# New Law in California



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 1, 2015)

Cali just approved the nation's strictest laws regarding childhood vaccinations.  No personal belief exemptions; no religious exemptions.  You don't want to vaccinate your kids, you either have to get a medical exemption or homeschool them.

https://www.yahoo.com/health/what-californias-strict-new-vaccination-law-means-122946905422.html

Again, this is California that passed this.  Home of Scientology in general and of its most visible & vocal adherents.  And of course, there are other anti-vax religious and secular organizations.

I'm predicting a BIG political scuffle.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jul 1, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Cali just approved the nation's strictest laws regarding childhood vaccinations.  No personal belief exemptions; no religious exemptions.  You don't want to vaccinate your kids, you either have to get a medical exemption or homeschool them.
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/health/what-californias-strict-new-vaccination-law-means-122946905422.html
> 
> ...




I suspect that California is the home of Scientology contributed to the making of this law.  A few missed vaccinations might fall into the noise of a large state, and might have a negligible impact on public heath.  A state might ignore this, since the cost of making a law, including the inevitable political kerfluffle, might be more than leaders want to deal with.

There being a lot of missed vaccinations becomes a problem which cannot be ignored.

Though, I thought that there were other issues, with "fear of vaccination" being a current meme, not just within the Scientology community.

I put this together with anti-evolution and anti-climate change (mis)information campaigns.  As a country, we really seem to moving ourselves to a very ugly and badly informed place.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 1, 2015)

The article specifically called out the Disney-centric measles outbreak as one of the driving factors.  Too many unvaccinated people in big crowds equals fun with disease vectoring.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 1, 2015)

Good. This sort of law should exist andbe implemented everywhere. Home schooled shouldn't even be a way to get out of this. 

Even if vaccins can have serious side-effects (even death in some cases), they really are rare and the benefits outweigh the risks. No one wants to be the parents of that kid that died from a vaccine, but no one wants to have a meningitis outbreak?


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 1, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> I suspect that California is the home of Scientology contributed to the making of this law.  A few missed vaccinations might fall into the noise of a large state, and might have a negligible impact on public heath.  A state might ignore this, since the cost of making a law, including the inevitable political kerfluffle, might be more than leaders want to deal with.
> 
> There being a lot of missed vaccinations becomes a problem which cannot be ignored.
> 
> ...




I've been more than a little surprised to learn which of my acquaintances have bought into the anti-vaccer garbage. Most are well educated and well read enough that they should have a basic understanding of things like herd immunity, statistical analysis, and well debunked falsified 'studies.' 

I actually had a little debate with a "scientist" on a thread, that was started on a friend's Facebook page, in which said "scientist" pointed to a recent outbreak in Quebec that involved only vaccinated people, which he stated proved the ineffectiveness of vaccination. Well if you vaccinate everyone and the vaccine has a roughly 95% effectiveness, then there are 5% of the people who can still get the disease. The others *may* be carriers. That doesn't mean that vaccination is ineffective. Far from it. It points to the possibility of a huge outbreak that was, logically, averted by vaccination.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 1, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Cali just approved the nation's strictest laws regarding childhood vaccinations.  No personal belief exemptions; no religious exemptions.  You don't want to vaccinate your kids, you either have to get a medical exemption or homeschool them.
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/health/what-californias-strict-new-vaccination-law-means-122946905422.html
> 
> ...




That is awesome! That's what every state should be doing. Now if only some kid could go ahead and infect half of the children of politicians in the Florida legislature, maybe we could get a similar law passed in Florida. Hell, it would be even better if the whole Florida legislature got sick because one of them wasn't vaccinated.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 1, 2015)

Round 1: _*DING-DING*_

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/hollywood-parents-react-to-californias-strict-new-122954583347.html


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 2, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> I've been more than a little surprised to learn which of my acquaintances have bought into the anti-vaccer garbage. Most are well educated and well read enough that they should have a basic understanding of things like herd immunity, statistical analysis, and well debunked falsified 'studies.'
> 
> I actually had a little debate with a "scientist" on a thread, that was started on a friend's Facebook page, in which said "scientist" pointed to a recent outbreak in Quebec that involved only vaccinated people, which he stated proved the ineffectiveness of vaccination. Well if you vaccinate everyone and the vaccine has a roughly 95% effectiveness, then there are 5% of the people who can still get the disease. The others *may* be carriers. That doesn't mean that vaccination is ineffective. Far from it. It points to the possibility of a huge outbreak that was, logically, averted by vaccination.




Which outbreak was he talking about? The one that happened recently started among an unvaccinated sect that believed that if you are pious enough humans can evolve to have wings.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 2, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Which outbreak was he talking about? The one that happened recently started among an unvaccinated sect that believed that if you are pious enough humans can evolve to have wings.




IIRC the data quoted was from 2011, not the outbreak this year. Even the "facts" submitted by this person were suspect, as I couldn't verify his claim that _*all *_the infected were vaccinated. I took the position, "So what if they were?" After all, vaccination isn't a 100% protection. It's simply far better than not at all, and herd immunity also has it's benefits.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 2, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Round 1: _*DING-DING*_
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/hollywood-parents-react-to-californias-strict-new-122954583347.html




I think Jim Carrey has a point. He was vaccinated, and he is obviously suffering some kind of brain damage.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 2, 2015)

I'm torn.

The unvaccinated do pose a very real health risk whenever they mingle with the general population: particularly to children too young to be vaccinated, and potentially to the elderly and immune-deficient.  However, vaccination is a also matter of one's personal health decisions (like exercising, eating healthy, and not smoking are).

I like that there's a home school exception.  However, I think the law should make the unvaccinated (or their guardians) liable for damages should they spread a disease that could have been prevented through vaccination.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 2, 2015)

The one thing that surprised me about the California law- and the section I think it is most vulnerable to court challenge- is that there is no religious exemption.  I don't think the law as a whole is in danger of being voided, but I could definitely see a court altering that clause.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 2, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> I'm torn.
> 
> The unvaccinated do pose a very real health risk whenever they mingle with the general population: particularly to children too young to be vaccinated, and potentially to the elderly and immune-deficient.  However, vaccination is a also matter of one's personal health decisions (like exercising, eating healthy, and not smoking are).
> 
> I like that there's a home school exception.  However, I think the law should make the unvaccinated (or their guardians) liable for damages should they spread a disease that could have been prevented through vaccination.



The problem is trying to figure out who was the one that spread the disease in the first place.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 2, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The one thing that surprised me about the California law- and the section I think it is most vulnerable to court challenge- is that there is no religious exemption.  I don't think the law as a whole is in danger of being voided, but I could definitely see a court altering that clause.



Just curious, but what credible religious reason is there for not vaccinating kids?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 2, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Just curious, but what credible religious reason is there for not vaccinating kids?




"Credible religious reason" is...not...the phrase/standard in law.

There are several faith traditions that espouse that injections, pharmaceuticals, blood transfers and other medical procedures- especially those that are "intrusive"- are anathema to the faithful.  Makes things tricky for hospitals & MDs.  You have to respect their faith...but also have the capacity to administer standard treatment if they decide to consent anyway.

Some jurisdictions overrule religious objections for minors, some don't, and some have a mixed bag...


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 2, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> "Credible religious reason" is...not...the phrase/standard in law.



Maybe it should be.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 2, 2015)

Speaking as a practicing Catholic, I'm not sure "credible religious reason" could be defined as anything but "generally in accord with known or provable tenets of the religious or sect" in question.  Probably couldn't pass an objective "credibility" test.  And as long as freedom of religion is ensconced in our Constitution, that's about as far as it will go.

