Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada Government Medicine Science

Ontario Parents Refusing To Vaccinate Their Children Could Be Forced to Take Science Class (qz.com) 499

Ontario is considering making parents who choose to not vaccinate their children for non-medical reasons take a science class. The health ministry of Canada's most populous province has proposed a bill which would force those parents sit through the education session before applying for a vaccine exemption. In the class, they will be taught about the importance of vaccination for their children. Quartz offers more context: Ontario was the first province in Canada to introduce immunization laws (PDF) in 1982, which required children attending school be vaccinated against certain diseases -- including diphtheria, tetanus, polio, and measles -- unless they have a signed exemption. After routine immunization was introduced, cases of those diseases dramatically reduced. Parents who apply for an exemption (PDF) for non-medical reasons risk having their child pulled from school if there's an outbreak, or the immediate risk of an outbreak, of a designated disease.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ontario Parents Refusing To Vaccinate Their Children Could Be Forced to Take Science Class

Comments Filter:
  • Should Be... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @05:28PM (#52108143) Journal

    They should be forced to take a mental fitness test, an IQ test, and while they're doing that, their children are jabbed. Fuck "parental rights". Those should stop the very second a child's health is put at risk. Children are wards of their parents, not possessions, and if we're going to force the children of Jehovah's Witnesses to have blood transfusions to save their lives, why would we give some idiot parents the option of endangering their children's lives by allowing them to deprive their children of vaccinations.

    • Re:Should Be... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by angel'o'sphere ( 80593 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @05:38PM (#52108231) Journal

      IQ != knowledge

      You would be surprised how high people are tested in IQ tests that have completely bollocks attitudes to certain things.

      • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @05:59PM (#52108383)

        While there is some of it everywhere, a big bastion of antivaxing is in techy areas of California. The people in to it are generally above average in an academic sense. So what is going on? It is something you see all too often with geeks: Smartest Motherfucker in the Universe Syndrome. They get the idea that they are much smarter than everyone else, since they often are, and thus are good at everything. They are convinced they've found out a truth those stupid doctors don't know or are covering up. Their intelligence leads to a hubris which leads to them doing dumb shit.

        Being intelligent doesn't make one informed.

        • More in Marin County. Affluent yuppie types, probably think that they're hi tech because they know how to use their phone.

        • It is something you see all too often with geeks: Smartest Motherfucker in the Universe Syndrome.

          "Just because you're a genius doesn't mean you're a smart guy."

          Being intelligent doesn't make one informed.

          More to the point, being intelligent and informed doesn't mean you can't also be delusional.

      • I think that MightyMartian was simply looking to 'distract' the parents long enough to vaccinate the kids anyways.

      • IQ != knowledge

        You would be surprised how high people are tested in IQ tests that have completely bollocks attitudes to certain things.

        Yes. Because IQ is a test of mental potential. Some people choose not to make use of it.

    • Re:Should Be... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by beelsebob ( 529313 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @05:40PM (#52108243)

      The issue with stopping parents rights the second a child's health is put at risk, is that it invites over officious idiocy from child services, like "oh my god, I saw some snot dribbling from their nose once, therefore you're not cleaning them regularly enough, and their health is at risk!"

      As with all politics, it's about scale. In this case, it's pretty clear that depriving children of vaccines is a pretty ridiculous risk to expose a child to without very good reason, and a ridiculous risk to expose other people who can't be vaccinated to as well, but blanket statements about "if it affects the child's health it should be done forcefully" are not helpful.

      • Re:Should Be... (Score:5, Informative)

        by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @05:47PM (#52108301) Journal

        The courts do it for more immediately necessary medical therapies. Coming from a Jehovah's Witness background (an atheist now for over thirty years), I do remember as a kid all the whackos praying and flailing about because a judge forced a little JW kid to have a blood transfusion over the objection of the righteous parents. I suspect in many hospitals, as soon as they found a JW minor was admitted, they had the lawyers on standby.

        While immunization doesn't have the urgency of a blood transfusion, it still represents a significant personal and public health risk to have people not vaccinating their kids, so yes, I think, whether it is "helpful" or not, there should be clear limits on the medical interventions that parents can have the power to deny their children. Children are not possessions, they are not slaves, and where any guardian abuses their powers over a child, I see no problem with social workers, doctors and the courts intervening to make sure the child's medical needs are dealt with.

