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 )
I find it amazing that big pharma and governments expect us to blindly believe that vaccines are safe simply because they say so
That is not correct, the data is there for you to examine and say where is it wrong or false.
Have you done it? please share your analysis and the methodology you used. Or you are expecting us to blindly believe that what you say is true?
Yet, they themselves would never buy anything or enter into any business agreement simply on a seller or potential business partner saying "It's safe!"
Again, if they had the same evidence than they share on the safety and efficacy of the vaccines it would be the safest deal ever.
They of course do it with the vaccines, or please share with us the evidence you have that they don't vaccinate their own families. That has never been reported anywhere and many make a big effort to show they do it the same as any other health related measure that has been proved safe and effective.
I'm not totally against vaccines in principle, but I reccomended doing due diligence, making informed decisions and politely declining if not convinced.
That is something many antivaxxers say, but when somebody ask them what vaccine they actually recomend from the literally hundreds that are being used around the world they cannot answer even a single one. So it becomes obvious they are actually against vaccines in principle, but they don't want to accept it.
'Herd immunity' =round up all the dumb cattle, inject them with God knows what and walk away with a truck load of profit.
As said before, and it is something you accepted as true since you did not made any effort to falsify it, companies actually lose profits with vaccination. There is no point in insisting in something that you have accepted as false.
Also, all the other points that were demonstrated as false in your previous comment remain unchallenged by you, is it then OK to assume you have accepted them as mistaken? I mean since you could not support them with any arguments it would be the logical thing to conclude.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
More big pharma for profit propaganda.
Thatis false, companies makes more money from a single case than hundreds of vaccine doses, if profit was the reason they would be the first ones to stop vaccination.
Also, where is your proof that this information is not true?
The reasons for scepticism re vaccines:
We don't know exactly what's in them.
You don't know what is in the lawn, is that enough to never let a child be outside of the house?
And if you had enough interest you could know exactly what is in the vaccines, every professional that deals with them have the information openly available, wilfully ignoring this information is very different from it being hidden.
Big pharma and govts have been known to lie and cover up re negative/lethal side effects.
And for not doing it, if you have objective evidence of a cover up present it and let it be judged, as the important increase in the quantity and quality of life that vaccination has brought to human civilization, that is also very easy to corroborate and proves that all recommended vaccines are safe and effective.
Big pharma refuses to compensate victims and makes life hell for claimants.
That is also untrue, that would be like saying that the government refuses to put in jail anybody that has been accused of any crime, first because its extremely easy to prove that people are getting compensation including for things that have no realistic posibility to be related to vaccines, and secondly because one thing is to accuse a vaccine to be the one responsible for a negative effect, another that is much more difficult to do is to prove that actually this accusation is true.
Please address these problems honestly so that we can make informed decisions based on trust.
Everything has been addressed satisfactorily for anyone with real interest on truth, but if obviously not for people that knowing it choose to pretend blindness.
The best prevention against diseases and quick recovery IF affected:
High standards of hygiene and sanitation.
Regular hand washing.
Healthy diet and regular exercise.
Healthy emotional and mental well being.
None of this is mentioned in this article and you'll rarely hear it from big pharma. There's no money in it.
Present your data and methodology that proves that vaccination is incompatible with common sense and that makes no difference on top of all that. The scientific consensus is that this is NOT enough to prevent infections, complications and death from preventable diseases and that vaccination has a protective effect that keeps being important even if you do everything listed.
If you don't have the data, how can you know it?
I predict that in the future they will demand that all children be pumped with a massive plethora of vaccines for every disease/condition imaginable.
Again, vague predictions without information that would lead anybody else to share them are just imagination running wild. As long as the net effect on the health is positive. What is wrong with having lots and lots of vaccinations? is not like you have been able to prove that vaccines are not safe and effective.
That is without mentioning that a simple scratch on the knee exposes a child to orders of magnitude more antigens and adjuvants (both in variety and quantity) that all the vaccines a person could recieve in all his life, and most of these antigens and adjuvants from the scratch are not even known.
