• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Anti-Vax Movement and The Return of Preventable Disease

Hyrulian Hero

TheGuyWhoSqeezedOutAHeartPieceInTheStockPotInn
Joined
Oct 6, 2016
Location
PNW
Well put. Take Arizona's child neglect definition for instance.

"A.R.S. § 8-201[Arizona revises statutes, Title 8 Children]

“***

22. "Neglect" or "neglected" means:

(a) The inability or unwillingness of a parent, guardian or custodian of a child to provide that child with supervision, food, clothing, shelter or medical care if that inability or unwillingness causes unreasonable risk of harm to the child's health or welfare, except if the inability of a parent, guardian or custodian to provide services to meet the needs of a child with a disability or chronic illness is solely the result of the unavailability of reasonable services."

This is a general representation of a state's view on the meaning of child neglect. The operative word here is obviously "unreasonable". The catch here is that neither you nor I are the parties unto which the risk must seem unreasonable. You don't get to decide if it's unreasonable for a father to force his daughter to wear a hijab against her will which gets her attacked by the ever-elusive violent white supremacist. And thank God for that, I don't want to be the one who decides if that's unreasonable, because I raise my children in ways that others think is unreasonable, and surely, you will too (provided you choose to have children). Not feeding your children is unreasonable as food is essential. Chemicals which will likely keep you from contacting a deadly disease are not essential and therefore, not giving them to your child is not unreasonable.

The risk incurred upon a child must seem reasonable to the courts (in accordance with the law), the view of which is heavily informed by the parent's reasoning of the risk. I think that the risk of negatives is outweighed by the probable positive outcome when it comes to vaccines, which is why my children are vaccinated. If my child does develop autism due to a vaccine (play along), I will still have reasoned that the risk was worth the reward as I understood it at the time of the decision. This is a reasonable risk by my assessment.

By this logic, I can fully understand why people may not want to be forced to take an action that offends their reason which is based on an appeal to authority, just like my reason and your reason (unless you are an accredited scientific professional who has conducted an adequate study on the subject). I lean toward the opinion that the risk of preventable diseases returning is worth the protection of freedom. I have a hard time feeling that forcing people to be injected with a chemical is worth the risk of our government telling us that not putting a GPS tracking chip in our children is tantamount to neglect.

Not being vaccinated at birth, of course, in no way precludes the option of being vaccinated upon reaching the age of majority or being emancipated. A parent who wants to wait for their child to make the decision could also choose to allow the child a choice at such a time as they feel the child is prepared to make such a decision.

Stripping parents of agency over their children is a dangerous precedent and should be exercised with extreme caution and rarity. The family unit has taken several major hits in the West over the past century and the autonomy of the family will continue to degrade should parents be robbed of their right to protect their families in the way they see fit due to mass hysteria.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 4, 2014
Location
California
Let me put forward another question upon which I haven't yet decided. There doesn't seem to be much diversity here in terms of opinion on whether or not vaccines cause autism, mostly just harsh words from people with opinions. Let me point out that unless any of us have personally conducted a double-blind study carried out over the course of a decade, I'm going to assume that those of us who claim to be informed about the subject are merely repeating the opinions (informed or otherwise) of those we trust. I'll also assume that at least some of us are at least aware of the results of some studies that actually have been carried out.

So the fact that everybody seems to be on the same page affords a great platform to pose this question: whether or not you believe that vaccines do or could cause autism, what should be done about it?

Having been a life-long American citizen, I cleave to freedom first and then consider the qualifications for intervention by an individual, individuals, or a governing body. As of now, I am trapped between my more conservative libertarian ideals which would value an individual's freedom to choose whether or not to take an action and the other option (which pulls more toward the fascism of socialism) by which one is forced to take an action in service of what the government considers to be "the greater good".

The greater good I'd say is a tricky thing. But it is a matter of public health, in this case communicable disease and neglectful child care. I see the autism argument as one born of fear mongering, self-righteous justification and ignorance. People always fail hard when those factors come into play. I'm no expert myself, but I don't think conditions like autism can suddenly develop without warning as if it were an accidental chemical poisoning from an external source.
 
