases, the chance of getting the disease is far higher than the possibility of side effects. In particular the possibility of non-existent side effects, such as autism, is 0.

HydroCabron says

Reality says

Guess what? Most people born in the last 30 years indeed have not been afflicted with the smallpox vaccine that leave unsightly scars on their arms.

Google "smallpox victim" - not that you will - and click "Images". Enjoy.

Perhaps you are into those sick porns. I'm not.

Consider the diphtheria line in that chart, stupid:

Diphtheria - 175,885 annual cases before; 1 case after vaccine introduced

The mortality rate for diphtheria is 5-10%. Assuming 5%, that's 8794 baseline deaths per year before vaccination.

So are you living in the 175,885/yr age or the 1/yr age? Is diphtheria like cancer that you can develop spontaneously? or is it a communicative disease that you have to get from someone else?

If you are looking or some "stupid" "bitch" you can look in the mirror.

Reality says

You apparently don't understand the simple logic that when the disease is non-existent or nearly non-existent, the reward/risk ratio of vaccinating against it drops precipitously.

So, you agree that for diseases that are NOT non-existent or nearly non-existent, vaccination shouldn't be a choice?

HydroCabron says

Reality says

That's why I asked you, did you get yourself or your kids vaccinated with the grand-daddy of all vaccinations: the Smallpox Vaccine. And why not?

Smallpox no longer exists outside of lab storage. The remote chance of side effects from the vaccination dwarfs the far more remote chance of getting the disease.

This argument does not apply to any of the diseases we currently vaccinate for: in all cases, the chance of getting the disease is far higher than the possibility of side effects.

If you live in a ghetto, perhaps. In that case, the most cost-effective immunization is really sterilization of the would-be parents. Sterilization (duration specific or permanent) should be mandatory condition for receiving welfare.

In particular the possibility of non-existent side effects, such as autism, is 0.

Auto-immune disorder is a non-zero risk, damage to brain is not a zero-risk, hence even the CDC has recommended minimum ages for a variety of vaccines. Vaccines are not nearly as safe to new borns as the vaxers make them out to be. Also, the emotional impact of pain inflicted on a child too young to understand why parents are not protecting him/her from the hurt is 100%.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

You apparently don't understand the simple logic that when the disease is non-existent or nearly non-existent, the reward/risk ratio of vaccinating against it drops precipitously.

So, you agree that for diseases that are NOT non-existent or nearly non-existent, vaccination shouldn't be a choice?

Vaccination is a choice, sometimes a bad choice. Let's keep it a choice instead of a mandate.

Reality says

Vaccination is a choice, sometimes a bad choice. Let's keep it a choice instead of a mandate.

So, you're OK with babies dying from measles then?

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Vaccination is a choice, sometimes a bad choice. Let's keep it a choice instead of a mandate.

So, you're OK with babies dying from measles then?

So you are okay with babies dying from adverse reaction to vaccines then?

What's next? You are okay with people dying from automobile accidents if you don't agree to banning cars?

Reality says

So you are okay with babies dying from adverse reaction to vaccines then?

What's next? You are okay with people dying from automobile accidents if you don't agree to banning cars?

OK, let's back up. First, why don't you answer my question, then I'll answer yours.

No. Counter-arguments work like a LIFO Stack, not a FIFO Queue. A counter-argument is like a sub-routine; it has to be resolved first to produce the answer to the topic that launched it.

Reality says

No. Counter-arguments work like a LIFO Stack

OK--what is a greater risk: unvaccinated babies getting measles or the side effects of vaccinating children per the current vaccination guidelines?

Call it Crazy says

You mean to tell us there are many babies dying from the measles. Care to share the official totals with us?

So, it's only a problem if "many" die? Would you feel that way if your child was one of the "few" that needlessly died?

tatupu70 says

Would you feel that way if your child was one of the "few" that needlessly died?

'Course not. Beats having a drooling autistic kid to take care of.

tatupu70 says

OK--what is a greater risk: unvaccinated babies getting measles or the side effects of vaccinating children per the current vaccination guidelines?

Did your parents give you too much vaccine too early and caused mental retardation? Do you think "the current vaccination guidelines" are carved into the stone tablets that Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai?

Do you think there are more kids born into the ghettos or born into upper middle families? To which kids/parents do you think those "government guidelines" are written for? The gullible parents or the ones with analytical insight? Here's a hint: do you think most TV ads are made for couch potatoes or made for Einsteins who do no watch TV's?

Delaying my kid's MMR to 4yo had zero effect on other kids, especially those in 3rd world and in ghettos, simply because she was not exposed to the ghetto, 3rd world or early 20th century that you vaxers love so much. So the marginal benefit of giving her vaccine at 1 vs. at 4 was 0, whereas side effect would be 100%!

