• Doctors won't see patients with anti-vaccine views
    54 replies, posted
[QUOTE=J!NX;47044730]when Animal drug testing is literally the only reason you're alive then you're kind of an idiot for being against it. Isn't it like, 80 to 90 % of all drugs that are animal tested? and eating fast food isn't the same as being diabetic and alive because of a thing that you are against. That doesn't even make any sense, like, at all, actually.[/QUOTE] it didn't NEED to be tested on animals, it would've been developed somehow
No reason to waste their time on delusional idiots who reject basic facts.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;47042962]As a liberal (using the classical context here) the issue of vaccinations is a dilemma. On one hand, people should be able to make stupid choices; but on the other hand, parents who don't vaccinate their kids are potentially risking the lives of others thus affecting the liberties of those people. I think that this approach is one of the best ways to go about it, having doctors being able to make the choice to deny service to anti-vaxxers as long as the circumstances aren't life threatening. Possibly the only other way I think this problem can be approached is to give 'tax credit coupons' to parents who choose to have their kids vaccinated. Eg get your daughter vaccinated and you receive a $1,000 income tax deduction which you redeem on your tax return and reduce your tax liability by a few hundred dollars. Or receive a flat payment if you do not earn enough to pay tax.[/QUOTE] As mentioned above, many anti-vaxxers would only see that as more "evidence" that vaccines are a government conspiracy.
I seriously think the anti-vaxxer parents should be arrested or have their children taken away, I don't care if it's their right to make that choice because by making that choice they're not just putting themselves and their children at risk, but others as well of catching a contagious diseases which could cripple or even kill them. And as forementioned, it doesn't help that some of these fuckers are rednecks who think the government boogeyman is out to get them. But unfortunately our constitution grants these people the rights to be careless ignorant jack asses and I'm glad there's people and businesses finally putting their foot down on these people to protect themselves, their families, and their customers. But unfortunately the anti-vaxxers also have the right to sue them as well and I have no doubt many of them will and I can already see their lawyers rubbing their hands together at the chance to make even more money off their clients' stupidity.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47044825]it didn't NEED to be tested on animals, it would've been developed somehow[/QUOTE] the other options are either 1. Human testing (Volunteers would be too hard to come by, and doing it by force would be fucked up) 2. Not testing your drug properly and sending it to the public regardless, leading to the public dealing with horrible side effects I didn't want to start talk of this kind of stuff but like, yeah, most drugs have to be animal tested [editline]31st January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47044834]Its more like a necessary evil kinda deal. You can DIE or you can deal with it. Doesn't mean you have to like it. It makes perfect sense. Both involve profiting off something you're against. Once is just less sever obviously. P.S. not saying I'm against animal testing, even though it is a bit morally wrong. Testing on humans would be morally wrong-er.[/QUOTE] the point was more that that, even though X person is proof that it's necessary, X person ignores that proof, and that, animal testing saves millions of lives, fast food isn't exactly medication that you can't choose to take unless you die, it's a conscious choice to eat that food if they were so against animal testing they shouldn't take their animal tested medicine. Just like anti-vaxxers don't vaccinate.
I'm really excited to see the shitstorm that will take place in the anti-vaxxer community because of this, It will probably be really really funny.
If vaccines are so great, why were some of the kids who got the measles in California vaccinated?
[QUOTE=NoobieWafer223;47042801]GOOD. Finally. Now maybe this will catch-on and all the idiot anti-vaccers will learn. It's NOT SAFE. NOT SAFE FOR YOU. NOT SAFE FOR YOUR CHILDREN. NOT SAFE FOR ANYONE ELSE'S WELL-BEING. Get fucking vaccinated, god damn. It won't kill you.[/QUOTE] Even if vaccines did turn out to have a chance to give autism to children, I'd still much rather have my child be autistic than turn into a short-lived disease timebomb. [editline]31st January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Hypogastrium;47045174]If vaccines are so great, why were some of the kids who got the measles in California vaccinated?[/QUOTE] Because vaccines aren't a pure 100% effective shield against everything, especially not if a non vaccinated child who's carrying the full blown strong version of the disease shows up and starts contaminating other kids ?
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47044825]it didn't NEED to be tested on animals, it would've been developed somehow[/QUOTE] Well as a diabetic, I'm sure that waiting a couple more decades for insulin to be developed wouldn't be a problem at all. Who cares about how badly it would destroy my kidneys? Who cares that I could die at any moment because I'm broken? Really, WHO actually cares that my dear parents would have been deprived of their son at a young age, when the health of animals is at stake?? [sp]Seriously man, what did I do to you?[/sp]
[QUOTE=J!NX;47043211]Fun Fact: There are diabetics who are still alive because of animal tested insulin, and are outright against animal tested drugs regardless of how stupid that is. People can be endlessly ignorant.[/QUOTE] Odd how some people can be living proof of the argument they're against.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47044825]it didn't NEED to be tested on animals, it would've been developed somehow[/QUOTE] so you'd rather people's lives be put on the line unnecessarily during the development of a drug, the time which adverse effects are most likely and in which several people [i]would[/i] have to sacrifice their lives for in order to measure the LD50 of it, just to save some rats, pigs, and dogs? because if we don't test on animals we're only able to test on humans.
[QUOTE=Hypogastrium;47045174]If vaccines are so great, why were some of the kids who got the measles in California vaccinated?[/QUOTE] The measles vaccine is only about 95% effective. But it's damn well better than no vaccine (unless you're allergic to it). 95% is enough to maintain herd immunity so that the other 5% and the immunocompromised/allergic/infants too young for vaccination have as small of an exposure surface as possible. If only 50% of the population is immune, [I]epidemic[/I].
