Content Moderation At Scale Remains Impossible: Vaccines Edition

from the the-way-of-the-world dept

Last week a story started to blow up that was used, once again, by the media to beat up on Facebook. The headline, from the Daily Beast, says it all: Facebook Axed Pro-Vaccine Ads From Hospitals and Health Orgs, Let Anti-Vaxxer Ads Slip Through. As the story notes, Facebook has (smartly) decided to not allow anti-vax nonsense advertising. It will, of course, allow important pro-vaccination awareness advertising. It does this for a pretty good reason: anti-vax nonsense is killing people. Vaccinations save lives (and I know some anti-vaxxers reading this are foaming at the mouth to scream at us in the comments, and let's just be clear: you're wrong and you should stop it before you kill more people). Anyway, here's what went down:

This month, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, the state’s official health department, bought 14 ads to promote a statewide program providing free pediatric vaccinations. Facebook removed all of them.

During the same time period, Children’s Health Defense, an anti-vaccine nonprofit founded and chaired by the nation’s most prominent vaccine conspiracy theorist, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., successfully placed more than 10 ads stoking unfounded fear about vaccines and other medical conspiracy theories.

I saw some people on Twitter using this to attack Facebook, but actually it just highlights the same point we've been making for a few years now: content moderation at scale is impossible to do well and you will always, always make mistakes. And this is one of many kinds of mistakes that happen all the time. Unless someone is deeply, deeply engaged in these issues, distinguishing between anti-vax anti-science quackery can sometimes be difficult. And if moderators are taught to be wary of "vaccine" advertisements, they may just start to key in on anything that mentions vaccines -- including something from a government Department of Health. In some cases it appears that automated systems are to blame:

“It’s our understanding that auto-blocking software flagged these ads, since the text resembles when ads appear to be spreading vaccine misinformation,” said Emily Lowther, a spokeswoman for the Minnesota Hospital Association, who expressed frustration at the phenomenon.

Of course, perhaps what's more interesting is that part of the reason the Daily Beast was even able to write this story is because of Facebook's transparency on advertisements with its Ad Library.

You could say that Facebook must do a better job at this kind of thing, but that would require focusing even more attention on these ads, which inevitably means some other set of ads will end up getting messed up as well. Content moderation at scale is impossible to do well, and that's not a Facebook issue, it's a societal one. There are some people who are going to be pushing bad information, and they're always going to seek to make it look as legit as possible. That's a problem, but expecting that one company can magically fix it seems like a silly thing to do.

Filed Under: ads, anti-vax, content moderation, vaccines
Companies: facebook


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 2:43am

    That's one of the problems, yes

    Content moderation at scale is impossible to do well, and that's not a Facebook issue, it's a societal one.

    Or, in this case, a 'limits of technology' problem.

    When you've got two sides arguing about the same topic(in this case those that are correct vs nurgle cultists) then odds are good they're going to be using a lot of the same language, with the difference being the context of how the terminology is being used, and as many articles on TD have made clear over the years 'context' is simply beyond automated filters currently, and likely will remain that way until AI tech becomes a lot more advanced.

    Add in societal(and potentially legal) pressures to 'Do Something' resulting in 'shoot first, ask only if it comes up' CYOA-style moderation and while 'they blocked the good while letting the bad through' is humorous in a slightly warped way it's not too surprising, as eventually the timing for such a 'match' was bound to come up.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Bruce C., 31 Oct 2019 @ 5:36am

      Re: That's one of the problems, yes

      And that doesn't even get into the quagmire of contentious issues where the issue isn't one of misinformation, but fundamental disagreements about what is desirable. Abortion for example.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 3:37am

    "and I know some anti-vaxxers reading this are foaming at the mouth to scream at us in the comments, and let's just be clear: you're wrong and you should stop it before you kill more people"

    Bravo, sir.

    Also, I'm happy to take some heat if any such people need it explain to them again why their (usually) vaccinated asses didn't see diseases like measles and polio during their own childhood, and why their belief in misleading propaganda puts many others at risk, not just their own spawn.

    "Content moderation at scale is impossible to do well, and that's not a Facebook issue, it's a societal one."

    Also, a mathematical one. It's pretty much impossible for anything to achieve 100% perfect accuracy on subjective data, given that the results themselves are subjective. But, let's say that Facebook magically creates a system that is 99.999999% accurate. With the amount of content Facebook receives, that still makes it mathematically certain that some posts will still slip through. Plus, certain that there will be false positives.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Internet Copy Editor (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 4:13am

    So it's hard

    Facebook makes its money off these ads. If it's impossible to moderate them correctly, what is the public's recourse? Zuckerberg's argument for free expression doesn't cut much ice against the concrete injuries Facebook is causing. Regulation should exist to protect the public until Facebook can solve this problem that you say is impossible to solve.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      scotts13 (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 4:37am

      Re: So it's hard

      "Regulate until the impossible is done..." So, you're saying that public expression should be permanently government-regulated? That doesn't sound like a good idea.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 5:16am

        Re: Re: So it's hard

        He appears to be saying that if something's impossible then regulation will magically make it possible - and that the regulators will not make any mistakes themselves in doing that.

        Otherwise, he's saying that Facebook should be punished for things outside of their control, and he doesn't see the obvious issues that smaller players will face trying to adhere to the same rules.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 4:42am

      Re: So it's hard

      Yep. someone is saying things that are getting people killed. But we must punish Facebook for someone elses speech.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:08am

        Re: Re: So it's hard

        "Platforms don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people."

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:29am

          Re: Re: Re: So it's hard

          You seem awfully desperate to tie this in with guns. Are you intelligent enough to understand the many fundamental differences?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Talmyr, 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: So it's hard

            I would read that as a mickey take on the old pro-gun argument that guns are cuddly, innocent items which only when misused by a "bad person" will kill or harm another. (Of course, it is quite fine for a "good person" to use a gun to kill or harm another so long as the target is "bad", standing on the "good" property, the wrong colour skin if police, or holding a bag of skittles.)

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 7:12am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So it's hard

              "I would read that as a mickey take"

              Perhaps, but it's a silly thing to bring up at all in this context, yet he's done it twice.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 1:43pm

        Re: Re: So it's hard

        Your argument would hold some weight if we were talking about random post on FB, but we aren't. We are talking about ads that FB is selling. I think there is a huge distinction.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 2:22pm

          Re: Re: Re: So it's hard

          Considering the number of ads on Facebook, it’s a distinction without a difference.

          Also, Facebook isn’t selling ads. They’re selling space for ads.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 5:04am

      Re: So it's hard

      what is the public's recourse?

      Find a platform that you like, and do not use Facebook. To do anything else is to try and impose your standards on somebody else.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:52am

      Regulation should exist to protect the public until Facebook can solve this problem that you say is impossible to solve.

      Then such regulation will exist until Facebook doesn’t, because the problem will likely never be solved. No system is infallible or free from even implicit biases—not even an algorithm. 100% perfect moderation at the scale of Facebook’s size is improbable to the point of being impossible; it can’t happen no matter how much you tell the nerds to nerd harder.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Fine Day for Zombie Hunting, 31 Oct 2019 @ 12:52pm

      Hey, what's vaccine against ZOMBIES? -- EXPOSURE.

      I've just about suppressed zombies again, in large part because nearly all the old "accounts" have been resurrected. (IF were ever real, were abandoned for years...) You would however, if had my list, note that almost none of those have made a second comment. It's exactly as though Techdirt doesn't want the suspicious long gaps seen. -- If don't agree, then state some other reason consistent with dozens of "accounts" out for just one comment after 3-4-5-6-7-8 year gaps.

      The resurrections almost never last long. ... Except for "Scary Devil Monastery" which made one comment, waited over 5 years to make a second, then took off at over 1000 a year! Anyone new, just go look at the 5 year gap after first of "Scary Devil Monastery" (easy way is on 2nd page, adjust the number up to total - 20):

      https://www.techdirt.com/user/perge74

      The "SDM" account is one of my best proofs. After total absence for FIVE YEARS, it turns out ardent Techdirt fanboy, vicious anti-dissent! You cannot explain those FACTS as other than astro-turfing.

      And of course, actually "SCM" is Timothy Geigner, who also does the ultra-fanboy "Gary" account, apparently with Masnick's permission. Way back, Masnick called Geigner Techdirt's "comment enforcer", and clearly still is.

      Anyhoo, today it's "Internet Copy Editor": 3 comments total, (1 per year), out after 40 month gap; begun Mar 18th, 2016

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Toom1275 (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 1:08pm

        Re: Hey, what's vaccine against ZOMBIES? -- EXPOSURE.

        I've just about suppressed zombies again

        Yes, taking the pills the nice men in white give you is a good thing.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Gary (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 1:11pm

        Re: Hey, Blue Balls

        And of course, actually "SCM" is Timothy Geigner, who also does the ultra-fanboy "Gary" account

        Wave Hiya buddy! How goes your quest to purge the mid-west of the jews?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 2:50pm

        Not everyone stays on Techdirt 24/7 like you do, Blue Balls.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Rocky, 31 Oct 2019 @ 5:47pm

          Late in every way...

          He's a bit late today actually, been busy yelling at the kids trick'n'treating that they are breaking copyright by looking like well-known figures whose IP is owned by corporations.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 3:43am

        Re: Hey, what's vaccine against ZOMBIES? -- EXPOSURE.

        "The "SDM" account is one of my best proofs. After total absence for FIVE YEARS, it turns out ardent Techdirt fanboy, vicious anti-dissent! You cannot explain those FACTS as other than astro-turfing."

        Except it's fairly explainable due to me moving, switching jobs, having a real life or otherwise taking a hiatus from the online environment.

        A FACT would be that astroturfing through an account in hiatus dormant for a few years is a very VERY inefficient way to astroturf.

        But do go on, Bobmail, and repeat the same tired old attempts to marginalize people who happen not to agree with you when your arguments keep failing.

        "Except for "Scary Devil Monastery" which made one comment, waited over 5 years to make a second, then took off at over 1000 a year!"

        Except that way back then I was as prolific in posting as I am now, although mainly on torrentfreak...so just keep talking out of your ass, Bobmail.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 3:10pm

      Re: So it's hard

      Facebook isn't causing anything here.

      What is the public's recourse?

      Err... to which public do you refer?

      Any public should engage in counter-speech, critical thinking, and using evidence to make decisions. Also, ignoring advertising would be a massive boon to mankind in any case.

      How are regulations going to protect them? Are you part of the dangerous "do something" crowd? Who is supposed to protect us from you? (Maybe you should see about having concrete and attainable regulations reinstated and properly enforced - like the ones which have served well until government after government has stripped them away. Please start with federal and state EPA regs if you are getting into that.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 31 Oct 2019 @ 4:51am

    The problem

    The problem with the antivax crowd is a lack of critical thinking and research. If it was some huge government conspiracy, it would come out. They can't even keep top secret information from leaking.

    At what point will this go from free speech to speech that causes harm. Should antivax parents be held liable when their children get sick and cause others to get sick? I think there should be an out for insurance companies. No vaccination because, "Oh Noes Autism!!", no coverage if your kid gets that illness.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:08am

      Re: The problem

      If the antivax speech causes harm, let a court order the speech taken down. You're either for the First Amendment or not. "Because stupid people can't think for themselves" doesn't justify censorship. Which idea comes next?

      It's like that old WRKP episode where some moral-majority type wanted a clearly obscene record taken down first, then he said "Imagine" sounded like communism and had to go.

      As for why a platform should be "forced" to host content it doesn't like, the answers are: neutrality, ensuring public access to free speech, etc. The difference between a platform and a publisher is this neutrality. The platform that runs a discriminatory housing ad is contributing to the same harm committed by the person who posts it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:47am

        As for why a platform should be "forced" to host content it doesn't like, the answers are: neutrality, ensuring public access to free speech, etc.

        For what reason should an open-to-the-public Mastodon instance be forced to host White supremacist propaganda if that instance’s owners don’t want to host it?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 2:08pm

          Re:

          Then don't call it "open to the public," because it isn't.

          What if it is same owner regarding the ISP? Should they then be forced to host it?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 5:45pm

            You’re making the Blue Balls mistake of confusing “private” with “privately owned”. A privately-owned service can still be open to the public; that it has rules about what behavior and speech are acceptable for that service does not make it “private”. A private service would be a service wherein the general public doesn’t have access unless they’re allowed in with the explicit permission of the owner(s), typically by invitation of the owner(s) or a non-owner member of the service.

            A privately-owned, open-to-the-public Mastodon instance has no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to host any content which its owners don’t want on that instance. You have not yet provided a good reason for why they should be forced, by law, to host speech they don’t want to host. And you can’t come up with such a reason, because it will then be used as a defense for, say, compelling a bakery that doesn’t decorate cakes with pro-LGBT messaging into doing exactly that. I dare to hope that you don’t want to compel people to make statements against their conscience — that you have even a basic sense of integrity.

            And by the by, IAPs do not host content. They provide the infrastructure — the “dumb pipes”, if you will — to people so they can reach that content.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 10:32pm

              Re:

              "And by the by, IAPs do not host content. They provide the infrastructure — the “dumb pipes”, if you will — to people so they can reach that content."

              If the PPIA does not wish to transmit said message, why should they have to? Same argument.

              No, I am not confusing private and private owned, you are confusing public and private.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Toom1275 (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 10:48pm

                Re: Re:

                [Asserts facts not in evidence]

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 11:18pm

                  Re: Re: Re:

                  [Asserts facts not in evidence]

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 12:29am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Really? You’re going the “I know you are, but what am I” route?

                    Look, you’re completely misunderstanding how the internet works and the difference between public and private.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 12:43am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Yes, I understand public is open to everyone and private is the exclusion of some. Think of your router and how the internet works. What is your understanding of public and private?

                      " Really? You’re going the “I know you are, but what am I” route?"

                      Did you see any of his facts? Please do point his facts out to me.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 12:46am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Forget to mention, your privately owned router.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 5:36am

                        Think of your router and how the internet works.

                        The IAPs provide a road (connection) to buildings (websites) within the community (on the Internet). In this analogy, your modem would be a “vehicle”, and your router would be seats for extra passengers.

                        I don’t know what kind of gotcha point you hoped to make here, but you ain’t makin’ it, son.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 11:44am

                          Re:

                          You don't know the difference between public and private regarding a privately owned router?

                          No point in continuing here. Come back when you do understand.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 12:55pm

                            Re: Re:

                            You don't know the difference between public and private regarding a privately owned router?

                            None. They both function exactly the same way. The only difference between them is who owns and operates them.

                            No point in continuing here. Come back when you do understand.

                            I could say the same about you.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 4:10pm

                              Re: Re: Re:

                              You don't know the difference between public and private regarding a privately owned router?

                              None. They both function exactly the same way. The only difference between them is who owns and operates them.

                              LOL. You don't know the difference either. Privately owned by me whether it is public or private Einstein.

                              You people telling me I don't know the difference between public and private.

                              LOL. What a fucking joke.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 4:36pm

                                Privately owned by me whether it is public or private

                                …not…really? “Privately owned” is not a reference to whether service offered by the router — Internet access — is open to the public. It’s a reference to who owns the property (i.e., the router) in the first place.

                                “Privately owned” means a private entity, be it a single person or a corporation, owns the property/service. “Publicly owned” means the government, or the people who elect the government, owns the property/service. A privately-owned service can be either private (open only to those approved by the service’s owners or other authorized agents) or open to the public (open to anyone who can make use of the service). And an open-to-the-public service can be “free” to enter (e.g., a grocery store, a pharmacy, a gas station) or require some sort of fee (e.g., a cover charge at a nightclub), no matter whether the service offered within costs money to use.

                                Don’t make this mistake again, or else I will accept that as an acknowledgement of your ignorance and read your further contributions accordingly.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 1:13am

                                  Re:

                                  "…not…really? “Privately owned” is not a reference to whether service offered by the router — Internet access — is open to the public. It’s a reference to who owns the property (i.e., the router) in the first place."

                                  Really? I did not know that. I thought when I bought it, you owned it.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 1:20am

                                    Re: Re:

                                    Who decides if it is open to public or private? Me or you?

                                    If you set it to open to public, who has access to it?

                                    If you don't want me using it, is it still open to the public?

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 2:40am

                                      I thought when I bought it, you owned it.

                                      Yes, that’s the point. If you bought it, the public doesn’t own it — you, a private entity, owns it.

                                      Who decides if it is open to public or private? Me or you?

                                      You’re the owner of the router. You decide whether the router’s WiFi signal is open for use to anyone within range of that signal (i.e., open to the public) or protected by a password (i.e., private).

                                      If you set it to open to public, who has access to it?

                                      Anyone within range of the WiFi signal.

                                      If you don't want me using it, is it still open to the public?

                                      An open signal is an open signal regardless of whether the owner of the router sending that signal wants someone to use it. They should password protect that signal if they don’t want unauthorized/unwanted persons using it. Don’t you know anything about even the most basic opsec? Christ, pick up a copy of The Smart Girl’s Guide to Privacy or something.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • identicon
                                        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 5:15am

                                        Re:

                                        Can you imagine the shit storm resulting from a requirement that all private wifi enabled routers have to maintain anything any war driver leaves there?
                                        Court: "No, you are not allowed to remove goatse from your router.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 11:05am

                                          Re: Re:

                                          Can you imagine the shit storm resulting from a requirement that all private wifi enabled routers have to maintain anything any war driver leaves there?

                                          Can you imagine that a router doesn't store a damn thing? It's in the name genius. It's a "router", it routes traffic. It doesn't host any content at all. And this proves you have no idea what you are talking about because you don't understand basic network technology and architecture.

                                          Court: "No, you are not allowed to remove goatse from your router.

                                          Defendant: "That's fine Your Honor since routers are incapable of storing any content whatsoever. Therefore I have none to remove."

                                          Also, First Amendment says the government can't tell you to do that.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                          • identicon
                                            Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 4:52pm

                                            Re: Re: Re:

                                            "a router doesn't store a damn thing"

                                            • I know what you are trying to say and you are correct that a user connecting via wifi is not (should not) be able to store or change router contents. fwi - there is firmware that you probably do not want changed by a stranger, but you knew this.

                                            It it my understanding that certain ISPs force the customer leased wifi to enable connection via anyone within signal strength requirements. Once the interloper has breached your wifi security (lol) they will most likely look for your computer(s) which have been connected to the wifi via your lan.

                                            What might these people do with your stuff? A just leave porn printouts for your perusal whilst others a a bit more nefarious.

                                            And I also want to thank you for your well thought out reply to my comment as it demonstrates that you are a mature adult who shows signs of being a great diplomat. Do keep up the good work.

                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                            • identicon
                                              Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 6:02pm

                                              Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                              I know what you are trying to say and you are correct that a user connecting via wifi is not (should not) be able to store or change router contents. fwi - there is firmware that you probably do not want changed by a stranger, but you knew this.

                                              No, I said what I meant to say. Do NOT put words in my mouth. A router doesn't store any content whatsoever. None. The firmware is entirely different. The firmware is part of what makes a router a router. Remove the firmware and you have a paper weight.

                                              It it my understanding that certain ISPs force the customer leased wifi to enable connection via anyone within signal strength requirements.

                                              You assume incorrectly. Also, that is a leased router, it doesn't belong to the person, it belongs to the ISP, so that's an entirely different scenario. People who own their own router can do whatever they want with it and allow whomever they want to connect to it.

                                              Once the interloper has breached your wifi security (lol)

                                              Well if you don't set a password it makes it pretty damn easy to breach. In other words, it takes no work at all since you left your network wide open. Only an idiot would do that.

                                              they will most likely look for your computer(s) which have been connected to the wifi via your lan.

                                              ....Once again you prove you have no idea what you are talking about. You connect to the LAN via your WiFi, not the other way around. The LAN (Local Area Network) consists of a group of computers on the same network segment and they connect to that segment/LAN via multiple means, generally either WiFi or Ethernet.

                                              What might these people do with your stuff?

                                              Depends. Did you not set a password on your computers too? If not, a lot. If you did, maybe not so much.

                                              A just leave porn printouts for your perusal whilst others a a bit more nefarious.

                                              Well, if I was stupid enough to not set a password on my WiFi and properly secure it they might be able to do that. But I'm not that stupid so they can't.

                                              And I also want to thank you for your well thought out reply to my comment as it demonstrates that you are a mature adult who shows signs of being a great diplomat. Do keep up the good work.

                                              Well thank you, I will. But do note I did mean to insult you several times in this and my previous comments.

                                              Go educate yourself before you make a bigger fool of yourself than you already have.

                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                              • identicon
                                                Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2019 @ 7:35am

                                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                A router storing firmware is not storing anything - ok, lol
                                                Oh, that is a different scenario ... ok.
                                                Victim blaming - of course.

                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                • icon
                                                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Nov 2019 @ 11:15am

                                                  Firmware is not “content” in that it’s not photos, videos, etc. A router doesn’t store any of that. The only thing it stores is the firmware; without that, a router is an expensive paperweight.

                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                • identicon
                                                  Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2019 @ 5:06pm

                                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                  As Stephen said, firmware is not content, which, as you will note in my replies is what I was referring to.

                                                  Victim blaming - of course.

                                                  I don't know, did you fail to properly secure your router and then had your network invaded by one of your house guests or a suspicious guy in a vehicle right outside your house? If so, then yes, I blame you. If you were not a victim of having your network invaded then you aren't a victim and victim blaming doesn't apply.

                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                            • icon
                                              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 7:01pm

                                              It it my understanding that certain ISPs force the customer leased wifi to enable connection via anyone within signal strength requirements.

                                              [citation needed]

                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 11:01am

                                      Re: Re: Re:

                                      Are you seriously this stupid?

                                      Who decides if it is open to public or private? Me or you?

                                      If you bought it, then you do. If I bought it, then I do. If you buy it and remove the WiFi password, then it is a privately owned WiFi network that is simultaneously open to the public. I don't recommend doing this but it is absolutely an option.

                                      If you set it to open to public, who has access to it?

                                      Anyone and everyone in range. Do you seriously not know how this works?

                                      If you don't want me using it, is it still open to the public?

                                      If I don't password protect it or otherwise restrict your access to it, YES.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 10:58am

                                    Re: Re:

                                    Really? I did not know that. I thought when I bought it, you owned it.

                                    Yes, hence the term "privately owned". But that has nothing to do with whether it is open to the public or not.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 5:16pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                You don't know the difference between public and private regarding a privately owned router?

                                I never said that. I said there is a none. A router is a router is a router. It performs the same function no matter who owns it or whether it is public or private. The fact that you are using a router to try and bolster your case is hilarious and a tad ignorant. Hence my reply.

                                LOL. You don't know the difference either.

                                Because there is none you dolt. A router is a router. It's function doesn't change based on whether it is "public" or "private". It literally doesn't care.

                                Privately owned by me whether it is public or private Einstein.

                                This word salad aside, a thing can be public (more accurately open to the public) yet privately owned at the same time. And in that instance, despite being "public" (more accurately open to the public) the owner of said thing can set the rules of how the public uses it however they wish. However, if something is publicly owned, then it can in no way be restricted to the public citizenry. Parks and town squares are publicly owned and can't be restricted. Social media sites, restaurants, and convention centers are privately owned but open to the public, contingent on the public obeying whatever rules that have been set forth by the owner.

                                You people telling me I don't know the difference between public and private.

                                Because you obviously don't.

                                LOL. What a fucking joke.

                                The only joke here is the level of your ignorance.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Toom1275 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 2:58pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Congratulations, you've succeeded on adding the fact [asserts facts not in evodence] to the growing list of concepts (also including public and private) that you have yet to comprehend the meaning of.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 4:19pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Yes, I was tired. Meant to be saying evidence.

                      So where is your evidence? You stated a fact.

                      Quit stating facts without evidence if you dislike it so much.

                      Do you understand the difference between public and private regarding your own privately owned router? Because your one trick copy/paste shtick is getting tiresome.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 4:29pm

                        [Plaintiff asserts knowledge which they cannot coherently explain]

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Toom1275 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 5:15pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        For the slow class:

                        You made two assertions in that post:

                        • "If the PPIA does not wish to transmit said message, why should they have to? Same argument.""

                        • "No, I am not confusing private and private owned, you are confusing public and private."

                        You have yet posted zero factual backing for either of them in this entire thread, which is precisely what [Asserts facts not in evidence] means. Expressing butthurt at being called out on your ignorance isn't going to change that.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 5:31am

                Second point first:

                I am not confusing private and private owned, you are confusing public and private.

                Except no, I’m not. A privately owned brick-and-mortar business can be either private or open to the public. The same goes for Internet services such as Mastodon instances — they can either be private (e.g., one-user instances, instances that require permission from the owners/other users to join) or open to the public (e.g., anyone with an email address can join). That a service opens itself to the public does not ever negate the fact that it has no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to host or remain “neutral” towards all speech.