I liked the related articles better:
Soccer Mom To Suck Off World's Greatest Dad
http://www.theonion.com/articles/soccer-mom-to-suck-off-worlds-greatest-dad,9109/

Horrified Teen Stumbles Upon Divorced Mom's Personal Ad
http://www.theonion.com/articles/horrified-teen-stumbles-upon-divorced-moms-persona,681/
The only remarks came from Jared Ricks, a fellow junior at Commonwealth, who heard about the ad from Phillips.

"Yo, D, I left a voicemail for your moms but she ain't called me back," Ricks said. "I told her I like long walks and hot fucking."

tatupu70 says

Call it Crazy says

You mean to tell us there are many babies dying from the measles. Care to share the official totals with us?

So, it's only a problem if "many" die? Would you feel that way if your child was one of the "few" that needlessly died?

I would be very angry if my child were one of those who needlessly suffer from too much vaccine too early. The fact that the vaccine makers want legal immunity for their products is evidence enough that their products should be only used with extreme caution.

It's fine, the stupid once will die out.

Reality says

Do you think "the current vaccination guidelines" are carved into the stone tablets that Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai?

No--I think that if Moses brought them down, they wouldn't be called guidelines.. Do you deny that vaccination guidelines exist?

Reality says

Do you think there are more kids born into the ghettos or born into upper middle families? To which kids/parents do you think those "government guidelines" are written for? The gullible parents or the ones with analytical insight? Here's a hint: do you think most TV ads are made for couch potatoes or made for Einsteins who do no watch TV's?

Lots of questions there with no real point in mind... If you have a point to make about government guidelines--by all means, make it. You think the guidelines are wrong?

Reality says

Delaying my kid's MMR to 4yo had zero effect on other kids, especially those in 3rd world and in ghettos, simply because she was not exposed to the ghetto, 3rd world or early 20th century that you vaxers love so much. So the marginal benefit of giving her vaccine at 1 vs. at 4 was 0, whereas side effect would be 100%!

And why do you think that's relevant? Anti-vaxxers aren't just delaying their kid's vaccinations, they are refusing them.

Reality says

I would be very angry if my child were one of those who needlessly suffer from too much vaccine too early. The fact that the vaccine makers want legal immunity for their products is evidence enough that their products should be only used with extreme caution.

Again--who is arguing for too much vaccine, too early?

FortWayne says

It's fine, the stupid once will die out.

Oh if only. No they bring their measles and shit to BABIES who can't be vaccinated yet and don't have a mature immune system.

See first it's I "only want to delay". Maybe you even miss a shot, or a booster. Then you get around and tell all the other parents about your ideas, and it spreads. Like a virus.

There's one of the fundy jerks who is anti-vax, and they are having to walk that shit back after a measles outbreak.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/31/measles-cases-put-texas-megachurch-under-scrutiny/

Reality says

I did not give my child MMR until she was 4 and ready to attend pre-school.

Only child? Never left home, nanny, might as well go Full Bubble.

How many families have their kids at home until age 4? Few.

That shit sounds great, until your 5 year old brings something nasty home, and Mr. and Mrs. Immunized don't catch it but the baby does.

Once you have multiple kids going in and out of the house, different schools, sports, playdates at other peoples' house.... EVERYTHING comes home.

hopefully an epidemic wipes out all the liberals

tatupu70 says

Reality says

I would be very angry if my child were one of those who needlessly suffer from too much vaccine too early. The fact that the vaccine makers want legal immunity for their products is evidence enough that their products should be only used with extreme caution.

Again--who is arguing for too much vaccine, too early?

Everyone who argues for mandating vaccine for kids for whom any specific vaccine is not necessary at a specific development stage of the child.

Vicente says

I did not give my child MMR until she was 4 and ready to attend pre-school.

Only child? Never left home, nanny, might as well go Full Bubble.

Only in your retarded mind. You are obviously unfit to be a parent if you think providing the most healthy environment that the parents can afford for the child is something to be jealous of. Why don't you send your kid to a 3rd world hell hole refugee camp? Then yes, bring on all the vaccines for him/her.

Vicente says

How many families have their kids at home until age 4? Few.

Quite a few where I live. In the eyes of someone living in a 3rd world hell hole refugee camp, perhaps the equivalent of your question would be "how many families have 3 meals a day?" Cheap crap food would be a life saver in that case indeed. Just like cheap crap food should not be mandated for your family because you can afford a better living for your kid, don't mandate early heavy dose of vaccines for kids whose parents can afford a better environment than disease ridden surroundings and are self-disciplined enough to refrain form taking infants on mindless mall trips.