Realize, though, that religion isn't the ultimate trump card.  Like anything else in the discussion of constitutional law, it's a balancing act of rights & duties.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 2, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Speaking as a practicing Catholic, I'm not sure "credible religious reason" could be defined as anything but "generally in accord with known or provable tenets of the religious or sect" in question.  Probably couldn't pass an objective "credibility" test.  And as long as freedom of religion is ensconced in our Constitution, that's about as far as it will go.
> 
> Realize, though, that religion isn't the ultimate trump card.  Like anything else in the discussion of constitutional law, it's a balancing act of rights & duties.




That's true.  For every thing you can do with your "it's my religion" card, there is some kind of legal consequence.  Can't work on Good Friday?  Don't expect to get paid for it.  Need a non-meat alternative in the cafeteria on Fridays during Lent?  Don't expect it to be any better than any of the other cafeteria food (and fish can taste pretty horrible if it's not done well).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 2, 2015)

More on point, there are parents in jail today, being held responsible for substituting prayer for medical treatment of their sick children.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 2, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> IIRC the data quoted was from 2011, not the outbreak this year. Even the "facts" submitted by this person were suspect, as I couldn't verify his claim that _*all *_the infected were vaccinated. I took the position, "So what if they were?" After all, vaccination isn't a 100% protection. It's simply far better than not at all, and herd immunity also has it's benefits.




It isn't just that. If I understand the science correctly, some vaccines' protection fade overtime, so older folks who were vaccinated are vulnerable once more to the diseases. If we vaccinated kids it is because they are the most susceptible to those diseases. Once they are protected the whole herd is protected since they are the ones most likely to spread the disease in the first place.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 2, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I think Jim Carrey has a point. He was vaccinated, and he is obviously suffering some kind of brain damage.




Nope.  Normal human working brain.  It isn't that Carrey is stupid, or damaged.  It is that his brain is stuck in a rut.  We are, *all* of us, subject to the kinds of cognitive biases that lead to positions like his.  If we rifled through all the things each of us thinks is correct, we'd find something that isn't really justified, but we won't budge on.  It just so happens that Carrey's is something that matters, and intersects with public health and current events.  And he happens to be famous, so we hear about it.

If you are famous, or powerful, you need ought to have solid backing of your arguments before you open your mouth.  "I believe," "it is known," and, "Conspiracy!"  are not good enough.


----------



## Janx (Jul 2, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> More on point, there are parents in jail today, being held responsible for substituting prayer for medical treatment of their sick chilfpdren.




that my be a function of the "your right to flail your arms about end at my nose" principle.

The parents choice to withhold medical treatment from a child is the parents religious flailing whacking a child in the face.


----------



## Janx (Jul 2, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Nope.  Normal human working brain.  It isn't that Carrey is stupid, or damaged.  It is that his brain is stuck in a rut.  We are, *all* of us, subject to the kinds of cognitive biases that lead to positions like his.  If we rifled through all the things each of us thinks is correct, we'd find something that isn't really justified, but we won't budge on.  It just so happens that Carrey's is something that matters, and intersects with public health and current events.  And he happens to be famous, so we hear about it.
> 
> If you are famous, or powerful, you need ought to have solid backing of your arguments before you open your mouth.  "I believe," "it is known," and, "Conspiracy!"  are not good enough.




That's a reasonable assessment.

I recall some advise to "always be wary of anybody with a strong opinion"

The basic premise is those kind of people have stopped listening.  And at the extreme ends, they are extremists.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 2, 2015)

Janx said:


> that my be a function of the "your right to flail your arms about end at my nose" principle.
> 
> The parents choice to withhold medical treatment from a child is the parents religious flailing whacking a child in the face.




Yah.  And vaccination is medical treatment.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jul 2, 2015)

Today's Diane Rehm show (the 10am show) is about vaccination:

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-07-02/the-push-to-mandate-vaccines-for-schoolchildren

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 2, 2015)

> chilfpdren




GAK- what a typo!  Damn you AutoCorrect, where were you THEN?



Umbran said:


> Janx said:
> 
> 
> > that my be a function of the "your right to flail your arms about end at my nose" principle.
> ...





BUT- and this is crucial in the eyes of the law- the threat of harm to the child is speculative, not imminent.  Those who wind up in jail and/or having their decision overruled are usually withholding something like cancer treatment or surgery from a child who is extremely ill or even otherwise terminal.

In contrast, an unvaccinated person may never fall ill from nor be exposed to the pathogen protected against by the vaccine.

Different threat level, different legal standard.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 2, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Nope.  Normal human working brain.  It isn't that Carrey is stupid, or damaged.  It is that his brain is stuck in a rut.  We are, *all* of us, subject to the kinds of cognitive biases that lead to positions like his.  If we rifled through all the things each of us thinks is correct, we'd find something that isn't really justified, but we won't budge on.  It just so happens that Carrey's is something that matters, and intersects with public health and current events.  And he happens to be famous, so we hear about it.
> 
> If you are famous, or powerful, you need ought to have solid backing of your arguments before you open your mouth.  "I believe," "it is known," and, "Conspiracy!"  are not good enough Ha! That was a very funny and obvious joke, HS. Thanks for the laugh



You're welcome, Umbran. I'm glad you were able to spot the joke easily.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 2, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You're welcome, Umbran. I'm glad you were able to spot the joke easily.




It would have helped if it were actually funny.  

Seriously, though - I know you were trying to be funny.  But, I find the repeated meme that those who hold such positions are stupid or brain damaged is part of the problem.  That stereotype gets in the way of meaningful communication on the topic.  If we are to make the world a better place, we must understand, rather than dismiss, those who are in the way.

Moreover, while we are allowed to discuss these topics, EN World civility rules still apply - and suggesting, "those who hold this idea are brain-damaged" is not civil.


----------



## miniaturehoarder (Jul 2, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Moreover, while we are allowed to discuss these topics, EN World civility rules still apply - and suggesting, "those who hold this idea are brain-damaged" is not civil.



So are the mods actually going to come down on this? It seems posts that fit that criteria are still extant upthread.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 2, 2015)

miniaturehoarder said:


> So are the mods actually going to come down on this? It seems posts that fit that criteria are still extant upthread.





If you have a question about moderation, please take it to e-mail or PM with a moderator.  Thanks.


----------



## Uder (Jul 2, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There are several faith traditions that espouse that injections, pharmaceuticals, blood transfers and other medical procedures- especially those that are "intrusive"- are anathema to the faithful.  Makes things tricky for hospitals & MDs.  You have to respect their faith...but also have the capacity to administer standard treatment if they decide to consent anyway.



If they want to believe in Magic Santa, they can come to school. If they want to believe in Magic Santa and bring disease, they are free to homeschool.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 2, 2015)

Relevant news:  We've just had the first measles-related death in the US since 2003, in Clallum County, Washington.

https://websrv7.clallam.net/forms/uploads/HHS_ExposureSites.pdf


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 3, 2015)

Uder said:


> If they want to believe in Magic Santa, they can come to school. If they want to believe in Magic Santa and bring disease, they are free to homeschool.




Thank you for bringing respectful, non-inflammatory rhetoric to the thread.

As to your _point_, that is the balance that the California law is trying to strike.  The question is whether the courts will find this is a reasonable accommodation.  If they find that it is, the law will stand.  If not, California will have to find another solution.

Bussing, perhaps?  Anti-vaxer's get their own school?  The kids have to wear surgical gloves & masks?  Only time will tell.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 3, 2015)

Umbran said:


> It would have helped if it were actually funny.



It is pretty funny, unless you're "vaccine injured1."