      • Re: Should Be... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Izuzan ( 2620111 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @05:54PM (#52108357)

        You mean like the case of CPS investigating a mother for letting her 3 kids play alone in the fenced in back yard ? (Kids aged 10, 8, 4.. in that range)

        • You mean like the case of CPS investigating a mother for letting her 3 kids play alone in the fenced in back yard ?

          Different states have very different standards. In Illinois it is illegal to leave a 15 year old alone overnight. In many other states, not only is that legal, but the 15 year old can legally supervise much younger kids overnight. In some states, 15 year olds can marry and have their own kids.

          I have never been reported to CPS, but some neighbors have told me that I should not let my 9 year old son ride his bike home from school (about 1 mile) because he might get kidnapped. I politely explain that kidna

      • If they offer opt out for something other than religious or legitimate medical reasons, that's the government's problem for doing that.

        They have no business with reedumication camps. A pamphlet, optionally accepted, is all.

      • The issue with stopping parents rights the second a child's health is put at risk, is that it invites over officious idiocy from child services, like "oh my god, I saw some snot dribbling from their nose once, therefore you're not cleaning them regularly enough, and their health is at risk!"

        As with all politics, it's about scale. In this case, it's pretty clear that depriving children of vaccines is a pretty ridiculous risk to expose a child to without very good reason, and a ridiculous risk to expose other people who can't be vaccinated to as well, but blanket statements about "if it affects the child's health it should be done forcefully" are not helpful.

        Good point. Both of them.

        And speaking of "dribbling noses", there is the oft-cited legal axiom: "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."

        The tone of any government action should be one of preventing their un-vaccinated kids from infecting your children (that may not have reached the age for their next MMR or other shot).

      • The issue with stopping parents rights the second a child's health is put at risk, is that it invites over officious idiocy from child services

        Because all laws are an all or nothing approach and none of them are written with limitations and context?

        • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

          > Because all laws are an all or nothing approach and none of them are written with limitations and context?

          What planet are you from? Laws are generally written to be as broad as possible to allow the most abuse possible. They are seldom written in very targeted or limited terms. It is inevitable that they will be abused and spread far beyond the "intended victim".

          RICO is a wonderful example.

    • by borcharc ( 56372 ) *

      So you think marijuana should be illegal for the same reasons I assume? Whatever the state deems in a persons best interest should be law, right? What about when the state is wrong? Like perhaps when they told us to change our diets to try and avoid heart disease and made the problem worse? Randomness in society performs an important function. Without it we can create some genetic messes that are beyond our current understanding. For that reason, people should be left to live their lives however they want.

      • they evaluated the risk/reward environment and came up with a different answer then you did. If that answer burns them, so be it.

        That is the same argument I use when saying I shouldn't be forced to hand over my money to a private company yet I'm told I MUST do so even if I never become sick or never need medical care. I'm supposed to pour my money down a black hole until the day I die.

        I've done the calculations and am willing to take the risk but nope, I have no choice. "Hand over your money to t
    • by SumDog ( 466607 )

      > They should be forced to take a mental fitness test, an IQ test,

      You immediately assume that they're stupid or mentally ill. Good ad hominem. Many of these people aren't. They've done some research and know they're taking a very controversial stance.

      Your attitude is what drives people further that direction.

      You also cannot cluster all vaccines together. Several people in the anti-vaccine movement are not anti-MMR, but are against flu vaccines. There are reasons I won't go into (I personally get all my v

      • The flu vaccine is more important if you're a high risk of exposure (eg have kids, work with the public), but it's also very important if you come into contact with people vulnerable to the flu (elderly, immunocompromised) that can't take the shot themselves.
    • Fuck you for even thinking about fucking parental rights. We don't need people like you on this planet. Please leave.
  • Oh ya...u jus try to lern me them ther science and I'll lern you 'bout my rifle.

