Study showing vaccines cause autism is 'elaborate fraud'.

I don't think we should be putting guns on our own citizenry unless they are committing acts of violence. Vaccines should be required by law and the state should be able to punish parents who refuse to get them with imprisonment and forcibly give the vaccine to the child.

i.e., at gunpoint if necessary. You're saying the same thing I am. All political power, as Mao pointed out, comes from the barrel of a gun.

Just because Mao believed it does not make it true. That's a particularly cynical stance to take in a democracy. You're saying the people hold no power.

Mao also distinguished between the need for armed military power to back up parties in an Asia fractured by factional warfare, and the lack of need for it in the bourgeois parties in the West. He specifically warned against backing political power with the gun, and instead argued that it was needed in China to establish a state and the political organizations which preceded the state.

In other countries there is no need for each of the bourgeois parties to have an armed force under its direct command. But things are different in China, where, because of the feudal division of the country, those landlord or bourgeois groupings or parties which have guns have power, and those which have more guns have more power. Placed in such an environment, the party of the proletariat should see clearly to the heart of the matter.

Communists do not fight for personal military power (they must in no circumstances do that, and let no one ever again follow the example of Chang Kuo-tao), but they must fight for military power for the Party, for military power for the people. As a national war of resistance is going on, we must also fight for military power for the nation. Where there is naivety on the question of military power, nothing whatsoever can be achieved. It is very difficult for the labouring people, who have been deceived and intimidated by the reactionary ruling classes for thousands of years, to awaken to the importance of having guns in their own hands. Now that Japanese imperialist oppression and the nation-wide resistance to it have pushed our labouring people into the arena of war, Communists should prove themselves the most politically conscious leaders in this war. Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party. Yet, having guns, we can create Party organizations, as witness the powerful Party organizations which the Eighth Route Army has created in northern China. We can also create cadres, create schools, create culture, create mass movements. Everything in Yenan has been created by having guns. All things grow out of the barrel of a gun. According to the Marxist theory of the state, the army is the chief component of state power. Whoever wants to seize and retain state power must have a strong army. Some people ridicule us as advocates of the "omnipotence of war". Yes, we are advocates of the omnipotence of revolutionary war; that is good, not bad, it is Marxist. The guns of the Russian Communist Party created socialism. We shall create a democratic republic. Experience in the class struggle in the era of imperialism teaches us that it is only by the power of the gun that the working class and the labouring masses can defeat the armed bourgeoisie and landlords; in this sense we may say that only with guns can the whole world be transformed. We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.

Clearly, though, his take is that that statement - 'Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."' - is a Marxist philosophy, not a general aphorism. If you want to buy into that to support libertarianism, I guess you can. Otherwise, the equation of power is probably more complicated in a democracy; even Mao acknowledged that.

The actual risk to a vaccinated person of a person who contracted the disease because he or she was not vaccinated is minimal. The entire point of vaccination is so that you'll have resistance and/or immunity to the disease in question. Thus, a person not vaccinated only really poses considerable risk to other persons that are also not vaccinated or who do not develop resistance/immunity even though they are vaccinated.

Likewise, I do not often see parents resistant to having their children vaccinated for free, because I live in a place where diseases are not far-off things that do not see the light of day; but are killers of children on a somewhat considerable scale.

It seems to me that the risks of measles, diptheria, and other vaccinable diseases are thought to be minimal by many in the US because they have no immediate or second-hand experience of children dying from these causes (sometimes horrifically). On a practical level, this behavior is ultimately self-limiting. Once a child acquires and dies from said disease, the risk will be brought home quite convincingly.

Of course, the entire question is, "How much parenting should the government do?"

I lean on "None," though some amount of government oversight on households is inevitable.

LarryC wrote:

The actual risk to a vaccinated person of a person who contracted the disease because he or she was not vaccinated is minimal. The entire point of vaccination is so that you'll have resistance and/or immunity to the disease in question. Thus, a person not vaccinated only really poses considerable risk to other persons that are also not vaccinated or who do not develop resistance/immunity even though they are vaccinated.

Likewise, I do not often see parents resistant to having their children vaccinated for free, because I live in a place where diseases are not far-off things that do not see the light of day; but are killers of children on a somewhat considerable scale.