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47045389]The measles vaccine is only about 85% effective. But it's damn well better than no vaccine (unless you're allergic to it). 85% is enough to maintain herd immunity so that the other 15% and the immunocompromised/allergic/infants too young for vaccination have as small of an exposure surface as possible. If only 50% of the population is immune, [I]epidemic[/I].[/QUOTE] yeah, 85% effective rate pretty much guarantees that even if someone who is immunized gets it, as long as everyone around them is immunized (and they stay out of public) it won't spread. eventually it will lead to its eradication
fucking good.
i'm definitely for all those vaccines at birth whatever they are i know when i checked my zangle in middle school that i'd have all those list of shots i've gathered from like 0-7/12 am i an anti-vaxxer tho if i don't get anymore after that like no flu shots or anything since
[QUOTE=Baked Potato;47045722]i'm definitely for all those vaccines at birth whatever they are i know when i checked my zangle in middle school that i'd have all those list of shots i've gathered from like 0-7/12 am i an anti-vaxxer tho if i don't get anymore after that like no flu shots or anything since[/QUOTE] if you're for "all those vaccines at birth whatever they are", you're not an anti-vaxxer
What? Anti-vaccination was a thing? What kind of parent wouldn't want their children to be as safe and secure against disease as possible?
[QUOTE=zpiscool;47045873]What? Anti-vaccination was a thing? What kind of parent wouldn't want their children to be as safe and secure against disease as possible?[/QUOTE] Bloody idiots believing in conspiracy theories and debunked claims.
[QUOTE=zpiscool;47045873]What? Anti-vaccination was a thing? What kind of parent wouldn't want their children to be as safe and secure against disease as possible?[/QUOTE] Long story made short, a former playboy model had a kid who turned out to be autistic and the first symptoms appeared after she had him vaccinated so she started claiming it was vaccines who gave her child autism. Some charlatan doctor then showed up and started making the same claim to make some scam dollar and a bunch of celebrities as well as a ton of stupid overly worried mothers hopped on the stupidity wagon down to disease city. This was a short while back but we're starting to see the consequences with almost dead diseases reappearing, kids dying left and right and more epidemics popping up in various schools.
[I]maybe[/I] this will change anti-vaxxers minds, which would be a good thing but for the time being this literally just boils down to "sorry kiddo, doesn't matter if you're ill, your parents have opinions on things you're too young to understand so you're not a priority, smiley face" kiiiiiiiiinda fucked up
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;47052299]Long story made short, a former playboy model had a kid who turned out to be autistic and the first symptoms appeared after she had him vaccinated so she started claiming it was vaccines who gave her child autism. Some charlatan doctor then showed up and started making the same claim to make some scam dollar and a bunch of celebrities as well as a ton of stupid overly worried mothers hopped on the stupidity wagon down to disease city. This was a short while back but we're starting to see the consequences with almost dead diseases reappearing, kids dying left and right and more epidemics popping up in various schools.[/QUOTE] Actually, Andrew Wakefield started it by publishing a fraudulent 1998 study claiming a connection between the MMR (mumps, measles, and rubella) vaccine and autism in children. That he had developed a single measles vaccine and would stand to personally benefit if the MMR vaccine got taken off the market was only the start of the problems. His data was found to be incomplete, inconclusive, in some cases completely fabricated, and where it wasn't, it was rife with ethical and procedural issues. He cherrypicked cases instead of doing a proper double-blind test. Most damning, [I]without the consent of any of the parents[/I], he convinced kids at a [I]birthday party[/I] to let him take blood samples from them. All of his coauthors have renounced the flawed paper, the journal that published it retracted it very publicly, and he was stripped of his license to practice in the UK. So he came over to the US to become a pop doc, like Dr. Phil, only far more dangerous. And then he met Jenny McCarthy, former Playboy titbimbo of the year and wife of Jim Carrey. Her kid was diagnosed with autism, she fell right into the gullibility trap and assumed it was the vaccines, and she started appearing on TV, and eventually got to use Oprah's show as a soapbox for anti-vaccination lies. And in the end it turns out the kid wasn't even autistic in the first place! It was a misdiagnosis and he had something else wrong with him altogether. McCarthy's response was, "Well, okay, but that doesn't mean vaccines don't cause autism anyway!" to try and save face, and she's quietly distanced herself from it for the past couple years. But the damage is done. She was allowed to be on syndicated national television airing her antiscience views, and it reached a lot of stupid people who ate it up. Wakefield is still out there. [QUOTE=evlbzltyr;47052336][I]maybe[/I] this will change anti-vaxxers minds, which would be a good thing but for the time being this literally just boils down to "sorry kiddo, doesn't matter if you're ill, your parents have opinions on things you're too young to understand so you're not a priority, smiley face" kiiiiiiiiinda fucked up[/QUOTE] Some antivaxers are afraid they're going to get arrested; rational thought is something for other people, to them. Otherwise they wouldn't be antivax in the first place.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47052523]And then he met Jenny McCarthy, former Playboy titbimbo of the year and [B]wife of Jim Carrey[/B].[/QUOTE] They never got married. They did date for five years though.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47044825]it didn't NEED to be tested on animals, it would've been developed somehow[/QUOTE] Clinical trials by themselves are already a huge hurdle to jump in regards to pharmaceutical development, tissue samples can only go so far, and it'd be fucking asinine to gimp the system further by banning testing. I stand against unnecessary caustic testing in regards to cosmetics, but not life saving medicines. To me, anti-testing people are just the same as the anti-vax, luddite scum. We haven't come this far as a species to cripple ourself with ignorance and idiocy.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.