  • These people already distrust anything science. They likely didn't get the point in high school and have been training their resistance to critical thinking and evidence based reasoning ever since. All that this will do is start a bunch of human rights complaints. The government would probably have better luck forcing all non-vaccinated kids into one school for the parentally challenged.
    • These are people who have already made up their minds, otherwise they would not be willing to suffer the indignity of being forced to attend public school as adults in order to have their way. Just as justice can not flow from the barrel of a weapon, intelligence can not be legislated into existence.
    • These people already distrust anything science. They likely didn't get the point in high school and have been training their resistance to critical thinking and evidence based reasoning ever since. All that this will do is start a bunch of human rights complaints. The government would probably have better luck forcing all non-vaccinated kids into one school for the parentally challenged.

      Not necessarily. I used to have an anti-vaxxer neighbour. At one point he did biological research at a university (although I don't know how much he really absorbed) and he seemed in general to have a respect for science. Certainly wasn't obviously hostile to it. However, he didn't believe in vaccinations. He just didn't, I don't know why. At one point he gave me the low-down on "the facts". It was all fiction, of course. I just nodded and said "ah, right". No point engaging in a battle that can't be won.

    • These people already distrust anything science.

      Then they should take another course which shows them all the good that science has done for them. As part of that course, remove everything they have which was made using the results of science. So no cell phones, no computers, nothing made of plastic, no modern medicines, and on and on. Probably simpler to say they have to give up pretty much everything they have except for a few things like animal skins, home made bows and spears.

      Really they should be much

      • Re:Won't Work (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Obfuscant ( 592200 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @06:13PM (#52108461)

        These people already distrust anything science.

        Then they should take another course which shows them all the good that science has done for them.

        It's not an issue of knowing or trusting science, or knowing "all the good that science has done". It's an issue of not believing that life needs to lived as a technocracy, or using rigid scientific principles as the only guide.

        If people understood the risk of skydiving, for example, and lived their lives "scientifically", nobody would ever skydive. Nobody would ever eat fugu. There are lots of activities that carry a lot more risk than not vaccinating their child that occur every day.

        Having a government that punishes people for exercising freedom is not reasonable. And being forced to take time off work to take an indoctrination class ("look at all the good things science does for you, shouldn't you obey science?") is a punishment.

        Probably simpler to say they have to give up pretty much everything they have except for a few things like animal skins, home made bows and spears.

        Yes, let's make people who don't live the way we want them to do things the way we want them to in the most severe way possible.

        Freedom means that people can do things that we don't personally agree with, and that don't always obey strict scientific principles, and even sometimes don't produce the maximum benefit for other people.

        • by Livius ( 318358 )

          If people understood the risk of skydiving, for example, and lived their lives "scientifically", nobody would ever skydive.

          Skydiving does not lead to public health emergencies.

    • by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @06:28PM (#52108561) Homepage Journal

      These people already distrust anything science. They likely didn't get the point in high school and have been training their resistance to critical thinking and evidence based reasoning ever since. All that this will do is start a bunch of human rights complaints. The government would probably have better luck forcing all non-vaccinated kids into one school for the parentally challenged.

      It's hard to see this from the parents' point of view, but keep in mind that their fears are not *completely* without merit.

      The original polio vaccine was a weakened strain, and it was possible to get the disease from the vaccine.

      This meant that there was a time when getting polio from the wild was less likely than getting it from the vaccine, so it's completely reasonable from the *individual* point of view that the best course is the one that minimizes risk.

      Factor in the general devotion parents have to their child's well-being, and it 'kinda makes sense.

      Then it was thiomersal. Thiomersal is a mercury compound mixed with vaccines to suppress fungi growth and such.

      At the time, there was a large body of indirect evidence that suggested Tiomersal was safe. There was a lot of evidence, but it was all indirect(*).

      Then one researcher published a study that directly linked thiomersal to autism and suddenly, the emperor has no clothes!

      You see, direct evidence trumps indirect evidence every time. Indirect evidence makes assumptions about similarity that may or may not be true.

      When the autism study came out, everyone realized that the evidence was indirect, and everyone freaked. It took medical science another decade to show that they were right.

      In my opinion, I think science got lucky. Scientists relied on indirect evidence for something that was an emotional powderkeg, and it *could* have gone the other way. This sort of thing has certainly happened before(**), and still happens (***).

      And also in my opinion, I'm not 100% certain that the science was right about this. Thiomersal was removed from most vaccines "out of an abundance of caution", and the political pressure on "being right" and "showing the researcher was a fraud" was so high that I'm not sure either question was fairly settled.