It seems to me that the risks of measles, diptheria, and other vaccinable diseases are thought to be minimal by many in the US because they have no immediate or second-hand experience of children dying from these causes (sometimes horrifically). On a practical level, this behavior is ultimately self-limiting. Once a child acquires and dies from said disease, the risk will be brought home quite convincingly.

Of course, the entire question is, "How much parenting should the government do?"

I lean on "None," though some amount of government oversight on households is inevitable.

Problem is, diseases can hit before you're old enough to get said vaccine. Having more hosts handy bumps up the odds of that happening.

I also have no medical knowledge to speak of, but having more breeding ground for diseases to potentially mutate past our current vaccines seems... poorly advised.

Kannon:

That is correct after a fashion. A certain fraction of the population being vaccinated is necessary in order to get past the concentration necessary to make the disease untenable. The concept is tied to "herd immunity," which deals with the immunity of a population to a disease rather than an individual's. There is a minimum fraction necessary for each disease before we can say that herd immunity has been reached. For some, that concentration of vaccinated individuals is as low as 70% (IIRC).

Ergo, not having children vaccinated does not pose a significant risk to other children so long as the concentration for herd immunity has been reached.

Having a certain part of the population at risk increases the chances for pre-vaccinated individuals to get the disease from said host, but that's easily managed by observing outbreaks. So long as you are distant and take precautions, the vulnerable individual is not at risk, even in the chance of an outbreak, even in a population that does not have herd immunity.

Finally, I am not aware that vaccination induces resistance like antibiotics do.

Edwin wrote:

At gun point? That's pretty damn harsh. Aren't there better non-violent methods to go with first?

Island penal colony.

Robear wrote:

Clearly, though, his take is that that statement - 'Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."' - is a Marxist philosophy, not a general aphorism. If you want to buy into that to support libertarianism, I guess you can. Otherwise, the equation of power is probably more complicated in a democracy; even Mao acknowledged that.

I think the aphorism (and it is one) is generally understood these days to mean that, ultimately, all power eventually must be backed up by the will and ability to use physical force. That's not merely an aspect of Marxist philosophy, it's an aspect of every political theory I can think of, be it theist or anarchist.

So apparently thanks to these anti-vaccination people, I have to go get my whooping cough vaccination updated. Looks like where I work, Overland Park, KS has an outbreak.

Thanks Tea Party.

wordsmythe wrote:
Edwin wrote:

At gun point? That's pretty damn harsh. Aren't there better non-violent methods to go with first?

Island penal colony.

72 hours non-stop exposure to Kitty Kat Dance.

dejanzie wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
Edwin wrote:

At gun point? That's pretty damn harsh. Aren't there better non-violent methods to go with first?

Island penal colony.

72 hours non-stop exposure to Kitty Kat Dance.

IMAGE(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Fq6ijXp8RZg/TDT_Awq9utI/AAAAAAAAAsU/OZlcjrD5cIo/s400/clockworkorange.jpg)

SallyNasty wrote:

So apparently thanks to these anti-vaccination people, I have to go get my whooping cough vaccination updated. Looks like where I work, Overland Park, KS has an outbreak.

Thanks Tea Party.

The implied faction hostility is illogical on this basis. An outbreak of pertussis can occur through the reduced immunity of adults who do not receive regular booster vaccinations, even if the pediatric vaccination record is perfect. Having adult Tdap vaccination is helpful to achieve effective herd immunity and should be considered desirable by adults who are pushing for that goal, regardless of the presence of outbreaks; or whether or not such outbreaks can be traced to an imperfect pediatric vaccination record.

LarryC wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

So apparently thanks to these anti-vaccination people, I have to go get my whooping cough vaccination updated. Looks like where I work, Overland Park, KS has an outbreak.

Thanks Tea Party.

The implied faction hostility is illogical on this basis. An outbreak of pertussis can occur through the reduced immunity of adults who do not receive regular booster vaccinations, even if the pediatric vaccination record is perfect. Having adult Tdap vaccination is helpful to achieve effective herd immunity and should be considered desirable by adults who are pushing for that goal, regardless of the presence of outbreaks; or whether or not such outbreaks can be traced to an imperfect pediatric vaccination record.

Earth to Spock, this is Kirk speaking. Spock, get out of the lab - it is crazy down here!

