“That” being someone thinking that a knee replacement would be a cure for low sex drive.
Show me one person ever who thought that.
It may not be intuitive but having a part of your body that produce extreme pain with every kind of movement tends to spoil all kinds of physical activity, be it walking, dancing or sex.
I mean, if one of the reasons of not wanting to have sex is because it has become really painful so it inevitably kills the mood, it is reasonable to expect that eliminating that pain would also improve sex, it is there in the article that around half of the people thought so.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
If we emphasized 1-6 we might not need 7.
Again, show your data to prove this, because an uninformed opinion is a very bad thing to follow when speaking about infectious diseases.
As cases in developed countries have proven the infection is as easily transmitted as in Africa, something that would contradict your idea. It is also much more feasible and cheap to produce a vaccine than provide a perfect lifestyle for whole countries, and it has the huge advantage of already having proof of being effective, so you would not have to "bet" a lot of money to see it it would work on the first place.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
In other words, they haven't been successful in increasing the number of students admitted to medical school because of lower-than-expected number of students applying and they're trying to figure out how why and having no answers, their excuse is "lag"?
How come this is so hard to understand? it takes 6 years for a student to graduate, so even if the numbers of students doubled every year for the last past years it would still means this year the number of graduates would not change. The time needed for admitted students is the "lag".
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Many such patients do place others at risk by unsafe sexual practices, failure to inform sexual partners, refusal to take HIV testing or neglecting to take prescribed medication. Are you advocating segregating them from society as well?
That was another argument you yourself recognized as irrelevant, i can still give you the same response, if they are using their freedoms to willingly and irresponsibly endanger other people the law have mechanisms to restrict their freedoms accordingly, in cases they can be accused of a crime and be incarcerated.
Do you want to hear again the example of the father in favor or radioactive materials to prevent infection? I mean, that was another argument you recognized as valid to segregate children that endanger others. Did you forget about it?
1 ( +2 / -1 )
By your reasoning here society should be segregating gay men and drug users from the public because they may potentially infect others with HIV/AIDS? Is this what you're advocating?
As I explained in the previous topic that is a false analogy, HIV AIDS patients do not put other at risk as unvaccinated children do, and specially they do not do it by actively rejecting scientific treatment.
You have already said this was the case, why is it that now you refute yourself and go back to your previous postion? Specially because this is not a theoretical situation, unvaccinated children without valid causes are actually been rejected from public schools because of this reason.
You want the benefits of having the rest of the population vaccinated but not assume your own responsibilities? that would be just egoism, and that would not even take in account the child that you are choosing to expose to much higher risks just because a personal opinion contrary to the scientific consensus.
I think how well the immune system redevelops after the supposed 'reset' is the obvious follow up question.
The problem is that this question has absolutely no basis on any current knowledge of immunology nor is expected from the epidemiological data from unvaccinated children, your question is therefore illogical. Is expecting something to work better than before, but failing to do its work better when compared with childred that never undergo the reset.
colds, flues, etc are events that kick the immune system into action, temporarily weakening it due to the fight against the disease, but strengthening it in the long run
that is false, infections do no weaken the immune system and they do not "strenghten" it either, it keeps working the same as before. antigens are recognized but the system itself is still working as usual.
In my opinion would be if not for three things.
1: We'll never eliminate all disease. New ones or new strains will always develop.
That is a terrible reason, why then have any kind of medicine? if new diseases will always appear then why try to treat or cure them?
May it be because limited success is still success? who cares if new diseases come, if you can still cure and prevent those that are happening right now that still means you are curing and preventing causes of suffering and death. This is precisely what makes humans live extremely long and prosperous lives compared with previous centuries.
2: Comparatively mild diseases like childhood ones are actually natures way of kicking the immune system into gear and strengthening it.
Being natural do not bring any special advantage, and again the immune system is NOT strengthened, it works the same as before, or as demonstrated by this report at much is significantly weakened increasing the risk of other infections.
The main point is that vaccines bring exactly the same benefits with extremely lower disadvantages, there is no point in rejecting the better option and putting children in unnecessary risk just because you don't really understand what is happening as the professionals do.