> Seriously, though - I know you were trying to be funny.  But, I find the repeated meme that those who hold such positions are stupid or brain damaged is part of the problem.  That stereotype gets in the way of meaningful communication on the topic.  If we are to make the world a better place, we must understand, rather than dismiss, those who are in the way.



Sure, if you could find an anti-vaccer that could engage meaningful communication2, I might consider it. Let me ask you this: have you had to actually interact with an anti-vaccer? I, unfortunately, have3. I've had to do it far more times than I wanted to. Have you ever met someone and had a discussion with them only to see them cover their ears and say "La la la, I can't hear you!" In my experience, it's like that, but with tears and a more tenuous grasp on reality. And maybe that's just _my_ experience. Maybe anti-vaccers in Florida are using bath salts and MMS, and it's making them a quite a bit crazy. But again, that's been my experience.



> Moreover, while we are allowed to discuss these topics, EN World civility rules still apply - and suggesting, "those who hold this idea are brain-damaged" is not civil.



Jim Carrey deserves no civility after the plethora of horrific movies he has terrorized the world with... especially that penguin movie. The horror should be paid back4.

[sblock=1]Whatever that means. Seriously, it's one of those terms people use to try and make it seem as if there was some nefarious plot to hurt their kids. As you can tell, I find it annoying.[/sblock]
[sblock=2]"Meaningful" isn't really a useful term as what is meaningful to you may not be "meaningful" to someone else.[/sblock]
[sblock=3]Sometimes I hate my job.[/sblock]
[sblock=4]Seriously, someone should suffer horribly for letting Jim Carrey continue to make movies. [/sblock]


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 3, 2015)

While I don't agree with them, I don't mind the bulk of the anti-vaxxers: they're parents with kids (and occasionally other relatives) they think have been harmed by vaccines.  They have my sympathy, even as I try to reason with them.

The ones worthy of ire are the health care professionals- mostly nurses- who REALLY should know better.  Those people are actively destructive on so many levels.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 3, 2015)

A study on meaningful conversations with anti-vaxxers: http://io9.com/debunking-flu-shot-myths-makes-some-less-likely-to-get-1668803134

Conclusion? Seems people double-down on their opinions when they are confronted on their world views, reinforcing them. It isn't that surprising really. Just spend time on the internet.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 3, 2015)

goldomark said:


> A study on meaningful conversations with anti-vaxxers: http://io9.com/debunking-flu-shot-myths-makes-some-less-likely-to-get-1668803134
> 
> Conclusion? Seems people double-down on their opinions when they are confronted on their world views, reinforcing them. It isn't that surprising really. Just spend time on the internet.




No, hardly a surprise. It's why Bill O'Reilly can get away with using a lie as a talking point, be publicly called on the lie, admit to it, and then go right back to using it again a week later.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 3, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Conclusion? Seems people double-down on their opinions when they are confronted on their world views, reinforcing them. It isn't that surprising really. Just spend time on the internet.




Yep.  Which means, of course, that *confrontation* isn't the best ploy.  And calling them stupid is about as confrontational as it gets.


----------



## Uder (Jul 3, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Yep.  Which means, of course, that *confrontation* isn't the best ploy.  And calling them stupid is about as confrontational as it gets.




I've tried passive-aggressively just believing they were wrong. Funny. Nothing happened.

My closest co-worker is autistic, her husband has an autistic brother (Asberger's in both cases). They don't vaccinate their kids, because vaccines cause autism. 

So yeah, they absolutely, positively _are _stupid. And their stupidity is affecting more than just their own little egosphere, so it's okay to look at someone like that (in real life) and say "yer dum!"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 3, 2015)

It may make you feel better, but psychologically speaking, that just reinforces their bunker mentality.  IOW, it grinds the possibility of meaningful discussion to dust.

Or, to put it differently: you're not helping.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 3, 2015)

Uder said:


> I've tried passive-aggressively just believing they were wrong. Funny. Nothing happened.




It isn't like "passive-aggressively just believing they were wrong" and "direct confrontation and calling them stupid" are the only tactics available.

You're a gamer, right?  So, think creatively.  You have a monster in front of you - but it is too big to just do a frontal assault.  And walking away means it keeps the treasure.  What do you do?  You find a way to trick it, or go around it, right? 

You have people who have a heartfelt belief that is resistant to simple statements of fact.  Just getting in their faces with facts and trying to insult/shame them doesn't work.

So, you approach them with fewer facts, less "You are wrongity-wrong!", less personal accusation, but more emotionally gripping human impact.  Or, you just realize the adults are a lost cause, and go for the youth who don't yet have the biases engaged.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 3, 2015)

Just curious, but what do you guys see as the ultimate result of having these "civil" discussions with an anti-vaccer, or someone similar? What's the purpose of that discussion?


----------



## Uder (Jul 3, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It may make you feel better, but psychologically speaking, that just reinforces their bunker mentality. IOW, it grinds the possibility of meaningful discussion to dust.
> 
> Or, to put it differently: you're not helping.




I'm not really worried that pointing out someone is being stupid doesn't make them smarter. I care about my family's health. We were at freaking Disneyland during Christmas this year. I personally had the single shot that isn't as effective, and was at risk.

They can suck it. If it was a crime I'd call the cops, but like someone pooping on their own lawn, all I can do is shout "yer dum!"


----------



## Uder (Jul 3, 2015)

Umbran said:


> It isn't like "passive-aggressively just believing they were wrong" and "direct confrontation and calling them stupid" are the only tactics available.
> 
> You're a gamer, right?  So, think creatively.  You have a monster in front of you - but it is too big to just do a frontal assault.  And walking away means it keeps the treasure.  What do you do?  You find a way to trick it, or go around it, right?
> 
> ...




I don't have to handle real-life conversations like a forum moderator trying to maintain the peace. I'm not trying to win a debate, that's already been done and we're going to see more laws like this. Hopefully a pro-vaccination candidate gets elected in 2016 (Bush, Clinton, Santorum, Kasich, Rubio, Sanders, O'Malley, Clinton, & Jindal are all stongly pro-vaccine, others are opposed or have their fingers in the wind on the issue)


----------



## Umbran (Jul 3, 2015)

Uder said:


> I'm not really worried that pointing out someone is being stupid doesn't make them smarter. I care about my family's health.




If you care about your family's health, then you want *other people* to get their kids vaccinated.  Pointing out they are stupid will generally make them *less* likely to do so.

So, if you do that, you are not helping your own cause.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 4, 2015)

Ultimately if what you want is to protect your family, then you do whatever is expedient to the purpose. Clearly 'winning the debate' doesn't seem to be an option, because the anti-vaccers just pull a David Spade. You either try to convince them with reason that vaccines are safe and the best way to keep their children happy, or you throw in the towel there and convince politicians to pass laws that force them to vaccinate their children.

Ultimately I would prefer that reason hold sway and people make the right choices by themselves, but some people have their heads buried in buckets of cement.


----------



## Uder (Jul 4, 2015)

Umbran said:


> If you care about your family's health, then you want *other people* to get their kids vaccinated.  Pointing out they are stupid will generally make them *less* likely to do so.
> 
> So, if you do that, you are not helping your own cause.




Umbran, you're not even wrong. There is no debate, there is no cause. This is my cause like the earth being round is my cause. I wouldn't think twice of calling out a flat-earther for having idiotic views either.

The debate has been won, we just need laws (like the one finally passed here in California) that force the morons to get with the program and stop essentially abusing their children.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 4, 2015)

Uder said:


> The debate has been won, we just need laws (like the one finally passed here in California) that force the morons to get with the program and stop essentially abusing their children.




And if everyplace was like California, then yes, that'll work.

And if not...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 4, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Just curious, but what do you guys see as the ultimate result of having these "civil" discussions with an anti-vaccer, or someone similar? What's the purpose of that discussion?