LarryC wrote:

Kannon:

That is correct after a fashion. A certain fraction of the population being vaccinated is necessary in order to get past the concentration necessary to make the disease untenable. The concept is tied to "herd immunity," which deals with the immunity of a population to a disease rather than an individual's. There is a minimum fraction necessary for each disease before we can say that herd immunity has been reached. For some, that concentration of vaccinated individuals is as low as 70% (IIRC).

Ergo, not having children vaccinated does not pose a significant risk to other children so long as the concentration for herd immunity has been reached.

When you say that vaccinated individuals have nothing to fear from unvaccinated, that is not strictly true. Vaccinations are not 100% effective. Some are as low as 70% effective. That's why herd immunity is so important. Even if your vaccine is only 90% effective, if everyone around you also has 90% effective vaccines the likelihood of the disease spreading around is very low.

There is also the issue that some children cannot be vaccinated, not because their parents don't want them to be, but because they are allergic to the vaccine components or because their immune system is too weak. These children rely purely on herd immunity to save them, particularly the ones with weak immune systems who are also the most at risk for dying from childhood disease. So parents who are doing everything right by their child are being put at terrible risk by those who refuse to vaccine.

Fascinating!

Demyx:

Precisely why government intervention is only necessary when herd immunity is being significantly compromised. Prior to that, there is no significantly increased risk of infection, by definition of the term.

I have not read reports that the movement has reached a significant enough following to compromise herd immunity. If so, then the concern ought to be tackled on a government policy level. There is no call for faction hostility on an individual level.

At worst, the decision whether or not to call on universal forced vaccination for herd immunity can be put to a population poll on a community level, where communities who decide by majority for herd immunity policy can force every member to be vaccinated, if the majority decision is for it.

Of course, individual immunization only gains even more importance in a scenario where there is no herd immunity. I am confident that the far greater risk of permanent disability and/or death from actual diseases will quickly convince the gullible once the body count starts rising.

Shrug. If you really care about the lives of the unimmunized, you could always start a fund made for the benefit of sick children at risk of death from diseases preventable through vaccine.

Island penal colony.

With explosive neck collars.

wordsmythe wrote:
Edwin wrote:

At gun point? That's pretty damn harsh. Aren't there better non-violent methods to go with first?

Island penal colony.

Do they get them there with enticements of an all-expenses paid vacation to a holiday resort?

Ulairi wrote:

All of these nutters that are anti vaccines make me mad. I have high functioning autism but when I was a kid we were much poorer and diagnosing it and if I were a kid today there would have been support for me and my parents as i went through the school system. instead, i got glorious teachers calling me lazy, stupid, and questioning even if i'll graduate from high school.

You too? I know that feeling. I look back on them occasionally and laugh as I'm highly successful. It just took me longer.

Every person who does not get vaccinated weakens the herd. And yes, while the marginal utility of additional vaccinations does decrease significantly once herd immunity is reached, I find it baffling to dismiss the additional vectors as inconsequential. If one additionally person gets polio because of some fallacious woo, it's unacceptable. And with each additional carrier, even those vaccinated have a higher chance of contracting an illness.

Removing yourself from the scene does not stop your body from providing a host to harmful organisms. Unless you're going into sterile isolation for the rest of your life, you endanger others when you reject vaccination.

weswilson:

The reasoning and the simulation is flawed. In the first place, diseases rarely have 100% population penetration, and their manifestation is also dependent on individual variables. Aside from people who have, for one reason or another, natural inherent immunity, there are people who can be carriers but asymptomatic. Not everyone dies from anything but the most deadly diseases, and those tend to not be very successful on account of killing all their carriers.

Immunization has value outside of herd immunity, and it is not pointless to have immunization if the population at large is not immunized.

LarryC:
Herd immunity has been compromised in parts of the US, the risk of death is increased, and the morons are still refusing vaccinations. Voluntary compliance is a non-starter because the unvaccinated do not take the entirety of the risk on themselves. Their stupid refusals put others at risk.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2018180929_apuswhoopingcough.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2012/05/oregon_whooping_cough_cases_ri.html

SallyNasty wrote:

So apparently thanks to these anti-vaccination people, I have to go get my whooping cough vaccination updated. Looks like where I work, Overland Park, KS has an outbreak.

