Vaccine Discussion Master Thread

[Yehuda57]

I was talking about this instance in particular.

And I'm glad to see that you've joined the small sample size bad science camp.  It definitely makes sense to use bad science if the other side is also.

Right, because you don't do sarcasm at all. The SSS is mentioned in reference to this outbreak, its all they have, literally. They do not draw any conclusions from that SSS (this particular outbreak). The advice and medical guidelines that follow are not based on bad science or SSSs, but years of legitimate research and studies which have been corroborated by numerous third parties, as detailed above in this thread many, many times.

CMIW, but your argument has been that not ALL vaccines are necessary for ALL individuals. But with this pertussis breakout I would think you find this particular vaccination necessary in our community. Correct? So why continue with the cynical trolling even in areas of the debate you agree on?

[thaber]

So why continue with the cynical trolling even in areas of the debate you agree on?

Billable hours. He's trained to keep on going even once he agrees. Can't help himself

[noturbizniss]

Billable hours. She's trained to keep on going even once dhe agrees. Can't help herself

FTFY

[henche]

Billable hours. He's trained to keep on going even once he agrees. Can't help himself

+1

[thaber]

FTFY

We've been through this already....


ETA: http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=51257.msg1137757#msg1137757

[henche]

CMIW, but your argument has been that not ALL vaccines are necessary for ALL individuals. But with this pertussis breakout I would think you find this particular vaccination necessary in our community. Correct? So why continue with the cynical trolling even in areas of the debate you agree on?

I find the pro-vaccer vaccivists much more annoying and their arguments flimsier than the anti-vaccer vaccivists.

Flimsier? But they are corrrect! Yes, they are correct, but many/most of the ones I see are not making their points correctly.

[Yehuda57]

I find the pro-vaccer vaccivists much more annoying and their arguments flimsier than the anti-vaccer vaccivists.

Flimsier? But they are corrrect! Yes, they are correct, but many/most of the ones I see are not making their points correctly.

This thread alone disproves that, with links to studies with thousands of pages and millions of children.

I've yet to see anything from you that holds its own against any of that. Your only substantive arguments have been flu-vaccine related, and that certain diseases are not at all prevalent in our communities, and thus not worth the risk of vaccination.

I think even the most ardent pro-vaxxers can agree that, at the very least, your arguments have merit.

[noturbizniss]

We've been through this already....


ETA: http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=51257.msg1137757#msg1137757

no proof. I've seen women wearing yarmulkas

[thaber]

no proof. I've seen women wearing yarmulkas

As have I,  but those ones are never practicing attorneys

[noturbizniss]

As have I,  but those ones are never practicing attorneys

while being a stereotype, id have to agree that most of them would be likely in rabbincal studies or the like.

[Moshe123]

#Breaking: CA Assembly votes 46-30 to approve #SB277, ending personal belief & religious exemptions for #vaccines for schoolchildren.

[thaber]

#Breaking: CA Assembly votes 46-30 to approve #SB277, ending personal belief & religious exemptions for #vaccines for schoolchildren.

BH!! Hopefully no more of this

[henche]

#Breaking: CA Assembly votes 46-30 to approve #SB277, ending personal belief & religious exemptions for #vaccines for schoolchildren.

Let's see, it's a law directed at religious observance. So it has to survive strict scrutiny.  "Narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest."

Hard to imagine how a law that is about all vaccines in all circumstances is narrowly tailored.  Maybe if they'd said they're ending it for the MMR because there is an outbreak. 

I'd take this one pro bono.   

[jj1000]

Let's see, it's a law directed at religious observance. So it has to survive strict scrutiny.  "Narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest."

Hard to imagine how a law that is about all vaccines in all circumstances is narrowly tailored.  Maybe if they'd said they're ending it for the MMR because there is an outbreak. 

I'd take this one pro bono.   

For or against the law?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Let's see, it's a law directed at religious observance. So it has to survive strict scrutiny.  "Narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest."

Hard to imagine how a law that is about all vaccines in all circumstances is narrowly tailored.  Maybe if they'd said they're ending it for the MMR because there is an outbreak. 

I'd take this one pro bono.

All religious exemptions should be done away with. They serve no useful purpose when anyone and his brother can start a religion.

[thaber]

Let's see, it's a law directed at religious observance. So it has to survive strict scrutiny.  "Narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest."

Hard to imagine how a law that is about all vaccines in all circumstances is narrowly tailored.  Maybe if they'd said they're ending it for the MMR because there is an outbreak. 

I'd take this one pro bono.   

The case that was being made (at least in the news) is that in the face of a public menace there can't be a religious exemption. I can't have a religious right to not stop at stop signs. So I guess you'd have to prove that not vaccinating is a public menace, which we've done right here on DDF.
Restricting to current outbreak won't stop a different outbreak in the future, so I think the logic would still apply.

[henche]

The case that was being made (at least in the news) is that in the face of a public menace there can't be a religious exemption. I can't have a religious right to not stop at stop signs. So I guess you'd have to prove that not vaccinating is a public menace, which we've done right here on DDF.
Restricting to current outbreak won't stop a different outbreak in the future, so I think the logic would still apply.

Its a reasonable argument. And a losing one.

[aygart]

The case that was being made (at least in the news) is that in the face of a public menace there can't be a religious exemption. I can't have a religious right to not stop at stop signs. So I guess you'd have to prove that not vaccinating is a public menace, which we've done right here on DDF.
Restricting to current outbreak won't stop a different outbreak in the future, so I think the logic would still apply.

I think strict scrutiny means that the govt would need to prove that not vaccinating is a public menace which could not have been taken care of in a less interfering way. I would imagine that for diseases not as easily transmitted such as an std there is no public menace and they would need to still allow the exemption.

[henche]

All religious exemptions should be done away with. They serve no useful purpose when anyone and his brother can start a religion.

Are you or google aware of any instances of that sort of abuse?

Maybe we should have a rule that the court can decide if its a sincerely held belief. We do.

[elit]

All religious exemptions should be done away with. They serve no useful purpose when anyone and his brother can start a religion.

Sound like some one with absolutely no knowledge of this area of law