I know of a rabbi who convinced the white supremacist who was victimizing him to abandon his hate.  It took conversations over the course of many months- usually initiated by the victimizer who was calling to harass the rabbi and his family.  That neo-nazi eventually married a Hispanic woman, and when he fell seriously ill, he even lived with the rabbi and his family 

IOW, while you may not think much of the diplomatic approach, it actually can work.  And statistics show it is general a more effective tactic than confrontation.

Confrontation has its place.  But it is usually best as a tool of penultimate or last resort, not as a standard tactic.


----------



## Uder (Jul 4, 2015)

Umbran said:


> And if everyplace was like California, then yes, that'll work.
> 
> And if not...



...

(thunder, ominous music)


----------



## Umbran (Jul 4, 2015)

Uder said:


> ...
> 
> (thunder, ominous music)




[video=youtube;8lXdyD2Yzls]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lXdyD2Yzls[/video]


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 4, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I know of a rabbi who convinced the white supremacist who was victimizing him to abandon his hate.  It took conversations over the course of many months- usually initiated by the victimizer who was calling to harass the rabbi and his family.  That neo-nazi eventually married a Hispanic woman, and when he fell seriously ill, he even lived with the rabbi and his family
> 
> IOW, while you may not think much of the diplomatic approach, it actually can work.  And statistics show it is general a more effective tactic than confrontation.
> 
> Confrontation has its place.  But it is usually best as a tool of penultimate or last resort, not as a standard tactic.



Hmmm... not sure I was clear enough when I asked my question. So I'll just be more direct, what is the target behavior you are looking to change? Or are you actually trying to change a behavior? Do you believe that discussing facts with anti-vaccers would be effectives? Do you believe that would be the most effective method?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 4, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> So I'll just be more direct, what is the target behavior you are looking to change? Or are you actually trying to change a behavior?




Obviously, trying to get them to change their view on vaccines, and thus, their objections to the programs.



> Do you believe that discussing facts with anti-vaccers would be effectives?



With all of them?  No.  But some will change.  There are former members of the movement who have written about their experiences.

The (non-unique) site listed below not only has postings from people who have always tried to debunk the anti-vaccine movement, but also people who were once members of it.
http://www.voicesforvaccines.org


> Do you believe that would be the most effective method?



Well, odds are good that a dialog will be more effective than calling them names.  People tend to shut down when insulted.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 4, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Obviously, trying to get them to change their view on vaccines, and thus, their objections to the programs.



I assume that part of ehat you'd want is that aside from changing their views, you'd want them to act upon those changed views, right? I mean, it's great they are no longer opposed to vaccines, but it'd be even better if they went out and got their kids vaccinated if they already weren't right?




> With all of them?  No.  But some will change.  There are former members of the movement who have written about their experiences.
> 
> The (non-unique) site listed below not only has postings from people who have always tried to debunk the anti-vaccine movement, but also people who were once members of it.
> http://www.voicesforvaccines.org
> ...



Sure, that may be true... or not. I mean, if giving people facts worked to change their minds on vaccines, there would be far less of these anti-vaccers. But in any case, do you believe discussion, civil or not, is the most effective way to change the behavior you'd like to change?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 4, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I assume that part of ehat you'd want is that aside from changing their views, you'd want them to act upon those changed views, right? I mean, it's great they are no longer opposed to vaccines, but it'd be even better if they went out and got their kids vaccinated if they already weren't right?




Clearly.  The point (and only meaningful evidence) of them changing their views is to have them act in accord with the new viewpoint.




> Sure, that may be true... or not. I mean, if giving people facts worked to change their minds on vaccines, there would be far less of these anti-vaccers. But in any case, do you believe discussion, civil or not, is the most effective way to change the behavior you'd like to change?




I don't think merely giving/showing people facts is going to change most minds- you have to educate them, which is a more active process. 

As for "far less"...well, we have no way of knowing how many have been persuaded to change their views, just that some have.  Some have cited looking at the research data and/or mass of news articles debunking the movement on their own.  Some have cited constructive engagement by people they trust.  

AFAIK, NONE have said that they were tired of having their intelligence insulted and they changed their views in order to conform and not be called stupid.

Discussion may not be the most effective means of changing views, but it is more effective than browbeating and insults.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 4, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Clearly.  The point (and only meaningful evidence) of them changing their views is to have them act in accord with the new viewpoint.
> 
> I don't think merely giving/showing people facts is going to change most minds- you have to educate them, which is a more active process.
> 
> As for "far less"...well, we have no way of knowing how many have been persuaded to change their views, just that some have.  Some have cited looking at the research data and/or mass of news articles debunking the movement on their own.  Some have cited constructive engagement by people they trust.



So what you are looking at are really two different behaviors. What someone says and what they do are two different things, which may require two different approaches. And if the end result we are looking for is to have them act in a certain way, we may not need to concern ourselves with what they say. 



> AFAIK, NONE have said that they were tired of having their intelligence insulted and they changed their views in order to conform and not be called stupid.
> 
> Discussion may not be the most effective means of changing views, but it is more effective than browbeating and insults.



that really depends. Aversive stimuli are quite effective, and efficient, at changing behavior. The question is whether the stimuli is actually aversive and if it's aversive enough. That all depends on the individual coming into contact with said aversive stimuli.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 4, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> And if the end result we are looking for is to have them act in a certain way, we may not need to concern ourselves with what they say.




We need them to stop fighting against vaccination, both in word and deed.  We don't need to turn everyone into a pro-vax activist, but continued misinformation is a major problem.



> Aversive stimuli are quite effective, and efficient, at changing behavior.




Effective... but you don't get to direct *how* it will change.  This is why animal trainers use very little negative-reinforcement training these days.

In this case, it is pretty well documented that confrontation and aggressive debunking tends to end with people doubling-down on what they already believe. The change is to become even more vehement for their cause.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 4, 2015)

Umbran said:


> We need them to stop fighting against vaccination, both in word and deed.  We don't need to turn everyone into a pro-vax activist, but continued misinformation is a major problem.



Correct, we don't need them to become pro-vaccine activist. We just need them to get Vaccines. Again, two different behaviors. Our target behavior should be what they do, not what they say. 




> Effective... but you don't get to direct *how* it will change.  This is why animal trainers use very little negative-reinforcement training these days.



Actually, it's more about the ethics of using aversive stimuli. You can blame Florida for that one too. I may stay a thread about it when I get home and have access to some of the links that give you some good information about how Florida messes up and the rest of the country pays for it. 
Also, yes, you can direct how the behavior changes if you know what you're doing.


> In this case, it is pretty well documented that confrontation and aggressive debunking tends to end with people doubling-down on what they already believe. The change is to become even more vehement for their cause.



actually, that just tells me that you're either targeting the wing behavior, using a stimulus that isn't aversive to your subject, or a stimulus that isn't aversive enough.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 4, 2015)

> Our target behavior should be what they do, not what they say.




We may not, as Umbran said, need to turn them into pro-vaccine activists, but we still need to target what they say- as long as they spread anti-vaccine rhetoric, the message will still find fertile ground in which to flourish and grow like a weed.



> actually, that just tells me that you're either targeting the wing behavior, using a stimulus that isn't aversive to your subject, or a stimulus that isn't aversive enough




Fair enough.  Let's amend then- insulting their intellect is observed to cause their views & behaviors to trend in the opposite of intended modification, ergo, is not aversive to them or not aversive enough to them to achieve the desired result.

Comparatively, there is documentation of the efficacy of education in this area from the words & actions of anti-vaccine activists & believers themselves.