4 ( +6 / -2 )
Yeah, but how likely is some completely bogus claim to make it to the top of your web search?
Extremely easy as long as that lie is popular. There is no correlation between something being truthful and it being popular, so the argument that "there is likely something to it" is not true. Science makes an effort to cut out the liars and keep the information necessary to corroborate all claims available for scrutiny, pages with bogus claims obviously don't and that is why they are being demoted.
Or to say it more simply, there are much more times liars between random sites than official scientific sites that are subjected to public scrutiny, it is natural to bet on the side with less liars. This will help solve the problem.
but if we're talking in general about search tools, is there not a problem in limiting results to a limited set of organizations?
That is not happening, searches in general are not being affected but only those that have already been demonstrated to be a problem which are the ones inside the SNS, it is not just a theoretical possibility but it can be easily found that searches inside this kind of services lead to false and misleading information with much more frequency than to a reputable source with truthful information. Blocking is simply a way to make sure the misinformation is more difficult to find on SNS sites than outside. People trying to manipulate others will now have to do it using other sites or services, hopefully making their negative efforts more obvious.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
@ Virusrex = feel free to have your Vaccine dose and mine also.
So that is the limit of your valid arguments? that is what you feel so sad about losing if other people don't read it? sorry but that is just giving up and recognizing you have no valid reasons to feel in a certain way.
That is an absolutely false claim. Everyone knows that after the first page or two, search results are ignored by all but the most dedicated researchers. Regulating certain information to the third page or less is as effective as book burning and is the modern equivalent.
No, that is absolutely not censoring, if your page has been found lying and twisting the truth so much that 3 pages of google have much better options filled with scientific references and objective data then there is absolutely no censoring to do. It only means there are much more options with better quality information.
Well so did the Vatican when heliocentrism was just a hypothesis. Because they buried the hypothesis, research into the matter was delayed.
Funny, that is precisely what antivaxxers want to do, to obfuscate as much as possible the valid, objective scientific data that proves the efficacy and safety of vaccines repeating as much as possible proven lies and personal opinions based on absolutely nothing. As the church did it all become possible because of undeserved power, in this case the power given by social media, since that unethically used power is now being taken from their hands they cannot hide the truth so easily and that is why it hurts them so much. Galileo was right because he used science, the church was wrong because it could not accept scientific data.
From 1989 $4 billion dollars has been paid out to victims of vaccine injury and death, but $1 billion of that has been in just over the last four years!
Obviously, because they don't have to prove that vaccines had any injury nor death, they have only to prove is not impossible, which is a completely different thing. But still from a health point of view that is still money well invested, because even if 99.99% of the cases can be proved to be independent of vaccination it would still cost more to do it (in both reputation and economic resources) so the best practical thing to do is to give money to people with health problems and keep a safe and effective health intervention to be used by the population. In opposite to antivaxxers the purpose is to keep the population healthy so sacrificing money to be able to keep doing it is still a winning proposition.
Fear mongering! Not all vaccines are necessary or even effective!
Every single one that is recommended is necessary and effective.
Flu vaccines for the healthy and HPV vaccines for children for example.
Both are effective and necessary, they prevent deaths and serious diseases, and in both cases catching the disease gives much more profit to pharmaceutical companies than vaccinating.
Flu vaccines are often less than 50 percent effective and kids generally won't need to worry about HPV until they are in their 50s.
That is false, if you count lethal cases, preventable secondary infections and days of a very debilitanting and frequently complicated disease flu vaccines are NOT frequently less than 50% effective.
And no, kids need to be protected from HPV before they have an active sex life, thinking they can forget about it until they are infected and have decades of inflammation producing oncogenic changes is like saying that smokers only have to worry when they are diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer.
As if your user name did not already make a suspicious enough person, that fearmongering is beyond the pale.