      I'm not an anti-vaxer at all, just looking at the history.

      The position against vaccines is incorrect, but not *completely* baseless.

      (*) For example, Thiomersal is ethyl mercury, and risk was extrapolated from known exposure to methyl mercury.

      (**) Tetra ethyl lead, for instance.

      (***) Science now says that SSRI's are ineffective [anxietycentre.com], despite being the go-to prescription medication for depression.

      • by Sir Holo ( 531007 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @07:07PM (#52108827)

        To wrap up your points:

        See my post about the layman's-terms video, above (or below).

        The "original" thiomersal paper was not a randomized study, and used a mere 12 subjects.

        It has been retracted by all 12 authors except for the primary author (well, one was MIA).

        An investigative reporter located most of the 12 participants—The reporter found that much of the data had been falsified by the primary author, including even dates of visits!

        The primary author no longer possesses a license to practice medicine.

        More detail in the video.

        My Own Points:
        Chelated metals can pass through the body without losing their 'isolating' layer. Ever had an MRI with contrast? They used iodine, or gadolinium, or possibly others. Immunogold is used, at least in in vivo medical studies. I've had thorium injected for a circulatory imaging test—Yes, it was chelated, and only used as a radioactive tracer. That is, the extrapolation from methylated mercury to ethylated was probably not a thermodynamically sound one.

        Piston-driven propeller planes that fly over my head all day long still use tetra-ethyl lead as an additive to their aviation fuel. I live in a densely populated area.

        • That is, the extrapolation from methylated mercury to ethylated was probably not a thermodynamically sound one.

          The difference between methymercury and ethylmercury is tiny, thermodynamically. The extra CH2 doesn't change things that much. The extrapolation is quite valid; it turns out there is a difference when testing is actually done.

          Piston-driven propeller planes that fly over my head all day long still use tetra-ethyl lead as an additive to their aviation fuel. I live in a densely populated area.

          You do realize that leaded aviation fuel IS a health issue, don't you? It's just not a glaringly obvious one because few people know it still exists. Work is being done trying to find a replacement, but the problem of finding something that doesn't cause problems for existing engines

      • You see, direct evidence trumps indirect evidence every time.

        If only this were what happened. The way I remember it wasn't actually direct evidence that trumped anything but rather fraudulent science and shock media fuelled by someone with a huge set of boobs, and clearly that's the best source of information because how could you trust a medical professional when they've not stripped for a playboy shoot.

  • Oh goodie (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geek ( 5680 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @05:39PM (#52108237)

    Re-education camps. These always work out great.

  • I support this (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    An educational class would be helpful in dispelling many myths surrounding vaccinations.

    Topics should include: Iron lungs and polio. Deafness and rubella (and the subsequent dramatic drop-off in deaf children after the vaccination was created). Thimerosal is not the same as methyl mercury. There is no proven link between vaccinations and autism. Autism is better than death. Autism is better than the iron lung. Autism is better than Meningitis. Jenny McCarthy is not a doctor or scientist. Herd immunity is im

  • Penn & Teller's take on anti-anti-vaxxers:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • There's a saying about leading a horse to water....
  • Of course not because your parents had you vaccinated!!!
  • Not far enough (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nemyst ( 1383049 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @05:50PM (#52108329) Homepage
    Vaccination exemptions for non-medical reasons should outright be school exclusions. You should not be able to willingly endanger other students because of vacuous beliefs. Take care of your child's schooling to the standard of the province and you can exclude them all you'll like, don't and they'll be vaccinated and reintegrated into school.

    This anti-vaxxer movement needs to be culled ruthlessly.
  • by supernova87a ( 532540 ) <kepler1@@@hotmail...com> on Friday May 13, 2016 @05:54PM (#52108359)
    We require classes and certification for motorcycle riders, car drivers, etc, where the danger/cost is sometimes more to oneself than to others (or the costs of bearing your public health burden if you get injured) -- it's not unreasonable then where the danger is a person inflicting injury on a child with no say in the matter.
    • 1. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Ben Franklin
      2. You do realize that the courts have ruled a citizen has the right to travel [wearechange.org], right?