The carrot is working better than the stick.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 4, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Fair enough.  Let's amend then- insulting their intellect is observed to cause their views & behaviors to trend in the opposite of intended modification, ergo, is not aversive to them or not aversive enough to them to achieve the desired result.




Oh, it is aversive.  But, it isn't enough to be aversive.  They have to connect the negative stimulus with the thing you want them to avoid.

If your dog poops in the house, you come home, start shouting and roughtly rubbing his nose in it, do you think he connects 'pooping in the house" with the negative stimulus?  Not likely.  It may have been hours since he did that - he doesn't see the cause and effect.  He instead experiences the negative stimulus of your displeasure and connects with ... something.  Probably the source of the negative stimulus, which is *you*.  

In the anti-vax case, there's a clear thing to feel aversion to: pro-vaxers!  Those people are jerks!  Insulting our intelligence!  Who do they think they are, anyway!?!  I'm not going to listen to a jerk like that!

Positive influences are far more tractable, predictable, and sustainable than negative ones.  Occasionally, one may need to break out the stick, but even then, only in conjuction with a carrot.  Negative stimulii alone are not a good training method.


----------



## bone_naga (Jul 5, 2015)

I'm ok with ridicule in cases like this. It's not to try to convert the anti-vaxxers. Yes, I realize that with a slow and patient indirect approach, over the course of many moons you may finally change that one person's mind. Meanwhile, a hundred other people all bought into that fearmongering nonsense.

Ridicule the hell out of them and ostracize them until no sane person wants to be associated with that group. You won't win any converts that way, but herd mentality will probably help keep more people from jumping on the crazy train. Although I should probably defer to our resident head guy on how effective that is.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 5, 2015)

bone_naga said:


> I'm ok with ridicule in cases like this. It's not to try to convert the anti-vaxxers. Yes, I realize that with a slow and patient indirect approach, over the course of many moons you may finally change that one person's mind. Meanwhile, a hundred other people all bought into that fearmongering nonsense.
> 
> Ridicule the hell out of them and ostracize them until no sane person wants to be associated with that group. You won't win any converts that way, but herd mentality will probably help keep more people from jumping on the crazy train. Although I should probably defer to our resident head guy on how effective that is.



I like the way you think.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 5, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> We may not, as Umbran said, need to turn them into pro-vaccine activists, but we still need to target what they say- as long as they spread anti-vaccine rhetoric, the message will still find fertile ground in which to flourish and grow like a weed.



There is a good chance that if you get them to vaccinate, they will stop the anti-vaccines rhetoric. You don't need them to become pro-vaccine fanatics, you just need them to shut the hell up and vaccinate.  



> Fair enough.  Let's amend then- insulting their intellect is observed to cause their views & behaviors to trend in the opposite of intended modification, ergo, is not aversive to them or not aversive enough to them to achieve the desired result.
> 
> Comparatively, there is documentation of the efficacy of education in this area from the words & actions of anti-vaccine activists & believers themselves.
> 
> The carrot is working better than the stick.



Again, that depends what behavior you're targeting and what change you'd like to see in that behavior. If you are trying to increase a behavior, say vaccinating, then yes, there is a good probability that presenting "the carrot" may work better. If you are trying to decrease a behavior, say promoting anti-vaccine propaganda, presenting "the carrot" is not going to help.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 5, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Oh, it is aversive.



Possibly. Possibly not. Hell, there are people that pay good money to be ridiculed. Not everyone finds the same things aversive, just as not everyone finds the same things enjoyable.







> But, it isn't enough to be aversive.  They have to connect the negative stimulus with the thing you want them to avoid.
> 
> If your dog poops in the house, you come home, start shouting and roughtly rubbing his nose in it, do you think he connects 'pooping in the house" with the negative stimulus?  Not likely.  It may have been hours since he did that - he doesn't see the cause and effect.  He instead experiences the negative stimulus of your displeasure and connects with ... something.  Probably the source of the negative stimulus, which is *you*.
> 
> ...



I'm pretty sure you and I use "positive" and "negative" in regards to behavior change differently. But just to be sure, what do you mean by positive and negative?


> Occasionally, one may need to break out the stick, but even then, only in conjuction with a carrot.  Negative stimulii alone are not a good training method.



We refer to that as multiple schedules.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 5, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> There is a good chance that if you get them to vaccinate, they will stop the anti-vaccines rhetoric. You don't need them to become pro-vaccine fanatics, you just need them to shut the hell up and vaccinate.




I'm not saying that laws to force them to vaccinate will not be effective or overturned in whole or in part by a lawsuit.  

I am saying that- regardless of the legal envitpronment- insulting their intelligence is not helping.

And again, like Umbran, I am not claiming they need to become pro-vaccine advocates, though that would be nice.  Merely getting each to cease advocacy of anti-vaccination positions would be enough.



> Again, that depends what behavior you're targeting and what change you'd like to see in that behavior. If you are trying to increase a behavior, say vaccinating, then yes, there is a good probability that presenting "the carrot" may work better. If you are trying to decrease a behavior, say promoting anti-vaccine propaganda, presenting "the carrot" is not going to help.




Again, we're not aiming for the anti-vaxxers to do a rhetorical 180, just to stop them from espousing the debunked position.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 5, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm not saying that laws to force them to vaccinate will not be effective or overturned in whole or in part by a lawsuit.
> 
> I am saying that- regardless of the legal envitpronment- insulting their intelligence is not helping.



Well, actually, you don't know that. It may or may not get people to change. There really are no statistics to show if it is changing behavior. 



> And again, like Umbran, I am not claiming they need to become pro-vaccine advocates, though that would be nice.  Merely getting each to cease advocacy of anti-vaccination positions would be enough.
> 
> Again, we're not aiming for the anti-vaxxers to do a rhetorical 180, just to stop them from espousing the debunked position.



Great, so we are all in agreement. Decreasing anti-vaccers espousing their debunked position is not the same as increasing pro-vaccine speech. You do realize we are saying the same thing, right? I'm just pointing out that to decrease a behavior presenting "the carrot" is not the most effective thing. That would be a good option if we are trying to increase a particular behavior, such as actually getting vaccines.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 5, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Well, actually, you don't know that. It may or may not get people to change. There really are no statistics to show if it is changing behavior.



We don't have statistics, but we DO have the testimony of the people who have changed their minds.



> Great, so we are all in agreement. Decreasing anti-vaccers espousing their debunked position is not the same as increasing pro-vaccine speech. You do realize we are saying the same thing, right?




The only reason we kept repeating ourselves is that you didn't seem to understand us.



> I'm just pointing out that to decrease a behavior presenting "the carrot" is not the most effective thing. That would be a good option if we are trying to increase a particular behavior, such as actually getting vaccines.




Never claimed that it was the most effective, just more effective than being confrontational, based on the testimony of those who have left the movement.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 5, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> We don't have statistics, but we DO have the testimony of the people who have changed their minds.



Anecdotal evidence is still anecdotal. Doesn't rally prove anything. 



> The only reason we kept repeating ourselves is that you didn't seem to understand us.



[sblock=I see, it's...]


[/sblock]



> Never claimed that it was the most effective, just more effective than being confrontational, based on the testimony of those who have left the movement.



To decrease a behavior? No, that's incorrect. If you want to decrease a behavior, presenting the carrot would be positive reinforcement, assuming "the carrot" is a preferred stimulus. If your goal is to increase a behavior, reinforcement is the way to go. If you are looking to decrease a behavior, you wouldn't want to use reinforcement. 
I think the real problem is that you're not able to clearly identify the behavior(s) you are targeting.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 5, 2015)

> I think the real problem is that you're not able to clearly identify the behavior(s) you are targeting.




Dude- I've IDed it several times in this thread!