                A Jewish butcher can keep his store private — i.e., he can make his offerings available only to members of a certain synagogue — but if he opens his doors to the general public, he can’t then refuse to sell kosher meat to gentiles. That said, even if his doors are open to the public, he can still boot someone from his store if they yell anti-Semitic slurs while in it. He can’t violate someone’s First Amendment rights by saying “we don’t do that here” and punishing whoever breaks that rule. And those same general principles generally apply to websites, too.

                Now I’mma circle back to that first question:

                If the PPIA does not wish to transmit said message, why should they have to?

                Please use an acronym everyone knows. Whatever the hell you mean by PPIA, I’ll assume you meant “ISP” (I prefer “IAP”, or “Internet access provider”) and work from there.

                As for the question itself: Like I said, IAPs provide the dumb pipes for people to reach content, not the content itself. They’re not supposed to do anything that lets them pick and choose what content you experience, download, or upload — they’re supposed to give you a “road” to reach whatever “building” (website) you’re looking for. An IAP should no more be able to stop you from visiting and posting on 4chan than it should be able to stop you from visiting and posting on Techdirt — or YouTube, or Twitter, or Pornhub, or Neocities, or literally any other website in the world.

                Well, that’s the ideal notion, anyway. We all know IAPs snoop on packets and throttle certain websites/types of data and other such nefarious bullshit. To pretend otherwise is ignorance on a level that lets someone confuse, say, “private” and “privately owned”.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 11:57am

                  Re:

                  And a social site is supposed to provide somewhere to be social. If you want it to be a private club, so say at first, not after.

                  I can make my privately owned router public. As soon as I wish to exclude any one, it is no longer public, it is private.

                  Please explain what I am confusing about private and private owned.

                  "Please use an acronym everyone knows."
                  I obviously made my point. Practice what you preach for once.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 1:02pm

                    a social site is supposed to provide somewhere to be social

                    A privately-owned, open-to-the-public brick’n’mortar nightclub provides somewhere for people to be social — but it still has rules and can still kick people out. For what reason should that standard not apply to Twitter or Mastodon?

                    Please explain what I am confusing about private and private owned.

                    In regards to a social interaction network (SIN) like Twitter? You’re confusing the idea that a privately-owned SIN must eschew that “everyone must follow the rules” standard when it stops being a private service and becomes an open-to-the-public service. After all, when I asked why a SIN should be forced to host any kind of speech, you said the following:

                    [D]on't call it "open to the public," because it isn't.

                    Feel free to correct the record if you meant something other than what you said in that context. And feel free to provide a good reason for making SINs host all kinds of speech even if the owners don’t want to host a particular kind of speech…if you can.

                    I obviously made my point.

                    I had to look up the acronym so I could make sure it wasn’t some newfangled terminology I wasn’t aware of. I have used “IAP” before on these comments sections — hell, this is where I picked up the term “Internet access provider”! — and I’ll grant that you didn’t know that. But considering the acronym’s closeness to “ISP”, you could have deduced that I either meant something close to “ISP” or my finger slipped when I used it the first time — or, like anyone else, you could have asked what I meant by “IAP”.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 4:04pm

                      Re:

                      Let me know when your night club is big enough to host the world, or a Country even, then we'll talk about similarities and just how "public" your club is.

                      Have all the rules you want. Enforce a dress code if you wish. Ban all the speech you want.
                      But that is not an open to the public "social" club. A social club means you may encounter speech you don't like or agree with. Banning that speech takes away from it being a social club. Not only can the pros not speak, but neither can the cons. Banning speech is the opposite of social. Especially considering the length of your list of banned speech.

                      Freer speech advocates are you?
                      "How old do you have to be, legally, to tell your Doctor what gender you are?"
                      You'd have that banned as well, not just nazis. You want a personal safe space in a public place. You want your rules enforced on someone else's platform just like Maza from Vox did.

                      Did you pick up the ISP error here or was it your own error because when I looked up IAP, in case it was some newfangled term I hadn't heard of, it didn't even come close to what you call IAP. That is an "in app purchase."
                      I talk about routers, you talk about cars. I talk about ISP, you talk about IAP. Ask you what IAP means? If you weren't constantly deflecting and obfuscating , I may have thought it was an error.

                      You just requested I use the standard, do the same.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 4:27pm

                        Let me know when your night club is big enough to host the world, or a Country even, then we'll talk about similarities and just how "public" your club is.

                        Size doesn’t matter.

                        Have all the rules you want. Enforce a dress code if you wish. Ban all the speech you want. But that is not an open to the public "social" club.

                        Yes, it is, and this proves you’re mistaking two meanings of “public” now. The first, which I’m using, is a noun that refers to “the populace of a given area” — i.e., “the general public”. The second, which you’re using, is an adjective that generally refers to “owned by the government or the people which that government serves” — i.e., “public lands”.

                        An open-to-the-public brick’n’mortar business/service is not “public lands”. The business/service opens its doors to the general public, but it can still make rules about what speech and behavior is acceptable inside the building. Walmart can legitimately kick you out of one of its stores for wearing a T-shirt with a racial slur on it and you would have zero legal recourse to overturn that decision in the courts.

                        Open-to-the-public web services have the same right: Violate the rules for acceptable conduct on the service and you get booted, and you legally can’t do anything about it. Twitter can legally kick you off the service for using racial slurs, no matter how you feel about that. And no court in the land would force Twitter to let you back on — or host your speech — because you were upset about that decision.

                        "How old do you have to be, legally, to tell your Doctor what gender you are?" You'd have that banned as well, not just nazis.

                        Not…really? I mean, if you wanna be a Feminist-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobe, go ahead and FART your ass off. If you wanna be a Nazi, say the Eighteen Words as loud as you want. But if you want a private entity to host your speech, be prepared for the people in charge to say “no”. You have no right to make them host your speech — and it doesn’t matter whether that private entity is a nightclub, a web service, or someone else’s private residence.

                        By the same token, you have no right to force others into listening. If I were to block you on Twitter for being an annoying jerk who spouted anti-queer diatribes at me for no reason, you couldn’t get a court to make me unblock you. And if you used the same rhetoric while physically in my presence, I could walk away or put in earplugs and you would, again, have no legal recourse to make me listen.

                        Please show me the law, statute, or common law court ruling that says you can legally force a third party to host your speech, even if they don’t want to host it, or make people listen to you regardless of whether they want to listen. You’d be the first person to do that if you can pull it off.

                        Key word, of course, being if.

                        I talk about routers, you talk about cars.

                        It’s called “metaphor”.

                        I talk about ISP, you talk about IAP.

                        Feel free to clarify which one you meant when you used ISP: the commonly understood meaning of “Internet service provider” (the company that provides your access to the Internet — i.e., an Internet access provider or “IAP”), or an Internet service provider in the more technically accurate sense (a company that provides a service available only through the Internet — e.g., Twitter).

                        Either way, everything I said still stands. And everything you said is still, by and large, a bunch of bullshit.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 11:37pm

                          Re:

                          "Size doesn’t matter."

                          You disagree with this whole article and all the others about moderating?

                          This is the first time I have seen you express it.

                          Why don't you tell Mike how to ban blue and still keep this site open to the public? Blue uses TOR(The Onion Router).

                          How does Facebook do it? Do they make it private and require a password to use the site?

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Nov 2019 @ 4:43am

                            You disagree with this whole article and all the others about moderating?

                            You apparently disagree with the concept of “context”. Your question is ridiculous on every level, so I accept it as an acknowledgement of your ignorance. Your further contributions will be read accordingly.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            bhull242 (profile), 4 Nov 2019 @ 11:52am

                            Re: Re:

                            That quote doesn’t suggest any of the rest of what you said.

                            Regardless, I think you’re conflating separate things.

                            “Size doesn’t matter” with regards to determining whether something is publicly-owned vs. privately-owned and whether something is open to the general public or not and to what extent. As such, size is immaterial regarding whether the people running it have the right to moderate and what limitations are on that right, if any.

                            Size does matter when it comes to how difficult it is to moderate successfully — moderation is impossible to do perfectly (or nearly so) at scale. That is a separate question that doesn’t involve anyone’s legal rights.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 1:11pm

                    Re: Re:

                    If you want it to be a private club

                    Are you saying that you can't socialize at a private club? Please, do tell.

                    I can make my privately owned router public.

                    Well now, that's an interesting statement. Exactly what do you mean by that? Do you mean you're broadcasting your wireless SSID without a password so anyone can connect to it and use it? Yeah, everyone can do that. But that's not making it "public" in the sense that it is belongs to the public, that just means you suck at network security.

                    Now do you mean you're making it accessible over the internet for someone on the other side of the world to access? Yeah, that's even worse network security. And it's still not "public" in the sense that it belongs to the public. That's just you being an idiot.

                    I can make my privately owned router public. As soon as I wish to exclude any one, it is no longer public, it is private.

                    It was never public to begin. Publicly accessible, yes, but not "public" as in belonging to the public. And does that mean that restaurants are not open to the public? Because restaurants can kick out anyone they want to. Most businesses can.

                    Please explain what I am confusing about private and private owned.

                    Everything. Privately-owned means you own it, not the public and you can allow or disallow anyone (including the public at large) access to your stuff. As Stephen said, you can either have it be open to the public, or a private club. If something is publicly owned (meaning it's either owned or operated by the government) then and only then can it not determine who and who not to allow or what content to allow or not allow. Does that clear things up?

                    I obviously made my point. Practice what you preach for once.

                    No, you didn't because nobody knows what you mean when you say "PPIA". The best I could find on the internet was the Public Policy and International Affairs Fellowship Program. But your usage seems to imply you're talking about an internet service provider (ISP or IAP), of which it most definitely isn't.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                blademan9999 (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 6:48am

                Re: Re:

                Imagine a real world example, A site is like a store.
                An ISP is like a road.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Toom1275 (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 7:23am

                  Re: Re: Re:

                  Sites host speech.
                  ISPs do not.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 4:58pm

                  Re: Re: Re:

                  Some time ago the phrase Super Highway was in vogue to describe the internet.

                  I can no longer find it but at the time there was a rather humorous commentary that explained how the internet is not like a superhighway.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                bhull242 (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 11:32am

                Re: Re:

                Look, IAPs (like Verizon) are like telephone companies. All they do is transfer information between two or more devices. They are privately owned utilities.

                ISPs (like Facebook) are more like stores; they’re privately-owned, and while they’re open to the general public, they reserve the right to kick you out if you break their rules or they feel you’re more trouble than you’re worth.

                A government-run message board (physical or digital) is publicly owned and open to the public; furthermore, any moderation efforts are subject to restrictions from the Constitution.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 10:47pm

                  Re: Re: Re:

                  And I can leave my router public, but if I decide to ban you from using it, I turn it off public and give only certain people permission to use it. It is now private, even though I am still sharing it and letting people use it for free.

                  Why don't you tell Mike how to ban blue and still keep this site open to the public? Blue uses TOR(The Onion Router).

                  How does Facebook do it? Do they make it private and require a password to use the site?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    bhull242 (profile), 4 Nov 2019 @ 12:06pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    And I can leave my router public, but if I decide to ban you from using it, I turn it off public and give only certain people permission to use it. It is now private, even though I am still sharing it and letting people use it for free.

                    I wasn’t talking about routers. I was talking about IAPs and ISPs. Routers are a different discussion entirely that I am not getting into here.

                    Why don't you tell Mike how to ban blue and still keep this site open to the public? Blue uses TOR(The Onion Router).

                    For this discussion, I am not concerned with how to enforce or impose moderation. I am only talking about the differences between IAPs and ISPs, and how that affects the rights they have regarding moderation and such.

                    Also, AFAICT, this site doesn’t ban users at all.

                    How does Facebook do it? Do they make it private and require a password to use the site?

                    Do what, exactly?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 11:49am

        Re:

        Obligatory XKCD reference: https://xkcd.com/1357/

        TL;DR Facebook cannot violate anyone's right to free speech by simply removing content they don't like.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Talmyr, 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:58am

      Re: The problem

      That's my problem with all these conspiracies, they all require a super-human level of plotting and secrecy, or some implausible money trail which relies on American financial and social structures.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 2:20am

      Re: The problem

      I think there should be an out for insurance companies. No vaccination because, "Oh Noes Autism!!", no coverage if your kid gets that illness.

      Problem with that is it would be punishing the kids for the stupidity/gullibility of the parents, and the kids already have it bad enough if they're having to deal with a preventable illness that could have been avoided had they been vaccinated.

      It's one of the more aggravating things with nurgle cultists, in that odds are good they got vaccinated so they aren't likely to suffer from their stupidity, leaving innocent people around them to suffer instead. Were it not that way it would be much less vexxing as the problem would basically be self-correcting, in that eventually the idiots would either die of old age and take their stupidity with them, or learn the hard way why vaccines are so important, potentially earning a Darwin Award in the process.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    hij (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 5:37am

    Not about moderation but bad journalism

    This seems more like a problem with gotcha journalism rather than content moderation. Facebook made a mistake and then corrected it. I dislike Facebook as much as the next person, but they eventually sorted it out.

    The Daily Beast on the other hand, is trying to blow up a non-story. Their scoop is that people make mistakes. If they want to show how Facebook is evil they can easily find better examples. This is just lazy journalism. This is yet one more example of journalists going for an easy story rather than doing the work to look at the more troubling ways that Facebook is impacting society but are more difficult to write about.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 7:33am

      Re: Not about moderation but bad journalism

      "gotcha journalism"

      What? ... Not this nebulous phrase again.
      Was this part of an interview where crafted questions are asked intended to trip up the interviewee? You know ... like "What magazines do you read?" Tricky questions are hard to answer when you lie all the time and do not know what reality is anymore.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 9:57am

      Re: Not about moderation but bad journalism

      If nobody had written about the mistake, would it have been corrected?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        hij (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 10:59am

        Re: Re: Not about moderation but bad journalism

        This is a valid point. They likely would not have made the change if only the advertisers complained. From the article it does not look like Facebook has a good way to appeal these decisions. The authors of the article focus primarily on the bad decisions rather than how Facebook could improve the process. The authors still focus on the part that will attract the most attention rather than the bigger issue of how to fix the mistakes that Facebook admits happened.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 5:43am

    you'll never stop those who dont understand or even WANT to understand something like this! all they see is what THEY WANT and everything else is completely ignored. that not only includes all the harm that their desire(s) will cause but there is no intention to even want to mend what they screw up. considering, yet again, the aim is to take something away from ordinary people, ie, the use of the internet and give, yet again, control of something else to those who have the most to hide, that is governments, politicians, the rich, the famous, the elite and all their friends!! being in control of us is not only the 'name of the game', it is their priority. heaven forbid if we have/keep something that those above cant use against us but is not usable by us for our benefit, regardless of whether it is against 'them' or not!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 5:54am

    If they are too big to moderate, then they are just too big. It's just like if a bank is too big to fail, then you either have to regulate closely so failure is less likely or break it up.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ben (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:54am

      Re:

      How do you propose breaking up Facebook?
      Geographically? Politically? By age? Favourite colour?

      If I'm in one category, how can i maintain friendship links with someone in another? ... by finding another service that's more like Facebook-that-was, and 'round the cycle we go again?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        christenson, 31 Oct 2019 @ 9:52am

        Re: Re: Breaking up Facebook

        I think Facebook can be broken up...but not by a lynch mob or by direct government action.

        Instead, remember "protocols, not platforms"....then....
        a) Remove all copyright protection from Facebook (and other primarily user-generated platforms) content
        b) Enforce open interface rules on these platforms... so they have some healthy competition and users can switch to smaller platforms with better moderation systems that better match their values and moods.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 10:11am

          Re: Re: Re: Breaking up Facebook

          a) Remove all copyright protection from Facebook (and other primarily user-generated platforms) content

          So give people the choice of handing away their copyright for nothing; or handing it to traditional publishers, if their work is accepted, in the hope of receiving royalties. That is tilting the playing field so far towards the traditional publishers that it becomes a cliff.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Christenson, 31 Oct 2019 @ 3:46pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Breaking up Facebook

            Facebook, itself a big publisher, should not own copyright in posts from the public, especially not from a contract of adhesion, and without any kind of marking or acceptance of legal responsibility via section 230.

            So Techdirt, I want to explore if taking a copyright should require also taking legal liability for content, and this is the CDA 230 nudge we need to enable small platforms to compete with larger ones? What if, when Craigslist sued a scraper site for copyright, they also took on liability for the illegally discriminatory ads they were carrying?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 4:35am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Breaking up Facebook

              Facebook, itself a big publisher, should not own copyright in posts from the public,

              Read the terms of service, as anybody who posts to Facebook grants them a license to reproduce their posts, to the groups that the poster selects. The poster still has their copyrights in their posts, and can publish them whole and unmodified elsewhere, and make money from their posts without interference or permission from Facebook.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 5:47pm

              CDA 230 was not designed to help the government pick “winners and losers” in re: Internet services. Using it for that purpose would pervert the intent of those who wrote the bill in the first place.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              bhull242 (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 8:51pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Breaking up Facebook

              Facebook doesn’t own a copyright in posts from anyone but themselves. They get licenses to your posts, but you still retain the copyright.

              Also, removing CDA §230 would only make it harder for small platforms to compete with larger ones.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          michael, 31 Oct 2019 @ 11:02am

          Re: Re: Re: Breaking up Facebook

          The obvious problem is that the only value FB offers is due to its size. If people wanted to leave for a smaller platform, they'd do it (there's no shortage of social media platforms that might replace it).

          Clearly, there's no interest in a smaller Facebook.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gary (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:56am

      Re:

      It's just like if a bank is too big to fail

      False equivalency. If a bank "fails" as you described, it closes and people loose their money.
      When Facebook "fails" to moderate a posting or advertisement the damage is incomparable.

      That is like saying, "My bank made a mistake on my statement and a teller was rude to me. Since they can't get this right they should be shut down!"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 7:36am

        Re: Re:

        My thoughts also.
        This is beyond comparing apples to oranges, this is fruit salad.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rocky, 31 Oct 2019 @ 12:32pm

        Re: Re:

        A bank can be too big to be allowed to fail. You can thank fractional banking for that and that banks are underwriting each other.

        That means that a big bank that fails can gut a lot of other banks, which is why in many cases the government/federal bank (or equivalent) steps in to save it with loans and guarantees.

        If you don't know what fractional banking is, google it - then ponder what happens when a bank loan money from another bank so they can lend it out to others.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Gary (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 1:13pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Rocky I don't see what that has to do with the comparison?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Rocky, 31 Oct 2019 @ 5:57pm

            Re:

            (I never got to the punch-line, I got a call and I apparently managed to post it when I left the computer).

            Oh, comparing Facebook to banks is just silly because Facebook can fail hard without it financially crippling people since they can just move to another social platform. So it is a false equivalency.

            Although, fractional banking as such is a interesting solution with some very dire ramifications when it fails.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 11:54am

      Re:

      If they are too big to moderate, then they are just too big.

      There is no such thing as "too big". Too powerful, sure. But the two are not the not same. Oh, and by the way, sites with less than 1,000 users have trouble with moderation. So tell me, how big is too big?

      Microsoft Windows is installed and used on 85% of all desktops/laptops. Windows has the highest malware infection rates of any other operating system and probably the most security bugs and vulnerabilities. They are constantly putting people at risk by not making a 100% safe and secure operating system. So tell me, are they "too big"?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:02am

    "Platforms don't defame people, PEOPLE defame people." Same flawed argument used in gun control.

    "Auto safety at manufacturing scale is too expensive." In that scenario we don't allow auto manufacturing.

    Content moderation is certainly possible "at scale" but SUBJECTIVE content moderation is not possible at any scale without becoming censorship. Use of terms like "troll" or "incorrect information" on things which are subjective are clear indicators, and especially what constitutes racism, misogyny, etc.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:27am

      Re:

      "In that scenario we don't allow auto manufacturing."

      Incorrect. But, that's a completely different scenario. Nobody's saying that Facebook cannot afford to pay for 100% effective moderation at scale, they're saying that it impossible to achieve at any cost. As you say, once you're dealing with human subjectivity, it's censorship and in the eye of the beholder.

      To use your auto safety example - we don't demand 100% perfection from car makers, we demand the best possible effort and when they fail, we judge their reaction to and ability to have prevented any safety issues. People don't seem to be demanding the same from Facebook, they seem to be demanding flawless perfection with punishment when they inevitably can't achieve that due to pesky reality getting in the way.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 7:39am

        Re: Re:

        Love these silly comparisons, but at least this one has automobiles in it.

        I wonder ... when was the last time FB was subjected to a recall of their defective product(s)?
        LOL

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 7:54am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "I wonder ... when was the last time FB was subjected to a recall of their defective product(s)?"

          Never, since they supply the services from their own locations, meaning you have nothing to return to them to fix. Talk about silly comparisons...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        christenson, 31 Oct 2019 @ 10:02am

        Moderation at scale is impossible...

        Here's the crux of the problem:

        Moderation is a matter of ranking for both importance and reasonableness in context, including who I am and what is my current state of mind or role....

        Given that there are days I want to see what the idiots are up to on 4chan, (or both sides in the vacc/anti-vacc debate), but other days would prefer to ignore those dumpster fires, get vaccinated because i'm not stupid, and do tech stuff and Indian elephant polo scores, how do you moderate that?? (and this goes before someone quotes crap to say how bad it is, sometimes that's fine, sometimes not).

        Sometimes you feel like a nut...sometimes you don't.

        The only real solution involves multiple independent moderation domains that are each themselves reasonably small scale, and giving end users real choices among them.

        The context issue is currently unsolved by computers, so moderation will need to be crowdsourced in some sort of average sense.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 9:59am

      Re:

      Content moderation is certainly possible "at scale" but SUBJECTIVE content moderation is not possible at any scale without becoming censorship.

      Wondering if you could point out some objective content moderation for comparison.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 12:13pm

      Re:

      "Platforms don't defame people, PEOPLE defame people." Same flawed argument used in gun control.

      How is that a flawed argument, as it us people that post to the platforms. If you go down the road that platforms are responsible, you end up requiring that the pre-check all postings, which effectively kills all platforms unless they are posting letters to the editor as an axillary to their man content.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    JdL (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:04am

    Must be great to be a True Believer

    Masnick: "As the story notes, Facebook has (smartly) decided to not allow anti-vax nonsense advertising. It will, of course, allow important pro-vaccination awareness advertising."

    Because when you're a True Believer, any other views are heresy and must be suppressed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:22am

      Re: Must be great to be a True Believer

      Are... you trying to say that it's the PRO vaccine movement that's solely based on faith and ignoring opposing arguments? Because science, history, facts and reality would like to disagree with you if so.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:55am

      Re: Must be great to be a True Believer

      when you're a True Believer, any other views are heresy and must be suppressed

      A large difference exists between a mere questioning of the efficacy and safety of vaccines—which is fine and proper and scientific, even—and anti-vaxxers pushing the dangerous idea that vaccines are inherently and improbably more dangerous to everyone than the diseases those vaccines mean to prevent. You not being able to see that difference is a personal problem; good luck in solving it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 7:17am

        Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer

        Exactly. A parent saying "hey, I'm worried about the safety of vaccines for my child" is fine. A parent saying "I'm worried, so I'll take the word of random bloggers and celebrities and assert that any doctor who tries to correct me is part of the conspiracy" is not. The former is natural. The latter is dangerous, not only to that parent's kids, but to everyone around them.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Gary (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 7:55am

          Re: Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer

          And Jill Stein was saying that WiFi was too dangerous to be used around children in the last election cycle. The anti-vaxers ate it up and claimed she was being scientifical. Everyone who tried to correct her was "sucking up to big pharma" or had some weird motive to point out that her statements were bullshit.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 8:00am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer

            Yes, that's the problem here. As soon as someone believes some pseudoscience, they're trained to reject the actual science. At least with wifi, the downsides of believing the misinformation don't include the possibility of maiming and killing children.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 2:41pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer

              The larger problem is that everyone is a True Believer when it comes to their views. No one ever concedes anything, and those who control the wires control the flow of information.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Gary (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 2:45pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer

                But at least we can all agree that anti-vaxers are objectively harmful to themselves and others.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 3:41pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer

                If no one ever concedes anything (or changes their mind, or accepts new ideas), the flow of information is irrelevant.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 2:36am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer

                "The larger problem is that everyone is a True Believer when it comes to their views."

                Not true. Take this issue, for example. I base my view that vaccines are vital and that anti-vaxxers are dangerous idiots on history and science. However, if science were to conclude that vaccines were more dangerous than the diseases they prevent, I would change that view.

                I'm a "true believer" in reality. these people are believers in fiction. I would change my view based on evidence that challenges my current view. These people have been presented with gigantic levels of evidence, yet they ignore what it says.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 5:20pm

        Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer

        A large difference exists between... safety ...and ... dangerous...

        This is an oxymoron.

        If there is a question of safety, then how is that not dangerous?
        If there was not a question of safety, then there would be no question of danger.

        This is like giving O Positive blood to somebody with a Negative blood type.
        Blood transfusions save lives, therefore it is OK to give positive blood to a negative blood type. NO, it not OK.

        Neither is it OK to give the drug companies a blank check and a Get Out of Jail Free Card while they give campaign donations to politicians who invest the Congressional retirement fund in Drug companies, or whatever corruption they come up with.

        It is NOT OK to ignore WHY the vaccines cause side effects.
        And for some of the diseases, I think there are more injuries from the vaccine than from the disease. Those contraband anti-vax websites would have the statistics.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Rocky, 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:00pm

          Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!

          I think there are more injuries from the vaccine than from the disease.

          Let me stop you there, THINK. If you bothered to inform yourself you would KNOW that the disease is much worse.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Christenson, 1 Nov 2019 @ 9:15am

            Re: Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!

            Here's the crazy thing, though not what the OP had in mind:
            There probably are more injuries from the vaccine from the disease... because if noone is getting the disease, a rare, tiny injury from vaccination means the statement is true.

            However, without Vaccination, there would be huge injury from the disease.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 9:57am

              Re: Re: Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!

              That's actually what's sad here. These people have grown up vaccinated against these diseases, as have their peers. Because they're all immune, the diseases are rare and weak. Generations now have no real first-hand knowledge of kids crippled by polio, maimed by measles or killed by smallpox. Because of that, they think that there's no real danger from the diseases, and are instead concerned with the more immediate "threat" of the vaccine, however small that might be.

              The problem with this is that by the time they have caused enough outbreaks for these preventable diseases to become as virulent as they were a century ago, it won't be these idiots who suffer. It will be their grandchildren, along with the grandchildren of people who understood how bad their actions were from the beginning. They, being vaccinated, won't suffer. Their children are at greater risk, but are still protected by herd immunity from children with non-idiot parents. The following generation will be the ones dealing with real disease.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                christenson, 1 Nov 2019 @ 12:07pm

                Re: Re: Re: Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!

                1) not sure these things get more virulent over time...killing your host that proceeds to vaccinate isn't an effective long-term strategy. In fact, making the host sick isn't really a goal of these microbes, becoming commensal is much more effective to ensure long-term reproduction and survival.
                2) The measles outbreaks are happening now. I don't think we will have to wait for the grandchildren!

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 1:05pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!

                  "not sure these things get more virulent over time"
                  Example: The Plague has several forms and as the disease spreads it can change forms and become much worse, once airborne (Pneumonic plague) is spreads much faster.

                  "killing your host that proceeds to vaccinate isn't an effective long-term strategy"
                  I doubt microbes take that into consideration. Consider Ebola, it kills quickly and does not seem to care about its long term strategy for survival.

                  "making the host sick isn't really a goal of these microbes"
                  Today I learned that microbes have goals.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    nasch (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 1:38pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!

                    Consider Ebola, it kills quickly and does not seem to care about its long term strategy for survival.

                    And which is a more successful organism, Ebola or rhinovirus?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 12:17pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!

                      I am not a scientist, but my guess is that organisms which are successful (able to sustain large populations over periods of time) have been made that way via natural selection and their success/demise is not of their own doing.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 5:46am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!

                      "And which is a more successful organism, Ebola or rhinovirus?"

                      I don't think anyone caught in an Ebola outbreak really cares whether it's going to survive long term.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 5:45am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!

                  "1) not sure these things get more virulent over time...killing your host that proceeds to vaccinate isn't an effective long-term strategy."

                  That's true, but death is far from the only negative side effect from these diseases, kids are blinded, there's evidence that they cause immunity to fail against other diseases, etc. The disease will be fine when the kid is crippled, but humans normally like to avoid that kind of thing.

                  "2) The measles outbreaks are happening now."

                  Yes, but these take time to gather momentum. It will take a few decades before they get to the same point as they were a century ago, but it will happen while there's little disease breeding colonies allowed to thrive.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Toom1275 (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 7:30am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!

                    Luckily, the measles virus is slow to mutate, so we'll probably not see a new version spread frum the cultists' bioreactors as a new plague.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gary (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:58am

      Re: Must be great

      JDL, thanks for your regularly scheduled anti-science post. You are in part responsible for measles making a comeback - stand proud!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 7:27am

      Re: Must be great to be a True Believer

      Would you like some measles?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      bob, 31 Oct 2019 @ 1:15pm

      Re: Must be great to be a True Believer

      I believe this post was meant as a joke post but that obviously failed looking at the responses.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 3:48am

        Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer

        "I believe this post was meant as a joke post but that obviously failed looking at the responses."

        Poe's Law. When you try to make a parody of the irrational all you come off as is as a bona fide sample of the original.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:11am

    The winning argument here, however, seems to be that it's up to the government to create a neutral, free-speech portal, but since people would use that to criticize the government...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:45am

      Re:

      Such a portal would be overrun with the kind of posts you see on 4chan's /b/ in short order—or, even worse, the kind of posts you see on /pol/.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 2:40pm

        Re: Re:

        Along with a few other posts that would never see the light of day, as on USENET.

        Still the only way to have true free speech. A simple posting tax (even 0.0001 or whatever) could offset the costs by reducing traffic.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 6:41pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Along with a few other posts that would never see the light of day, as on USENET.

          Yeah, yeah. We get it, you're an old dude who can't get out of the past.

          Still the only way to have true free speech.

          No it's not. No one is stopping you from starting up your own blog and saying whatever you want.

          A simple posting tax (even 0.0001 or whatever) could offset the costs by reducing traffic.

          Pfft! You call that "free" speech? Did you miss the part where the government can't interfere in freedom of speech?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Christenson, 31 Oct 2019 @ 10:05am

      Re: Winning argument

      Nope...

      The gubmn't should enable competition to allow smaller platforms to thrive....by dropping copyright in many cases and requiring interoperability.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 1:10pm

        Re: Re: Winning argument

        That won't work out the way you think it will. I'm guessing you never played any sport or game where it was necessary to look beyond just your current move and the next one.

        If Facebook were to open up its data on the API it already has to any and all comers absolutely nothing would change. Facebook would still be just as big as they are. There may be countless little social networks popping up using FB's API but FB would just as likely block those sites from adding messages and content to FB's database. Nobody on FB would ever see that content and those little sites would languish in obscurity.

        Interoperability will solve absolutely nothing.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 12:20pm

          Re: Re: Re: Winning argument

          "Interoperability will solve absolutely nothing"

          ... except maybe the problems we have due to a lack of interoperability?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    An-other-onymous, 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:57am

    Because when you're a truth believer, views not supported by evidence are hearsay.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 7:45am

    Rep. Bill Posey

    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/10/zuckerberg-hearing-anti-vaxx-question-and-ads /600577/

    “Are you 100 percent confident that vaccines pose no injury to any person on this planet?”

    That was a real question asked today by Bill Posey, a congressman representing Florida’s Eighth District, to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

    At the hearing, Posey said, “The federal government has created a vaccination trust fund that has paid out over $4 billion to compensate those who have been injured by vaccinations.”

    https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/facebook-ceo-grilled-on-anti-vaccine-content

    “I support vaccinations of children and adults, but I also support open and frank communication about the risks of vaccination,” Posey told Zuckerberg. “You testified that you believe in giving people a voice. Is Facebook able to assure us it will support users’ fair and open discussions and communications about the risks as well as the benefits of vaccinations?”
    ...
    Posey responded by asking whether Zuckerberg is positive that vaccines don’t pose health risks.

    “I don’t think it would be possible for anyone to be 100 percent confident but my understanding of the scientific consensus is that it’s important that people get their vaccines,” he responded.

    Posey concluded his line of questioning by telling Zuckerberg that many of the people harmed by Facebook’s policy are parents of disabled children, and that he doesn’t think the government or Facebook “should be so quick to turn our backs on them.”

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4825322/user-clip-vaccination

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 7:58am

      Re: Rep. Bill Posey

      I'm sure he could have just said "I don't know how vaccines work", and "I get all my information from 4chan", and got the same information across with less effort.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 11:51am

      Re: Rep. Bill Posey

      I doubt that aspirin is 100% safe. Why is the antivax cult demanding 100% safety? Even water is bad for you in large quantities, is there an anti-water cult making all sorts of silly claims? That dihydrogen monoxide can kill you dude!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 3:45pm

        Re: Re: Rep. Bill Posey

        Aspirin? Reye's Syndrome, ulcers, whatever.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 6:35am

        Re: Re: Rep. Bill Posey

        Well, I, for one, want 100% safety in my vaccine. And what does aspirin and water have to do with vaccines? That is not the topic here.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 12:29pm

          Re: Re: Re: Rep. Bill Posey

          You are correct, aspirin and water are not the topic here - one hundred percent safety in medications is the topic here. My question is why does anyone demand one hundred percent safety from anything - that is simply not going to happen.
          You could have a perfect whatever pill that solves your ailment but you choke on it whilst swallowing .... not 100% safe is it?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 1:21pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Well, I, for one, want 100% safety in my vaccine.

          That's great. Let me know when you start your company that can guarantee 100% safety in vaccines. If you live long enough and don't contract the measles and die before then.

          And what does aspirin and water have to do with vaccines? That is not the topic here.

          The topic is 100% safety. The reason why water and aspirin were brought up is because neither of them is 100% safe. You can die from ingesting too much water, you can drown in it, etc... Here's the list of side effects of aspirin:

          Conditions Of Excess Stomach Acid Secretion
          Heartburn
          Irritation Of The Stomach Or Intestines
          Nausea
          Stomach Cramps
          Vomiting
          A Decrease In Platelet Clotting
          A Rupture In The Wall Of The Stomach Or Intestine
          A Significant Type Of Allergic Reaction Called Anaphylaxis
          A Type Of Allergic Reaction Called Angioedema
          A Type Of Blood Disorder Where The Red Blood Cells Burst
          A Type Of Kidney Inflammation Called Interstitial Nephritis
          Anemia
          Bleeding
          Bleeding Of The Stomach Or Intestines
          Bleeding Within The Skull
          Blistering Of The Skin
          Blood Coming From Anus
          Bronchospasm
          Damage To The Liver And Inflammation
          Decreased Blood Platelets
          Drowsiness
          Hives
          Inflammation Of The Skin Due To An Allergy
          Itching
          Large Purple Or Brown Skin Blotches
          Low Levels Of White Blood Cells
          Ringing In The Ears
          Seizures
          Stomach Or Intestinal Ulcer
          Trouble Breathing
          Wheezing
          A Skin Rash
          A Type Of Stomach Irritation Called Gastritis
          Abnormal Liver Function Tests
          Black Tarry Stools
          Bleeding Gums
          Decreased Appetite
          Hematoma, A Collection Of Blood Outside Of The Blood Vessels
          Indigestion
          Nosebleed
          Skin Redness

          You can die from a number of conditions on that list. That doesn't exactly sound 100% safe to me.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 7:23pm

          I, for one, want 100% safety in my vaccine.

          You’re not going to get it. All drugs have a risk of side effects, even if the effects are ultimately mild.

          It’s almost as if human biology isn’t 100% consistent across all of humanity and everyone will react differently to everything from aspirin to the MMR vaccine. Imagine that~.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 7:58am

    Package Inserts

    http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm

    Package Inserts and Manufacturers for some US Licensed Vaccines and Immunoglobulins

    https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf

    M-M-R® II
    (MEASLES, MUMPS, and
    RUBELLA VIRUS VACCINE LIVE)

    ADVERSE REACTIONS
    The following adverse reactions are listed in decreasing order of severity, without regard to causality,
    within each body system category and have been reported during clinical trials, with use of the marketed
    vaccine, or with use of monovalent or bivalent vaccine containing measles, mumps, or rubella:
    Body as a Whole
    Panniculitis; atypical measles; fever; syncope; headache; dizziness; malaise; irritability.
    Cardiovascular System
    Vasculitis.
    Digestive System
    Pancreatitis; diarrhea; vomiting; parotitis; nausea.
    Endocrine System
    Diabetes mellitus.
    Hemic and Lymphatic System
    Thrombocytopenia (see WARNINGS, Thrombocytopenia); purpura; regional lymphadenopathy;
    leukocytosis.
    Immune System
    Anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions have been reported as well as related phenomena such as
    angioneurotic edema (including peripheral or facial edema) and bronchial spasm in individuals with or
    without an allergic history.

    Musculoskeletal System
    Arthritis; arthralgia; myalgia.
    Arthralgia and/or arthritis (usually transient and rarely chronic), and polyneuritis are features of infection
    with wild-type rubella and vary in frequency and severity with age and sex, being greatest in adult females
    and least in prepubertal children. This type of involvement as well as myalgia and paresthesia, have also
    been reported following administration of MERUVAX II.
    Chronic arthritis has been associated with wild-type rubella infection and has been related to persistent
    virus and/or viral antigen isolated from body tissues. Only rarely have vaccine recipients developed
    chronic joint symptoms.
    Following vaccination in children, reactions in joints are uncommon and generally of brief duration. In
    women, incidence rates for arthritis and arthralgia are generally higher than those seen in children
    (children: 0-3%; women: 12-26%),{17,56,57} and the reactions tend to be more marked and of longer
    duration. Symptoms may persist for a matter of months or on rare occasions for years. In adolescent girls,
    the reactions appear to be intermediate in incidence between those seen in children and in adult women.
    Even in women older than 35 years, these reactions are generally well tolerated and rarely interfere with
    normal activities.
    Nervous System
    Encephalitis; encephalopathy; measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE) (see
    CONTRAINDICATIONS); subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE); Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS);
    acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM); transverse myelitis; febrile convulsions; afebrile
    convulsions or seizures; ataxia; polyneuritis; polyneuropathy; ocular palsies; paresthesia.
    Encephalitis and encephalopathy have been reported approximately once for every 3 million doses of
    M-M-R II or measles-, mumps-, and rubella-containing vaccine administered since licensure of these
    vaccines.
    The risk of serious neurological disorders following live measles virus vaccine administration remains
    less than the risk of encephalitis and encephalopathy following infection with wild-type measles (1 per
    1000 reported cases).{58,59}
    In severely immunocompromised individuals who have been inadvertently vaccinated with measlescontaining
    vaccine; measles inclusion body encephalitis, pneumonitis, and fatal outcome as a direct
    consequence of disseminated measles vaccine virus infection have been reported (see
    CONTRAINDICATIONS). In this population, disseminated mumps and rubella vaccine virus infection have
    also been reported.
    There have been reports of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) in children who did not have a
    history of infection with wild-type measles but did receive measles vaccine. Some of these cases may
    have resulted from unrecognized measles in the first year of life or possibly from the measles vaccination.
    Based on estimated nationwide measles vaccine distribution, the association of SSPE cases to measles
    vaccination is about one case per million vaccine doses distributed. This is far less than the association
    with infection with wild-type measles, 6-22 cases of SSPE per million cases of measles. The results of a
    retrospective case-controlled study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest
    that the overall effect of measles vaccine has been to protect against SSPE by preventing measles with its
    inherent higher risk of SSPE.{60}
    Cases of aseptic meningitis have been reported to VAERS following measles, mumps, and rubella
    vaccination. Although a causal relationship between the Urabe strain of mumps vaccine and aseptic
    meningitis has been shown, there is no evidence to link Jeryl Lynn™ mumps vaccine to aseptic
    meningitis.
    Respiratory System
    Pneumonia; pneumonitis (see CONTRAINDICATIONS); sore throat; cough; rhinitis.
    Skin
    Stevens-Johnson syndrome; erythema multiforme; urticaria; rash; measles-like rash; pruritis.
    Local reactions including burning/stinging at injection site; wheal and flare; redness (erythema);
    swelling; induration; tenderness; vesiculation at injection site; Henoch-Schönlein purpura; acute
    hemorrhagic edema of infancy.
    Special Senses — Ear
    Nerve deafness; otitis media.
    Special Senses — Eye
    Retinitis; optic neuritis; papillitis; retrobulbar neuritis; conjunctivitis.

    Urogenital System
    Epididymitis; orchitis.
    Other
    Death from various, and in some cases unknown, causes has been reported rarely following
    vaccination with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines; however, a causal relationship has not been
    established in healthy individuals (see CONTRAINDICATIONS). No deaths or permanent sequelae were
    reported in a published post-marketing surveillance study in Finland involving 1.5 million children and
    adults who were vaccinated with M-M-R II during 1982 to 1993.{61}
    Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, health-care providers and manufacturers are
    required to record and report certain suspected adverse events occurring within specific time periods after
    vaccination. However, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has established a
    Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) which will accept all reports of suspected events.{49}
    A VAERS report form as well as information regarding reporting requirements can be obtained by calling
    VAERS 1-800-822-7967.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 8:07am

      Re: Package Inserts

      Cool. Just like every medication, vaccines have a list of possible issues associated with them, to be taken into account with your doctor (not some random blogger) when deciding what's medically best.

      Now, compare that to this:

      https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/measles/complications/

      Common complications
      More common complications of measles include:

      diarrhoea and vomiting, which can lead to dehydration
      middle ear infection (otitis media), which can cause earache
      eye infection (conjunctivitis)
      inflammation of the voice box (laryngitis)
      infections of the airways and lungs (such as pneumonia, bronchitis and croup)
      fits caused by a fever (febrile seizures)
      Uncommon complications
      Less common complications of measles include:

      liver infection (hepatitis)
      misalignment of the eyes (squint) if the virus affects the nerves and muscles of the eye
      infection of the membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord (meningitis) or infection of the brain itself (encephalitis)
      Rare complications
      In rare cases, measles can lead to:

      serious eye disorders, such as an infection of the optic nerve, the nerve that transmits information from the eye to the brain (this is known as optic neuritis and can lead to vision loss)
      heart and nervous system problems
      a fatal brain complication known as subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), which can occur several years after measles (this is very rare, occurring in only 1 in every 25,000 cases)
      Measles in pregnancy
      If you're not immune to measles and become infected while you're pregnant, there's a risk of:

      miscarriage or stillbirth
      your baby being born prematurely (before the 37th week of pregnancy)
      your baby having a low birth weight
      If you're pregnant and think you have come into contact with someone with measles and you know you're not immune, you should see your GP as soon as possible.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 8:23am

      Re: Package Inserts

      There is beginning to be a problem with your suggestion.

      Google:

      california vaccine medical exemptions doctors

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 8:39am

        Re: Re: Package Inserts

        https://www.cdc.gov/measles/hcp/index.html

        Treatment

        There is no specific antiviral therapy for measles. Medical care is supportive and to help relieve symptoms and address complications such as bacterial infections.

        Severe measles cases among children, such as those who are hospitalized, should be treated with vitamin A. Vitamin A should be administered immediately on diagnosis and repeated the next day.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 7:01pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Or, you can get vaccinated against measles and never get it in the first place. Sounds like a much better option to me.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 6:38am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            People are afraid of the side effects, and there is no motivation for the drug companies to make them safer.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 1:28pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              People are afraid of the side effects

              And I'm afraid of spiders, yet the vast majority of them are harmless to me and actually help control the local mosquito population. Just because people are afraid of something doesn't mean anything other than they are afraid of it. People are afraid of vaccines for no good reason.

              there is no motivation for the drug companies to make them safer.

              Uh, yeah, there is. It's called "losing a lot of money" otherwise. If the vaccines aren't relatively safe then A) they won't get approved by the FDA to begin with, B) they will get fined and/or shut down by the FDA, and C) they will be subject to a class action lawsuit and/or criminal investigation costing them, at best, millions or billions of dollars, and at worst criminal charges and going to jail. They have PLENTY of incentive to make them as safe as possible. If they aren't at least reasonably safe, why hasn't the entire vaccinated population of America (hell, the world) dropped dead yet?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 2:23pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                " C) they will be subject to a class action lawsuit and/or criminal investigation"

                Nobody can sue the drug companies - Pay attention.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 5:50pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Nobody can sue the drug companies

                  Yes, they can. Especially if they have evidence they were harmed by the drug companies. What on earth gave you the idea they were immune to lawsuits? I can cite several if you want proof.

                  Pay attention.

                  I was. Obviously you were not.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2019 @ 1:27pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "Nobody can sue the drug companies

                    Yes, they can. Especially if they have evidence they were harmed by the drug companies."

                    You cannot sue a drug company for a vaccine injury.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program

                    The Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, popularly known as "vaccine court", administers a no-fault system for litigating vaccine injury claims. These claims against vaccine manufacturers cannot normally be filed in state or federal civil courts, but instead must be heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, sitting without a jury.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruesewitz_v._Wyeth

                    Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, 562 U.S. 223 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case that decided whether a section of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 preempts all vaccine design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2019 @ 5:19pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      You cannot sue a drug company for a vaccine injury.

                      That's because vaccines do not, by themselves, cause injury.

                      Regardless of that, if vaccine makers are found to be deliberately not taking proper precautions to make sure the vaccines they produce are safe and do not contain too high levels of impurities, they ABSOLUTELY can be sued because that's deliberate intent and against the law.

                      The FDA can also sue them for negligence and fine them and/or shut them down. Drug companies are in no way immune to lawsuits.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 9:00pm

          Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

          So, there is no medical treatment for measles after you get it, meaning it’s very hard if not impossible to cure. Furthermore, measles can cause additional complications and can be very severe.

          By contrast, in addition to many being mild, the side effects from the vaccine for measles are pretty easy to treat and almost never have long-term effects. In addition, it prevents measles, thus getting the vaccine all but ensures the previous issues will never come up.

          So basically, get the vaccine.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 6:41am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

            Are you a doctor?

            People are afraid of the vaccine.
            People have applied for compensation for injuries from the Vaccine Court.
            They don't trust the ingredients, safety studies, reporting of side effects, and the fact that the doctors don't inform people of the side effects before they are given.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 1:35pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Are you a doctor?

              Why does it matter?

              People are afraid of the vaccine.

              Irrelevant. Nobody cares. People are scared of all kinds of stuff. A lot of which is harmless.

              People have applied for compensation for injuries from the Vaccine Court.

              Also irrelevant. Many have been denied compensation due to lack of evidence that vaccines caused the injuries.

              They don't trust the ingredients, safety studies, reporting of side effects,

              That just means they are a bunch of uneducated idiots. You are more likely to die in car crash than you are to have any negative side effects from getting vaccinated. Yet people aren't screaming their heads off that we should junk all the cars and go back to the horse and buggy days. (Well, maybe the Amish.)

              the fact that the doctors don't inform people of the side effects before they are given.

              This is blatantly false. It is required by law that doctors inform patients of the side effects before administering any vaccine. They even give you a fact sheet that has all the side effects listed on it before sticking you. And generally doctors aren't the ones giving you the vaccines, it's nurses.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 2:25pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "It is required by law that doctors inform patients of the side effects before administering any vaccine."

                False

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 5:04pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

              Are you a doctor?

              I’m an autistic person who has been vaccinated. You could say that I have experience from the other side of the equation. But unless you are a doctor, I don’t see how that’s remotely relevant.

              People are afraid of the vaccine.

              That fear is irrational, as I’ve already explained.

              People have applied for compensation for injuries from the Vaccine Court.

              Well, that doesn’t actually matter unless they actually won compensation. Any moron on the street could apply for compensation for injuries from vaccines. That doesn’t mean that their claims have any merit.

              They don't trust the ingredients, safety studies, reporting of side effects, and the fact that the doctors don't inform people of the side effects before they are given.

              That really says more about them than the vaccines. If they don’t trust any of those, I’m not sure what to tell them. It doesn’t sound like they’d trust any evidence that doesn’t conform with their preconceived notions. But that’s not my problem.

              As for the bit about doctors not informing people of the side effects, that is either a lie or, if true, grounds for a lawsuit. Doctors are required to inform their patients of any side effects of any medications they administer, including vaccines, beforehand by law and under medical ethics.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 2:27pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

                "Any moron on the street could apply for compensation for injuries from vaccines."

                False - There is a Statute of Limitations and you have to find a lawyer who is willing to take the case.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 6:14pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  False - There is a Statute of Limitations and you have to find a lawyer who is willing to take the case.

                  Actually, you can represent yourself, not that you should, but there are plenty of lawyers willing to take such a case, unfortunately. Also, the statute of limitations is kind of irrelevant if the moron on the street brings the case within the statute of limitations.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  bhull242 (profile), 4 Nov 2019 @ 2:39pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

                  Uhhh… that doesn’t actually refute what I just said.

                  False - There is a Statute of Limitations

                  The statute of limitations doesn’t impose any restrictions on who can apply for compensation; only when they can do so. Even a moron on the street can apply for compensation within the statute of limitations.

                  Plus, I said that anyone can apply for compensation. I never said anything about how successful the application would be. In other words, my statement could be read to include anyone who could apply for compensation, regardless of whether or not the application has any merit whatsoever, including cases where the alleged wrong falls outside the statute of limitations.

                  and you have to find a lawyer who is willing to take the case.

                  First, they could file their claim pro se, without a lawyer. True, a claim filed pro se is substantially less likely to succeed, but again, my statement says nothing about the likelihood of success. All that matters is that the claim could be filed, not whether or not the claimant would win.

                  Second, as we’ve seen in many cases reported on this site, even a moron on the street can get a lawyer willing to take the case, even if the case has no merit.

                  Look, I was addressing this particular claim:

                  People have applied for compensation for injuries from the Vaccine Court.

                  This statement says nothing about whether the applications were filed with a lawyer or pro se, whether or not they were within the statute of limitations, whether or not they were otherwise deficient on their face, whether or not the claimed injuries were proven or not, or whether or not causation was proven or not. In other words, you said nothing about their success or likelihood of success, or even anything about the merits of the applications. You may have tried to use it as evidence that vaccines cause injuries, but if so, that is simply insufficient. (You also said nothing about how numerous these applications are.)

                  To demonstrate the insufficiency of the statement (which you offer no evidence for, but it’s probably true), I said:

                  Well, that doesn’t actually matter unless they actually won compensation. Any moron on the street could apply for compensation for injuries from vaccines. That doesn’t mean that their claims have any merit.

                  Your response doesn’t address this point, really. While failing to apply within the statute of limitations or not having a lawyer to represent the claimant may suggest that the claim has little or no chance to succeed, that only proves my point. Your original statement did not exclude people with little to no chance to succeed. People can file a claim that has absolutely no chance to succeed.

                  Your original statement would still be accurate even if exactly two people have applied for compensation for alleged injuries allegedly caused by vaccines, neither of whom had a lawyer, both filed outside the statute of limitations, neither of whom had actually suffered any injury from any cause whatsoever, neither of whom had ever actually been vaccinated, and neither of whom prevailed. It is extremely broad and completely meaningless.

                  But fine. Let’s restrict the applicable cases to those filed with a lawyer within the statute of limitations. That still doesn’t disprove my main point. Sure, maybe not just any moron on the street would be able to file an application that falls within these restrictions, but that doesn’t raise the bar much higher than that.

                  Even under these new conditions, the statement would still be true if at least two people applied for compensation for alleged injuries allegedly caused by a vaccine, had at least one lawyer representing them (it could be the same lawyer for each), and filed within the statute of limitations, even if none actually suffered any injury at all from any source whatsoever, if none had ever been vaccinated at any point in their lives, and/or the alleged injuries were not or could not possibly be caused by any vaccine or the particular vaccine at issue. It’s also still true even if every petitioner lost on every claim.

                  That’s not enough to prove that there are people who have been injured by vaccines. That’s not even enough to prove that there are people who think they have been injured by vaccines. It certainly doesn’t prove that the harm caused by vaccines matches or exceeds the benefits of being vaccinated by any measure.

                  To be clear, this particular comment is not saying anything about the actual truth or falsehood of any particular claim or allegation. I am sure that there exists at least one person out there who was genuinely injured by a vaccine, where compensation was sought and obtained for that injury. All that I’m saying is that, even if I accept everything you’re saying as true, without more, this particular claim is completely and utterly meaningless. There are few conceivable and/or possible scenarios where that statement would be false. It proves essentially nothing.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 2:27pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

                "Doctors are required to inform their patients of any side effects of any medications they administer, including vaccines"

                False

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Toom1275 (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 8:45am

        Re: Re: Package Inserts

        Result found: Grossly negligent and corrupt "Doctor" Tara Zanvliet now facong punishment for selling fraudulent exemptions to trash.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 9:51am

          Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

          The micromanagement of doctors and medical exemptions by the state is causing problems.

          Google: "Thorn Schwartz" vaccines

          Thorn Schwartz, 11, who is severely autistic, is not allowed to go to school anymore, according to his parents. That’s because his school district. The family is now suing the school and the state commissioner of health.

          In June after an outbreak of measles, ... in ... New York City, the state repealed the religious exemption for vaccines. But lawmakers said they didn’t change the medical exemption. The Schwartz family wants state Supreme Court to suspend the denial so Thorn can go back to school...

          On Sept. 9, the Schwartzes got a letter from the school principal that said the BOCES doctor reviewed Thorn’s exemption and ruled it is “not consistent” with guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control...

          “I also object,” writes Kerri, “to a doctor who does not know Thorn being able to decide what his body can or cannot tolerate, or what is in his best interest medically... There is no way a doctor who has never met Thorn or at least talked with Dr. Ostrander can make a decision about the effect that vaccines could have on Thorn.”
          ...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Gary (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 10:00am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

            Google: "Thorn Schwartz" vaccines

            Funny how you leave out the part that there is no actual medical reason preventing Thorn from being vaccinated against measles.

            "His parents feel it might be a bad idea" is not a medical opinion.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 11:59am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

            "The micromanagement of doctors and medical exemptions by the state "

            Never mind the micromanagement by the fed and insurance cos.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Toom1275 (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 1:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

            [Asserts facts not in evidence]

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Toom1275 (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 1:15pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

            Funny,

            a doctor who does not know [patoent] being able to decide what his body can or cannot tolerate, or what is in his best interest medically... There is no way a doctor who has never met Thorn or at least talked with [Quack] can make a decision about the effect that vaccines could have on [Patient]”

            Pretty much sums up Ms. Zandvliet's gross negligence - granting phony exemptions to patients she never examined and all.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Toom1275 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 9:26am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

              "Immunocompromised" amd "Has had severe allergic reaction to components used in a vaccine" are on the list of medically valid reasons to offer an exemption from vaccinations.

              "Her father's half-brother has asthma"
              "She's had been vaccinated with no ill effect"
              "He has autism"
              "Her parents paid me $180 in cash"

              (All are real antivaxxer excuses) Are notably absent from that list.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 3:48pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

            What, is he going to get more autism?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            bhull242 (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 9:14pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

            Well, if the medical reasons given did not include “allergic reaction to vaccines” or “immune deficiency” or something like that, then there is absolutely no medical reason not to get the vaccine.

            If there is a legitimate medical reason that Thorn should not take the vaccine, that should have been included in the form for his exemption. That is, the form should have included all the information needed for a doctor who has not personally met Thorn or spoken to his doctor to independently determine that, based on the guidelines from the CDC, Thorn should not be vaccinated. If the reasons given are not consistent with CDC guidelines to exempt someone from vaccines, then the child isn’t exempt. The burden of proof is on the parents/doctor to prove that a vaccination would be likely be more harm than help for the child, and the reasons have to be consistent with science-based medical knowledge.

            And by the way, “severe autism” is not a good reason not to get vaccinated. There is no link between vaccines and autism. Plus, I’m pretty sure the theory was that vaccines cause autism. Even if that was true (and it absolutely is not), why would that mean that a person who already has autism shouldn’t be vaccinated?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 2:43pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

              "there is absolutely no medical reason not to get the vaccine."

              Are you a doctor?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Toom1275 (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 2:51pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

                One need not be a doctor to share facts from them.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                bhull242 (profile), 4 Nov 2019 @ 2:47pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

                Irrelevant. I am merely stating what doctors and researchers have said. The only medical reasons to not get vaccinated are immune-deficiency and allergies, as those are the only cases where vaccines have ever been shown to cause any injury that is severe, long-lasting, or both, and the only known causes for an increase in either the chance or severity of adverse effects from vaccines that can be predetermined.

                Perhaps you don’t believe me. You want proof. Well, here’s the thing: I am not making a positive claim. If you want to argue about my point, then you’ll have to prove that there is another valid medical reason to not get vaccinated. You have the burden of proof here. If I’m wrong, then it shouldn’t be that hard to prove me wrong. Just find one other medical reason that would be a valid reason to not get vaccinated.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                bhull242 (profile), 4 Nov 2019 @ 2:52pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

                Oh, and by the way, I like how you trimmed that quote to suggest that I said that there is absolutely no medical reason to not get vaccinated, when the entire quote would show that I’m saying that the only valid medical reasons to not get vaccinated are if you’re allergic or have an immune deficiency:

                Well, if the medical reasons given did not include “allergic reaction to vaccines” or “immune deficiency” or something like that, then there is absolutely no medical reason not to get the vaccine.

                (BTW, that also would include a family history of allergic reactions to the vaccine or one of its ingredients. That would also be a valid medical reason, and it falls within my statement, or at least that was my intention. After all, that would suggest a strong likelihood that the person would also have an allergic reaction to that vaccine.)

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Toom1275 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 9:17am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

            The micromanagement of doctors and medical exemptions by the state is causing problems.

            Notwithstanding that "The micromanagement of doctors and medical exemptions by the state" has yet to exist, all the following text works to disprove that claim...

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 2:44pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

              Huh?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Toom1275 (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 2:50pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                bhull242 (profile), 4 Nov 2019 @ 2:59pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

                Toom1275 is saying two things about your claim that “micromanagement of doctors and medical exemptions by the state is causing problems.”

                1) The implied claim that the state micromanages doctors and medical exemptions is false.

                2) Everything else you said in that comment, presumably in order to prove your claim, actually refutes your claim.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 6:55am

          Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

          People who have had adverse reactions to vaccines naturally seek doctors who will give out medical exemptions because they specialize in treating the vaccine injured. Since California abolished philosophical and religious exemptions, more people have sought medical exemptions. Many don't want to actually wait until they are vaccine damaged in order to get medical exemptions. If one child in the family has been damaged, they don't want to risk having another child damaged.

          If I saw a lot of damaged children around me, I wouldn't want to wait until my child became damaged and then seek a medical exemption. I would want to prevent damages and get a medical exemption BEFORE my child was damaged. Wouldn't you?

          And if a lot of doctors are afraid of giving out medical exemptions, then people who are afraid of side effects seek out doctors who are sympathetic to vaccine damaged children.

          In the California hearings, which can be seen on Del Bigtree's High Wire website, legislative delegates can be seen asking about getting medical exemptions, because the proposed legislation would arbitrarily target doctors who specialized in helping the vaccine injured.

          Someone called 50 doctors and asked if they would give medical exemptions, and all said, NO. So these vaccine injured can't even get medical exemptions for conditions under the CDC guidelines. So what are they supposed to do? Homeschool the children? This was brought up in the legislative hearing?

          So the problem that was anticipated has come true very quickly, as you can see from the articles. This doctor has been targeted, and it has a chilling effect on other doctors in the state.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 1:46pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            People who have had adverse reactions to vaccines naturally seek doctors who will give out medical exemptions because they specialize in treating the vaccine injured.

            All doctors can give out medical exemptions. They are just required to do it for valid medical reasons. If someone truly did have an adverse reaction to the vaccine, they would then receive an exemption from it. That is allowed by law. What's not allowed is "I don't want it! Nyah!".

            Since California abolished philosophical and religious exemptions, more people have sought medical exemptions.

            But not for valid medical reasons.

            If one child in the family has been damaged, they don't want to risk having another child damaged.

            If they can provide evidence that their other children would also be damaged by receiving the vaccine then they can get a valid medical exemption. If not, too bad so sad.

            If I saw a lot of damaged children around me, I wouldn't want to wait until my child became damaged and then seek a medical exemption. I would want to prevent damages and get a medical exemption BEFORE my child was damaged. Wouldn't you?

            I would. But I don't see a lot of damaged children around me, or in the country in general. Can you point out these high numbers of damaged children that seem to be invisible?

            And if a lot of doctors are afraid of giving out medical exemptions, then people who are afraid of side effects seek out doctors who are sympathetic to vaccine damaged children.

            Again, too bad so sad. Being afraid is not a legitimate excuse. You need to have actual physical evidence you or your child would be harmed by a vaccine.

            In the California hearings, which can be seen on Del Bigtree's High Wire website, legislative delegates can be seen asking about getting medical exemptions, because the proposed legislation would arbitrarily target doctors who specialized in helping the vaccine injured.

            Yes, because in most cases those injuries were not caused by vaccines and were instead caused by other factors.

            Someone called 50 doctors and asked if they would give medical exemptions, and all said, NO.

            Probably because they all prefaced their questions with "I'm afraid of vaccines".

            So these vaccine injured can't even get medical exemptions for conditions under the CDC guidelines.

            This is blatantly false. BY LAW doctors, even under the new rules in California, are required to give out medical exemptions if they have good reason to believe the person receiving the vaccine would have a severe adverse reaction to it.

            So what are they supposed to do? Homeschool the children? This was brought up in the legislative hearing?

            That is a legitimate option, yes. Or just get the vaccine. There are cases where a child's immune system is so compromised that they cannot receive a vaccine. In those cases their immune system is so fragile that even catching a cold from another child could kill them. In those cases their parents have to be super careful and actually do homeschool them to limit their exposure. This is a valid reason to be exempted from vaccines.

            So the problem that was anticipated has come true very quickly, as you can see from the articles.

            No, it hasn't, as I've explained. You're just making stuff up and using questionable sources to make your point.

            This doctor has been targeted, and it has a chilling effect on other doctors in the state.

            Which doctor was that? Seers? The guy who got suspended because of malpractice? I have no sympathy.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 3:08pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "BY LAW doctors, even under the new rules in California, are required to give out medical exemptions if they have good reason to believe the person receiving the vaccine would have a severe adverse reaction to it."

              Please document this.

              There was a video going around, referenced in the CA legislative hearings, where a woman called 50 CA doctors asking if they gave medical exemptions for vaccines, and they all said, No.

              If you find a doctor in CA who gives medical exemptions, please let me know his name. I am looking for one.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 3:42pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I don't see anything in the CA law that says a physician has to give any medical exemptions to anybody.

                Why would they want to - they would be flagged after giving 5 for an entire year. And if they were second-guessed by the system 5 times, then would be busted.

                The news is already full of doctors being rounded up and persecuted, just in the last few weeks.

                So if you have an at-risk child you can either have them vaccinated and play Russian roulette on whether they will have a seizure and die after being shot up - again - or you can keep them home from school.

                https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB276

                SB-276 Immunizations: medical exemptions.(2019-2020)

                (2) A clinically trained immunization department staff member, who is either a physician and surgeon or a registered nurse, shall review all medical exemptions from any of the following:
                ...
                (B) Physicians and surgeons who have submitted five or more medical exemptions in a calendar year.
                ...
                (7) The department shall notify the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, as appropriate, of any physician and surgeon who has five or more medical exemption forms in a calendar year that are revoked pursuant to this subdivision.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Toom1275 (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 3:44pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  The news is already full of doctors being rounded up and persecuted, just in the last few weeks.
                  So if you have an at-risk child you can either have them vaccinated and play Russian roulette on whether they will have a seizure and die after being shot up - again - or you can keep them home from school.

                  [Asserts facts not in evidence]

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  nasch (profile), 4 Nov 2019 @ 6:02am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  The department shall notify the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, as appropriate, of any physician and surgeon who has five or more medical exemption forms in a calendar year that are revoked pursuant to this subdivision.

                  Funny, you left out that part earlier. I wonder why.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  bhull242 (profile), 4 Nov 2019 @ 3:49pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I don't see anything in the CA law that says a physician has to give any medical exemptions to anybody.

                  No one is saying that they are required to issue a medical exemption. We’re just saying that they can.

                  Why would they want to - they would be flagged after giving 5 for an entire year. And if they were second-guessed by the system 5 times, then [they] would be busted.

                  This is presumably based on what you later quote from that law allowing exemptions:

                  (2) A clinically trained immunization department staff member, who is either a physician and surgeon or a registered nurse, shall review all medical exemptions from any of the following:
                  ...
                  (B) Physicians and surgeons who have submitted five or more medical exemptions in a calendar year.
                  ...
                  (7) The department shall notify the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, as appropriate, of any physician and surgeon who has five or more medical exemption forms in a calendar year that are revoked pursuant to this subdivision.

                  Except that that would only be a problem if the doctor is handing out at least five exemptions in a single year, at least five of which were found to be invalid and were revoked. So long as the doctor only issues exemptions for valid medical reasons, they have nothing to worry about.

                  In fact, because cases where there is a valid medical reason for not getting a vaccine are rare and most people get vaccinated at most once per year in most years (even if that one time includes multiple vaccines; that could be covered under a single exemption), most doctors wouldn’t ever have a reason to submit five or more medical exemptions in a single year unless they were submitting at least one invalid one that should be revoked. So actually, it makes perfect sense to give doctors who have submitted five or more exemptions over the course of a single year should receive increased scrutiny.

                  Furthermore, in order for an exemption to be revoked, not only would certain conditions have to be met for the exemption to be reviewed in the first place, but also the exemption would have to be for a nonmedical reason, for a medical reason that does not adequately support an exemption, or for a valid medical reason that is shown to not apply to the patient (this particular one is harder to prove).

                  So any doctor with one or more patients who have a valid medical reason to not get vaccinated have no good reason not to issue an exemption to such patients. This is especially true for the first four patients. Any doctor who submits five or more medical exemptions in one year should be scrutinized, and any doctor who submits five or more medical exemptions within one year that have been revoked should be busted for it. The former suggests that something unusual is going on, and the latter suggests that the doctor is willing to issue medical exemptions to people who don’t actually need them. And as for “being busted”, that just means the appropriate medical board will be notified about the doctor’s actions; if there is no actual wrongdoing, nothing is keeping the board from taking no action against that doctor.

                  Contrary to what you said, merely being second-guessed five or more times in a year isn’t enough to get busted; their exemptions would have to actually be revoked, not just get re-examined.

                  The news is already full of doctors being rounded up and persecuted, just in the last few weeks.

                  Show us, then. I’d bet that in all of those cases, the doctors issued exemptions for nonmedical reasons, invalid medical reasons, or valid medical reasons that simply don’t apply to that patient.

                  So if you have an at-risk child you can either have them vaccinated and play Russian roulette on whether they will have a seizure and die after being shot up - again -

                  First of all, only those who have a severe allergy to one or more of the ingredients of a vaccine are going to have a seizure and die from getting that vaccine; even those with immune deficiencies aren’t going to get a seizure from the vaccine; they’ll just get a disease or something (not that that’s not serious or potentially deadly or anything). If they survived getting that same vaccine before despite having had a severe allergic reaction to it, only a truly incompetent or unethical doctor would refuse to issue a medical exemption to that patient.

                  In fact, if a person has had the same vaccine before, has not acquired an immune deficiency since then, and has survived long enough to get the vaccine again, then unless that person had a major adverse reaction the first time, that person has nothing to worry about. If they had such a reaction the first time, then any competent, ethical doctor would be willing to issue a medical exemption for that person, and that exemption would not be revoked. If they had acquired an immune deficiency since then and are aware of it, then that should be in the medical record and an exemption should be issued by a doctor prior to the second vaccination.

                  In other words, if a child is legitimately at risk of having a severe adverse reaction to a given vaccine and a doctor is made aware of it, that doctor should be able to do tests to safely prove that the child is at-risk and issue a medical exemption for that child to not receive that vaccine. If a parent genuinely knows that their child is at-risk, and the reason is valid, then they should have absolutely no problem getting a medical exemption from a doctor, and that exemption will not be revoked.

                  or you can keep them home from school.

                  This is a perfectly valid option. In fact, children who are at-risk because they have an immune deficiency probably should be kept home from school, anyway.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 6:22pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Please document this.

                Ok: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/about/facts-vis.html

                There was a video going around, referenced in the CA legislative hearings, where a woman called 50 CA doctors asking if they gave medical exemptions for vaccines, and they all said, No.

                Yeah, because she was looking for INVALID medical exemptions. In other words, she was trying to find someone who would giver her a fake medical exemption when none was warranted. Medical exemptions are still a thing in California

                If you find a doctor in CA who gives medical exemptions, please let me know his name. I am looking for one.

                Here you go. However, I would expect you will have to prove that you or your child has a pre-existing medical condition that would make it dangerous for either of you to receive a vaccination and not just a personal belief based on false facts and quack science.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 5:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts

            I’ll keep this one brief. There are very, very few valid medical reasons that would justify a medical exemption from getting a vaccine as required by the law to enter a public school. In most of those case, this would be because their immune system is incredibly weak, so they probably shouldn’t attend a public school anyway.

            If you can’t get an exemption, and you’re unwilling to get your child vaccinated, then yes, homeschooling is a perfectly reasonable option.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 8:15am

    Del Bigtree and High Wire

    Del Bigtree has a website called High Wire where anti-vaxers can go instead of going to Facebook and Pinterest or Techdirt.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 8:35am

    Thing is, should we settle for medicines that can as likely harm us as help us? And why does no one seem to question the idea that only a drug can treat a disease? Especially when the suppliers of such drugs financially benefit from that assumption and cannot benefit from any possible non-drug treatments that could work just as well, if not better.

    For all the talk of kids being harmed by not being vaccinated, no one in this thread has provided any examples of it actually happening. Another question. How many of you know how these diseases they're meant to prevent are actually contracted? Some require very specific circumstances that most people will never come into contact with. And how many people who administer vaccines actually know what's in them? How many of you do? Why do you trust the word of large drug companies who financially benefit from these things? And how do you explain the general healthiness of the Amish, who don't typically vaccinate?

    And don't go talking about otherwording, these are actual questions, and they deserve to be answered. I'm open to learning more, but these are things I wondered about and which no one seems to address when this topic comes up. They seem to simply assume the majority opinion is correct without doing their own research.

    One more question. When was the last time allopathic medicine cured anything? And if the drug companies are so concerned about us, why has medicine devolved to simple symptom management? It's more profitable than actually curing people, because healthy people don't need drugs, only sick or supposedly sick people do. So why should we trust an industry that prioritizes their profits over helping people even if it means earning less money?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 8:37am

      Re:

      [AntivaxC provodes no facts in their Complaint to support their contentions]

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 6:56am

        Re: Re:

        What are you talking about?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 5:25pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Our AC here (to whom Toom1275 has assigned the moniker “AntivaxC”) has made a number of claims, but has offered no factual support for any of them. Toom1275 is just pointing that out.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Toom1275 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 6:24pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            It's the perennial low-hanging fruit I've taken to picking on when bored.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 3:47pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Are you an administrator of this website who is authorized to make decisions that mere mortals cannot do?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Toom1275 (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 3:53pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Are you convinced that your arguments comprosed entirely of nonsequiturs, red herrings, and nearly every other form of logical fallacy would be convincing to anyone with functioning cognition?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                bhull242 (profile), 4 Nov 2019 @ 3:53pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Are you an administrator of this website

                Completely irrelevant.

                who is authorized to make decisions that mere mortals cannot do?

                So “mere mortals” are incapable of deciding that someone fails to support their claim or to give someone a funny and/or insulting nickname? People need authorization to do those things? I’m afraid I don’t see the problem here.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 9:15am

      Re:

      "And why does no one seem to question the idea that only a drug can treat a disease?"

      Because we understand how vaccines actually work.

      "For all the talk of kids being harmed by not being vaccinated, no one in this thread has provided any examples of it actually happening."

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2019/04/29/measles-is-back-blame-the-an ti-vax-movement/

      "And how do you explain the general healthiness of the Amish, who don't typically vaccinate?"

      https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-amish-dont-get-autism/

      Also, even if it was true:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

      "these are actual questions"

      Which have been answered ad nauseum every time one of you uneducated idiots ask them instead of looking for the actual answers.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 10:17am

      Re:

      For all the talk of kids being harmed by not being vaccinated, no one in this thread has provided any examples of it actually happening.

      You have to go back a good few generations to see the effects of no vaccinations, or wait for a major disease outbreak due to the loss of herd immunity.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 10:27am

      Re:

      "Thing is, should we settle for medicines that can as likely harm us as help us?"

      Absolutely not. However in the case of vaccinations, we know for a fact that this is not the case, there is overwhelming evidence that vaccines do much much more good than harm. And even your framing of the question is intellectually dishonest. You are a bad person and should be ashamed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 2:13pm

      Re:

      should we settle for medicines that can as likely harm us as help us?

      The current vaccination rate in America is, what, somewhere around 85%-90%? It used to be higher. By your logic, if vaccines have a 50/50 chance of either preventing disease or causing further harm, then AT A MINIMUM, 45%-50% of the American population should have autism by now. They do not. Therefore we can conclude that vaccines are FAR more likely to have health benefits than causing further harm. (Also there are many studies showing the rate of side effects to be a tiny fraction.)

      And why does no one seem to question the idea that only a drug can treat a disease?

      Have you heard of anti-vaxxers and health nuts? Regardless of those nut jobs, vaccines do not treat a disease, they prevent it. There is currently no other way to prevent a disease other than to vaccinate against it. Treating a disease means you already have the disease and now you're trying to get rid of it, which is infinitely harder and usually more painful, physically and emotionally. I leave it to you to choose which of those two options are better.

      How many of you know how these diseases they're meant to prevent are actually contracted?

      All of us. Seriously, how the diseases spread and contracted are well documented. Are you saying you've been living under a rock for the last few decades?

      Some require very specific circumstances that most people will never come into contact with.

      Ebola maybe. Chicken pox, polio, measles, and others like them? Yeah everybody has a chance to encounter those on a daily basis and most of them are spread by skin-to-skin contact or by being airborne. Like measles. EXTREMELY contagious. You can catch it by walking into a room a contagious person was in 30 minutes ago.

      And how many people who administer vaccines actually know what's in them?

      Practically all of them, since most of them are medical professionals. But what does that have to do with anything? You don't have to know the specific chemical composition of a vaccine to inject it into somebody. You just need to know that the syringe contains the vaccine.

      How many of you do?

      Anyone who wants to. The ingredients and composition of vaccines are publicly available to anyone who wants to know.

      Why do you trust the word of large drug companies who financially benefit from these things?

      Because they are required to go through federally mandated testing for chemical composition and impurities to be certified for public use. Also several decades of use have shown that they are safe for the general public.

      And how do you explain the general healthiness of the Amish, who don't typically vaccinate?

      Well they do actually still get diseases and get sick, but even if they didn't: herd immunity and isolation.

      And don't go talking about otherwording, these are actual questions, and they deserve to be answered.

      They have been. Many times. But apparently you are just uneducated since you didn't know that.

      I'm open to learning more

      https://www.google.com

      but these are things I wondered about and which no one seems to address when this topic comes up.

      Then you either aren't actually reading the articles on the topic or live in an echo chamber, because they are addressed, constantly.

      They seem to simply assume the majority opinion is correct without doing their own research.

      Because the science was settled years ago. Are you going to argue that gravity isn't a real thing just because no one in the general public bothers to verify it for themselves?

      One more question.

      You asked three more.

      When was the last time allopathic medicine cured anything?

      Today, yesterday, the day before that, every single day for the last few thousand years. Any more stupid questions?

      And if the drug companies are so concerned about us, why has medicine devolved to simple symptom management?

      It hasn't. There are unfortunately some diseases (like Alzheimer's, MS, Crohn's, etc...) that we just don't understand enough about and about the human body to be able to cure them. The best we can do is manage symptoms. However, there are a LARGE amount of diseases that we can now cure and/or prevent through modern medicine.

      It's more profitable than actually curing people, because healthy people don't need drugs, only sick or supposedly sick people do.

      No one is saying some drug companies don't do this, but not all. However, if you think for one second that finding the cure to cancer would not make the first drug company to figure it out wealthier than ANY other company in the world, you are delusional.

      So why should we trust an industry that prioritizes their profits over helping people even if it means earning less money?

      You have made an assertion with zero facts to back it up and applied to every single company in said industry. One example proves you wrong. But regardless of this, NOBODY is trusting the drug industry. Nobody. People are trusting independent review and oversight agencies that decide whether the drugs these companies produce are safe for humans and can be publicly sold and administered. Your lack of knowledge of how this all works is telling.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 9:28am

      Re:

      Thing is, should we settle for medicines that can as likely harm us as help us?

      The only medications in general, approved use that would be as likely to inflict harm as to help us are used to treat diseases that are even worse. The most recent known exception was the overprescription of opioids, but that was an outlier.

      As for vaccines, I have never seen evidence that shows any vaccine is as likely to be harmful as it is to be helpful, and you present none.

      And why does no one seem to question the idea that only a drug can treat a disease?

      Simple. Any substance capable of treating a disease is, by definition, a drug.

      In all seriousness, we have a ton of scientific research on the topic done over the course of centuries. This has been a pretty well-settled question.

      For all the talk of kids being harmed by not being vaccinated, no one in this thread has provided any examples of it actually happening.

      Well, there have been the recent measles outbreaks.

      How many of you know how these diseases they're meant to prevent are actually contracted?

      Well, I already explained measles (which can be caught by just about every possible vector one could catch a disease) and polio (which spreads through contaminated food or water). HPV is an STD, so that means sex or a transfer of infected blood. Chicken pox and the flu are known to be highly contagious; the former spreads through skin contact, and the latter is airborne. How’s that?

      Some require very specific circumstances that most people will never come into contact with.

      The only one of those I can think of offhand is HPV, which can cause cancer. Unless the vaccine has a pretty high rate of inflicting serious, incurable harm, I’d say the benefits outweigh the risks.

      And how many people who administer vaccines actually know what's in them?

      I can’t say with absolute certainty, but I’d imagine any doctor worth their salt is aware of what’s in them.

      How many of you do?

      Well, it varies from vaccine to vaccine, but I believe that in general, there would be a preservative (like thiomersal), some sort harmless liquid like a saline solution, a sample of weakened and/or dead viruses, and maybe an immune booster.

      Of course, anyone who is concerned can always ask what the ingredients are.

      Why do you trust the word of large drug companies who financially benefit from these things?

      I don’t. Although I would like to point out that, since more money can be made from treating a disease than preventing it, the incentives aren’t quite what you think they are.

      I do trust the many researchers who’ve studied these vaccines and the diseases they’re meant to prevent. I trust the historical and scientific data and statistics, which show that, in general, the vaccines are far less dangerous than the diseases they are meant to prevent. I trust the FDA (though to a lesser extent) to ferret out the truly dangerous vaccines. I trust the CDC (again, to a lesser extent) to adequately way the risks rationally for the good of the public at large.

      And how do you explain the general healthiness of the Amish, who don't typically vaccinate?

      This has already been debunked, but to the extent that it is true, it can be explained by herd immunity and isolation.

      And don't go talking about otherwording, these are actual questions, and they deserve to be answered.

      And they have been. Many times.

      Also, since you haven’t exactly made a statement about what we believe, “otherwording” wouldn’t really apply.

      I'm open to learning more, but these are things I wondered about and which no one seems to address when this topic comes up.

      Either you weren’t really listening, or they had long gotten tired of answering the same question over and over and over again.

      When was the last time allopathic medicine cured anything?

      It happens all the time. It’s cured my strep throat and pneumonia on several occasions.

      And if the drug companies are so concerned about us, why has medicine devolved to simple symptom management? It's more profitable than actually curing people, because healthy people don't need drugs, only sick or supposedly sick people do. So why should we trust an industry that prioritizes their profits over helping people even if it means earning less money?

      I’d just like to point out that this contradicts the premise of an earlier question, and kinda contradicts itself. The industry “prioritizes their profits…even if it means earning less money“? Do I need to explain how nonsensical that sounds?

      As for why medicine has, in many cases, devolved into simple symptom management (an assertion with no evidence, BTW), you answered that yourself: it’s more profitable. I actually mention that in another answer. Also, some diseases simply don’t have a known cure, and we’d need some major advance in medicine to find one.

      At any rate, like I said, I don’t trust the drug companies. I certainly don’t expect you to, either.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 11:06am

        Re: Re:

        The industry “prioritizes their profits…even if it means earning less money“? Do I need to explain how nonsensical that sounds?

        I think that should be read as "an industry that prioritizes (their profits) over (helping people even if it means earning less money)".

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 8:38am

    Lol @ the shithead who thinks VAERS is proof that vaccines cause harm.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Thad (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 9:47am

      Re:

      Is JdL throwing another one of his pro-plague fits? I finally put him on my block list.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 7:12am

      Re:

      This CDC link describes the limitations of VAERS

      https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html

      This video demonstrates how to search VAERS data using CDC WONDER. You will also learn about the purpose of VAERS and strengths and limitations of VAERS data.


      It is only as good as it is used.
      If doctors don't report adverse events, then they are not on there.
      If the vaccine injured don't report adverse events, then they are not on there.

      If a child is vaccinated in the doctor's office and is treated in the emergency room with vaccine injuries, most ER doctors don't ask for a vaccine history, therefore they cannot report that the injuries were related to vaccines. And now doctors are telling parents that fever, vomiting, diarrhea, seizures, swelling of the brain, etc. are NORMAL side effects. Brain swelling causes the head to enlarge in babies and toddlers, and a substantial number of autistic children have enlarged heads. That is why people can spot autistic children years before they are diagnosed officially by professionals.

      Most parents don't know what the adverse events of vaccines are, nor are they informed by the doctors that there is even such a thing as VAERS, so how can they report injuries?

      And if the doctor says a vaccine injury is just a coincidence, then who are the injured children to say otherwise? Some that develop autism can't even speak.

      According to the local health department, there should be no injuries ever reported to VAERS, since all vaccines are safe, and any information on side effects listed in the packages inserts has to be suppressed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 1:55pm

        Re: Re:

        And now doctors are telling parents that fever, vomiting, diarrhea, seizures, swelling of the brain, etc. are NORMAL side effects.

        Most of those are NORMAL side effects of aspirin and other pain meds too. What's your point?

        Brain swelling causes the head to enlarge in babies and toddlers, and a substantial number of autistic children have enlarged heads. That is why people can spot autistic children years before they are diagnosed officially by professionals.

        There are a number of problems with your statement. You suggest that swelled heads means the child has autism. This is not true. There's a variety of conditions that cause brain or head swelling that do not result in autism. Correlation does not equal causation. Brain/head swelling is a POTENTIAL indicator of autism but not a sure fire diagnosis. Please don't go into medicine.

        Most parents don't know what the adverse events of vaccines are, nor are they informed by the doctors that there is even such a thing as VAERS, so how can they report injuries?

        Stop lying. Informing patients of potential side effects is required by law. If you know a doctor who is not doing this, report them to the authorities instead of whining about it on here.

        And if the doctor says a vaccine injury is just a coincidence, then who are the injured children to say otherwise? Some that develop autism can't even speak.

        Because the science just doesn't support it. And speaking is not the only way of communicating. As you are aptly demonstrating by typing on this blog.

        According to the local health department, there should be no injuries ever reported to VAERS, since all vaccines are safe,

        I don't recall any health department saying that, but that is more or less correct. Hot tip, people are sometimes idiots and liars and you can make a report without actually having been injured by it.

        any information on side effects listed in the packages inserts has to be suppressed.

        Why do you keep repeating this easily disproven lie? It's required BY LAW that patients be informed about side effects of vaccines.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 4:04pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "It's required BY LAW that patients be informed about side effects of vaccines."

          Please document.
          I don't see it in Virginia law.

          https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title12/agency5/chapter110/section100/

          12VAC5-110-100. Responsibilities of Physicians and Local Health Departments.

          A. Documentary proof for students immunized in Virginia. Every physician, registered nurse, and local health department providing immunizations to a child shall provide documentary proof, as defined in 12VAC5-110-10, to the child or his parent or guardian of all immunizations administered.

          https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title12/agency5/chapter110/section10/

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 4:37pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "I don't see it in Virginia law."

            idk - you might try federal law, FDA policy, court order, let us know - k?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 6:24pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Please document. I don't see it in Virginia law.

            Because it's in federal law, which trumps state law: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/about/facts-vis.html

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2019 @ 8:00pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Thank you so much for this link to the CDC .

              "Vaccine Information Statement"

              I never heard of it.
              All I knew about was the manufacturers package insert.

              What is the difference between them?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2019 @ 8:34pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Information Statements

                https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/about/vis-faqs.html

                CDC
                Q: Are VISs “informed consent” forms?
                A: No.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2019 @ 8:53pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Information Statement 2012

                Here is a 2012 Vaccine Information Statement for MMR.
                It gives percentages of risks.
                The 2018 and 2019 versions don't give the percentage of risks

                http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/vis/vis-mmr.pdf

                VACCINE INFORMATION STATEMENT
                2012

                Mild Problems
                • Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
                • Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
                • Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1
                person out of 75)
                If these problems occur, it is usually within 6-14 days
                after the shot. They occur less often after the second
                dose.

                Moderate Problems
                • Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1
                out of 3,000 doses)
                • Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in
                teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
                • Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a
                bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)

                Severe Problems (Very Rare)
                • Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million
                doses)
                • Several other severe problems have been reported
                after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:

                • Deafness
                • Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
                • Permanent brain damage
                  These are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they
                  are caused by the vaccine.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2019 @ 8:58pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Info. Statement MMR 2019

                  Here is the MMR Vaccine Information Statement for 2019 - for comparison.

                  https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/mmr.pdf

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2019 @ 10:33am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Info. Statement MMR 2019

                    The current Information Statement does not indicate the severity of the side effects.

                    Nor does it indicate the longevity of the side effects.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2019 @ 2:35pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Info. Statement MMR

                      The Vaccine Information Statement does not include the ingredients of the vaccines, such as MRC-5 cells.

                      https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2019 @ 6:33pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Irrelevant.

                        The ingredients are publicly available. If people are that concerned about what's in them they can look them up. Most people are content with the knowledge that vaccines have been studied for decades and rigorously tested for safety and effectiveness. The exact specifics are of no use to them personally as most people don't have the knowledge and expertise to understand them. Most don't even know what MRC-5 cells even are, or that they even exist.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2019 @ 6:29pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Irrelevant. People don't need to be told the exact percentages. If they are that worried about it they can look it up as it is publicly available. Or ask their doctor.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  nasch (profile), 5 Nov 2019 @ 7:34am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Information Statement 2012

                  So now you can see that they're extremely safe, right?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  bhull242 (profile), 5 Nov 2019 @ 10:10am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Information Statement 2012

                  I’m not sure what your point is. Seems to me like clear evidence that vaccines are pretty darn safe.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2019 @ 6:28pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  This is completely irrelevant. The majority of the side effects are mild and go away within a few days to at most a couple week. You have a higher chance of getting adverse side effects from taking aspirin or ibuprofen.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2019 @ 6:22pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Thank you so much for this link to the CDC

                You're welcome.

                I never heard of it.

                That is surprising seeing as how they are mandated by law to be given to patients prior to receiving a vaccine. Also, it's on a public agency website. If you didn't know it existed, I have to question how much research into vaccines you've actually done.

                What is the difference between them?

                Irrelevant. The data used to construct each comes from the same place: scientific studies.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            bhull242 (profile), 4 Nov 2019 @ 3:56pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I don't see it in Virginia law.

            Others have already pointed out that we’re dealing with federal law here, which has been provided. I just want to ask, why did you look only at Virginia law, specifically? Why that specific state?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 9:03am

    Support groups for Vaccine Injuries

    Google: support group vaccine injuries

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/VaccineInjuryStories/

    National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_adverse_event

    Children's Health Defense

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 9:16am

      Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries

      Google: why do antivaxxers keep bringing up the same idiotic debunked talking points?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 9:27am

        Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 9:44am

          Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries

          [Asserts facts not in evidence]

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 12:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries

            Yet you provide none none of your own. And Paul, you say they're debunked, but you haven't addressed a single one of them or said how they have been. Being unable to back up your assertion defeats your argument. All I did was ask questions, not say anything for certain, and I get attacked for it. How is that right?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 12:31pm

              You made the claim. You must offer the evidence. Don’t get pissy when people apply Hitchens’s Razor to your claim: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 2:26am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries

              "And Paul, you say they're debunked, but you haven't addressed a single one of them or said how they have been"

              Yes, if you ignore the mountains of evidence and everything I've said, nothing has been debunked. How convenient...

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 12:02pm

          Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries

          ... and they think there is no other explanation.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 2:25am

          Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries

          "Because they have to live with damaged children."

          So do the parents of children damaged by measles and other preventable diseases. Where's their fund?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 7:18am

        Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries

        How dare you belittle families whose child died from vaccines, and call their heart wrenching stories "idiotic debunked talking points" !!

        This is one that was shared on Facebook vaccine injuries site a week ago.

        https://www.stopmandatoryvaccination.com/parent/vaccine-injury/two-month-vaccines-kill-infant-c ps-takes-other-children-mom-stops-all-vaccination/?fbclid=IwAR3-O5FKrh6OiLqzrdmTdsgGrwGBMXd-rot5XMIe ulADqnLkKWRBXgwsrLU

        Have you no compassion or conscience? Do you think they WANTED their child to die? Is that how you would want to be treated if your child died?

        This is horrific!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 10:57pm

          Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries

          Sigh.

          Yet another fraud website from you.

          You're really bad at this.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 8:19am

          Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries

          Anecdotal evidence is insufficient.

          Assuming this story is true (which I’m not 100% sure of, as that site is not a credible source), my heart goes out to the parents of that child. They absolutely have my sympathy. However, that doesn’t mean that being vaccinated is any riskier than not being vaccinated.

          Unless you have statistics showing that the rate at which vaccinated people die from the vaccine exceeds the rate at which people would die from the disease(s) it prevents if no one was vaccinated, you won’t convince us to change our minds on vaccines. Arguments from emotion don’t defeat scientific or historical evidence.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 4:08pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries

            The government doesn't provide statistics, and the studies that can be found keep getting deleted from this website.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Toom1275 (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 4:19pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries

              [Asserts facts not in evidence]

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 9:15pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries

              The government doesn't provide statistics, and the studies that can be found keep getting deleted from this website.

              You are lying. Nothing has been deleted.

              You are also wrong about basically everything else.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              bhull242 (profile), 4 Nov 2019 @ 4:01pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries

              Neither of those things are true. I have previously cited websites from government agencies that provide statistics. And why would it matter whether the statistics came from the government or not? Any reliable source will do.

              At any rate, that still doesn’t refute what I said. Without those studies or statistics, we have no reason to accept your argument as true.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 7:23am

        Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries

        How dare you belittle families whose children have been injured or died from vaccine injuries!!

        Have you no compassion or conscience?

        How would you feel if your child died from a vaccine injury and your story was referred to as an "idiotic debunked talking point?"

        This is horrific !!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 7:56am

          Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries

          [Asserts facts not in evidence]

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 2:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          How dare you belittle families whose children have been injured or died from vaccine injuries!!

          Prove they have. Some children who have compromised immune systems and receive the vaccine have a valid case, 95% or more of the population does not.

          Have you no compassion or conscience?

          I do but obviously you don't since you are intent on repeating lies and false data.

          How would you feel if your child died from a vaccine injury and your story was referred to as an "idiotic debunked talking point?"

          If that did happen, then I would ostensibly be able to show them a copy of either the medical or coroner's report that states conclusively they died from a vaccine because their immune system was already compromised. As far as I know, none of the people claiming their children died from vaccines has any scientific or medical evidence to back them up.

          This is horrific !!

          What's horrific is your total idiocy and willingness to be dishonest and ignore reality.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 7:17pm

          How would you feel if your child died from a vaccine injury and your story was referred to as an "idiotic debunked talking point?"

          About the same as if someone used my dead child as a tool for an appeal to emotions that ignores factual evidence — you know, like you’re doing. You want us to feel bad, and you want us to ignore empirical evidence out of pity.

          I have compassion for people whose children have died. Their loss is unimaginable. But until they can provide empirical evidence that their childred died from vaccines, I won’t ignore that lack of evidence because of someone’s feelings, be they mine or someone else’s.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 9:11am

    U. S. Gov - vaccine injury

    https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=usagov&query=vaccine+injury

    Instead of going to social media or Techdirt, those with vaccine injuries should go to the U. S. Gov. website and search - vaccine injury - for reliable information.

    You will get information about:

    National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program | Official ...
    National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act: Vaccine Injury Table
    Deaths following vaccination: What does the evidence show?

    H.R.5546 - National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 ...
    ...Subtitle 2: National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program - Part A: Program Requirements - Establishes the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as an alternative remedy to judicial action for specified vaccine-related injuries. ..

    Part B: Additional Remedies - Sets forth procedures under which the person who filed a petition for compensation under the program may elect to file a civil action for damages.

    Provides that no vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death:

    (1) resulting from unavoidable side effects; or

    (2) solely due to the manufacturer's failure to provide direct warnings.

    ...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 9:18am

      Re: U. S. Gov - vaccine injury

      Yes, nobody who understand vaccines thinks they're 100% safe. They're just way better than a measles or polio epidemic. Non-psychos help the people who are negatively affected . by the help being given, while psychopaths try to bring back diseases that have accounted for millions of deaths before vaccines.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 9:36am

        Re: Re: U. S. Gov - vaccine injury

        Vaccines cause injuries.

        https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/monthly-stats-may- 2019.pdf

        Total compensation paid over the life of the program is approximately $4.1 billion.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Gary (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 10:06am

          Re: Re: Re: U. S. Gov - vaccine injury

          Driving causes injuries. Eating causes injuries. Falling down the stairs causes injuries.

          It's a sad fact that nothing is 100% safe, and everyone dies in the end.

          But there will always be ignorant shitheads to push your nonsense. Measles and Polio cause real harm, in significant numbers. Comparing that against a statistically insignificant potential harm is beyond idiotic.

          Please take your anti-vaxer friends and move to Anthrax Island together where you can practice holistic nonsense without bothering the rest of us.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 7:34am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: U. S. Gov - vaccine injury

            "Driving causes injuries. Eating causes injuries. Falling down the stairs causes injuries."

            Soon there will be; Anti-Driving, Anti-Eating, Anti-Falling crusades.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Toom1275 (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 9:43pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: U. S. Gov - vaccine injury

            Remember that VAERS has been targeted by cultists that are now intentionally filing false claims to misleadingly inflate VAERS's numbers. It's not like the submitted claims are fact-checked in even a cursory fashion.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Rocky, 31 Oct 2019 @ 12:54pm

          It's all a numbers game

          It's easy to prove that anti-vaxxers position is pure bullshit and wishful thinking.

          The chances of severe (and possibly permanent) complications (including death) after contracting measles far exceeds the chance of severe adverse (transitory) reactions from the vaccine.

          Anyone with their faculties for critical thinking in working order realizes this.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 2:27am

          Re: Re: Re: U. S. Gov - vaccine injury

          "Vaccines cause injuries."

          Measles causes injuries. Where's the fund for the kids of anti-vaxx morons who got harmed by preventable diseases?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 12:04pm

        Re: Re: U. S. Gov - vaccine injury

        So tell me, do you know how you actually get conditions like measles or polio? Or are you just replying based on what you think you know?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 12:33pm

          do you know how you actually get conditions like measles

          Yes: You catch it from unvaccinated people who have it, and being unvaccinated themselves, they catch it from places where measles wasn’t damn near eradicated because of a lack of access to the measles vaccine.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 5:33pm

          Re: Re: Re: U. S. Gov - vaccine injury

          After a quick Google search, here’s what I found.

          Measles spreads:
          By mother to baby by pregnancy, labor, or nursing.
          By airborne respiratory droplets (coughs or sneezes).
          By saliva (kissing or shared drinks).
          By skin-to-skin contact (handshakes or hugs).
          By touching a contaminated surface (blanket or doorknob).

          Polio spreads:
          Through contaminated food or water.

          So measles is extremely contagious. That’s just about every vector I’m familiar with outside of sex, blood transfusion, or contaminated needles, and I’m pretty sure those would also work.

          As for polio, while it doesn’t appear to be quite as contagious as measles, polio still spreads pretty easily, since it’s through contaminated food and water.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 7:25am

        Re: Re: U. S. Gov - vaccine injury

        Are you a doctor?

        What do psychopaths have to do with vaccine injuries?
        Is that listed on the package inserts?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 2:02pm

          Re: Re: Re

          Are you a doctor?

          What does it matter?

          What do psychopaths have to do with vaccine injuries?

          He's saying that anyone who thinks vaccines cause autism and aren't safe and should be banned is a psychopath. Like you.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Wyrm (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 9:12am

    False positives and false negatives on the same topic do make for catchy headlines.

    Although I agree that the subject is critical and it's deplorable that the vaccination campaign got taken down (was it restored since?), this is indeed just a sign that no moderation will be perfect. Going by numbers, there will always be something worth pointing out as a "failure of moderation". Even big cases like this one will keep popping up here and there all the time.

    So what now? Should we abandon moderation? Obviously not.
    We can just keep moving forward, find examples of failures and research ways to refine the filters. Perfection can't be achieved, but we can try to get better over time.
    The lesson to remember is just not to berate those who at least try to improve. It's difficult enough as it is, let's not provide incentive to give up in frustration.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 9:18am

    in a years time i expect to see in techdirt ,filters at scale do not work,
    when eu laws about content come into effect.
    Filters cannot tell parody, fair use or commentary video, or audio from possible
    infringing content ,
    there will be massive overblocking of content on social media or websites
    that host user uploads .

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 1:25pm

    Can we solve this already...Please..

    Ok..
    Lets go around and find children who have NOT been vaccinated...
    That have Medical problems BASED on NO VACCINE...
    Where is that Autism patient??
    Where are the Measles, Pox, Diphtheria..

    Come one, you can do this, it should be pretty easy...
    One way or another..
    IF THERE ARE NOT ANY.....What does that say??

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 3:34pm

    Siblings

    A lot of families are opposed to vaccines because they had one or more children who were vaccinated and were damaged, and they decided not to have the subsequent children vaccinated and those children were not damaged.

    When extended family members see this, then they too become opposed to vaccines. Then friends and neighbors see what has happened, and they too are opposed. Then the school can see what has happened, etc. People who work in day care can see what is happening.

    I have a relative who kept believing the Doctor who said the damaged children would be OK. Or correlation did not equal causation.

    After BELIEVING 6 times, and having 6 damaged children, then she stopped BELIEVING. The seventh child was finally normal.

    This has happened to thousands of families, and these are generally the ones who are on Facebook, in support groups, at legislative hearings, sending emails back and forth, etc. as far as I can see.

    Autism affects a certain category of persons more, and according to someone who has been there, you won't have any trouble convincing certain categories of people of the risks of vaccines.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 4:09pm

      Re: Siblings

      [Asserts facts not in evidence. Again.]

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 4:44pm

        Re: Re: Siblings

        The evidence is on the anti-vax websites that you don't want anybody to see.
        Go to those websites. Do you want techdirt to become a forum for anti-vax evidence?

        Anyway, what did you expect? Do you think you will find it on the US Gov website? They are the ones who are promoting the vaccines. And it is political with the drug companies.

        You won't find it in the court records because vaccines are similar to Worker's Comp., only worse. How many court cases of workplace injury have you seen since 1949? Does that mean workplaces are safe? You can't take your employer to court over an injury, and there is no fault, and no claim for emotional distress.

        It's the same with Vaccine Court, only worse. It is a Catch-22. If the injury is listed as a side effect, then you can't make a claim, because they are unavoidably unsafe. If the injury is not listed on the side effects, then you still can't make a claim. Or something to that effect.
        And they bundle the vaccines so you can't identify which vaccine caused the injury.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 7:33pm

          Re: Re: Re: Siblings

          [Asserts facts not in evidence]

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 9:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Siblings

            Are you blind? What evidence could possibly be stronger than vague anecdotes referring to non-doctors making medical determinations and telling people to find the evidence themselves, with a warning to be careful to ignore those that actually know what the hell they're talking about because obviously they're all in on the conspiracy?

            Honestly, there's setting the bar high and there's putting it into orbit...

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Toom1275 (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 9:45pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Siblings

              It's a little weird for someone to trust independently verified facts about products that make orders of magnitude less money for "Big Pharma" less than they trust the claims of big-money antivax corporations that sell nothing but lies.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 7:27am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Siblings

            You already said this.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 11:37pm

          Re: Re: Re: Siblings

          Do you want techdirt to become a forum for anti-vax evidence?

          Sure, if it comes to that. Wasn't your complaint that nobody reads the sites you do, and nobody believes in the evidence you do?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 2:28am

          Re: Re: Re: Siblings

          "The evidence is on the anti-vax websites that you don't want anybody to see."

          Sorry dude, that's not evidence. I can link you to Marvel's website, that's not proof that Spiderman exists.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 7:40am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Siblings

            "Sorry dude, that's not evidence."

            Which one in particular? Give an example.

            Are you saying parents are lying, when they show before-and-after videos of damaged children?

            Are you saying package inserts from the drug companies are lies?

            Are you saying vaccine court cases are lies?

            Are you saying videos of damaged children with helmets in wheelchairs at legislative hearings are lies?

            Are you saying that 5,000 applicants for autism compensation at vaccine court, with before-and-after videos of damaged children, are not evidence?

            If I was making vaccines, I would want to know why so many autistic children applied for compensation, wouldn't you? And I wouldn't ask autistic children who can't speak to provide their own medicine and science to prove their case. That's just backwards. And insane! I would spend money on research to find out why parents and doctors think the vaccines cause the autism. Because --- there seems to be a pattern, you know? But that is just me, I have a conscience.

            Is that how the drug companies do safety studies? 5000 children have brain damage and they say it was just a coincidence?

            What exactly are you talking about?
            Have you even looked at these sites?
            If so, which ones?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 2:10pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Which one in particular? Give an example.

              The entire site.

              Are you saying parents are lying, when they show before-and-after videos of damaged children?

              Yes. Or that they don't understand it wasn't the vaccine that caused it.

              Are you saying package inserts from the drug companies are lies?

              No. Are you?

              Are you saying vaccine court cases are lies?

              Depends. The actual cases themselves? No. The fact that vaccines caused the injury that sparked the case? Yes. Or ignorance.

              Are you saying videos of damaged children with helmets in wheelchairs at legislative hearings are lies?

              Maybe some. Again, or ignorance.

              Are you saying that 5,000 applicants for autism compensation at vaccine court, with before-and-after videos of damaged children, are not evidence?

              Absolutely YES. Anyone can file an application. That doesn't make it valid.

              If I was making vaccines, I would want to know why so many autistic children applied for compensation, wouldn't you?

              We already do. Fraud and/or ignorance in the vast majority of cases.

              And I wouldn't ask autistic children who can't speak to provide their own medicine and science to prove their case.

              No, that would come from the medical and scientific community that has already concluded that vaccines are safe.

              I would spend money on research to find out why parents and doctors think the vaccines cause the autism.

              People already have. It's called ignorance and being uneducated.

              Because --- there seems to be a pattern, you know?

              Yes, one of ignorance.

              But that is just me, I have a conscience.

              No you don't.

              Is that how the drug companies do safety studies? 5000 children have brain damage and they say it was just a coincidence?

              If the science says it was caused by something else, then yes. Seriously, have you actually read any of these studies that have actually studied children with brain damage?

              What exactly are you talking about?

              Actual medicine and science. Not quacks and people who don't understand how science works.

              Have you even looked at these sites?

              Yes.

              If so, which ones?

              Some of the ones you've posted as well as actual, real, medical and research sites.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 4:49pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Siblings

              Are you saying the parents are lying

              Not necessarily. They may be lying, but if they’re not then they’re either ignorant or misinformed.

              when they show before-and-after videos of damaged children?

              Sigh… As I’ve said many times before, that doesn’t prove causation, the more obvious signs of autism become apparent in all autistic children around that age, vaccines or no, and the videos actually showed that the children actually had autism since before the vaccines. IOW, they don’t prove that the children got autism from vaccines.

              Are you saying package inserts from the drug companies are lies?

              1) You did not provide package inserts as evidence before. You provided a link to a website known to provide false or misleading information.

              2) Many side effects listed on these package inserts include possible side effects that appeared in testing but that may not actually be caused by the vaccines. It’s basically a list of possible adverse effects of the vaccine that you could reasonably claim were caused by the vaccine. It’s not definitive proof that the vaccines actually cause such reaction, but the bar you need to reach to prove causation is a lot lower for side effects that are listed than for those that aren’t.

              3) Show me the package insert that lists “autism” as a potential side effect of a vaccine.

              Are you saying vaccine court cases are lies?

              Well, they all lost, so honesty isn’t really at issue. Not every case brought in good faith has merit.

              Are you saying videos of damaged children with helmets in wheelchairs at legislative hearings are lies?

              No. They just don’t prove a link between vaccines and autism.

              Are you saying that 5,000 applicants for autism compensation at vaccine court, with before-and-after videos of damaged children, are not evidence?

              Since all of them failed, and, as I said earlier, the videos don’t prove your claim anyway, I’d have to say that those 5,000 applicants are only evidence that there is actually no causal link between vaccines and autism.

              If I was making vaccines, I would want to know why so many autistic children applied for compensation, wouldn't you?

              Well, they’re either liars, ignorant, or misinformed. We know vaccines don’t cause autism. There have been numerous credible studies into the issue, and none of them could find a link.

              And I wouldn't ask autistic children who can't speak to provide their own medicine and science to prove their case. That's just backwards. And insane!

              Well, here’s what actually happens. The parent(s) of the autistic child(ren) hire a lawyer(s) to represent their child. The parent(s) and lawyer(s) then file a petition on the child(ren)’s behalf asserting that the vaccine caused the child(ren)’s autism. The lawyer(s) perform(s) an investigation that includes finding experts in the relevant field(s), and it is the experts who then provide testimony and/or evidence regarding the science and medicine to support the claim. (Of course, the parent(s) and lawyer(s) collect other evidence, such as medical history and videos.)

              Note that the child has essentially no direct involvement in any of this.

              I would spend money on research to find out why parents and doctors think the vaccines cause the autism. Because --- there seems to be a pattern, you know? But that is just me, I have a conscience.

              1) That research has been done many, many times already, both in terms of whether vaccines cause autism (they don’t) and why many people think they do (which I’ve already explained in detail in another comment).

              2) If thousands of people make the same ridiculous claim, that doesn’t necessarily mean that claim is worth investigating.

              3) Considering the sheer number of people who get vaccinated, it’s unsurprising that at least 5000 vaccinated children have autism. Considering the misinformation that has been spreading, the desperation of parents with a “damaged” child, the fact that, even in unvaccinated children, the signs of autism tend to become more apparent around the same age that the MMR vaccine is supposed to be given, and how litigious our society is, it’s equally insurprising that around 5000 of them were willing to file a claim over it. Nothing suspicious there.

              4) Having a conscience is more than fine. It’s just meaningless when discussing scientific facts, theories, hypotheses, and/or evidence, and also in most cases when discussing what the law is. Arguments from emotion are unhelpful and often counterproductive in these areas.

              Is that how the drug companies do safety studies? 5000 children have brain damage and they say it was just a coincidence?

              It’s not quite a coincidence. It’s more of a statistical inevitability. Again, given the sheer size of the vaccinated population in America, there is nothing unusual that 5000 of them have autism, or that 5000 of them have brain damage. At any rate, there have already been a number of studies into the possibility that vaccines cause autism, and they all came back negative. In addition to there being no causal link that was able to be proven, the rate of autism among vaccinated children was not statistically significantly different from the rate of autism among unvaccinated children.

              And by the way, how dare you call autism “brain damage”! Yes, autism is a mental disorder, but that doesn’t make it brain damage! I also find it horribly offensive that people like you think that autism is so terrible that you’d rather risk your child getting a completely preventable disease with a high rate of fatality than risk your child getting autism.

              Have you even looked at these sites?
              If so, which ones?

              Yes, and it was more than I care to remember. This is such an old debate that should have died off like a decade ago at the latest that I can’t be bothered to recall which anti-vaxxer sites I have or have not seen. I do remember that they were all bad.

              But regardless, it’s not our job to do your research for you. You made the claim. You have to support it with specific evidence, not just “the anti-vax sites that you don’t want anybody to see.” The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to support your assertion.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 5:53am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Siblings

              "Are you saying parents are lying, when they show before-and-after videos of damaged children?"

              I'm saying that parents aren't medical professionals and no cause and effect is shown by those practiced in the field. A distraught parent lashing out at the closest target is not clinical evidence.

              "Are you saying package inserts from the drug companies are lies?"

              I'm saying that every drug has a list of potential side effects listed on them, and vaccines are no different from over the counter drugs in that regard.

              "Are you saying vaccine court cases are lies?"

              I'm saying that the risk of vaccines is not zero, but they are far preferable to the risks associated with the diseases that maimed and killed millions before vaccines were invented.

              "Are you saying videos of damaged children with helmets in wheelchairs at legislative hearings are lies?"

              I'm saying that emotional tactics don't override scientific evidence.

              "Are you saying that 5,000 applicants for autism compensation at vaccine court, with before-and-after videos of damaged children, are not evidence?"

              I'm saying that does not conclude that the risk is greater than the risk of disease.

              Funny how your assumptions are not what I actually think, huh?

              'If I was making vaccines, I would want to know why so many autistic children applied for compensation, wouldn't you?"

              Yeah, I'd be asking why there's a cult of anti-vaxxers so ready to reject the entirety of medical history because Jenny McCarthy and a know fraudster told them to ignore medical science. But, that;'s nothing to do with what you're claiming.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ECA (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 4:09pm

      Re: Siblings

      Another problem tends to be...
      Yatter yatter yatter..
      you can have 10 people with a problem, but they are sounding like 100-1000..
      It dont matter the group.. All groups on the net should be SETUP as no advert, excess posting.. those that wish it, can Add it.. Otherwise SIT BOOBO SIT..

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rocky, 31 Oct 2019 @ 6:24pm

      Re: Siblings

      Please provide citations for that these kids got autism from vaccines and not their parents genetic predisposition for neurological development issues (you know, do a genetic control for markers that indicate neurological disorders).

      Here's something to think about: When a family gets a kid that exhibits something on the autism-spectrum, a lot parents has to have something to blame just to cope with it mentally. And since the time that lying piece of shit Wakefield published his totally made up paper on vaccines some of these parents found something to blame.

      Also, the statistics of autism in vaccinated vs unvaccinated kids would show a huge discrepancy if the anti-vaxxer idiocy where true, which it doesn't. It's amazing the disconnect these people have in their reasoning. That 3 million people die every year to diseases that is easily stopped by a vaccination (1.5 million of those who die are babies under the age of 5) doesn't seem to faze them.

      Here's a fun fact: If you are unvaccinated and contract measles, it suppresses your immune-system by resetting your B-cells memory. That means you will contract other diseases much easier, even those you already have had. See https://immunology.sciencemag.org/content/4/41/eaay6125

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 7:49am

        Re: Re: Siblings

        'Please provide citations for that these kids got autism from vaccines and not their parents genetic predisposition for neurological development issues (you know, do a genetic control for markers that indicate neurological disorders)."

        This is something for the scientists to do.
        Don't ask autistic children who can't speak to do it.

        All the parents know is that their kid was normal, then after a vaccine they were damaged.

        In the test case mentioned, the autistic little girl had diarrhea for 7 years, and there were only 2 or 3 doctors in the entire country who treated this type of thing, the doctor that testified found patterns. Now why doesn't the government train more gastro doctors to research and treat these cases, if they aren't satisfied with the evidence given by one doctor? If I was making vaccines, I would want to know WHY the vaccine injured were suffering from gastro problems, wouldn't you?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 2:16pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          This is something for the scientists to do.

          Meaning you have no evidence to link to.

          Don't ask autistic children who can't speak to do it.

          No one is.

          All the parents know is that their kid was normal, then after a vaccine they were damaged.

          And there could be any number of reasons for that that are NOT related to a vaccine. I'm reasonably sure the kid didn't go from normal to brain dead 10 seconds after getting the shot in the arm.

          In the test case mentioned, the autistic little girl had diarrhea for 7 years, and there were only 2 or 3 doctors in the entire country who treated this type of thing, the doctor that testified found patterns.

          Did you respond to the wrong post? I don't see where you mentioned such a case in this thread.

          If I was making vaccines, I would want to know WHY the vaccine injured were suffering from gastro problems, wouldn't you?

          Do you have evidence that A) vaccine injured are suffering from gastro problems and B) it was caused by a vaccine? You've yet to provide evidence of either.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 4:57pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            " In the test case mentioned, the autistic little girl had diarrhea for 7 years, and there were only 2 or 3 doctors in the entire country who treated this type of thing, the doctor that testified found patterns.

            Did you respond to the wrong post? I don't see where you mentioned such a case in this thread. "

            The Michelle Cedillo case:

            https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/autism/OmnibusTrialsTranscripts/cedillo/200 70612_cedillo_pps299-575.pdf

            Arthur Krigsman...

            and you further state that only two individuals in this country have any experience in the colonoscopic findings in children with autism...

            "so it's been many years now where the only symptom has been diarrhea."

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2019 @ 6:29pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Arthur Krigsman...

              You mean this guy? The guy who is generally regarded as a quack? Oh and he worked with Andrew Wakefield, the guy who fabricated THE ONLY study suggesting a link between vaccines and autism and lost his medical license over it. Yeah, I'll take a hard pass on believe ANYTHING coming from either of those two.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              bhull242 (profile), 4 Nov 2019 @ 4:07pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              While the other AC has already adequately demonstrated the biggest problems with this, I still haven’t seen why you keep linking autism and diarrhea. These are two completely unrelated conditions.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 3:57pm

          Re: Re: Re: Siblings

          This is something for the scientists to do.
          Don't ask autistic children who can't speak to do it.

          Look, no one is asking any children to provide the evidence. Yes, that is something the scientists do; that’s why you call “expert witnesses” to testify at the hearing or trial. I don’t understand why you can’t seem to grasp this.

          All the parents know is that their kid was normal, then after a vaccine they were damaged.

          Look, I’ve already discussed this when talking about the before-and-after videos. Suffice to say that 1) that doesn’t prove causation, 2) that’s just when signs of autism generally become apparent to parents, with or without vaccines, and 3) in the test cases, experts were able to identify signs that the children had had autism since before the vaccine.

          In the test case mentioned, the autistic little girl had diarrhea for 7 years, and there were only 2 or 3 doctors in the entire country who treated this type of thing, the doctor that testified found patterns. Now why doesn't the government train more gastro doctors to research and treat these cases, if they aren't satisfied with the evidence given by one doctor? If I was making vaccines, I would want to know WHY the vaccine injured were suffering from gastro problems, wouldn't you?

          So many issues… again.

          1) Diarrhea is not linked to autism. Just because the vaccine gave her diarrhea does not prove that the vaccine gave her autism.

          2) It’s not the government’s job to train doctors or to decide exactly what will be researched. Researchers do apply for grants that must get approval from the government (though it is possible to fund the research through other means), and there are regulations banning or severely restricting research in some areas as well as imposing requirements on all research, but they can’t force people to do research on any particular topic (in general, at least).

          3) It is commonly known that at least some vaccines have the possibility of causing diarrhea. This has been investigated already, and there is simply no good way to eliminate that risk. What I want to know is whether you think diarrhea is worse than the disease(s) that the vaccine(s) prevent(s).

          4) As a symptom, diarrhea isn’t all that serious in and of itself.

          There’s more, but even I have my limits.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 2:31am

      Re: Siblings

      "A lot of families are opposed to vaccines because they had one or more children who were vaccinated and were damaged"

      ...and a lot of families were glad to nearly eradicate polio and measles because of the generations of people harmed by those diseases. I think they count more than the people who don't understand how vaccines work and want to blame something for them having a less than perfect child.

      "After BELIEVING 6 times, and having 6 damaged children"

      I call absolute bullshit, unless you can link to the medical stories about this supposed family. After all, the chances of this happening are so low there must be some major case studies in medical journals somewhere.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Toom1275 (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 8:42am

        Re: Re: Siblings

        Considering that there's less than zero proof of any link between vaccines and autism, claiming that these kids were "damaged by vaccines" cannot be anything less than malicious, deliberate lying.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 8:57am

          Re: Re: Re: Siblings

          "Considering that there's less than zero proof of any link between vaccines and autism"

          Literally the only evidence there's ever been was Andrew Wakefield's study. A study that was found to be not only deeply flawed (if not outright fiction), but also conducted in order to promote an alternative vaccine that Wakefield would directly profit from. Wakefield wasn't originally anti-vaccines as a whole (although he's since seen ways to make a mint by pretending to be), he only wanted to spread doubt about the combined MMR vaccine so that he could sell his alternative. He's now been banned from practicing medicine due to serious misconduct.

          But, for some reason, this study is the only one that matters to these people. Even after Wakefield confessed that he made it up and retracted the study, to these people that's just part of the conspiracy, as is any actual doctor telling the truth about how important vaccines are.

          That's what's truly sad here. These people were lied to for profit, but even the liar confessing to his fraud is not enough to convince these people not to expose everybody to preventable diseases, which are far more dangerous than any vaccine could be.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Toom1275 (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 9:52am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Siblings

            No, there's also studoes lile the one by Christopher Shaw and Lucja Tomjlenovic, that showed that aluminum-based vaccine adjuvants caused autism in mice through a combination of fictional neurochemical processes, inventing the definition of "mouse autism" and photoshopped gene expressions.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 3:14pm

          Re: Re: Re: Siblings

          Not necessarily, though that likely is the reason for a good number. In the case of duped parents it can simply be because they do believe it to be true thanks to the lies and other misinformation they've been tricked by. They'd still be spreading dangerous information and for that they deserve to be called out but there wouldn't be any malice from it, just ignorance.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 7:58am

        Re: Re: Siblings

        "After all, the chances of this happening are so low there must be some major case studies in medical journals somewhere."

        Are you calling my relative a liar? You don't even know them. How dare you!

        How is this type of thing going to be reported in medical journals when it was the doctors themselves who kept insisting that all these known side effects of the vaccines are normal?

        Of course the doctors see patterns of causation, but they will lose their license if they speak up.

        That is why parents have to go directly to Facebook, Pinterest, Youtube, legislative hearings, and do mass emailings because they cannot be heard anywhere else! Duh---

        And that is why they rally around some pied piper, because they are too exhausted dealing with head banging and leaky anuses to do otherwise.

        How many health departments or libraries have support groups for the vaccine injured? There should be a government program of support, not curses, denial and persecution!

        Shame on the people on this site who use foul language and persecute sick people!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 8:35am

          Re: Re: Re: Siblings

          [Asserts facts not in evidence]

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 2:22pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Are you calling my relative a liar? You don't even know them. How dare you!

          No, just you.

          How is this type of thing going to be reported in medical journals when it was the doctors themselves who kept insisting that all these known side effects of the vaccines are normal?

          And which side effects are those? The normal ones like rash, irritation around the injection point, etc...? Or the fake ones like that they cause autism or brain damage?

          Of course the doctors see patterns of causation, but they will lose their license if they speak up.

          They do and they have, but the patterns don't point to autism caused by vaccines, or else the entire American population would be a bunch of blithering idiots right now.

          That is why parents have to go directly to Facebook, Pinterest, Youtube, legislative hearings, and do mass emailings because they cannot be heard anywhere else! Duh---

          No, it's because they are a bunch of uneducated idiots who don't understand the science behind vaccines. Most of them would probably say they still include mercury when in fact mercury has been removed from a lot of them.

          How many health departments or libraries have support groups for the vaccine injured?

          Probably very few because vaccines don't cause autism.

          There should be a government program of support, not curses, denial and persecution!

          Not for ignorance and stupidity there shouldn't.

          Shame on the people on this site who use foul language and persecute sick people!

          This is my "I don't give a crap" face. No one is persecuting sick people. We're saying their parents and/or caregivers who are denying the science behind vaccines are a bunch of uneducated idiots who are endangering the rest of us.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 12:44am

      Re: Siblings

      Autism affects a certain category of persons more, and according to someone who has been there, you won't have any trouble convincing certain categories of people of the risks of vaccines.

      Yes, but those categories of people are those who aren’t willing to accept that there is no single cause for autism and want something to blame.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 31 Oct 2019 @ 4:10pm

    Notice that despite all the table-pounding, gish-galloping, and projection, the Nurgle cultist still has yet to post even a single piece of factual evidence to support their position.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 5:33pm

      Re:

      Dear lord, we've finally done it! We've evolved a subset of the human species that is sexually aroused by rabies!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 8:08am

      Re:

      "Notice that despite all the table-pounding, gish-galloping, and projection, the Nurgle cultist still has yet to post even a single piece of factual evidence to support their position."

      This doesn't make any sense.

      People have side effects from vaccines.
      Package inserts list side effects.
      My child got Guillain-Barré syndrome from a flu vaccine, which is a known side effect. The doctor diagnosed it and said it came from the shot.
      How is that not a fact?

      https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/guillain-barre-syndrome.html

      The body’s immune system damages nerve cells, causing muscle weakness and sometimes paralysis.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 2:27pm

        Re: Re:

        My child got Guillain-Barré syndrome from a flu vaccine, which is a known side effect. The doctor diagnosed it and said it came from the shot. How is that not a fact?

        If that is true and not another lie (which I doubt) then my condolences and it is a fact.

        However, another fact is the following statement from that site you linked:

        When there has been an increased risk, it has consistently been in the range of 1-2 additional GBS cases per million flu vaccine doses administered. Studies suggest that it is more likely that a person will get GBS after getting the flu than after vaccination.

        There you go. Your chances of getting GBS from a flu vaccine are 0.000000001. In fact, you are more likely to get GBS after you get the actual flu so getting the vaccine actually improves your chances of not getting GBS.

        The body’s immune system damages nerve cells, causing muscle weakness and sometimes paralysis.

        Only if it's not working properly. Your point?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2019 @ 11:42pm

    So this year, parents who believed the anti-vaxxers and chose not to vaccinate their kids for measles, subsequently panicked when their kids did end up with measles and inundated their local medical systems for the vaccine they chose not to take.

    It's funny how none of the anti-vaxxers have anything to say about that.

    Well, it'd be funny if it wasn't also facepalmingly stupid and tragic.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    techflaws (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 4:37am

    Dear Antivax assclowns: https://respectfulinsolence.com/
    ;)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 8:09am

      Re:

      This comment is very rude and disrespectful to people who are concerned about health and safety.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 2:28pm

        Re: Re:

        And your comments ignore reality and decades of settled science and medicine.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 3:37pm

        Re: Re:

        If the concern was genuine, reasonable, and based on credible scientific evidence, you might have a point. Sadly, that is not always the case, and in particular anti-vaxxers rarely if ever meet these criteria. I can’t speak to whether or not you’re being genuine. Using Hanlon’s Razor, I’ll assume you are until proven otherwise. Your reasonableness is often lacking, though, and as for evidence, the evidence/arguments you provide generally falls under one or more of the following:

        1) They are not credible or come from a source that has been shown not to be credible.

        2) They rely on arguments from emotion, which is simply not good enough and generally unpersuasive.

        3) They don’t support the point you’re trying to make.

        4) They provide weak support at best and are easy to refute.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        techflaws (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 9:47pm

        Re: Re:

        Which is all you f*cks deserve given the blood on your hands.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 10:12am

    Here's the truth about so-called "herd immunity":

    "The population of the U.S. stood at about 318.9 million in 2014.7 The “baby boomer” generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) account for about 24% of the total population.8 Many years ago, it was believed that childhood vaccines lasted a lifetime. It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2-10 years after being given.9

    Thus, for at least the past 40 years, the one-quarter to nearly 40 percent of the U.S. population represented by the baby boomers has had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated as a child. If you include those born after 1964, the percentage of the unprotected surpasses 50 percent. According to retired neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, “If we listened to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95 percent.”9

    Given that at least half the population has effectively been without vaccine protection for many years, we should have experienced a massive resurgence in childhood infectious diseases. But this has not happened. In other words, we haven’t had herd immunity in the U.S., and yet the world hasn’t come tumbling down."

    https://thevaccinereaction.org/2015/06/the-misunderstood-theory-of-herd-immunity/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 10:25am

      Re:

      Assuming that site isn't utter bullshit, which I do not admit, then it means that the 2-10 years of herd immunity did so much damage to the disease that it is taking it many many years to rebound. That means the vaccines work.

      I do not admit the referenced site is not psuedo-scientific bullcrap however.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Toom1275 (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 1:12pm

        Re: Re:

        It's utterly bullshit.

        Even a cursory google search turn a lot of Dwoskin on the site.

        The Dwoskin Family Foundation is a morally corrupt organization raking in millions from simpletons pouring it into fraudulent antivax studies and a vast array of astroturfing disinformation sites with names like "National Vaccine Information Center"(NVIC) and "Childrens' Medical Safety Research Institute"(CMSRI).

        Leaves little doubt about a site for which I see no factual stories on its frontpage.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 11:30am

      Re:

      It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2-10 years after being given

      "Most" is a bit disingenuous, and I would like to see facts saying most do. Some yes, but most? Regardless of that, measles, rubella, and diphtheria have been proven to be effective for the majority (if not all) of the vaccinated person's lifespan.

      There's also the point of this word: "effectiveness". Effectiveness is a scale, not a binary effect. For some vaccines their effectiveness declines at a slow rate, and others a much faster rate. So after 50 years sure, some vaccines may be 0% effective, but other vaccines may still 75%, 80%, 90% still effective. Which still provides a good amount of protection against that disease. Especially if everyone else is vaccinated against at as well.

      There's also the fact that even if the vaccine wears off completely, your body still can retain some memory of it and fight the disease off more effectively than if you had never received a vaccination.

      If you include those born after 1964, the percentage of the unprotected surpasses 50 percent.

      No, no it doesn't. Because A) some vaccines last longer than 10 years, B) some vaccines have a "booster" schedule because the low effectiveness is known, and C) people born after 1964 got vaccinated too. Your math sucks.

      Given that at least half the population has effectively been without vaccine protection for many years

      I just proved this wrong.

      we should have experienced a massive resurgence in childhood infectious diseases.

      Not really. We only would have seen a resurgence if it was reintroduced in America, and only then if it was reintroduced to people who didn't have the immunity (like everyone choosing not to get vaccinated).

      But this has not happened. In other words, we haven’t had herd immunity in the U.S., and yet the world hasn’t come tumbling down."

      Well actually, it has. You may have heard of the measles epidemic currently ongoing in the US because people haven't been getting vaccinated against it. Kind of seems to run counter to your argument there.

      P.S. (that site you linked to is total BS)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 5:39am

      Re:

      "no vaccine-induced immunity"

      Good thing that vaccines aren't the only thing that cause herd immunity, then. Though, I'm sure the kids that you idiots are dooming to permanent damage from preventable illnesses will understand why you were scared of the vaccines that saved millions of injuries before them.

      “If we listened to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95 percent.

      ...which is actually happening you tosser.

      "we haven’t had herd immunity in the U.S"

      So, you don;'t understand the term. Got it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Toom1275 (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 7:33am

        Re: Re:

        Thanks to herd immunity, Measles - one of the most contagious diseases known - had been declared elimimated in the US in 2000.

        Until these shitsticks went brought it back.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      techflaws (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 9:48pm

      Re:

      Truth, my ass.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 7:02pm

    CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

    CEDILLO V. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedillo_v._Secretary_of_Health_and_Human_Services#cite_note-Decision- 22

    http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/autism/OmnibusTrialsTranscripts/cedillo/2007061 1_cedillo_pps1-298.pdf

    However, there is another equally important purpose for this hearing. That is, Michelle is one of nearly 5,000 children diagnosed with autism or similar disorders who have filed compensation claims under the Vaccine Act. These 5,000 claims have been grouped together in a joint proceeding known as the Omnibus Autism Proceeding...

    Next, I want to mention some other people who are also very important to this proceeding. That is the families of all the other 5,000 Vaccine Act claimants who have been diagnosed with autism or similar conditions...

    Now, the omnibus proceeding itself is created because of the sheer number of claims. As the Special Master described, nearly 5,000 claimants who allege that thimerosal, the MMR or a combination of them caused these serious injuries. These are families, and it's important to understand this. These are families who followed the rules. These are the families that brought their children in for pediatric vaccines. These are the families that immunized their children. The public policy decision on mass immunization is a tradeoff...

    What the Secretary is forced to defend against is about 5,000 cases that the Secretary knows nothing about, knows nothing more in the majority of those cases than the names of the petitioners...

    Q So could any of the 5,000 children that now have claims before this Court get that genetic test, be identified with that gene, and then we could determine that that particular person's autism was caused by the handling of the mercury due to that gene defect? ...

    http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/autism/OmnibusTrialsTranscripts/cedillo/200706 13_cedillo_pps576-858.pdf

    Q So, in your opinion, is MMR responsible for an epidemic of autism?
    A No.
    Q In your opinion, is it responsible for 5,000 cases of autism? ...

    http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/autism/OmnibusTrialsTranscripts/cedillo/200706 26_cedillo_pps2870-2917.pdf

    Next I want to acknowledge again the other people who are also very important to this proceeding, and that of course is the families of the other 5,000 Vaccine Act claimants who have been diagnosed with autism or similar conditions. Some members of those families have been with us in the courtroom at various times.

    http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vaccine_files/Hastings-Cedillo.pdf

    This case concerning Michelle Cedillo is one of more than 5,000 cases filed under the Program in which it has been alleged that a child’s disorder known as “autism,” or a similar disorder, was caused by one or more vaccinations. A brief history of the controversy regarding vaccines and autism, along with a history of the development of the 5,000 cases in this court, will follow...

    The emergence of those two controversies led to a large number of claims filed under the Program, each alleging that an individual’s autism, or a similar disorder, was caused by the MMR vaccine, by thimerosal-containing vaccines, or by both. To date, more than 5,000 such cases have been filed with this court, and most of them remain pending...

    CONCLUSION
    The record of this case demonstrates plainly that Michelle Cedillo and her family have been though a tragic and painful ordeal. I had the opportunity, in the courtroom during the evidentiary hearing, to meet and to observe both of Michelle’s parents, and a number of other family members as well. I have also studied the records describing Michelle’s medical history, and the efforts of her family in caring for her...

    Nor do I doubt that Michelle’s parents and relatives are sincere in their belief that the MMR vaccine played a role in causing Michelle’s devastating disorders. Certainly, the mere fact that Michelle’s autistic symptoms first became evident to her family during the months after her MMR vaccination might make them wonder about a possible causal connection. Further, the Cedillos have read about physicians who profess to believe in a causal connection between the MMR vaccine and both autism and chronic gastrointestinal problems. They have visited at least one physician, Dr. Krigsman, who has explicitly opined that Michelle’s own chronic gastrointestinal symptoms are MMR-caused. And they have even been told that a medical laboratory has positively identified the presence of the persisting vaccine-strain measles virus in Michelle’s body, years after her vaccination. After studying the extensive evidence in this case for many months, I am convinced that the reports and advice given to the Cedillos by Dr. Krigsman and some other physicians, advising the Cedillos that there is a causal connection between Michelle’s MMR vaccination and her chronic conditions, have been very wrong. Unfortunately, the Cedillos have been misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment. Nevertheless, I can understand why the Cedillos found such reports and advice to be believable under the circumstances. I conclude that the Cedillos filed this Program claim in good faith...

    Thus, I feel deep sympathy and admiration for the Cedillo family. And I have no doubt that the families of countless other autistic children, families that cope every day with the tremendous challenges of caring for autistic children, are similarly deserving of sympathy and admiration. However, I must decide this case not on sentiment, but by analyzing the evidence. Congress designed the Program to compensate only the families of those individuals whose injuries or deaths can be linked causally, either by a Table Injury presumption or by a preponderance of causation-infact evidence, to a listed vaccination. In this case the evidence advanced by the petitioners has fallen far short of demonstrating such a link. Accordingly, I conclude that the petitioners in this case are not entitled to a Program award on Michelle’s behalf.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 7:28pm

      Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

      Notably absent from that spam post is even a single child who was harmed by a vaccine.

      Scammers like the Cedillo family and especially the quacks that misled them et al could make a good case for assigning "vexatious litigant" status to entire groups that concertedly act in bad faith like above.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 7:55pm

        Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

        Are you saying a U. S. Gov. court case is spam?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 7:57pm

          Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

          Are you saying that if you had a child who was injured by a vaccine and you applied for compensation, then you would consider yourself a spammer?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 10:52pm

          Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

          The case, no. You posting the entire text here rather than just a link? Yes.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 8:23am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

            Spam..."You posting the entire text here rather than just a link? Yes."

            The entire text was not posted here. The hearing went on for days, and the transcript is hundreds of pages long.

            The quotes were found by searching for "5,000" . The point of the post was to emphasize the 5,000 whose cases were not heard, and were adjudicated on the basis of 3 test cases. The evidence heard for the one test case here dealt mostly with damage to the gastro-intestinal system, as far as I could see from glimpsing at it.

            How can you adjudicate 5,000 other cases from testimony about 3 cases? Evidence from some of the other cases may involve swelling of the brain, neurological damage, auto-immune problems, etc.

            How can any autistic side effects be adjudicated, once and for all, until infinity, based on 3 test cases, just because a panel voted to not include autism in the authorized list? How does that make any sense? Especially since there were huge numbers of complainants, so many that they had to convene a special process to adjudicate them?

            And parents can't get lawyers to represent them since the court has already given notice that they will not pay legal fees.

            How is a non-verbal autistic child who has had diarrhea for 7 years supposed to file pro se and whip up new evidence? Tell me that.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 3:17pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

              The entire text was not posted here. The hearing went on for days, and the transcript is hundreds of pages long.

              You did not post the transcript. You posted the ruling, which included some parts of the transcript. But fine. You still posted a lot of the text from the ruling, and that can be considered spam because of the oppressively long nature of the post.

              The quotes were found by searching for "5,000" . The point of the post was to emphasize the 5,000 whose cases were not heard, and were adjudicated on the basis of 3 test cases. The evidence heard for the one test case here dealt mostly with damage to the gastro-intestinal system, as far as I could see from glimpsing at it.

              Well, problem #1 is that the ruling you’re quoting from was only about one case, and only ruled on that one case. It did not say that the other cases necessarily lacked merit. And none of what you posted ever gave an exact number for how many test cases were fully adjudicated, so how would you have expected us to know that only three of the 5000 cases were ever heard.

              How can you adjudicate 5,000 other cases from testimony about 3 cases? Evidence from some of the other cases may involve swelling of the brain, neurological damage, auto-immune problems, etc.

              First of all, you only mention that one of the cases was based on damage to the gastro-intestinal system. According to you, three test cases were fully heard. The other decision you post mentioned that, after the first case, a number of test cases were heard and proposed different potential causal links between vaccines and autism. It’s likely that if any of the cases involved “swelling of the brain, neurological damage, auto-immune problems, etc.”, that would have been brought up in the other test cases that were heard.

              Second, according to the other decision you quoted from, after the first case(s) failed,

              the vast majority of the approximately 5,000 autism petitioners elected either to withdraw their claims, or to request that the special master enter a decision denying their claim on the written record.

              What this means is that, based on the result of that/those test case(s), almost all the remaining petitioners chose, of their own volition, to withdraw their claims or ask to be ruled against. The most likely reason for that is that their claims were based entirely on the same causation theories that had already been determined to be lacking in merit. And this was before the ruling that failed to grant the petitioners the entirety of their fees, so you cannot use that as an excuse for why these petitioners chose to end their cases.

              How can any autistic side effects be adjudicated, once and for all, until infinity, based on 3 test cases, just because a panel voted to not include autism in the authorized list? How does that make any sense? Especially since there were huge numbers of complainants, so many that they had to convene a special process to adjudicate them?

              You are making way too much of the numbers here, which are dubious anyway.

              First, you keep saying that 5000 were decided based entirely on the merits of three test cases. There are two problems with that. 1) The vast majority of the 5000 petitioners chose of their own volition to end their claims before their respective hearings and before a later decision to only award partial costs to petitioners. You can’t complain about them not getting the opportunity to be heard when they chose to give up their right to a hearing. 2) According to the second decision quoted, there were “six extremely lengthy special master decisions” prior to that one. To give you the best chance of success, let’s say that each case had two decisions: one on the merits, and one on fees (though I’m not sure that that’s the case). The decision itself was on a different case, as it comes after the six decisions that were supposedly for three test cases. That makes, at a minimum, four test cases that reached a hearing. Of course, without more information, it’s more reasonable to believe a total of six or seven test cases reached a hearing. So a lot fewer than 5000 cases were actually adjudicated, and more than three cases were heard.

              Second, you can definitively say that none of the remaining cases could possibly have merit if the hearings that have occurred have thoroughly disproven all their theories of causation under the same factual scenarios. If your entire argument has already been shown to be impossible in another case with the same factual scenario, then your argument has no chance of succeeding.

              Third, there was a lot more to the defense’s arguments than “a panel voted to not include autism in the authorized list.” There was the fact that signs of autism always become more apparent around the same age that children take the MMR vaccine, even in unvaccinated children. There was the fact that, in all the test cases heard, the child could be shown to have had autism since well before they received the vaccine. There was the abundance of research available that showed no link between vaccines and autism, as well as a lack of credible evidence supporting such a link. There was the fact that all the proposed theories of causation were shown to not be based on scientific evidence and were, in fact, implausible at best and disproven at worst. There was the fact that all the evidence offered in support of the claims were determined to be faked, incorrectly interpreted, or insufficient. There was the fact that many of the petitioners’ expert witnesses lacked expertise in the relevant fields.

              Also, I think you misunderstand how an Omnibus case works. Not all of the cases were ever going to be heard, in all likelihood. Instead, their cases were going to largely be based on the adjudication of a limited number of test cases to determine if the theories of causation, factual scenarios, and expert witnesses were enough to support the petitioners’ claims. These test cases were selected by the petitioners’ lawyer(s) as the ones with the highest likelihood of success. If all the test cases failed, then the remaining cases would almost certainly fail too, so those would likely be dropped in some fashion without having to go through 5000 hearings. If they succeeded, then the later hearings would be able to succeed without having to prove their theories of causation each and every time, instead relying on the particulars of the case to prove that their claim fit the requisite scenarios. It’s a lot like a class action lawsuit in that way, though there are some differences.

              And parents can't get lawyers to represent them since the court has already given notice that they will not pay legal fees.

              That’s because the claims that they’d be basing their petitions on have already been fully adjudicated multiple times and found to be completely lacking in scientific merit. If they proceed with a weak claim that is unlikely to succeed based on previous similar cases, then of course they won’t be compensated for legal fees. That would be absurd.

              How is a non-verbal autistic child who has had diarrhea for 7 years supposed to file pro se and whip up new evidence? Tell me that.

              Look, the diarrhea has nothing to do with the autism. Based on your own sources, diarrhea is on the official list of plausible side effects for vaccine. As such, claiming you were injured by vaccines causing you to have diarrhea is not a weak claim, so you could seek petitioners’ fees and would likely succeed on that. It’s not that autistic people can’t say they weren’t injured by vaccines in any respect; they just can’t win on claims that they were injured because the vaccines caused autism. As I’ve said, autism doesn’t cause diarrhea.

              Also, no one expects a child to file a case pro se, period. In such cases, the parents could act on their child’s behalf. They might be able to find a lawyer willing to represent their child pro bono if there’s any merit to their case.

              But at any rate, the fact is that a legal or scientific theory that has already been tested multiple times and found completely lacking each time is not likely to ever succeed. In fact, I would be stunned if it did, and I would suspect that something went wrong with the process. In this case, I don’t expect them to whip up new evidence because there is no new evidence to be had, and I don’t expect them to file pro se because the facts and theories underlying their claims have already been adjudicated multiple times and failed, meaning they’d be filing a case with next to no chance of succeeding even in the best-case scenario.

              I’m okay with that because, despite a lot of research in the area, there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that vaccines cause autism, and that claim has already gotten a fair shake at being tried in an official hearing multiple times. Even if the autistic child in question had a competent lawyer representing them, I’d still expect them to lose as there’s no good reason why they should win.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 8:01pm

        Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

        Are you saying that over 5,000 victims of vaccine injury concertedly acted in bad faith?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 10:45pm

          Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

          No, but the lawyers who represented them might be. From the ruling:

          Unfortunately, the Cedillos have been misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment. Nevertheless, I can understand why the Cedillos found such reports and advice to be believable under the circumstances. I conclude that the Cedillos filed this Program claim in good faith...

          Thus, I feel deep sympathy and admiration for the Cedillo family. And I have no doubt that the families of countless other autistic children, families that cope every day with the tremendous challenges of caring for autistic children, are similarly deserving of sympathy and admiration.

          No one is saying that the families were acting in bad faith. That said:

          I must decide this case not on sentiment, but by analyzing the evidence.

          Also, to reiterate something:

          I am convinced that the reports and advice given to the Cedillos by Dr. Krigsman and some other physicians, advising the Cedillos that there is a causal connection between Michelle’s MMR vaccination and her chronic conditions, have been very wrong. Unfortunately, the Cedillos have been misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment.

          And in a later ruling,

          I hereby put counsel on notice, once again, especially in autism-related cases, that if counsel continue to go forward with such extremely weak cases, I am not likely to find that there was a reasonable basis for their continued prosecution of the case.

          So the physicians may be incompetent, negligent, or acting in bad faith, and the lawyers may be acting in bad faith. The families probably aren’t, though.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          techflaws (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 9:51pm

          Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

          I'm saying it's absoultely not clear those 5000 are actually victims of vaccine injury.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 8:07pm

        Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

        If 5,000 people cleared the screening to even get into vaccine court on autism cases, you don't see this as a red flag?

        You don't see an elephant in the room?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 9:37pm

          Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

          Look, the parents may have been acting in bad faith, but if you consider the sheer number of vaccinated children in this country, it’s statistically probable that there would be 5000 autistic vaccinated children whose parents were fooled into filing this lawsuit. And there was no actual “screening” to get the 5000 kids into the case. The 5000 were basically anyone who filled out the proper forms and paid the fees. Those 5000 kids were then screened to find the best one to support the case. And guess what? The evidence they presented was atrocious. And this was the case they thought had the best evidence!

          So no, I don’t see a red flag. All that proves is that 5000 autistic vaccinated kids had parents gullible enough to believe this crap and were able and willing to seek compensation for it. It proves nothing of the merits of their case, even if they all genuinely believed that the vaccination caused their children’s autism. Science has shown that it doesn’t, and the Special Master saw that and ruled accordingly.

          Whether the Secretary defending the vaccine knows nothing about the children, the vaccine, or autism is completely immaterial. That’s why the called expert witnesses to testify. You even quote this exchange with one of them:

          Q So, in your opinion, is MMR responsible for an epidemic of autism?
          A No.

          I don’t even need to go looking up evidence to support my claims. That omnibus case gives you the evidence!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 12:37am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

            Oops. That first sentence should start:
            Look, the parents may not have been acting in bad faith, …

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          techflaws (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 9:52pm

          Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

          Of course: the elephant is assclowns like you who believe a fraud like Wakefield who kick off all this autism bullshit with his study of 12 subjects_ and that only TO SELL HIS OWN BRAND OF VACCINE!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 8:23pm

        Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

        "Notably absent from that spam post is even a single child who was harmed by a vaccine."

        5,000 children were harmed by a vaccine, don't you get it? That is why they filed the claims in the first place! Do you think this was all a coincidence? Duh--- Or a joke?

        Ever been in a public school?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 9:31pm

          Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

          Do you think this was all a coincidence? Duh--- Or a joke?

          What they're doing is calling "lying" shitbag.

          There are as of yet zero nonfraudulent claims linking vaccines to autism. Stuffing such fact-free claims into a lawsuit can't change that.

          You're not going to convice everyone with IQs a two OM minumum above yours here otherwise. You're only wasting time giving us more ammunition with which to pity your incurable pathogenic zealous idiocy.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 8:26am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

            "What they're doing is calling "lying" shitbag."

            This is very rude and disrespectful. And your post doesn't make any sense.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Toom1275 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 8:35am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

              [Asserts facts not in evidence]

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 11:51am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

              Well, that was rude and disrespectful, but I believe Toom1275 felt it was warranted.

              As for the post, what about it doesn’t make sense?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Toom1275 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 1:45pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

                I can concede it was certainly rude, but it was absolutely not disrespectful.

                Respect is something that must be earned, and spamming copypasted Nurgle-cult bullshit talking points from professional disinformationalists quickly digs a very deep defecit.

                Irredeemable shitheels like that get exactly the level of respect they deserve.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 3:24pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

                  To be clear, it was disrespectful. That is not to say that they have earned any respect. They could very well deserve to be disrespected.

                  Like I said, I thought you believed (quite reasonably) that this AC’s comments warranted a rude and disrespectful response, and that they had not earned a polite and respectful one.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              techflaws (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 9:53pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

              That's what you derserve and no amount of tone-trolling will change that.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 9:46pm

          Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

          Ever been in a public school?

          That bit of projection is rich coming from one who has thus far demonstrated zero capacity for logical, rational thought.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 9:47pm

          Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case

          5,000 children were harmed by a vaccine, don't you get it? That is why they filed the claims in the first place! Do you think this was all a coincidence? Duh--- Or a joke?

          In case you missed this, the case you’re citing explicitly refutes the idea that these children were actually harmed by a vaccine. Vaccines don’t cause autism.

          It also says why their parents filed the claims: they were fooled by quack physicians and/or lawyers into believing that the vaccine caused their children. It wasn’t a coincidence or a joke. It was just a combination of natural biases, the fact that the vaccine happens to be administered around the same general time period that more obvious symptoms of autism tend to appear in any autistic child (even if they haven’t been vaccinated), and the greed of some lawyers (and possibly physicians).

          Ever been in a public school?

          Yes, I have. Why do you ask? How is that in any way relevant?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 7:40pm

    Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

    https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4258038/hashi-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-service s/?q=cites%3A(629096)

    DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
    HASTINGS, Special Master.

    In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program..., Petitioners seek... an award for attorneys’ fees and other costs incurred in attempting to obtain Program compensation. They seek a total amount of $32,063.65. After careful consideration, I have determined to grant the request in part, but to deny the greater part, because it was not reasonable for Petitioners to proceed further with this case after April of 2012...

    Lack of evidence that vaccinations can cause or aggravate ASDs

    In Sections IV(C)(1) and (2) of this Decision immediately above, I have explained that Petitioners’ counsel in this case continued to pursue two virtually hopeless factual scenarios that were plainly contradicted by the medical records. Further, there is another (though unnecessary to decide this case) reason to find that the continued pursuit of this case past April 2012 was not reasonable.

    It should be emphasized that after this case was filed, there occurred the filing of the autism “test case” decisions described in Section II of this Decision. The six extremely lengthy special master decisions in those test cases, followed by three rulings of Judges of this Court plus two unanimous rulings of three-judge panels of the Federal Circuit, made clear in excruciating detail the complete lack of any persuasive evidence that vaccines can cause or aggravate ASDs.

    As noted above, this case was filed prior to the issuance of those decisions, and thus I am willing to compensate counsel for her initial efforts in this case. But I find it very questionable whether it was reasonable for counsel to have continued to pursue this case in light of those rulings. Petitioners’ Reply filed on August 5, 2016, failed to point to any significant evidence in the record of this case to indicate that, even if their claims had been timely filed, Petitioners had any reasonable argument that any of O.H.’s vaccinations actually caused any injury to her.

    Summary concerning “reasonable basis”

    At the time that this case was filed, there was considerable uncertainty concerning how claims alleging that vaccines could contribute to the causation of autism would fare in this Court, so I have concluded that it was reasonable to file this case and to pursue it for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. However, as I have set forth in the sections of this Decision immediately above, both of the Petitioners’ causation theories were clearly contradicted by O.H.’s medical records. In addition, Petitioners’ counsel persisted in pursuing a claim that vaccines could contribute to the causation or aggravation of autism in the face of the “test case” decisions concluding to the contrary. Therefore, I conclude that Petitioners’ case ceased to have a reasonable basis after April 16, 2012, and I will award no fees and costs incurred after that date...

    NOTATION CONCERNING “REASONABLE BASIS” IN AUTISM CASES IN GENERAL

    As discussed above in Section II of this Decision, in the early 2000s controversies arose concerning whether autism spectrum disorders might be caused or affected by vaccines. Thus, thousands of Vaccine Act claims were filed during those years alleging that ASDs were vaccine-caused. These claims were certainly brought in good faith. Further, in light of the scientific uncertainty at the time, I find that the filing of those petitions was reasonable. It was also reasonable to keep such claims pending until the OAP “test cases” became final in 2010, and for some period of time thereafter, in order for counsel for each petitioner to digest the complicated science, and to consult with experts to see if a reasonable basis to go forward could be found.

    However, by the end of 2010, the two major theories of vaccine-causation concerning autism had been thoroughly considered and rejected in the OAP test cases, with opinions that, among other things, found that all of the many reputable epidemiological studies had found no association between any vaccines and autism. At that point, the vast majority of the approximately 5,000 autism petitioners elected either to withdraw their claims, or to request that the special master enter a decision denying their claim on the written record. Only a small minority of the autism petitioners elected to continue to pursue their cases, seeking other causation theories and/or other expert witnesses. Since 2010, a number of such cases have gone to trial or to decisions on the record before special masters, and in the cases of this type decided thus far, all have resulted in rejection of petitioners’ claims that vaccines played a role in causing or aggravating their child’s ASD. See the cases cited above in Section II.

    There is now, therefore, a serious question concerning whether it is reasonable for additional Vaccine Act petitioners to continue to pursue highly speculative theories concerning vaccinees with autism spectrum disorders. In each such case, of course, a case-specific decision must be made concerning if and when it became unreasonable, under all the circumstances of the case, to continue to go forward. In many of the cases that have been pursued to a decision since 2010, as in this case, petitioners have tried to avoid the conclusions of the test cases by alleging that a child suffered a vaccine-caused “encephalopathy” that resulted in “autistic-like features,” or that a child had an underlying “mitochondrial disorder” that somehow made the child more vulnerable to injuries by vaccines. But such cases, in essence, have amounted to attempts to prove that vaccines can cause or aggravate symptoms of ASDs. And, except for the two highly unusual Table Injury cases described at footnote 5 above, all such theories have been rejected.

    Further, a review of the post-test case decisions enumerated in Section II above demonstrates that those cases typically involved expert witnesses who were quite underqualified to opine on the vaccine-causation issues at hand, and/or presented theories with no substantial scientific merit, and/or disregarded the facts contained in the medical records of the case.

    Accordingly, I hereby put counsel on notice, once again, especially in autism-related cases, that if counsel continue to go forward with such extremely weak cases, I am not likely to find that there was a reasonable basis for their continued prosecution of the case.
    ...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 7:53pm

      Re:

      You do realize that this entire wall of text actually supports that vaccines DON'T cause autism. Right?

      I mean:

      The six extremely lengthy special master decisions in those test cases, followed by three rulings of Judges of this Court plus two unanimous rulings of three-judge panels of the Federal Circuit, made clear in excruciating detail the complete lack of any persuasive evidence that vaccines can cause or aggravate ASDs.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 8:03pm

        Re: Re:

        If you had a child who was injured by a vaccine, would you be happy with this type of due process?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 10:19pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Their happiness is immaterial. They got due process. But yeah, I’d be satisfied with the process, even if the end result was less than satisfying. But that’s an argument from emotion, and that has no place in a scientific debate.

          I repeat this quote from the other comment just to show how much due process these cases got:

          The six extremely lengthy special master decisions in those test cases, followed by three rulings of Judges of this Court plus two unanimous rulings of three-judge panels of the Federal Circuit, made clear in excruciating detail the complete lack of any persuasive evidence that vaccines can cause or aggravate ASDs.

          And by the way, these children were not, in fact, injured by a vaccine. The omnibus case you’ve been citing proves that. To further emphasize the lack of merit, this also comes from the wall of text you posted:

          However, by the end of 2010, the two major theories of vaccine-causation concerning autism had been thoroughly considered and rejected in the OAP test cases, with opinions that, among other things, found that all of the many reputable epidemiological studies had found no association between any vaccines and autism. At that point, the vast majority of the approximately 5,000 autism petitioners elected either to withdraw their claims, or to request that the special master enter a decision denying their claim on the written record.

          That is, the science came in and disproved their claims, and a vast majority of the 5000 gave up because they realized their claims had no merit.

          As for the others, well…

          Only a small minority of the autism petitioners elected to continue to pursue their cases, seeking other causation theories and/or other expert witnesses. Since 2010, a number of such cases have gone to trial or to decisions on the record before special masters, and in the cases of this type decided thus far, all have resulted in rejection of petitioners’ claims that vaccines played a role in causing or aggravating their child’s ASD.

          So yeah, they definitely got due process, and they lost.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 8:32am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "So yeah, they definitely got due process, and they lost."

            If I had before-and-after videos of a vaccine injured little daughter, and had to deal with her diarrhea for 7 years, I would not be satisfied. Maybe that would appeal to you, but I think it would be a horrible injustice.

            And why would you expect the 5,000 autistic kids to cough up the science?
            Why wouldn't before-and-after videos be substantial evidence?
            If I was on a jury, that would be pretty compelling evidence to me.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 1:28pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              So many problems with that.

              If I had before-and-after videos of a vaccine injured little daughter, and had to deal with her diarrhea for 7 years, I would not be satisfied. Maybe that would appeal to you, but I think it would be a horrible injustice.

              I’ll get to the before-and-after videos later.

              First of all, this was a case about vaccines causing autism, not diarrhea. And I’m pretty sure “has diarrhea” is not one of the signs or symptoms of autism. You want to claim vaccines cause diarrhea? Fine. But that won’t convince me to rule in your favor if the claim is that the vaccine caused your daughter to get autism.

              Second, your personal satisfaction is immaterial if you cannot definitively prove a causal link between the vaccine and your injury. Before-and-after videos are a good start, but they are insufficient on their own to prove your case. They can only prove a correlation. They do not prove causation.

              And why would you expect the 5,000 autistic kids to cough up the science?

              The kids don’t “cough up the science”. The lawyers representing the kids call up and interview expert witnesses who “cough up the science”. The defense also calls expert witnesses, which the claimants’ lawyers can cross-examine. Why you wouldn’t expect experts to provide scientific information and evidence in a case involving medicine is beyond me.

              And in this case, the claimants’ lawyers did present their own “expert witnesses”, but in each case either the so-called expert was found to not be an expert in the relevant field, or their testimony/evidence was successfully rebutted by the defense. By contrast, the claimants’ lawyers were unable to successfully disqualify or refute any of the defense’s expert testimony or evidence.

              Why wouldn't before-and-after videos be substantial evidence?

              Ah, the before-and-after videos…

              First, as I said, that could prove, at most, correlation. In order to prevail on their claims, the claimants must also prove causation. Before-and-after videos could be substantial evidence if the claims haven’t already been disproven, but they are insufficient evidence.

              Second, if the theories for the mechanism of the cause have already been disproven, the before-and-after videos won’t help at all.

              Third, as I’ve said before, the signs and symptom of autism tend to become apparent to the average person around the same age that we administer the MMR vaccine. This is true even for children who did not get the vaccine. This greatly weakens the substantiality of any before-and-after videos, because they could only possibly show what is expected: once they reached a certain age, signs of autism become more apparent to the average person.

              Finally, in the cases that were tried, everyone did see the before-and-after videos. However, they were all found to not provide any evidence—substantial or otherwise—that vaccines caused their autism. Why? Well, an expert in autism saw the videos, and they were able to identify signs of autism from before the vaccines were administered. In other words, the before-and-after videos actually provided not only substantial but clear and convincing evidence that the vaccines did not, in fact, cause these kids to develop autism; in fact, these kids had autism the whole time.

              So basically, before-and-after videos, on their own, could only possibly prove correlation, which is insufficient; in these cases, they are particularly weak because they could—at best—show things that are equally true for unvaccinated autistic children; and in every known case, the before-and-after videos actually proved that the kids all had autism before receiving the vaccine.

              If I was on a jury, that would be pretty compelling evidence to me.

              Then you are easily swayed by emotional arguments and refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence that goes against your preconceived notions.

              Before-and-after videos, on their own, are insufficient evidence. If that’s the only evidence you have that could possibly be substantial, then your case should and will fail. This is one reason why we don’t put these cases before a jury of peers. Emotional arguments are not good arguments when dealing with science. Correlation is insufficient evidence to prove causation.

              One last thing. You quoted me saying that “they definitely got due process, and they lost.” Even if I agreed with everything you just said in this comment, that wouldn’t contradict the fact that they did, in fact, get due process, or that they did, in fact, lose. People with good cases lose all the time, and even if it’s a “horrible injustice”, that doesn’t mean they didn’t get due process. They were able to present their cases, present evidence, call and interview witnesses, view and prepare for the other side’s evidence before trial, cross-examine the other side’s witnesses, object to improper conduct by the other side’s lawyers, and appeal an adverse judgement. Even if you think the ultimate judgement was wrong based on the evidence and the law, that has nothing to do with the question, “Did they get due process?” The fact of the matter is that they got due process, and you have provided no evidence that they did not. On the contrary, you have provided evidence that they had gotten due process.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          techflaws (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 9:55pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          No, I wouldn't be happy for being fleeced by quacks who tell me it must have been the vaccines instead of searching for the real culprit.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 8:13pm

      Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

      Sounds like tobacco science to me.

      One Vaccine judge handpicked for each case. No panel of judges.
      No jury.
      The judge is not a doctor or a scientist.
      The case has been binding for what, 7 years?
      Binding on thousands of victims.
      No other autism cases can go to court unless they are super rich.

      The case is against the government, not against the drug companies.
      There is no fault for the drug companies, even after billions have been paid out.
      I think I will buy stock in those drug companies - it is a win-win proposition.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 8:20pm

      Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

      "Accordingly, I hereby put counsel on notice, once again, especially in autism-related cases, that if counsel continue to go forward with such extremely weak cases, I am not likely to find that there was a reasonable basis for their continued prosecution of the case."

      Five thousand people filed autism claims and this judge is ruling on their cases before he has even heard them. He thinks 5,000 victims constitute a weak case.

      How are you going to get any "evidence" if you won't even hear the 5,000 cases?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Toom1275 (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 8:29pm

        Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

        Well, considering that every one of them is trying to defraud the court with facially false claims in the pursuit of profit, the judge's response is actually perfectly warranted.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 8:35am

          Re: Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

          "defraud the court with facially false claims"

          How can you know the claims are false if you have never seen the children and don't hear the evidence? Not even the before-and-after videos?

          That is what happens under oppressive government regimes.
          What kind of due process is that?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Toom1275 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 8:45am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

            "How do you know there isn't a unicorn orbiting exactly opposite the earth of you don't see it?"

            🙄

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 10:40am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

            Well, if the claims have been disproven in, say, 4500 other cases and have never proven to be true, why would you expect case 4501 to be any different?

            Furthermore, as I’ve already stated, in most autistic patients—including those who have not been vaccinated—the more obvious signs of autism tend to appear around the same time that kids are supposed to get vaccinated. The before-and-after videos would prove nothing. (Except that the kids had autism all along. See, in all the other cases, an expert was able to find signs of autism in the “before” videos that wouldn’t be apparent to the average person.)

            Here’s the problem: all of the theoretical mechanisms that would link vaccines and autism have already been disproven very thoroughly by an abundance of rigorous scientific research. Additionally, they have also been tested in court many times and found to be without merit. In other words, there is an abundance of credible evidence showing that it is impossible for vaccines to cause autism, and no credible evidence suggesting such a link could exist.

            You don’t need to examine each individual child to know that their autism wasn’t caused by vaccines because that is an impossibility. It would actually be less absurd at this point to claim that oxygen causes autism because, while there is no reason to believe that it does, at least there hasn’t been a ton of research and multiple cases that actually prove that it doesn’t. And even then, I don’t need to see the children to say that the claims are BS.

            And stop talking about due process. Nearly all of the original 5000 cases had already gotten their due process before this ruling came out. The others could still get a shot if they want to, but if they lose, then their claims will almost certainly be found to be frivolous, which would likely mean sanctions and/or having to pay the other side’s court costs. That’s what happens when you bring a claim that has already been found meritless many times before.

            This ruling does not mean what you think it does. All it says is, “You’ve tried this many times before and lost. You can no longer claim that you’re bringing these cases in good faith if you lose again because you’re already on notice that such claims have a much more likely chance of being found meritless than not based on the evidence we have seen thus far. As such, if you bring in yet another case on the same or similar claims and lose yet again, you may be subject to sanctions, and the other side will likely be able to recover their costs from you.” It does not rule on the merits of the other cases. It’s nothing more than a warning to be careful about which cases they choose to press.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Toom1275 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 11:04am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Servi

              Thanks for taking the time and having the patience to make your curb-stomping of the troll's feeble flailinngs so comprehensovely thorough.

              Readers with functioning brains appreciate it.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                That One Guy (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 3:10pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human S

                Absolutely, their dedication to countering the nurgle cultist over the course of many comprehensive comments has been quite the sight to see, providing a nice fact based counter to the dangerous garbage that might otherwise have been unchallenged, and for that they have my thanks as well.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Toom1275 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 3:25pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Hum

                  providing a nice fact based counter

                  My favorite part is when the facts that disprove the cultist's propagandizing comes from the cultist's own citations.

                  Like when they claimed that California clamping down on fraud hurt people with real exemptions, yet all they could come up with was a neglectful parent (Kerri Schwartz) screeching ignorant butthurt after their fake exemption got repealed.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 3:27pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Hum

                  Why, thank you. As a person with autism and a strong interest in science, I always find these claims particularly harmful and offensive and in need of addressing, so I do my best to counter such disinformation whenever I can without letting my anger control me.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        bhull242 (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 10:37pm

        Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

        Well, from that same decision:

        At that point, the vast majority of the approximately 5,000 autism petitioners elected either to withdraw their claims, or to request that the special master enter a decision denying their claim on the written record.

        Most of them gave up before any rulings had been made in any of the cases. Furthermore, when this ruling came out, many of the remaining cases had already been before a judge or special master:

        Since 2010, a number of such cases have gone to trial or to decisions on the record before special masters, and in the cases of this type decided thus far, all have resulted in rejection of petitioners’ claims that vaccines played a role in causing or aggravating their child’s ASD.

        So basically, very few of the original 5000 claims had yet to be ruled on or withdrawn. A number of them had gone through the whole process, and they were found to be lacking in merit. Based on all that, there was plenty of research and precedent to support the idea that further attempts to make the same claims based on the same theories would just be a waste of everyone’s time.

        This judge was not ruling on all 5000 cases. Nearly all of them had either been withdrawn by the claimants or had already been ruled on. This was after most of the cases had concluded by that point. So this was not “before he has even heard them.“ Of the minority willing to continue through the process to actually get a ruling, a number had been heard by the time this ruling was made.

        Also, if 5000 people make the exact same argument, that doesn’t make the argument any stronger. If they all make a weak argument, that argument is still weak. Even if 5000 people claimed “fluoride in water causes measles”, that argument would still be weak.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 1 Nov 2019 @ 11:13pm

          'Thousands of people couldn't be wrong/duped!'

          Also, if 5000 people make the exact same argument, that doesn’t make the argument any stronger. If they all make a weak argument, that argument is still weak. Even if 5000 people claimed “fluoride in water causes measles”, that argument would still be weak.

          They've been banging on the 5000 number so much even after you've shown why it's meaningless I almost have to wonder, if 5500 people sued the government claiming that it was responsible for hiding the true shape of the earth(doughnut shaped, naturally), would that be reasonable grounds to believe that the earth was not in fact (roughly) spherical, despite all the evidence/science/observations to the contrary? I mean if 5500 people believed it, then clearly they've got to be on to something, no?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 11:04pm

    Awareness advertising

    "It will, of course, allow important pro-vaccination awareness advertising."

    So if an ad makes you aware of the side effects of vaccines from the package inserts, is that pro-vax or anti-vax?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 12:31am

      Re: Awareness advertising

      Neither.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 10:51am

        Re: Re: Awareness advertising

        On second thought, I’d like to clarify my answer.

        It depends.

        If the ad mentions them and also makes claims of other side effects that haven’t been proven or says “don’t get vaccinated” or something like that, it may be considered anti-vaccine.

        If the ad mentions them and also encourages them to get vaccinated anyway, downplays the likelihood of any side effects, or something like that, it may be considered pro-vaccine.

        If the ad mentions them and does nothing else, or if it also mentions some other neutral information on vaccines or something without specifically advocating either taking or not taking vaccines, then the ad will probably be considered neutral in the debate.

        Basically, the list of side-effects of a vaccine from the package inserts is, on its own, neutral information that is neither pro- or anti-vaccine. By itself, it doesn’t really play a role in determining whether a particular ad is pro-vaccine, anti-vaccine, or neither.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 5:51am

      It’s neutral towards people’s beliefs on vaccines. Even if someone is pro-vax (i.e., an average person), they’d still probably want to know if a vaccine can cause serious side effects.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2019 @ 11:31pm

    Childrens Health Defense

    Thanks for the link.

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/americans-can-handle-an-open-discussion-on-vaccines-rf k-jr-responds-to-criticism-from-his-family/

    This is a great article. What is wrong with it? Everything on there is common knowledge.

    For example:

    Vaccines are the only pharmaceutical or medical products that do not need to be rigorously safety tested. To win an FDA license, companies must safety test virtually every other drug for years in randomized comparisons against an inert placebo. Yet, not a single vaccine currently on the CDC’s childhood schedule was tested against an inert placebo before licensing. Without placebo testing, regulators have no capacity to assess a medicine’s risks.
    ...

    This is verified on the package inserts.
    ...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 12:33am

      Re: Childrens Health Defense

      If I recall correctly, I believe that the Children’s Health Defense has been shown to be an unreliable source. Could someone (other than this AC) check me on this?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 1:30am

        Re: Re: Childrens Health Defense

        Wikipedia article on the group is... 'less than flattering' shall we say, so yeah, probably not a good group to be quoting from if you're looking for actual science rather than nurgle cultist garbage.

        The final paragraph in the article contains a rather telling argument in a lawsuit they filed objecting to a mandatory measles vaccination in response to an outbreak, as well as a delightful self-own pointed out by the judge in that case.

        In its ruling, Judge Lawrence Knipel indicated the arguments presented by the plaintiffs amounted to little more than "unsupported, bald faced opinion". Responding to Children's Aid Defense's claims that the City's reaction to a "garden-variety annual measles outbreak" was excessive, the judge pointed out their own documents filed as evidence demonstrated otherwise. He concluded that "the unvarnished truth is that these diagnoses represent the most significant spike in incidences of measles in the United States in many years and that the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn is at its epicenter. It has already begun to spread to remote locations."

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 6:29am

          Re: Re: Re: Childrens Health Defense

          Maybe people are afraid of the side effects of the vaccine.

          https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf

          If I was the manufacturer, I would want to know why so people were so afraid of the vaccine that they filed a lawsuit against being forced to accept it, wouldn't you? And if I were the government, I would order the drug companies to find out why they were causing so many side effects, such that people refused to get them, wouldn't you?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 7:37am

            I would want to know why so people were so afraid of the vaccine that they filed a lawsuit against being forced to accept it, wouldn't you?

            It’s called “a blatantly false disinformation campaign, initially spearheaded by a quack doctor who eventually had his medical license revoked, that says ‘having a child with autism is worse than having a child die from an easily preventable disease’ even though the only ‘proof’ that vaccines cause autism is a study put out by said quack doctor that was later completely discredited and has no factual basis in reality”.

            if I were the government, I would order the drug companies to find out why they were causing so many side effects, such that people refused to get them

            I'd be less concerned about the comparatively handful of people who have side effects from vaccinations and more concerned about the much larger number of people who could be exposed to a disease that can literally kill them if they aren’t vaccinated. I mean, yes, the side effects are shitty and we should take great care to minimize them as much as possible, but you’re not gonna get a “100% clear rate” on getting rid of side effects, and the side effects are much rarer than you’re led to believe by anti-vaxxer disinformation campaigns.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2019 @ 6:31pm

              Re:

              "the side effects are much rarer than you’re led to believe by anti-vaxxer disinformation campaigns."

              This is an oxymoron.

              If side effects are so rare, then why are there whole campaigns of angry people rampaging around the country trying to get something done about it, and giant companies like youtube and facebook playing whack-a-mole trying to suppress them - even techdirt is blocking links to some sites run by angry victims. Why are we having this conversation now, even?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Toom1275 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 6:48pm

                Re: Re:

                If side effects are so rare, then why are there whole campaigns of angry people rampaging around the country trying to get something done about it

                Because some know there's big money to be made in fleecing idiots like yourself

                and giant companies like youtube and facebook playing whack-a-mole trying to suppress them

                [Asserts facts not in evidence]
                (by way of deliberately mischaracterizing the situation)

                even techdirt is blocking links to some sites run by angry victims.

                [Asserts facts not in evidence]
                (Like every other "Waah Techdirt centaur ship" troll)

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Toom1275 (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 6:50pm

                Re: Re:

                And we can now add "oxymoron" to the list of things you don't understand.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 7:06pm

                even techdirt is blocking links to some sites run by angry victims

                For the record: Anecdotal experience is not empirical evidence. Bring some of that instead of stories from people who have a vested interest in presenting their story in a way that makes them sympathetic, and we can have a better conversation.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Nov 2019 @ 10:54pm

                  Re:

                  This made me go look -- and I discovered that one comment by this ignorant commenter was caught in one of our spam filters and I cleared it.

                  For what it's worth, I also found three comments from Toom1275 in this very thread that were also caught in the spam filter and clear those as well.

                  But, of course, this one commenter who has already proven that they're laughably bad at understanding statistics, evidence, and causation insists that we must have tried to "suppress" their comments.

                  And to you, anonymous commenter: you are wrong. You continue to post bogus science, sketchy anecdotes, and repeatedly make it clear that you are a true believer in an idiotic conspiracy theory. You are wrong and you are harming people and you should stop it.

                  You continue to insist that because some people assert something that is evidence that their assertions are true and you ignore any and all evidence that controverts that. You are a true believer, I see that, but you have only served to make the point I raised in the original post about what kind of a complete, dangerous idiot you are.

                  At the very least go the fuck away from my site.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    bhull242 (profile), 3 Nov 2019 @ 6:38am

                    Re: Re:

                    I wonder if out_of_the_blue will see this.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2019 @ 9:41pm

                    Re: Re:

                    Flagged posts cannot be seen on a cell phone, so it looks like they were deleted.

                    I have read this site every day for 6 years and I did not know how flagged posts were handled until a few weeks ago. I thought they disappeared. I had no idea they were just faded out.

                    And a person whose post was flagged does not know it unless they log off and log back on again. They think their post is still up because they can still see it. I don't know how it works with a phone. I am still confused about that.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Toom1275 (profile), 4 Nov 2019 @ 9:45pm

                      Re: Re: Re:

                      Flagged posts cannot be seen on a cell phone

                      [Asserts facts facts not in evidence]

                      (Seeing as I browse the internet almost exclusively on mobile for a couple years now, and not once have flagged comments on Techdirt been invisible in all my time here)

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2019 @ 5:51am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "Flagged posts cannot be seen on a cell phone"

                        Maybe it is only the cell phones of conservatives that are being censored.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2019 @ 7:08am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Flagged posts cannot be seen on a cell phone

                        Make sure the browser has javascript enabled or browse through the html in a debugger if they won't how up.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Nov 2019 @ 11:39pm

                      Re: Re: Re:

                      Flagged posts cannot be seen on a cell phone, so it looks like they were deleted.

                      This is false. Flagged posts appear exactly the same on phones and regular monitors.

                      I have read this site every day for 6 years and I did not know how flagged posts were handled until a few weeks ago. I thought they disappeared. I had no idea they were just faded out.

                      Then you haven't spent much time in the comments. We don't delete flagged posts unless they are pure spam.

                      And a person whose post was flagged does not know it unless they log off and log back on again.

                      Also false. When you reload you will see any comments that have reached the flag threshold in hte interim.

                      They think their post is still up because they can still see it.

                      The posts are still up. But if they have reached the flagged threshold, they get minimized. For everyone. Including whoever wrote the comment.

                      I don't know how it works with a phone. I am still confused about that.

                      It works exactly the same.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 5 Nov 2019 @ 6:17am

                      Re: Re: Re:

                      "Flagged posts cannot be seen on a cell phone... I had no idea they were just faded out."

                      So, you contradicted yourself there. They can be seen because they're only faded out, by your own admission. The fact that you couldn't personally see them after 6 years of trying says