If we allow the present cocktail of vaccines to balloon further what will be the consequences of vulnerable children receiving the God knows what contents? How will this affect their nervous systems, brains, immune systems?
It does not have to bee balloning, diseases do get erradicated (much more easily without antivaxxers but even with their irrational objections they can still be eliminated) stopping vaccination that is no longer necessary is perfectly possible, also consequences are studied very carefully by people with much more preparation that you and that actually know how this affect their brains, nervous and immune systems, with the conclusion that natural infections affect them much more strongly in a negative way.
And lastly, do you think children have to be kept in sterile bubbles all their lives? because if you took every single vaccine a human recieves during all their lives and put it in a single dose this would not be even a tenth of the antigens (both in number and in quantity) that a scrapped knee introduces to the blood stream?
How each scrap and tiny cut affect the children brain and immune system? I mean, the risk is hundreds of times bigger right? so why are you not worried about it?
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Anything beats an injection of Big Pharma’s chemical cocktail.
antivaxxers will never accept they are wrong, for them becoming invalid or even dying are perfectly acceptable options when compared with a safe and effective health intervention. The health of children is a sacrifice they will happily do just to defend their mistaken opinions.
While vaccines can be helpful, they are not the first line of defense as big pharma touts. Here's a suggested list of priorities....
There is no scientific evidence to support your persona opinion. Vaccination is not something you only can have by refusing all other things you can do so its perfectly fine to also vaccinate while taking care of your health in many other ways, and for diseases like measles is the only measure that has proven effective.
And yes if you want to keep your children at a much higher risk of serious disease and death unfortunately you can be free to do it, but at the same time you are not free to do the same with all other children so not accepting unvaccinated children in public spaces or schools is part of the consequences you assume by not vaccinating.
The word 'reset' is an interesting choice when used out of context.
It may be interesting to you but its actually the most correct term and is not out of context, at a final result it does means the immune system is weakened compared with the point before the infection, but not as a fuzzy decrease of general functions but as the word implies the problem is that some of the specific responses go back to a previous point. It is very important in immunology to clearly make this distinction because this would not affect the same the response to future exposure to infectious diseases.
No one in the medical or scientific world will accept as fact data produced by such a miniscule sample as 77 children.
Of course it does, and you would know it if you at least read the paper and knew exactly what work was actually done, the results are not inconclusive, specially not based only on your own opinion without giving any valid reasons. The theory behind the study is not new and is not controversial, all pediatricians and immunologists suspected as much from a long time ago, so this works searched to confirm this scientifically with enough numbers to have a strong statistical basis. It also allowed for predictions to be done in the closest animal model available that also resulted in the same phenomenon.
If you want to say this is inconclusive you "only" need a study of the same statistical fortitude that had different results, if you don't have it your only option is to accept this is the best available evidence about it.
I suspect this is more propaganda 'research' perhaps funded or backed by big pharma.
But obviously you have no proof about it, which would make that criticism invalid. If you cannot prove COI there is no point in bringing it, specially when the results are so overwhelmingly clear.
What if someone here would say your comments are backed only by economic interest in selling some "natural" cures for infectious diseases and that vaccines hurts your business? would that suspicion make what you say suddenly false? even without any proof this is true?
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Well recently an Agricultural Lab was infected with pig flue so introducing Ebola might not be the smartest of moves.
It may surprise you but highly pathogenic viruses are not kept at farms with constant contact with the environment. Also, a pathogen entering a laboratory is completely different from one leaving it, specially for a BSL4 facility.
I'd say it's stupid idea untill those scientists at least learn to wash their hands..
If you think ebola virus will be in conctact with anybody's hands you have a terribly mistaken idea about how a biosafety laboratory works.
What are these people thinking ?
That we are not living in a movie?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
It won't be long before we hear the news of Ebola outbreak in Japan.
If you think this in any way increased in any significant way the risks of an Ebola epidemic you are wrong.
Having international travel open is an astronomically higher source of risk, but you don't see daily outbreaks. Nor from the other dozens and dozens of lethal pathogens that have been in use in all the laboratories and universities in Japan for decades.
Less movies and more reality.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Maybe YOUR company is the exception to the rule! JAPANESE companies, requirement by law or otherwise do have their potential employees or probationary one's take one!