Last edited:

Princess Niki

Allons-y
Staff member
ZD Legend
Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Location
Alola
My godparents think that the anti-vaxers should go to the Polio conventions they go to, so that they see the effects and what doctors are trying to prevent. My godmother got it while visiting Africa, I am not sure why her vaccinations weren't up to date at the time cuz she was never against them. This was years ago but I am not sure exactly when, she is one of the lucky ones that isn't paralyzed but her body can be weak at times these days since she is having a re-occurrence.
 
Joined
May 4, 2014
Location
California
My godparents think that the anti-vaxers should go to the Polio conventions they go to, so that they see the effects and what doctors are trying to prevent. My godmother got it while visiting Africa, I am not sure why her vaccinations weren't up to date at the time cuz she was never against them. This was years ago but I am not sure exactly when, she is one of the lucky ones that isn't paralyzed but her body can be weak at times these days since she is having a re-occurrence.

I'm sorry to hear about your godmother. :/
 

Beauts

Rock and roll will never die
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Location
London, United Kingdom
Not here to entertain any antivaccine bull****.

If you don’t vaccinate you’re not only stupid, you’re selfish. And the antivax movement seems to have an inherent fixation on not wanting autistic kids which I don’t get. Why hate autistic people so much? Also; that’s been disproved a kazillion times. There is no connection. Vaccinate your kids and shut the **** up.
 

Bishop Rodan

Godslayer
Joined
Jan 12, 2015
Let me put forward another question upon which I haven't yet decided. There doesn't seem to be much diversity here in terms of opinion on whether or not vaccines cause autism, mostly just harsh words from people with opinions. Let me point out that unless any of us have personally conducted a double-blind study carried out over the course of a decade, I'm going to assume that those of us who claim to be informed about the subject are merely repeating the opinions (informed or otherwise) of those we trust. I'll also assume that at least some of us are at least aware of the results of some studies that actually have been carried out.

So the fact that everybody seems to be on the same page affords a great platform to pose this question: whether or not you believe that vaccines do or could cause autism, what should be done about it?

Having been a life-long American citizen, I cleave to freedom first and then consider the qualifications for intervention by an individual, individuals, or a governing body. As of now, I am trapped between my more conservative libertarian ideals which would value an individual's freedom to choose whether or not to take an action and the other option (which pulls more toward the fascism of socialism) by which one is forced to take an action in service of what the government considers to be "the greater good".
If you'd rather your kids potentially die from preventable diseases (or better yet, kids who aren't even yours) than god forbid have an autistic child, you frankly are not fit to be a parent.

That aside, vaccinating your kids should not only be encouraged, it should be mandatory. "B-but muh freedom!1!" Tough titties. Freedom to spread diseases to other peoples' children and potentially cause pointless, preventable illnesses (and even death)? Really? Is that the hill you're going to die on? I'm not a father, but if I were, I know I wouldn't want people sending their unvaccinated kids to the same schools as my children.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Gender
Feel free to use what pronouns you want. I use both sexed pronoun sets interchangeably.
That aside, vaccinating your kids should not only be encouraged, it should be mandatory. "B-but muh freedom!1!" Tough titties. Freedom to spread diseases to other peoples' children and potentially cause pointless, preventable illnesses (and even death)? Really? Is that the hill you're going to die on? I'm not a father, but if I were, I know I wouldn't want people sending their unvaccinated kids to the same schools as my children.
Technically, it's the hill they want other people to die on.

However, mandatory medical treatment easily leaves open the path to tyranny. The public safety argument would be legitimate if it had not in the past been used for lobotomizing women who did not conform to societal norms, forced gay conversion therapy, opposing women having any political power at all, some of the justification for the Holocaust and other genocides, forced internment of the Japanese in internment camps in the U.S. during World War 2, a lot of modern racism towards African Americans, a lot of modern discrimination against trans people, and the list goes on.