      • That's great; too bad these people are Canadian citizens so the US Supreme Court holds no sway over them.
      • 1. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Ben Franklin
        2. You do realize that the courts have ruled a citizen has the right to travel [wearechange.org], right?

        So, you're against knowledge and skills-based testing to be allowed to operate a motorcycle or car?

        Your Red Herring is the "...essential Liberty..." bit. You are begging the question.

        It is not "essential" to drive a motorcycle, for example.

  • These people have already made up their minds that vaccinations are causing some sort of harm, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if a fair number of them think there's some sort of government conspiracy involved. Forcing them to sit down and have the science behind vaccines pounded into them is likely to just make them more stubborn about it or more convinced that there's some sort of conspiracy going on.
    • If anything, CDC studies have shown [aappublications.org] that trying to educate many anti-vaxxers actually increases their anti-vax beliefs. After a certain point, all your doing is feeding into their conspiracy theory by trying to further educate them.
  • Government forcibly educating people. What could possibly go wrong?
  • by Phasedshift ( 415064 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @06:25PM (#52108547)

    First, I want to be clear that I am pro-vaccination.

    Any vaccine has a certain number of people that are permanently injured by that vaccine (that's why there is a vaccine injury fund in the US), but, the overall number of people it saves (including immune compromised individuals) outweighs that very, very small risk that you could be hurt or killed by that vaccine.

    However:
    Certain specific vaccines likely killed more people than they saved because the threat of the illness was overestimated (deaths due to specific outbreaks of certain flu strains vs. deaths/injuries due to the vaccine.)
    Other vaccines have had safety issues with certain batches and were recalled after injuring/killing various people.

    Again, it's very, very rare. But that brings me to my next point:
    I see no reason to not vaccinate myself and my children. I support herd immunity, and that it helps the greater good. However, I want the choice to be able to vaccinate as there could be a case where I don't feel a particular vaccine is safe. Simply being told to "trust" someone else that something is safe and being forced to have something put into my body and my children's body is not OK. Certain jobs or institutions can mandate vaccinations before being part of them - that's my choice for using them. However, there is a big difference between making a conscious decision to do something vs. being told you must do it.

    When you're told that you must put something in your body, no matter if it is for the "greater good", then you are not truly free. Mandating general vaccination is tyranny.

    Not to mention it, once the precedent is set, what is to stop mandatory gene therapy, genetic modification techniques, etc to "prevent" potential problems? Just because you approve of the situation today for mandatory vaccinations, would you be OK with how things are tomorrow? What if there are unintended consequences?

    The only way to solve the "anti-vaxxer" problem is by education, so I don't disagree with having people attending a science class before opting out, but, I don't think it will resolve the issues. The problem is greater than one science class can resolve.

     

    • Certain specific vaccines likely killed more people than they saved because the threat of the illness was overestimated (deaths due to specific outbreaks of certain flu strains vs. deaths/injuries due to the vaccine.)

      Given the number of people that the flu kills every year, can you really say this? Also, the average number of deaths from any given version of the flu vaccine rounds to zero.

      Then there's the 'prevention' meme. You could have a situation where NOT vaccinating might cost 100k lives, but vaccinating might cost 100. However, because you vaccinated and it was so effective, only 50 died from the disease itself. But it meets your criteria of 'deaths from outbreak lower than deaths from vaccination'.

      The only way to solve the "anti-vaxxer" problem is by education, so I don't disagree with having people attending a science class before opting out, but, I don't think it will resolve the issues. The problem is greater than one science class can resolve.

      Much like

    • Certain specific vaccines likely killed more people than they saved because the threat of the illness was overestimated

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yes people die from vaccines, but even in some of the worst case the number of people who suffer negative effects are tiny compared to the potential disease outbreak. I hope you haven't made the mistake of comparing two scenarios when one is causal to the other. After all, how do you know if the threat of illness was overestimated? The only way to truly know that is to not vaccinate and see what happens. Let's see an ethics committee sign off on that stud

    • by sootman ( 158191 )

      > I see no reason to not vaccinate myself and my children... However, I want
      > the choice to be able to vaccinate as there could be a case where I don't
      > feel a particular vaccine is safe.