One thing is that this CAN be a requirement in some companies, another completely different would be that this IS a requirement for all companies.
I have been in several workplaces that do not require at all any examination before signing the contract of employment and will later take the health check at the same time as everybody else already employed (longes for me was around 6 months). Some have been contracts (1-3 years) that have no "probationary time" or that even make extremely difficult to fire the employee (salary coming from a national grant-in-aid that cannot be returned so it has to be expended as granted).
It is clear for me that asking for a health examination before hiring someone is not something that a company HAS to do, they will have to offer the health check to the employees later but even that can be waived or sidestepped if the employee don't want to do it in the company.
And yes, I know of at least one Japanese person that let go an offer from a government agency because they had quite annoying requirements before signing the contract (including a full health check up with hospital stay) and choose a similar offer from a private company that hired him needing only the usual paperwork so it is not impossible.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
You could argue the risk is minimal in this instance, I'm just saying how did they establish it's minimal. They can't.
There are plenty of evidence that people with a controlled infection can reduce the risk for others to background levels, that includes their sexual partners and sex without protection.
Lancet. 2019 Jun 15;393(10189):2428-2438. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30418-0.
Its easy to provide proof of viral suppression (for example less than 200 copies of viral RNA per ml of blood) which demonstrate that the risk is minimal.
On the other topic I have worked on several places without ever having to submit to a medical examination before getting the job. One job on a governmental institution did ask for it with very specific parameters (but no HIV status) as well as several other certificates so I had to go to 3 different places to get them. It is obviously not a universal rule, but probably for some kinds of jobs its a more common requirement.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
Mosquitoes are infected with the naturally-occurring Wolbachia bacteria -- which is mostly dengue-resistant -- and are released to repopulate wild mosquito colonies to reduce disease transmission.
To clarify, is not that the bacteria can resist the infection of the dengue virus, mosquitoes infected with the bacteria become resistant to a later infection of the virus, so if enough mosquitoes have the Wobachia then epidemics can be stopped.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
So umm ... what good does it do to know this ?
All knowledge is beneficial, professionals working on drug delivery, neurological balance of sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system, endocrinologists and many others have an interested on the amount of saliva produced and right now have to do with very inexact calculations that may not have much to do with reality.
So what is the point of this research? Does it do good to humanity?
Yes, knowing things and putting numbers on physiological functions is extremely beneficial. Now that the knowledge is there it is open to be used for any purpose including some that we have not even imagined yet. Gene editing had a huge breakout when someone got interested in how bacteria destroyed the genome of the viruses that infected it, on the first report it was just a description about something interesting but without any practical use, right now is a business of billions and likely to bring a new era on genetic treatments.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
At the end is just realism against optimism, one side thinks dedicating all available resources now outweighs the small risk of losing it all without achieving the goal, the other side thinks that a slow and steady approach will lead to eradication with greater probability, even if it is also more likely it will cost more in the long term.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
This is like kids in Fukushima get thyroid cancer after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, but they can't prove directly that their cancer was caused by nuclear material ejected from the meltdowns, so you think their claims are groundless.
Yes, but not because of the reasons you think, after Fukushima thyroid anomalies were found after actively searching for it, people uninformed screamed poison and a conspiracy to hide it, but in reality when the same active effort was made on a cohort of children completely unexposed it was found that they also had abnormalities in the same degree, so it was actually proved that it was completely independent to the nuclear plant disaster and just a consequence of searching more.
Measles inclusion body encephalitis is listed as a possible side effect of the MMR vaccines. On Nov. 20, 2017, over $100 million dollars was awarded in the vaccine court to someone who suffered this after getting an MMR vaccine....Case 16-119V.
And again, this is no proof that the vaccine caused the encephalitis, only that the vaccine could have been the cause, there is no other requirement for awarding money because the system is designed like that.
Well, I guess I need to ask you what proof you expect to see. How is such proof acquired? Can you name any case where this was proven directly?
Human cases? with a brain biopsy after neuroimaging changes consistent with primary measles encephalitis, acute post-measles encephalitis, measles inclusion body encephalitis or subacute sclerosing panencephalitis and positive PCR results specific for the virus using CSF samples.
