Forced vaccinations with zero exemptions

[fromderinside]

The trinity. Artists, programmers, autistics

BS<sup>2xn

If you had zits you're autistic./nowthatsstupid</sup>

 

[Rhea]

This is truth. My father had Autism. Since the 1920s. He was the geeky awkward guy who didn't follow social cues properly. But he was never called Autistic.

Autism isn't about awkwardness, is it? I've always thought that Autism, actual autism was debilitating and it was very hard to be on your own if you had real autism, not the grossly widened definition it has today and is being mistaken as an epidemic.

It's called a spectrum because it is. In it's more severe forms it's debilitating, in it's lesser forms it just screws one over socially.

Your post pretty much sums up why autism is such an easy target for Voodoo types wanting to make excuses for their insanity.

Autism Spectrum Disorder http://file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/DSM-5-Autism-Spectrum-Disorder-Fact-Sheet.pdf

CDC Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Diagnostic Criteria http://www.psychiatry.org/autismwww.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html

Autism isn't geekyness, weirdness, or duckiness, but some are accused of being such by peers or gadfly social commentators. The criteria, still, are very squishy and if preliminary suggestion is provided by a k-6 educator the child is likely to be stigmatized or, at worst, be medicated in error under prescription by a complaint doctor who is no better trained than is the teacher, principal, counselor or whatever..

I would like to clarify that I'm not making a diagnosis out of left field. While my father was called "geeky" and "awkward" he very definitely fits the criteria of Autism Spectrum Disorder.

He was not "diagnosed" because he never sought diagnosis - he was an adult by the time it was a disorder that was discussed widely, was a teen before it was even first published. But all of us who have subsequently been through the actual clinical testing for it know clear as day how many of the boxes he checks off.

I would argue that "geeky" and "awkward" are indeed the terms used for many on the spectrum (real world experience) - especially when used as a generous understatement.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Autism Spectrum Disorder http://file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/DSM-5-Autism-Spectrum-Disorder-Fact-Sheet.pdf

Really now, a link to drive C??? And your other link is a 404.

Autism isn't geekyness, weirdness, or duckiness, but some are accused of being such by peers or gadfly social commentators. The criteria, still, are very squishy and if preliminary suggestion is provided by a k-6 educator the child is likely to be stigmatized or, at worst, be medicated in error under prescription by a complaint doctor who is no better trained than is the teacher, principal, counselor or whatever.

I do agree the criteria are fuzzy but that's rather to be expected when we have little understanding of what's really going on.

 

[bilby]

Really now, a link to drive C??? And your other link is a 404.

The second one is two concatenated URLs. Unsurprisingly, this results in a 404.

Separating the Siamese twins, we get:

http://www.psychiatry.org/autism
and
www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Really now, a link to drive C??? And your other link is a 404.

The second one is two concatenated URLs. Unsurprisingly, this results in a 404.

Separating the Siamese twins, we get:

http://www.psychiatry.org/autism
and
www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html

I didn't catch that. Yup, they work. I'm surprised, that definition is even fuzzier than the DSM-IV definition of Asperger's. (I never looked up the DSM-IV Autism definition.)

 

[bilby]

 

[Rhea]

shouldn't that say, "why are there still monkeys in Wasilla?"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Explain, please. Why would working vaccines get rid of monkeys?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Explain, please. Why would working vaccines get rid of monkeys?

*sigh*

 

[ZiprHead]

Democracy Now had a very interesting segment on today concerning vaccinations. Had an anti-vaxer, a lawyer to talk about the legal end, and a doctor promoting vaccination. Just checked their web site. It isn't posted yet, maybe tomorrow.

 

[bigfield]

Explain, please. Why would working vaccines get rid of monkeys?

The argument goes, "if evolution is true, then why are there still monkeys?" It's a stupid, non-sequitur argument that is put forward by people who haven't the faintest idea of how evolution works.

If fact, it's such a non-sequitur that the argument makes just as much sense when applied to vaccination. And as far as arguments against vaccinations go, it's not a bad one.