1) getting the kids (and others) vaccinated and

2) cessation of espousing an anti-vaxxing position


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 5, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Dude- I've IDed it several times in this thread!
> 
> 1) getting the kids (and others) vaccinated and
> 
> 2) cessation of espousing an anti-vaxxing position



Sure, dude. Which behavior was increased, and which behavior was decreased?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 5, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> .I'm pretty sure you and I use "positive" and "negative" in regards to behavior change differently. But just to be sure, what do you mean by positive and negative?




I am using it in the *colloquial* version of operant conditioning, rather than the technical one, because most of the audience does not know the technical terms, and the technical terms run outright contrary to colloquial language.  Most folks will get confused by "positive punishment".



> We refer to that as multiple schedules.




I don't know who "we" are.  Do you wish to make an appeal to authority at this time?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 5, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I am using it in the *colloquial* version of operant conditioning, rather than the technical one, because most of the audience does not know the technical terms, and the technical terms run outright contrary to colloquial language.  Most folks will get confused by "positive punishment".



The colloquial version of operant conditioning? You're going to have to explain that a bit more. 




> I don't know who "we" are.  Do you wish to make an appeal to authority at this time?



"We" as in behavior analyst, such as myself. I don't need to appeal to authority. I am the authority.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 5, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Sure, dude. Which behavior was increased, and which behavior was decreased?




1) Vaccination numbers have declined over the past decade or so.  The law- if it survives its challenges- may help.

2) Anti-vaxxing, is, AFAIK, a fluctuating number.  But the converts away from the movement routinely cite non-confrontational methods as being key to their enlightenment.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 5, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 1) Vaccination numbers have declined over the past decade or so.  The law- if it survives its challenges- may help.
> 
> 2) Anti-vaxxing, is, AFAIK, a fluctuating number.  But the converts away from the movement routinely cite non-confrontational methods as being key to their enlightenment.



Let me rephrase. Which behavior would you like to increase, and which behavior would you like to decrease?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2015)

We're going in circles, HS.  You already know what behaviors.  It has been stated above.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 6, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> We're going in circles, HS.  You already know what behaviors.  It has been stated above.



Yes, I know, which is why I'm trying to guide you in the right direction. I'm trying to get you out of the NASCAR circle. Make a right turn, you know? So,  could you answer the question, counselor?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2015)

As they say in my field, asked and answered- move on.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 6, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As they say in my field, asked and answered- move on.



No, I rephrased the question. You answered a different question. I'll take the blame for that as I was clear, but this is a different question. So, answer the question, counselor.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2015)

Still asked and answered, further upthread.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 6, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Still asked and answered, further upthread.



Doesn't matter. Just answer, so we can get moving a long a new direction. You do want to stop going in circles, right?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2015)

It isn't my job to help you find answers already on record, sorry.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 6, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It isn't my job to help you find answers already on record, sorry.



Why are you so resistant to progress? All you have to do is answer the question, and we'll move on to more fruitful discussions. Come on, answer the question.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2015)

Asked.
And.
Answered.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 6, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Asked.
> And.
> Answered.



What are you so afraid of happening if you answer the question again?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2015)

Move on to your point, if you have one.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 6, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Move on to your point, if you have one.



I do; however, it requires that you answer the question, so we do not continue going in circles. So...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2015)

Your question has been answered.  That you don't realize this is not my problem.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 6, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Your question has been answered.  That you don't realize this is not my problem.



Well, now you're just making silly assumptions and continuing to avoid progressing in our discussion. When you're ready to continue, you can answer the question, and we can move on to more fruitful discussion.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2015)

Whatevs.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 6, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Whatevs.



Well, at this point you've made it clear you're not interested in engaging in conversation. I'm glad to see that ENworld civility thing is working out for you. Have a good night.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2015)

Dude, I answered your questions.  You want me to repeat my answers; I see no need.  If thinking I'm being uncivil helps you sleep, so be it.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 6, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Dude, I answered your questions.  You want me to repeat my answers; I see no need.  If thinking I'm being uncivil helps you sleep, so be it.



Good night, DA. When you feel up to continuing the discussion, you can send me a private message. I'm sure the rest of the people coming to this thread would rather this particular train of discussion stop. Have a good night.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2015)

Sweet dreams, HS.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2015)

Predictibly, a legal challenge is being contemplated.

http://patch.com/california/alisovi...-disobedience-after-ca-vaccination-law-signed

http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Health-News/vaccine-california-law-challenge/2015/07/02/id/653200/

It will be interesting, not just on the basis of what the outcome will be, but also HOW the outcome will be reached.  It is entirely possible that the legal challenge could fail based on a _Frye_ or _Daubert_ junk science ruling (I don't know which standard California uses) by the court.  If the anti-vaccine activists get a bunch of their evidence tossed that way, they're going to howl even more.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 6, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Good night, DA. When you feel up to continuing the discussion, you can send me a private message. I'm sure the rest of the people coming to this thread would rather this particular train of discussion stop. Have a good night.




There are two options here. (1) Danny has answered your question, in which case you are badgering him; or (2) Danny doesn't want to answer your question, in which case you are badgering him.  Either way: *stop badgering people*.  Please don't post in this thread again.


----------



## Joker (Jul 6, 2015)

The last couple of pages were pretty fun to read, though.


----------



## Raunalyn (Jul 6, 2015)

Ok, I've spent the time to read through just about every comment in this thread. Some of you will probably call me "anti-vaxxer" but, whatever; I've vaccinated all of my children, though I have chosen to delay or remove several vaccinations (I see no point in vaccinating for Varicella if my child has already had it, nor am I convinced of the safety or long-term effectiveness of the HPV vaccine). So, if you think I'm an anti-vaxxer because of this, or if you think that it's sport to insult and belittle people who think differently than you do (as someone said earlier in the thread...shame them...as if bullying will persuade anyone to change their minds) then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. This is a fundamentalist mentality that has no place in a reasonable and intelligent discussion. This is the core of the problem being discussed here...how to change minds.

Many people who are being accused of being "anti-vaccine" are not...they choose to selectively vaccinate, or to delay vaccination. Due to my son's vaccine reaction, my doctor and I discussed spreading out my youngest child's vaccinations. This was an *informed* choice that was discussed with a medical professional who was taking my family's medical history into account when helping us make this decision. After mentioning this on another forum (not this one), I was accused of being an "anti-vaxxer" and generalized as a kook. That's fundamentalism; if you do not agree with the Vaccine Fundamentalists, then you are a heretic/infidel/anti-vaxxer. Fundamentalism, whether it be vaccines or religion, has no place in science.

I tried to approach much of the conversation in this thread with the understanding that this is an online text forum, and some comments could seem insulting, but are not meant that way. However, after reading through the entire thread, I realized that yes, some people were being deliberately insulting. I will try my best to refrain from insulting or demeaning anyone here. I'm not going to get drawn into an argument or discussion...I will say my piece and then move on.

That being said, someone (I'm not naming names because I don't want anyone to think that I'm singling anyone out) made a comment that vaccine injury was a term that was flagrantly used. This implies that they believe that vaccine injury is not real. If vaccine injury was not real, there would be no need for the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), a program that was created to remove liability from the Pharmaceutical companies for vaccines (this is the only company that has this form of liability protection). The NVICP has paid out billions of dollars since the mid 80's to children and adults injured by vaccines, including my son. So saying that vaccine injury "isn't real" (this wasn't actually said, but it was most certainly implied) is, quite frankly, extremely insulting. Do I think that some people mistakenly think that their child(ren) may be vaccine injured? Most assuredly.