Again, this is not necessary to produce in order to receive money and in some cases parents actively refuse the tests because it will not improve the treatment once a viral encephalitis has been diagnoses and because other pathogens can be found, which of course would prove that the vaccine was not the cause and disqualify them from receiving the money. The only requirement is that the case happens on the 3 months after vaccination.
One very important detail is that encephalitis after vaccination CAN be due to the vaccine, but scientific studies have proved that the incidence rate of encephalitis is not elevated in vaccinated children when compared with unvaccinated ones. That means that is also perfectly possible that any case would be present with or without the vaccine.
Obviously I meant in the same country; the United States.
Obviously I also meant the same, I even included the number of Amish in Canada as if they were living in the USA, in reality they represent even LESS than 0.1% of the population, it is still nonsense to think they are responsible of the 2% of refusal rates, even if they all refused vaccines, which they dont.
For someone that demands specific data you are being awful general. Can you provide numbers proving your contention that perceptions have been damaged to the point that a significant effect has been felt....such as vaccine rates dropping? And can you prove this drop is a result of perception and nothing else?
Did you read the WHO reports as I told you, what do you think was used as an argument in the discussions with Facebook? and did you even read my comment? For someone that is so focused in letting bad quality information to be treated the same as good quality one (and that has failed to provide any statistics of his own on 100% of what you are trying to use as an argument) you are awfully specific with details.
Do this mean that you recognize that sourced information that can be corroborated should be treated as more important than unsubstantiated claims in your opinion? Maybe directing people towards it when looking for information instead of letting them go for whatever trash an antivaxxer can be publishing?
Glad to see that you are getting the point I am trying to make.
I believe that was my claim and I stand by it.
In complete absence of proof? then why don't you accept the opposite point even in equivalent absence of proof? if two people say to you the opposite and nobody have proof does that mean that your claim has been proved false?
Those paltry changes are for all reasons, yes. But even if they were for anti-vaxx pages on the internet its still next to nothing. There is no case for censorship.
So you think that more childrend dying and becoming encephalitic is no reason? that is awfully cold for someone.
Also, if information can be proved false, mistaken, lies, it is still valuable to direct people away from it, even if it is before something bad happens. There is no rational point in promoting lies and mistakes as if it were the same as scientific information, it is not, and should not be treated the same.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Except it hasn't. In all these years of what is being labeled as "misinformation" pretty much nothing has happened. Its not up to me to make a case before the original complainer has evidenced his claim. Obviously. I have next to nothing to work with unless the original complaint is evidenced.
Of course it is, vaccination rates have diminished, public perception of the safety and efficacy of vaccines also, outbreaks have originated between unvaccinated people. All these is readily available information that can only be attributed to misinformation from sources that willingly repeat falsehoods.
You only have to prove that this information is not real, then your argument that everything is exaggeration could be proved true.
I will again cite America's 2 percent vaccine refusal rate...which includes Amish groups that have ALWAYS refused vaccines. Is that your grave danger, or do you have some other numbers?
So you think a population that represent one tenth of a single percentage point is responsible for 2% of the vaccine refusal rate? that is not logical, specially because not all amish refuse vaccination, even if they have lower rates than the rest of the population thinking they are homogeneously not vaccinated is simply false.
The most important thing is that the refusal is because false reasons, imaginary phenomenon and mistaken relationships to natural occurrences. This reasons should be corrected, and one very valid measure to accomplish this is to direct people to reliable information instead of irresponsible lies. Nobody is censoring valid information, just making more difficult for people pandering lies to convince worried parents to join the antivaxxing cult.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
I have expressed next to nothing.
Yes you have, everything you write here is.
Your attacking me this way proves again your divorce from reason.
I am not attacking you, simply saying that it can be proven as false, if your intention is not to write false things it should be useful to you that this can be proven, antivaxxers blindly repeat falsehoods, you don't have to do the same thing.
On one hand you are asking me to evidence an exaggeration, which is in the league of attempting to prove a negative.
No, that is also false, it is easy to prove an exaggeration as long as you have the data, you can compare the reports with the scientifically projected statistics and prove that they are not sustained by the data and are invalidly inflated, if you cannot do that is mainly because no such thing has been done.