 

[Axulus]

Explain, please. Why would working vaccines get rid of monkeys?

The argument goes, "if evolution is true, then why are there still monkeys?" It's a stupid, non-sequitur argument that is put forward by people who haven't the faintest idea of how evolution works.

If fact, it's such a non-sequitur that the argument makes just as much sense when applied to vaccination. And as far as arguments against vaccinations go, it's not a bad one.

A more apt statement might be the following:

"if vaccines are so great, then why do people still get the common cold?"

or maybe:

"if vaccines are so great, then why are there still viruses?"

 

[bigfield]

The argument goes, "if evolution is true, then why are there still monkeys?" It's a stupid, non-sequitur argument that is put forward by people who haven't the faintest idea of how evolution works.

If fact, it's such a non-sequitur that the argument makes just as much sense when applied to vaccination. And as far as arguments against vaccinations go, it's not a bad one.

A more apt statement might be the following:

"if vaccines are so great, then why do people still get the common cold?"

or maybe:

"if vaccines are so great, then why are there still viruses?"

True, but I think the author was going for maximum silliness.

 

[Rhea]

The argument goes, "if evolution is true, then why are there still monkeys?" It's a stupid, non-sequitur argument that is put forward by people who haven't the faintest idea of how evolution works.

If fact, it's such a non-sequitur that the argument makes just as much sense when applied to vaccination. And as far as arguments against vaccinations go, it's not a bad one.

A more apt statement might be the following:

"if vaccines are so great, then why do people still get the common cold?"

or maybe:

"if vaccines are so great, then why are there still viruses?"

Apt, but not funny. Thence not worth typing onto a picture.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The argument goes, "if evolution is true, then why are there still monkeys?" It's a stupid, non-sequitur argument that is put forward by people who haven't the faintest idea of how evolution works.

If fact, it's such a non-sequitur that the argument makes just as much sense when applied to vaccination. And as far as arguments against vaccinations go, it's not a bad one.

A more apt statement might be the following:

"if vaccines are so great, then why do people still get the common cold?"

or maybe:

"if vaccines are so great, then why are there still viruses?"

Not really. Evolution says monkeys and man came from a common ancestor, not that we evolved from monkeys.

The parallel to vaccines is, if vaccinations are so good, why do people still get cancer.

 

[bilby]

I wonder if science can develop a vaccine to protect jokes from death by analysis...

 

[Rhea]

I wonder if science can develop a vaccine to protect jokes from death by analysis...

I think you're meaning an antibiotic becau..... oops.

 

[Underseer]

To answer the OP, I see no problem with the state forcing vaccines. Not vaccinating harms others, and can even cause the death of other citizens.

Your rights end where they impact on the rights of others, such as the right to not die from a preventable disease because some idiot bought into a wacky conspiracy theory he read about on the Internet.

http://imgur.com/gallery/FY0Rz5V

 

[bigfield]

To answer the OP, I see no problem with the state forcing vaccines. Not vaccinating harms others, and can even cause the death of other citizens.

Your rights end where they impact on the rights of others, such as the right to not die from a preventable disease because some idiot bought into a wacky conspiracy theory he read about on the Internet.

http://imgur.com/gallery/FY0Rz5V

That red appliance behind him must be an electric grill, then.

 

[Jokodo]

For the record, my childhood occurred before most of those vaccinations were around, so I got measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox. All of which I remember. And pertussis (whooping cough) which I contracted as an infant, before an age where I would have been vaccinated had vaccine been available at the time. I don't remember whooping cough but my understanding is that it nearly killed me.

You've just given the best reason for forced vaccinations without noticing. When people who are old enough to be vaccinated (e.g. for pertussis) remain unvaccinated, they spread the germ - including to children who are too young to be vaccinated, some of whom will die as a consequence. The choice to remain unvaccinated is a stupid one in that you put yourself at the greatest risk, but it's more like drunk driving than seatbelts because you also put others at a significant risk by doing so.