Moving on, I want to discuss this law and the slippery slope it may signify. All medical procedures have risks. This is a known fact, and not a single person here should be able to deny this. This is why medical procedures are voluntary. Vaccination *is a medical procedure*. Herein lies the slippery slope...if we remove someone's choice on whether or not they (or those that they are legal guardians of) should have a medical procedure done, then we open the door for the government to remove the choice for all medical procedures. I am not comfortable with that, and neither should anyone else be.

This law is, quite simply, a knee-jerk reaction to fear-mongering. California has one of the highest vaccination rates in the country, at an estimated 95% vaccination rate (above the 93% threshold for herd immunity for Measles). The Disney outbreak was way over-blown...only around 150 people out of 360 million people were infected. The measles death in Washington, while sad, was not a result of the Disney outbreak. Knowing the history of the criminal dealings of the Pharmaceutical corporations (Vioxx, the current whistle-blower suits alleging that Merck lied about the effectiveness and safety of the MMR, Paxil...the list is quite large and sordid), and knowing that Senator Pan received quite a bit of money from the Pharmaceutical industry to push this law, is it any wonder why parents are nervous about this?

Finally, I was accused of being "anti-vaccine" after revealing my story on an online forum, and I was stalked and harassed by a particularly loathsome pro-vaccine fanatic (even going so far as having to press charges, change my phone number and address, and going completely anonymous online), so I have quite a bit of sympathy for these parents. I really appreciate everyone in this thread who were trying to point out that bullying, shaming, and attacking parents with vaccine concerns was not the way to win anyone over. Thank you!

Edit: Something I forgot to add earlier. The crux of the problem with some of the more vocal advocates that may be inappropriately labeled as "anti-vaccine" is that you are asking them to deny what happened to their children. You are asking them to say, "The injury that I witnessed happening to my child did not actually happen." The flimsy "coincidence" excuses coming from the hardcore vaccine defenders is just that; flimsy. They don't convince anyone.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 6, 2015)

Raunalyn said:


> nor am I convinced of the safety or long-term effectiveness of the HPV vaccine).



Why is this vaccine different from others, in your medical opinion?



> So saying that vaccine injury "isn't real" (this wasn't actually said, but it was most certainly implied) is, quite frankly, extremely insulting.



Who implied it in this thread? I know I specifically said there can be serious side-effects. 



> Moving on, I want to discuss this law and the slippery slope it may signify. All medical procedures have risks. This is a known fact, and not a single person here should be able to deny this. This is why medical procedures are voluntary. Vaccination *is a medical procedure*. Herein lies the slippery slope...if we remove someone's choice on whether or not they (or those that they are legal guardians of) should have a medical procedure done, then we open the door for the government to remove the choice for all medical procedures. I am not comfortable with that, and neither should anyone else be.



Out of curiosity, are you for women being able to abort when they want?



> Edit: Something I forgot to add earlier. The crux of the problem with some of the more vocal advocates that may be inappropriately labeled as "anti-vaccine" is that you are asking them to deny what happened to their children.



Who said that? What I do know is that even if some people might say, the guvernment fund to compensate victims of said injuries is still there, so at least institutions do recognize those risks.


----------



## Raunalyn (Jul 6, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Why is this vaccine different from others, in your medical opinion?




It's exactly what I said...I'm not convinced of the safety or long-term effectiveness. Several countries outside of the US have stopped using this vaccine because of reported deaths and injuries.



goldomark said:


> Who implied it in this thread? I know I specifically said there can be serious side-effects.




As I said, I hate to single anyone out, but someone mentioned up-thread about vaccine injury, and I quote:

"Whatever that means. Seriously, it's one of those terms people use to try and make it seem as if there was some nefarious plot to hurt their kids. As you can tell, I find it annoying."



goldomark said:


> Out of curiosity, are you for women being able to abort when they want?




I'm not sure what it has to do with this discussion, but yes. I don't like it, but I acknowledge that they have that right.



goldomark said:


> Who said that? What I do know is that even if some people might say, the guvernment fund to compensate victims of said injuries is still there, so at least institutions do recognize those risks.




No one in this thread, particularly, but it is kind of the root of the problem, is it not? You want to convince these parents to vaccinate, right? So if you want to convince them, you need to convince them to deny what they think happened to their children.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jul 6, 2015)

Hey, the question re: abortion was uncalled for.  Address the issue, not the person.

Its pretty well known that flu vaccinations can have side effects:



> Mild problems following inactivated flu vaccine:
> 
> soreness, redness, or swelling where the shot was given.
> hoarseness.
> ...




Not to mention, an injection can cause an infection, and an injection of a foreign substance can cause reactions completely aside from the injection being of a particular substance.  I've experienced some of the side effects -- where I work has a program of providing flu vaccinations, which I usually get.

A quick glance at the list of CDC recommended vaccinations for travelers (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/vac-admin/contraindications-vacc.htm) shows a long list of contra-indications.

But, there are all sorts of risk in life: Driving has risk. Driving a big car reduces one's own risk, but increases others.  Exercising has risk, but so does not exercising.  The question is not about whether there is risk, but how to manage it.

(Notwithstanding the above, I find that folks are often very poorly estimate risk, and alarmism rather doesn't help.  I agree with the law in California.  I also understand that there are lots of parts to the issue.)

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2015)

My dad is an allergist, which is a specialized kind of immunologist.  Before achieving that specialty, he spent many years as a pediatrician.

Hearing people reject the flu vaccine based on its side effects drives him absolutely nuts.  Sure, they suck  but flu is one of the leading causes of preventable death out there, to the tune of @30,000 per year.  He even had one in person in his own practice.

The man in question was in peak health, but for his allergies.  He was an oil-rig worker in in late 20s when he got the flu.  The virus migrated from his respiratory system to his heart, damaging it to the point that he was hospitalized.  He died waiting for a transplant.


----------



## Janx (Jul 6, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Hey, the question re: abortion was uncalled for.  Address the issue, not the person.




I think the relevance is that a number of these politics topics are related.

As Raunalyn stated supporting the right to not be forced to have a Medical Procedure, in this case a vaccine was important.

Finding out if that philosophy was applied on the inverse, for having the right to have access to a Medical Procedure was relevant.


It reflects on if the person is applying fair rules or just trying to get their way on all things.

I think Raunalyn's lengthy explanation was rational and fair minded.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jul 6, 2015)

Janx said:


> I think the relevance is that a number of these politics topics are related.
> 
> As Raunalyn stated supporting the right to not be forced to have a Medical Procedure, in this case a vaccine was important.
> 
> ...




I agree that the issues are related, but, there are better ways to approach that point than to focus on one person's beliefs.  The link can be simply stated, rather than indirect through the specific person.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## tomBitonti (Jul 6, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My dad is an allergist, which is a specialized kind of immunologist.  Before achieving that specialty, he spent many years as a pediatrician.
> 
> Hearing people reject the flu vaccine based on its side effects drives him absolutely nuts.  Sure, they suck  but flu is one of the leading causes of preventable death out there, to the tune of @30,000 per year.  He even had one in person in his own practice.
> 
> The man in question was in peak health, but for his allergies.  He was an oil-rig worker in in late 20s when he got the flu.  The virus migrated from his respiratory system to his heart, damaging it to the point that he was hospitalized.  He died waiting for a transplant.




Sorry, I didn't mean to say that folks should not get vaccinations, or that there was a particular problem with the flu vaccine.  I used that example because it seemed to be one which many folks will have experienced.  I'm very much of the opinion that vaccines are a good idea, and folks have badly skewed risk estimates.  (But, to bring in another issue: I can sympathize with a parent of an autistic child, or rather, while I can't really know what that's like, since I'm not even a parent, I can figure that it's very very difficult.)