You don't have to prove a negative, on the contrary you only have to prove that a positive (invalid exageration) is commonly present. But as the data do not support this you cannot do it.
On the other hand you have not proven that negative beliefs about vaccines are having a horrible effect to the point we need censorship.
Have you even read the article? statistics from the WHO, CDC and other international agencies related with public health have proven an increase of cases of preventable diseases not related to the usual cases (natural disasters, lack of economic funds, etc) but to antivaxxer misinformation. Since one of the easiest way to find this misinformation are the SNS then it is perfectly valid to direct people to reliable sites with trustworthy information based on objective scientific data instead of those unreliable sources.
One very important detail is that this is still desirable even in the absence of effects. Much more when those effects can be identified.
the vaccine refusal rate in America is just 2 percent. I hardly think that warrants censorship of negative concerns about vaccines.
Negative concerns? of course not, but misleading and false information based on nothing but mistakes and repetition on lies? yes, of course. Anybody concerned deserve good information, the problem for antivaxxers is that the good information can prove their wild theories are al wrong so they want demonstrably false information to be presented as equal, it is not, so it should not be presented as such.
Name one case where that was true.
Every case, the simple absence of trials about the vaccine damage (and enormous quantities of money used every year for damage claims) demonstrate that this money was given without the claimants having to prove that the vaccine was the causative reason for the damage.
If this was not the case each case would have to go to trial and present scientific proof of the causative relationship between the vaccine and the damage. This does not happen.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
That you dead pan declare unspecified negative supposition about vaccines as "false" rather than "unproven" tells me you are either very unscientific or have some sort of investment in this issue, whether financial or emotional.
Unproven would be if nobody actually studied the effect of antivaxers lies on the preventable diseases, since this has been done and found true your statement can validly be qualified as false. Your lack of evidence on proving your point is due more to the evidence of the contrary than just not being any. You are expressing things that are not just unproven, they can and have been proven false. Unfortunately for antivaxxers this "small detail" is not something they consider and will repeat something endlessly no matter how many times someone points out that it can be falsified with objective data.
Also, everybody should have an investment on protecting true and well sourced information against false and misleading opinions from the antivaxers. It is a form of civil duty that unfortunately antivaxxers lack and that is why they find it strange and surprising.
You also poo-pooed actual successful vaccine damage claims in some light earlier as something like squeaky wheels getting undeserved grease.
Vaccine damage claims have NO obligation to prove that any damage is actually due to vaccines, only that there is a possibility for it, even if remote. So it is invalid to say that a successful claim prove damage, that is also demonstrably false. From a public health perspective this expended money is a necessary sacrifice to keep safe and effective vaccines available for the public, and it is much more important than spending more money endlessly proving that vaccines had nothing to do with specific claims over and over again. In this case the truth has to give its priority to epidemiological needs.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
People like you always scream for data to prove things so obvious, no one ever complied data for.
It is not obvious, it is false. That is the real reason why there is no data for it.
It is also very easy to get data that proves that lots of people like chocolate, this is because differently from your initial misinformation this is true.
This is the usual antivaxxer process, say something outrageous but false, get called to at least try to prove it and then being unable completely to prove something that is false run to say you should just trust them because they know "the truth".
This is precisely why this baseless false information gets downgraded, it simply don't have the same degree of quality and objective sources, it is irrational to expect it to be treated the same as high quality, well sourced, transparent information produced by professionals that put their names on the line to inform people.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
The effect of information skeptical of vaccines, whether true or false, is being greatly exaggerated for the sake of profits.
Please present the data to prove it, is should be very easy to demonstrate that the effect is not as strong as expressed by the experts. If you don't have that data, how are you able to say it?
The real danger is people that think that repeating easy to demonstrate lies that put in danger the health and life of others should be protected and treated the same as trustworthy information. It should not. Should we also let people run scams freely? Obviously not.
Antivaxxers are just getting angry that the false information they use to try and fool people is being brought to the light and want to avoid the consequences of being found guilty of propagating unreliable or plain false information. Apparently making even a tiny effort to check if what they say is actually true before trying to convince other people is too much trouble. I am sorry but that should be the least to do to be able to be on the same ground as scientific sources.