Yes, it sucks there are exceptions and children are dying because of it. But we've already seen that the other path is worse. And it doesn't take a genius to look at modern humanity and know that the people who did all of those horrible things have not gone away and are merely gaining more power as time goes on. Unfortunately, combating them may mean having to accept that people will die from preventable diseases for no good reason.

And what I see in this modern era is a troubling trend of people thinking the same old mistakes, the mistakes that fueled genocide and slavery and women effectively becoming property, are somehow going to fix things "if we just do it right this time."

The idea of catching polio scares the living hell out of me. But, with the way things are going now, I may have to choose between polio and being forced to work to death in a labor camp with all of my humanity legally stripped from me. At least the polio offers me a chance to live and some basic human dignity.
 

Bishop Rodan

Godslayer
Joined
Jan 12, 2015
Slippery slope fallacy. There is a world of difference between mandatory vaccines and mandatory lobotomies. To equate measles vaccines to the ****ing Holocaust is absurd. To claim that the choice is between letting anti-vaxxers potentially kill their and other peoples' kids through their idiocy, or genocide, is a false dichotomy.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Gender
Feel free to use what pronouns you want. I use both sexed pronoun sets interchangeably.
Slippery slope fallacy. There is a world of difference between mandatory vaccines and mandatory lobotomies. To equate measles vaccines to the ****ing Holocaust is absurd. To claim that the choice is between letting anti-vaxxers potentially kill their and other peoples' kids through their idiocy, or genocide, is a false dichotomy.
Misuse of the slippery slope fallacy classification. Nearly everything I'm describing is based on actual arguments made in favor of those things that used vaccines as an example, often by equating those being discriminated against or exterminated as being diseases as well or arguing "well, if we're acting in the public good in this case..." Some of the people who support those arguments are currently in political power in a number of nations, including the United States.

That it's a false equivalency or absurd is not disputed. But, then, we've already seen that false equivalences and flat-out insanity can win political power and end up making political policy for very powerful nations. So, dismissing it because it is that ignores an aspect of reality that must be dealt with if some groups, including anti-vaxxers, are to be countered.

You may ignore it if you wish, but until you understand the absurdity you will never effectively speak to anti-vaxxers or to those they politically agree with on other issues.

That's ignoring the fact that human history shows humans often treat the slippery slope more as a cliff and gleefully dive off it. Wow, we can be evil at the drop of a hat...
 
Joined
May 4, 2014
Location
California
Technically, it's the hill they want other people to die on.

However, mandatory medical treatment easily leaves open the path to tyranny. The public safety argument would be legitimate if it had not in the past been used for lobotomizing women who did not conform to societal norms, forced gay conversion therapy, opposing women having any political power at all, some of the justification for the Holocaust and other genocides, forced internment of the Japanese in internment camps in the U.S. during World War 2, a lot of modern racism towards African Americans, a lot of modern discrimination against trans people, and the list goes on.

Yes, it sucks there are exceptions and children are dying because of it. But we've already seen that the other path is worse. And it doesn't take a genius to look at modern humanity and know that the people who did all of those horrible things have not gone away and are merely gaining more power as time goes on. Unfortunately, combating them may mean having to accept that people will die from preventable diseases for no good reason.

And what I see in this modern era is a troubling trend of people thinking the same old mistakes, the mistakes that fueled genocide and slavery and women effectively becoming property, are somehow going to fix things "if we just do it right this time."

The idea of catching polio scares the living hell out of me. But, with the way things are going now, I may have to choose between polio and being forced to work to death in a labor camp with all of my humanity legally stripped from me. At least the polio offers me a chance to live and some basic human dignity.

Bull****. Medical health mostly isn't a bad thing. If its bad, its only because its fueled by ill-informed, illogical decisions made by rabid ignoramuses who think their personal morals supercede human decency and scientific study.

If your house got demolished on top of you by a tornado and you were rushed to the hospital unconscious, I highly doubt your going to scream at the doctors for daring to infringe upon your rights.