I am wondering what the usual experience of getting the larger set of CDC recommended vaccinations.  I've never had to have those extra vaccinations.  And, my understanding is that a possible consequence of failing to obtain the vaccinations can lead to one being quarantined on entry to particular countries. I wonder if folks have much of a problem with enforced quarantines, in comparison to enforced vaccinations.

What I can see as the "best" actual issues are (1) adequacy of vaccine supplies (2) quality control in the production of vaccines.

I throw out (1) since (in my view) it may be a much more real problem than (2), or any other currently stated vaccine danger.

But I can see that (2) may be a concern to some folks.  That is, not that vaccines are dangerous, but that any failure of the manufacturing process could lead to bad batches, which would be a big problem.

My answers to that are a consideration of how many drugs are taken by folks (at least here in the US), and to ask how the issue as it relates to vaccines is different than the issue for other drugs.

I do see a link between the two issues, in that if (1) is a big problem, there would be tendencies to cheat on (2) to meet demand.

This of course leads us to the issue of how to best ensure good quality vaccines (and other drugs), which brings up questions of industry self-regulation vs. government regulations, including reporting requirements, specific manufacturing requirements, inspections, and penalties for failures.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 6, 2015)

Raunalyn said:


> It's exactly what I said...I'm not convinced of the safety or long-term effectiveness.



But that can be said of any vaccine. By anyone. The data contradicts those claims. So why is this one different from other vaccines when the data available says otherwise?



> Several countries outside of the US have stopped using this vaccine because of reported deaths and injuries.



With a quick search, all I could find was Japan stopping its programmed and it was critized by its scientist as based on no data. 



> As I said, I hate to single anyone out, but someone mentioned up-thread about vaccine injury, and I quote:
> 
> "Whatever that means. Seriously, it's one of those terms people use to try and make it seem as if there was some nefarious plot to hurt their kids. As you can tell, I find it annoying."



I think its pretty clear what he was saying. The term is overused and misused by conspirationists and it bothers him. 

Considering that about 4,000 claims since 1988 have been compensated by the US's program, I'd say the conspirators are rather ineffective at injuring kids with vaccines. 



> I'm not sure what it has to do with this discussion, but yes. I don't like it, but I acknowledge that they have that right.



It was a question to see if your principale was applied uniformely.



> No one in this thread, particularly, but it is kind of the root of the problem, is it not? You want to convince these parents to vaccinate, right?



No. There kids should be vaccinated. Period. At some point it is pointless to try convince people of their irrationality. How much must we argue that the Illuminati and Reptilians do not exist?



> So if you want to convince them, you need to convince them to deny what they think happened to their children.



If they are compensated for side-effects, how are side-effects denied?


----------



## Raunalyn (Jul 6, 2015)

This is precisely what I was talking about. Seeing as you are resorting to ridicule and the cries of conspiracy, there's no point in engaging you further.

Getting drawn into a discussion with someone who exhibits a fundamentalist attitude is a waste of my time. Good day.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 6, 2015)

Raunalyn said:


> This is precisely what I was talking about. Seeing as you are resorting to ridicule and the cries of conspiracy, there's no point in engaging you further.
> 
> Getting drawn into a discussion with someone who exhibits a fundamentalist attitude is a waste of my time. Good day.




I didn't ridicule you or called you anything. I said some anti-vaccine people are conspirationist. I didn't say you were.

I also asked about more info on your opinion that is contradicted by data. 

If both of those are "fundamentalist" attitudes, I suggest that you revise your threshold for fundamentalism.


----------



## Raunalyn (Jul 6, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I didn't ridicule you or called you anything. I said some anti-vaccine people are conspirationist. I didn't say you were.




And I didn't say you did. But your comment was the very thing I discussed in my original post; shaming, ridiculing, or marginalizing people who believe differently than you do is a form of bullying. Which *is* a fundamentalist attitude.

I don't have the time nor the patience to deal with that. Therefore this conversation, for me, is done.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 7, 2015)

Raunalyn said:


> And I didn't say you did. But your comment was the very thing I discussed in my original post; shaming, ridiculing, or marginalizing people who believe differently than you do is a form of bullying. Which *is* a fundamentalist attitude.




Not all beliefs are valid and some are more toxic and harmful than others. 

Just as someone is free to have an opinion and voice it, I am also free to criticize them and there is nothing fundamentalist about that. When a belief is harmful, it shouldn't be tolerated. I have no problem calling out racists, climate skeptics, cross-fitters, etc.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 7, 2015)

Raunalyn said:


> And I didn't say you did. But your comment was the very thing I discussed in my original post; shaming, ridiculing, or marginalizing people who believe differently than you do is a form of bullying. Which *is* a fundamentalist attitude.




Bullying is found among fundamentalists.  But not all bullying is fundamentalist.  I daresay, bullies are found in all corners, not just the fundamentalist one.

I can understand not wanting people who share your opinion to be insulted.  But slapping labels on others isn't an appropriate response.  It is understandable, but not appropriate.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Not all beliefs are valid and some are more toxic and harmful than others.




Yeah, you probably don't want to use that defense here.  You are not the arbiter of what beliefs are valid.  



> I am also free to criticize them




You are free to note factual data that contradicts their position.  But you are not so free to call them names and slap negative labels on them.  Remember that, please.  Disagree, but be respectful.


----------



## Raunalyn (Jul 7, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Bullying is found among fundamentalists.  But not all bullying is fundamentalist.  I daresay, bullies are found in all corners, not just the fundamentalist one.
> 
> I can understand not wanting people who share your opinion to be insulted.  But slapping labels on others isn't an appropriate response.  It is understandable, but not appropriate.




It's not so much that I share their opinions, it's that I'm sympathetic to their worries. But bullying and ridicule are not conducive to a reasonable discussion. Once the unnecessary ridicule came out, I found it completely unnecessary to have further discussion with him (since I suspect he wouldn't listen to anything I had to say, anyway). So, to maintain civility, I stepped out.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 7, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Yeah, you probably don't want to use that defense here.  You are not the arbiter of what beliefs are valid.



I do not need to, others did it for me. There is plenty of data gathered by competent scientists that show that vaccines are beneficial and cause little harm. And that data as been reproduced many times too. Same goes for global warming, cigarette use, Earth being round, Obama being born in the US... As someone else pointed out, the debates have been done and won. 

I'm all for alterity, tolerence, independant thinking, etc, but some issues are settled, some ideas are harmful, and do not stand up to critical thinking. There is nothing wrong with saying so. Like there is nothing wrong with saying some Republicans policies do not stand up to critical thinking. 



> But you are not so free to call them names and slap negative labels on them.



It has been said plenty of times and I still haven't done it. No need to step in everytime I say something.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> It has been said plenty of times and I still haven't done it.




Yes you did.  "conspirationists" was your word.  

You didn't name a *particular* person, but you cast an aspersion on a wide group of people.  That's also recognized as a problem.  Negative stereotypes are not to be flung about lightly.



> No need to step in everytime I say something.




Dude, I think you'll find that the vast and overwhelming majority of your posts go without comment from me, so don't blow it out of proportion.   I am trying to handle this in a friendly fashion, for sake of helping folks adjust to the experiment.   But perhaps I erred in taking a conversational position for this.  If you need me to switch to orange text to remind you that you should not presume to tell me when notes on tone are called for, I can do that.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 8, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Yes you did.  "conspirationists" was your word.
> 
> You didn't name a *particular* person, but you cast an aspersion on a wide group of people.  That's also recognized as a problem.  Negative stereotypes are not to be flung about lightly.



Conspirationist exists, like racists. Both are toxic. Next thing you'll say is that I can say Trump is racist for his Mexican-rape comments cause that will offend some people.


----------