Do you want other opinions to be represented the same? then do your best to make the people promoting those other opinions have sources as reliable and transparent as those that prove that vaccines are a safe and effective health intervention. The problem is that if they do that they will find out their opinions are actually not true.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
There's information for both sides of the argument, but I think one side will prevail, leading to misinformation, no matter what
That is also a logical mistake, information do NOT have to be balanced between one side that is reliable, scientific and evidence based, and another side that is unreliable, frequently found false and based only on personal opinions. The first side is much more less likely to produce false information, the second is almost guaranteed to misinform.
To say it more simply, trying to give the same space to both side lead more to misinformation than giving a preferential treatment to the sources that try to produce only truthful information by using the scientific method. If the best side prevail it simply leads to the least amount of misinformation.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
The thought police are winning
There is absolutely nothing wrong with directing people to scientific sites filled with sources that support their conclusions instead of sites filled with easy to demonstrate lies.
Specially because the lies have a terrible effect on public health, why would people think they have the right to fool others into their strange antivaxing cult?
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Do you think that those who behaved irresponsibility by ignoring public health warnings re HIV/AIDS are suddenly going to be responsible and compliant with medical treatment?
Because now their lives is on the line? it does not matter, they CAN do it, they have not exposed anybody.
Many refuse treatment, many don't take the medication given, many are at high risk of of infection but refuse testing.
And AFTER they refuse, then their freedoms may be restricted, not before, And since HIV is extremely more difficult to transmit than preventable childhood diseases they still can act relatively free without increasing the risk of others.
But of course, and for the fourth time, if after being infected it can be proved that by reckless actions or even on purpose expose other people to the infection THEN it can be treated as a criminal action and they can lose a lot of their freedoms.
Let me put is more simply because you seem to have a lot of trouble understanding this.
An HIV infected person do not increase risk to others just by being infected. It requires other actions.
An unvaccinated kid DO increase the risk to others just by being infected. It does not require other actions (above having a normal life).
Sorry, but your proposal to separate and collectively punish unvaccinated kids (who have no disease at all) is discriminatory and a denial of human rights to education and other services.
I don't know how to tell you this, but your opinion is wrong, and even more, this is not a proposal, is a description of laws that are already in place in cities like New York, No human right denial.
This is because it can be proved that unvaccinated kids increase the risk of the people that are around them, even if they are not yet infected because it does not matter how much hygiene and good diet, etc. they have they have a much greater risk of getting the disease (and transmit it) than vaccinated individuals.
Contrary to your opinion about human rights this is not just a belief but something that can be proved with scientific data, even if you don't want to accept this data yourself.
If applied to HIV/AIDS carriers it would be equally discriminatory.
Only if it was applied to people that act responsibly with their disease, which is the vast majority.
Parents of Unvaccinated kids can act responsibly by vaccinating or irresponsibly by choosing the most risky option, acting irresponsibly is what bring the limit of freedoms as a consequence.
Your proposal has backed itself into a corner.
Again, this is not a proposal, is a reality that has been ethically examined and found valid.
If you don't think is justified you can examine the rationale used and explain what parts are not valid with the proper authorities.
Please consider a fair arrangement which would be, mutual respect for other's decisions without judgement.
So you would not jugde the radioactive kid that touch your children's food? is this argument enough for you to accept this increased risk for your family and yourself? you have to respect that kid's family decisions right?
I though we were clear that you have to use the same standard or be validly accused of being hypocritical.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Why should those who by willfully ignoring public health warnings alreadyhave a usually eventually deadly disease (HIV/AIDS) be free to interact with others thus putting society at risk, but unvaccinated children who don't have any disease ought to be separated?
Because the first ones can eliminate the risk to others, to the same levels as if they were uninfected with proper pharmacological treatment, this mean they can be infected WITHOUT putting society at risk, Unvaccinated children of course can also do it, when they are vaccinated.
You keep trying to force your example. It does not work as you want because people can be infected with HIV without increasing the risk to others (by being responsible about it), an unvaccinated kid is contagous by proximity long before it has symptoms, so the only practical way to reach the same degree of safety as an HIV infected patient is to be vaccinated.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
That's far fetched. No, I wouldn't agree with a purposely radioactive person being allowed interaction with others.