That shit sounds great, until your 5 year old brings something nasty home, and Mr. and Mrs. Immunized don't catch it but the baby does.

Once you have multiple kids going in and out of the house, different schools, sports, playdates at other peoples' house.... EVERYTHING comes home.

So you are saying your great vaccines do not work after being administered at 4? The same vaccine administered at 4 is much more effective when the child turns 5 than if it is administered 3 years earlier. You are obviously clueless about immunology too. You idiots are just experts advocating things you don't understand.

tatupu70 says

No--I think that if Moses brought them down, they wouldn't be called guidelines.. Do you deny that vaccination guidelines exist?

The vaccine advocates are pushing for mandates.

tatupu70 says

Do you think there are more kids born into the ghettos or born into upper middle families? To which kids/parents do you think those "government guidelines" are written for? The gullible parents or the ones with analytical insight? Here's a hint: do you think most TV ads are made for couch potatoes or made for Einsteins who do no watch TV's?

Lots of questions there with no real point in mind... If you have a point to make about government guidelines--by all means, make it. You think the guidelines are wrong?

Vaccine guideline is nothing more than an educated guess on where to draw the line between two overlapping Gaussian curves (risk of disease exposure while unvaccinated vs. risk of side effect from the vaccines themselves). The vaccine guideline for kids living in a 3rd world hell hole refugee camp would be very different from the guideline for someone living in even the urban slums in the US. Likewise, the guideline for densely packed urban slums would be very different from what is needed for suburban responsible parents who conduct life in a way that their infants have very little disease exposure. The government bureaucrats have their hands tied by political correctness to publish different guidelines, and frankly the bureaucrats do not know enough about any specific family to tailor guideline for each child.

tatupu70 says

Anti-vaxxers aren't just delaying their kid's vaccinations, they are refusing them.

Nope. The political/economic agenda of the vax advocates is get vax early and get vax often, in order to maximize the profit of vaccine makers.

Most parents who are against giving their newborns vaccine are simply trying to delay vaccination by 1-3 years. The propagandists are giving parents tons of grief for being responsible parents.

Reality says

Nope. The political/economic agenda of the vax advocates is get vax early and get vax often, in order to maximize the profit of vaccine makers.

Most parents who are against giving their newborns vaccine are simply trying to delay vaccination by 1-3 years. The propagandists are giving parents tons of grief for being responsible parents.

That is patently false. The anti-vaxxers are against vaccines at any age.

There may be a set of folks who want to delay vaccines by a few years, but they are not the core of the anti-vaxx crowd.

Reality says

Vaccine guideline is nothing more than an educated guess on where to draw the line between two overlapping Gaussian curves (risk of disease exposure while unvaccinated vs. risk of side effect from the vaccines themselves). The vaccine guideline for kids living in a 3rd world hell hole refugee camp would be very different from the guideline for someone living in even the urban slums in the US. Likewise, the guideline for densely packed urban slums would be very different from what is needed for suburban responsible parents who conduct life in a way that their infants have very little disease exposure. The government bureaucrats have their hands tied by political correctness to publish different guidelines, and frankly the bureaucrats do not know enough about any specific family to tailor guideline for each child.

Would they? The chances for contracting disease might be higher in a 3rd world hellhole, but the guidelines very likely would be the same. Palatine, IL is clearly an upper middle class suburb--are you going to argue that risks of vaccine side effects outweigh the risks of measles there?

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Nope. The political/economic agenda of the vax advocates is get vax early and get vax often, in order to maximize the profit of vaccine makers.

Most parents who are against giving their newborns vaccine are simply trying to delay vaccination by 1-3 years. The propagandists are giving parents tons of grief for being responsible parents.

That is patently false. The anti-vaxxers are against vaccines at any age.

There may be a set of folks who want to delay vaccines by a few years, but they are not the core of the anti-vaxx crowd.

LOL. So you are not against people who are selective about which vaccine to administer and when?

Reality says

LOL. So you are not against people who are selective about which vaccine to administer and when?

I am, but I make a distinction between folks who are anti-vaccination and those are which to delay by a year.

tatupu70 says

Would they? The chances for contracting disease might be higher in a 3rd world hellhole, but the guidelines very likely would be the same. Palatine, IL is clearly an upper middle class suburb--are you going to argue that risks of vaccine side effects outweigh the risks of measles there?

There are numerous additional vaccines that are recommended for travelers to 3rd world hell holes but not recommended at all for the average American living in the US. Your presumption that the guidelines would be the same can only lead one to conclude:

1. You assert vaccines have zero risk, which is false;

2. You don't understand statistics and probability.

I have no idea where Palatin, IL is, nor is it particularly revelant unless you can prove that more people have died in that place due to not using vaccine than all vaccine deaths in all of US.