So, since you cannot prove any of the arguments for the vaccines as untrue you go for the user name? that is irrelevant, you have used untrue arguments repeatedly and it has been easy to disprove them, any user name you or I could choose would not change that.
At the end of the day you have no valid arguments, only dubious claims about things and very dangerous misrepresentations of the dangers of infectious diseases, that is extremely low quality evidence, the type that should not be what people finds when they have sincere worries about their health, in comparison proper medical sites are much more trust worthy and beneficial for whoever reads them, even if you personally don't like what they say.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Norman GoodmanToday 09:27 am JST
Right. Because health orgs are immune from misinformation. And there is no money in vaccines so you can forget about that motive to hide anything.
Health orgs at least have sources to support the claims they make about vaccines, and is astronomically less likely they end up repeating proven lies over and over again as most antivax sites do.
Simply speaking they have information of hugely better quality, so its completely desirable from any point of view to prioritize links to them, if you don't like this you only have to prove "other" sites have information of the same quality, something that nobody has been able to do.
And uh....one has to wonder why exactly the people at Pinterest took this stance. Could it be.....some stock in pharmaceutical companies?
That would be the opposite, one single multi-day stay in an ICU gives much more profits than a thousand vaccines for pharmaceutical companies, its a much better business to not support vaccination rates, after all its not their responsibility to lead people to their less expensive products.
Haven't seen any mass deaths caused by failure to vaccinate yet so...seems a tad premature to go cracking down on free speech.
That have absolutely no impact on free speech, companies have all the right to support information of better quality and they are censoring absolutely nobody by it.
Burning BushToday 09:58 am JST
It's not good when the leaders of websites manipulate their search engines to suit their political views.
But supporting the information sustained in better scientific data is good. Its unfortunate your political views are more in line with things that can be proven false scientifically but precisely for that they can be validly ignored.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
that is the point, it should be difficult to believe, health workers know very well how easily infectious diseases are transmitted, how opportunistic infections can mean the death of debilitated patients and get very strong and strict directions from the health authorities about exposing the patients going to work sick.
Its like Pilots boarding planes drunk, irresponsible actions putting people at risk against established rules.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Do you know why?
Read the whole comment, it is clearly explained there. Political popularity above the lives of people.
There has been a lot of controversy about the HPV vaccine, and not all of it comes from anti-vax nutcases. We should ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks.
It already been done, the scientific consensus is that the benefits hugely outweighs all realistically possible risks. People that insist on discredited vague "risks" even after it has been explained to them with scientific data that can be corroborated can validly be categorized as irrational antivaxxers.
How do you compare a one-in-million chance of contracting Guillain-Barré syndrome from the vaccination (WHO figures), with an 80 in one million chance of contracting cervical cancer and a 20 in one million chance of dying from that cancer?
Easily, by demonstrating that people that have not been vaccinated also have the same one in a million chances, so if you did not increased the risks in a detectable way but decrease the risk of death significantly the benefits outweight the risks. Not that this will stop people from repeating this falsified argument over and over again, its part of being antivaxxers
What about an unquantified risk of suicidal tendencies among some people receiving the vaccine?
What about it? if its unquantified for all we know the vaccine is even protecting from suicide, right?
There is absolutely no evidence of any increase of death by any cause in vaccinated population when compared with unvaccinated people, that indicates that in order to use this argument you first need evidence that there is something going on first instead of just vague possibilities.
Howling about anti-vaxers is not science.
It can be, if you support it with data, test an hypothesis and report your methods,
Otherwise it can be just simple doing your civil duty, informing people so they don't have only to listen to the lies of people that care only about feeling superior even if that means putting others at risk.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Why can't older people get it?
Unless they have specific reasons (allergies, immune problems, current disease, etc.) anybody can, its simply not recommended because the benefits are much more limited. For example, older adults that are already infected with the virus will not have any advantage from being vaccinated. Since the vaccines cost money, the supply is still limited and there are always minimal risks its always better to prioritize applying them to the people that benefit the most first.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Posted in: Global youth protests urge climate action