It is expected to be farfetched, if you read again the comment at the beginning it was clearly explained that it was exaggerated, this is done so there is no ambiguity.
Now, with your answer you express the rational thing to do with people that choose to be unvaccinated, it is the same rational.
Now, it would be very hypocritical to expect one standard to be used for other people that expose you and your family to risk and another much more lax standard when you do the same to others. If you think that ignorance and rejection of science is not an excuse, it means it is not an excuse in all cases.
How about the rest of the questions? Is is ok to assume your answer would be the same? That rejecting science is not an excuse to expose others etc.? That means that you accept that scientific knowledge can be used to restrict the freedom of someone even if that person disagrees (without any basis) with this knowledge.
Upon diagnosis, should they be excluded from society in some way? If so, how?
And for the third time, on diagnosis they have not exposed anybody but themselves, its perfectly reasonable to expect they will accept antiviral therapy that will increase their health and reduce the exposure to other people to the same levels than everybody else. Another completely different situation is someone infected purposefully and actively exposing other people to be infected according to the consensus of science, and their suspension of rights will be according to the actions that they take to expose other people. It will not matter if they believe they are not exposing others, since it can be proved scientifically they will be subjected to the appropriate penalties.
All this is perfectly included in laws that are being applied around the world, there is nothing theoretical about it so even if you keep repeating the question the answer is still the same, I know it is not the answer you want but it is the real answer so...
2 ( +2 / -0 )
So you answering after me was a lie? sad to see you dont put value on your own honesty, but I can't say its surprising.
Education re how HIV/AIDS is spread has been thoroughly disseminated and known for decades
That is unfortunately not true.
Would you think that the fact that vaccination is safer and more effective protection than natural infection is something universally known? surprisingly, not the case either.
Repeating my answer because that is another thing you choose to ignore. If it can be proved they willfully put others at risk and choose to keep doing it even with the option to avoid it there are of course laws that take care of this as criminal actions that will suspend their rights as necessary for the benefit of the community.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
All of these would have ignored warnings regarding their behaviour. Will you advocate that society excludes them as well?
With the verbs in past form? of course not, because those are things already done, from the point of view of public health is simply more productive to solve the situation for example with antiviral medication, education, etc. That is beneficial for both them and others.
If they insist in purposefully engaging in activities that endanger others, after being fully educated and informed about the risks that is of course a different situation. Any person in this case can be validly accused of deliberately trying to infringe on other people's health (Criminal transmission of an infectious disease), and if found guilty, some of his rights can be suspended for the benefit of the community.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Let me put here then an exaggerated analogy.
Somebody believe firmly, without any possibility of changing his opinion, that the best action to prevent infections is to use daily an ointment with high levels of radioactive materials so the germs gets killed by radiation before entering the body.
Scientifically it can be of course proved that doing this is hugely more dangerous to his health and the health of the people that are near him, but he insist that this is just scare mongering (big pharma trying to sell antibiotics) and that he is convinced that his way is better and more healthy even if he cannot prove it.
So, in this situation.
Would you be fine if the children of this person (treated in the same way) go to school and sit next to yours? play with them? let some radioactive materials enter their bodies?
Would you accept the position that scientific proof that he is wrong can be simply discarded as long as he don't want to listen?
Would you be ok letting him do it to his own children? even if it can be proved their lives will be shorter?
Would it be Nazi to make him choose between stop doing this or get close to other people?
2 ( +2 / -0 )
How about letting everyone decide for themselves without judgement from others? It's a free world right?
Once again, if decide on something that can be demonstrated as mistaken that is of course your mistake to make, and unfortunately your children will have to deal with the consequences. But since it is also perfectly possible to demonstrate that this action also increase the risk for the rest of the population part of those consequences are that the children will not have access to public spaces or schools as the vaccinated children do. As long as you are fine with this consequences you are free to choose.
The problem is that most antivaxxers want to have the cake and eat it too. Get the benefits of the scientific progress without accepting also the responsibility that come with those. Make an irrational choice but dodge the consequences.
Its like driving and alcohol. It does not matter how much one person insist that drinking makes him drive better, that still means he cannot do it on a public road because scientifically it can be proved that this is not true, choosing to drink have the consequences of not being able to drive, as simple as that.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
So can vaccines. Even big pharma has admitted that.
In a much less probability, seat belts can also kill, do you defend people not wanting to use them?
You have not defended any of the mistaken arguments you used before, does that mean that you accept them as false? it is then reasonable to expect then you not to use them again because of that? I mean, it is only honest to discuss using only things you know are true, and not things that you have accepted as false.
as I said before, let's let people take thier pick without judgement please.
Why is that? if it can be easily demonstrated that people are being lied to and decide very important measures based on those lies It is everybody responsibility to at least make an effort to falsify those lies. If people insist on believing in something that has been proven false it is unfortunate but they have the right to put in risk their children's health, but only that. Part of the consequences of insisting in falsehoods is that the objective scientific knowledge can be used to restrict their rights for the benefit of the community. Homeschooling and restriction to access to public spaces is a perfectly reasonable (and fair) consequence for this.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
I vaccinate my kids. But I thumbs up your first comment because i agree with all those points. No wonder people have doubts! Can’t blame them!
Except that all those points are moot, the effects of vaccines are well documented and clear so there is no motive to suspect some sinister global conspiracy (to make people healthier?) vaccine contents are easy to get and anybody can get a full list with the same information as the scientists that produce them, and compensation is readily and easily given to people EVEN when they cannot prove that the vaccine has anything to do with something negative that happened, as long as is not clearly impossible they get the money. Its a special system to avoid endless litigation stopping a safe and effective health intervention.
So yes, it people can be blamed if its easy to solve all those doubts with a tiny bit of effort, wondering why they choose to keep that doubts is a perfectly natural response.
in the long run they may do more harm than good.
That can also be studied scientifically, and it is not true, there is no negative effect in the short nor in the long term, people vaccinated live longer healthier lives than those that get infected naturally. Your theory can be demonstrated as false. The same as your previous ones.
Most of the childhood diseases come with mild symptoms and are probably natures way of kicking the child's immune system into gear which guarantees a strong immune system throughout life.
And you know that there is an EVEN safer way to do it? vaccines. Getting a much lower risk of serious complications and death and instead you have to get another safe shot many decades later? that is also a sure deal.
Also, the immune system is not better when it is "strong" as you think, that would mean natural infections would increase importantly the appearance of autoimmune diseases, fortunately there is no real differences between the "natural" but dangerous infection and a safe vaccine in respect with the efficacy of the immune response, It is still very efficacious.
The end goal of 'eradicating disease' by pumping children with an arsenal of vaccines might backfire eventually by weakening their own natural immune systems causing greater susceptibility to diseases, cancer etc later in life.
Well, guess what? that also can be studied and have been falsified, there is no greater susceptibility to diseases in general nor cancer in particular, you can calm down knowing that science have examined that possibility and it turned out your prediction is false.
But after all that is to be expected because, as mentioned before, a tiny scrap introduce to the body of a child dozens and dozens of times more antigens in greater variety and quantity, so the "arsenal" of vaccines that can be received during the life is a minuscule fraction in comparision (to ONE single superficial wound). If humans were so sensitive to such low doses of antigens everybody would die in their youths with a single scrap, something that obviously does not happen.
I prefer to emphasise solid hygiene and health habits along with allowing thier natural immune systems to develop unimpeded by unnatural vaccines.
The problem is that you choose to do it even after knowing that hygiene and habits without vaccines is a worse, more dangerous and inferior option (without any negative effect in the immune system ever being demonstrated as caused by the vaccines that are now recommended)
So, for a theoretical 100% of strength of protection using vaccines you prefer to recommend a much lower strength only because of some vague dangers that have been demonstrated as not existent. Your recommendation is to REDUCE the standard of care for no real reason. Which is not something a professional in the human health services can do ethically.
You may not have any responsibility to recommend things proved right, but doctors, nurses, scientists, etc. Do have it, so it is necessary to respond to all examples of misinformation that you have copied here. It is not only a civil duty but also a professional one.
Polio is very serious and one vaccine that I'm favorable towards.
All other preventable diseases can also be serious and produce permanent damage or even death, and since all vaccines have been proved safe and effective the only rational thing to do is to support all of them.
2 ( +3 / -1 )