Thanks Tea Party.

It's pushed primarily by the left and not the right. But, thanks!

LarryC wrote:

The reasoning and the simulation is flawed. In the first place, diseases rarely have 100% population penetration, and their manifestation is also dependent on individual variables. Aside from people who have, for one reason or another, natural inherent immunity, there are people who can be carriers but asymptomatic. Not everyone dies from anything but the most deadly diseases, and those tend to not be very successful on account of killing all their carriers.

Immunization has value outside of herd immunity, and it is not pointless to have immunization if the population at large is not immunized.

The simulation never makes the assumptions you claim it does.

And I am unsure where you have gotten the idea that anyone has said it is pointless.

Ulairi wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

So apparently thanks to these anti-vaccination people, I have to go get my whooping cough vaccination updated. Looks like where I work, Overland Park, KS has an outbreak.

Thanks Tea Party.

It's pushed primarily by the left and not the right. But, thanks!

I actually thought it was a pretty bipartisan stupidity.

NathanialG wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

So apparently thanks to these anti-vaccination people, I have to go get my whooping cough vaccination updated. Looks like where I work, Overland Park, KS has an outbreak.

Thanks Tea Party.

It's pushed primarily by the left and not the right. But, thanks!

I actually thought it was a pretty bipartisan stupidity.

The individuals pushing it are stupid and bipartisan, but the institutional support seems to be largely from the Republicans/Tea Party types.

Tanglebones wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

So apparently thanks to these anti-vaccination people, I have to go get my whooping cough vaccination updated. Looks like where I work, Overland Park, KS has an outbreak.

Thanks Tea Party.

It's pushed primarily by the left and not the right. But, thanks!

I actually thought it was a pretty bipartisan stupidity.

The individuals pushing it are stupid and bipartisan, but the institutional support seems to be largely from the Republicans/Tea Party types.

Because, Oprah, Bill Maher, and a guy who's written multiple books on why Republicans don't believe in science tend to believe it isn't the tea party/republican types

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...

So is there a case study of science denial that largely occupies the political left? Yes: the claim that childhood vaccines are causing an epidemic of autism. Its most famous proponents are an environmentalist (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) and numerous Hollywood celebrities (most notably Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey). The Huffington Post gives a very large megaphone to denialists. And Seth Mnookin, author of the new book The Panic Virus, notes that if you want to find vaccine deniers, all you need to do is go hang out at Whole Foods.

It appeals to both sides for different reasons.

Right wing - crazy government trying to make my kids sick! I don't trust them to do anything right! why should I risk autism so some kids on the other side of the world can stay healthy!

Left wing - Big pharma is trying to make my kids sick! It's all a plot to make kids sick so we buy more meds from them! I don't need corrupted medical "science" when there are natural cures all around us!

It's taken hold because it appeals to some base narratives. Also you have to factor in the mommy culture echo chamber. That's a massive factor in this.

Oprah, Bill Maher and this author are elected officials? Who knew!

I don't know how many democrats are against immunization, but this is the sort of thing that springs to mind when I think about republican's relationship with science. They like science when it shows something like an increase in the size of caribou herds when you lay a pipeline across the tundra, but they don't like it if it allows girls to have sex without being punished.

Tanglebones wrote:

Oprah, Bill Maher and this author are elected officials? Who knew!

There are liberal politicians who fell for the anti-vaccine hysteria as well. It most certainly isn't pushed instiutstionally by the Republican party or the tea party. When Bachmann tried to make that play during the campaign it backfired big-time.

Culture matters and the largest cultural proponent of this form of nuttery is the left not the right.

John Kerry and Chris Dodd are both well known nut cases when it comes to vaccinations.

Ulairi wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Oprah, Bill Maher and this author are elected officials? Who knew!

There are liberal politicians who fell for the anti-vaccine hysteria as well. It most certainly isn't pushed instiutstionally by the Republican party or the tea party. When Bachmann tried to make that play during the campaign it backfired big-time.

Culture matters and the largest cultural proponent of this form of nuttery is the left not the right.

John Kerry and Chris Dodd are both well known nut cases when it comes to vaccinations.

Much better argument than Oprah/Bill Maher