      And your opinion on when a vaccine is safe or not is different from all the other anti-vaxxers because....? I mean, it may the the case that you're right in any particular case, but that's what we're talking about here -- people who agree that X is true in general but in THIS case they KNOW they're right about Y.

      • And your opinion on when a vaccine is safe or not is different from all the other anti-vaxxers because....? I mean, it may the the case that you're right in any particular case, but that's what we're talking about here -- people who agree that X is true in general but in THIS case they KNOW they're right about Y.

        But isn't that partially his point? You and I may differ. The government may differ. They may get it wrong. They may get paid by vaccine companies (what? corruption and money changing hands? impossible :) ).

        Considering all that, isn't it rather tyrannical, to use the OP's term, to have the government mandate vaccinations? To force you and your family to take a specific medical treatment even if you disagree or even question whether it's safe?

        Like the parent, I'm not anti-vaccine, either. But I am defi

  • This 8-minute video [youtube.com] uses layman's terms, especially in the second half. Just tell your anti-vaxxer friends that the "scientific journals" the guy mentions are basically the top four in medicine (meaning most influential).

    Save your explanation of how scientific journals and study-replication actually work for some other conversation. Remember, you will be talking to an anti-vaxxer. Keep it simple.

  • This is a fantastic idea and I can see it applied to a lot of different areas! Global warming skeptic? Well, you obviously hate your children, so off to the "science course" with you. Don't think GMO food is all that bad (or at least preferable to starving)? What on earth are you feeding your kids? Off to science camp! Teach them that a supreme being created heaven and earth? Pfft, can't have such superstition distracting the young workers from their service to the state. Science!
  • by Chas ( 5144 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @07:19PM (#52108905) Homepage Journal

    Seriously, if they're going to opt to not vaccinate their kids, they should be obligated assume liability for every child their unimmunized kid gets sick.
    As such, they should also be obligated to take out an insurance plan to actually PAY for the medical bills of children made ill because of their decision.

    • And let's not forget the old folks and people with compromised immune systems they might kill.

  • ...science class for over-religious people/parents.
  • by Trachman ( 3499895 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @08:50PM (#52109367) Journal

    Of course my sample is not representative, but of the people who I know who are, let's say it, are selective on vaccination are biochemical science PhD's (in major pharmaceutical companies), creators of biological medications and medical doctors. There is no denial about benefits of the vaccines, however only selected vaccines are taken and at the age that is ordinarily much later than "recommended" vaccination schedule. Also, vaccines are never mixed.

    I will give an example. Right now 6 month infants are "recommended" hepatitis B vaccine. Usually and ordinarily people have Hepatitis B risk, if they are sex workers, prisoners, police and similar.

    Who exactly needs to take classes? And what exactly we are going to learn in these classes?

  • by misnohmer ( 1636461 ) on Saturday May 14, 2016 @12:28AM (#52110219)

    When we had to rush my son to the hospital after a bad reactions his vaccination (MMR), the doctors just said, "this is so rare, like one in a million". He had to have an inhaler for years after that. So when it came time to vaccinate our daughter, I asked for insurance. A million to one chance of bad reaction they say, so I figured give the vaccine manufacturer 2:1 to make money, I offered to buy insurance for $1000, so that if my daughter has any complications , $500,000,000 goes into her healthcare fund. Guess what, no takers. So we declined. It seems when they tell you bad reactions are so rare, they are obviously lying, or they could make good money selling insurance. No class will convince me how low risk this is until you can find an insurance company willing to back those stats up by selling insurance - make them sit through a class and see if their actuaries are convinced.

  • by tpjunkie ( 911544 ) on Saturday May 14, 2016 @10:54AM (#52111381) Journal
    These people have generally made up their minds despite all the evidence to the contrary, often down the "I don't trust this vaccine" or the "the vaccine will be worse than the disease" or even the whole disproven autism connection. Despite my attempting to explain the benefits and science behind it, these patients rarely change their minds - and I treat adults. The most commonly given vaccines we give to adults are all either protein, polysaccharide or heat killed and have near zero ability to infect or cause anything beyond local irritation or at worst an allergic reaction in egg- allergic patients for the flu shot. I can explain all that and the immunology and science behind it (if I care to run way over the 20 minutes allotted for a patient visit) and hardly anyone changes their minds. (Clearly, I am a physician)

Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.

Working...