If a parent refuses to get help for a child while seriously injured or severely ill, then it would be child endangerment. Anti-vaxxers are more concerned about being right then they are about child endangerment. This is even adult endangerment. Its true that vaccines aren't going to completely prevent a person from getting sick ever again, but it sure does help.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Gender
Feel free to use what pronouns you want. I use both sexed pronoun sets interchangeably.
Sadly, the world has gotten much worse and much scarier since the post FC quoted. That post was made in happier, more ignorant days. This should explain the tone of what is to follow.

Bull****. Medical health mostly isn't a bad thing. If its bad, its only because its fueled by ill-informed, illogical decisions made by rabid ignoramuses who think their personal morals supercede human decency and scientific study.
You mean, like the same scientific study that thought practices like eugenics and lobotomizing women for daring to speak out? Or the same scientific study that involved testing an untried vaccine on a human child first?

Science and medicine do a lot of good, but they also have an extremely dark history. The scientific ideals that led to our being able to identify human remains down to the racial group by structure and led to the understanding that some genetic backgrounds are more prone to certain diseases than others are also the same ideals that helped spawn the Holocaust. And, no, that's not an exaggeration; they're both descended from the original form of eugenics, before racism warped it into what history remembers.

The problem with scientific study is that it is still prone to the biases of the people who do the study. That is why we focus so much on replication standards (and why science is being rocked hard by an lack of capacity to reproduce results across multiple fields). But that does not change the fact that it is incredibly easy for consensus to get in the way of fact, as medical science recently learned about ulcers; it turns out all of the consensus and reproduced results were flat-out wrong and that it's really bacteria that cause ulcers and not, as previously thought, stress.

Want another example? From a biochemical perspective, your birth sex matters. Extremely. Because as it turns out, that determines a lot of biochemical reactions that, in turn, change a lot of effectiveness of various medications and what dosages are safe for you. It turns out the medical consensus of "women are just like men, only smaller" was dangerously wrong. And if I remember correctly, this is a discovery only made this century. Which means that we're still rewriting the books on what is and is not medically safe for those born female.

Medical health is a bad thing if forced without consideration that the medical health standards may not be factually accurate. Which is a big problem that medical science struggles with, and which is not aided by how little common people understand of medicine. We still understand so little about the human body that it's amazing we haven't accidentally genocided ourselves.

If your house got demolished on top of you by a tornado and you were rushed to the hospital unconscious, I highly doubt your going to scream at the doctors for daring to infringe upon your rights.
Hospitals lose lawsuits for violating medical consent. That's why they make such a big deal of knowing if they can have your consent for treatment. So, yes, some people would not only scream at the doctors, but would take them to court over it.

If a parent refuses to get help for a child while seriously injured or severely ill, then it would be child endangerment. Anti-vaxxers are more concerned about being right then they are about child endangerment. This is even adult endangerment. Its true that vaccines aren't going to completely prevent a person from getting sick ever again, but it sure does help.
Vaccines are, unfortunately, of increasingly-limited use and increasingly-mitigated effectiveness. For example, they can no longer be truly counted on to protect you from polio. Which is one of the diseases where surviving it makes death by measles look like a trip to Disneyworld in comparison to the unending hell you are signing up for by being too stubborn to die. This is just the first discovered vaccine-resistant virus; there are likely going to be others discovered or found to have evolved in the years to come.

There is also a fungicide-resistant strain of human-killing fungus that has spread to five out of seven continents. If you have a weakened immune system, this thing will probably kill you.

And then there's our growing list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which has even the UN panicking at the sheer terror it is causing. Because it's always fun to know that you're facing an upcoming medical apocalypse.

Given that they're already recommending reducing fungicide and antibiotic use to combat adaptation, how many more strains of vaccine-resistant viruses do you think will be necessary before those get added to the chopping block?

This is the world we live in now. Vaccines, fungicides, and antibiotics have not saved us or our health. They have merely doomed our children and grandchildren to an ending battle against incurable diseases.

Now, can we combat them? Yes... but not without tyranny. Not without mass slaughter. Possibly not even without genocide. Because to stop those diseases, we will have to burn them out of the human population. And in a couple cases, the "burn" part may be quite literal.

Tyranny, or risking death by something like polio. Those are your choices. We've squandered all others.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom