9 ms·

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/08/08/bc-abbotsford-measles-threat.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/08..

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/08/08/bc-abbotsford-measles-threat.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/08... .. 31 kids could've died because 1 religious zealot refused vaccinations. For fuck's sake, get your vaccinations, and while I'm ranting stop drinking un-Pasteurized milk from dirt hippy stores illegally too. There is no elaborate conspiracy to keep nature down, it's to protect you from Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria

hayksaakian 13y ago
While Vaccinations are certainly something you should get, let's not go down the slippery slope where we blindly consume physically refined food. Don't let big pharma abuse your trust of actually necessary vaccines
jpatokal 13y ago
The big difference is that a consenting adult can drink raw milk and endanger himself without harming anybody else, while anti-vaccination nutjob parents endanger both their own offspring and everybody else's. (Feeding raw milk to your kids is halfway in between; at least it's not contagious.)
- dobbsbob 13y ago
  True, but they arrested plenty of conmen peddling raw milk as safe to the same religoius communities that don't get vaccinated. It wasn't until an outbreak of E coli that killed a kid that they discovered a vast network of raw milk stores run by foaming at the mouth conspiracy theorists and neo hippies. Diptheria also made a comeback, something even more terrifying than measles. What's wrong with people, damnit stop listening to Jenny McCarthy
throwawayyyz 13y ago
We live in a crazy world where it is a federal crime to transport raw milk across state lines, yet cigarettes you can get at any corner shop kill 500,000 people every year, 50,000 of them from secondhand smoke. But yes, protect us all from the evil raw dairy.
- derleth 13y ago
  When raw milk sellers list the potential of disease risk their product carries on their packaging, I'll consider them equivalent. Oh, and any claims that raw milk is better for you must be backed up with real studies or else it's fraud. Agreed?
  - throwawayyyz 13y ago
    I don't think the government can tell me not to drink raw dairy if I so choose. The only reason they raid raw dairies is because they don't want the masses realizing raw milk is safe to consume. Because if consumers start demanding it - the dirty and contaminated industrialized milk factories that get away with it by pasteurizing their milk will be out of business. If the government really wanted to make sure you are healthy and alive - they would go after real threats. Alcohol, for example. Alcohol-impaired drivers kill 30 people every DAY. 200 kids die every year because a drunk driver killed them. That's why I hate when people say "oh, get vaccinated to protect the babies who can god forbid contract your disease". What about my own kids who are at the hands of drunk drivers every day on the way back from school? Or when my next-door neighbor smokes outside when they're out playing? FDA and CDC go after raw milk to create the illusion that they're concerned about your health. In reality, it's a protection racket. You are much better off consuming raw dairy from a local farmer you trust and can visit in person than trusting some white liquid that's undergone numerous alterations and comes from sick cows.
    - grannyg00se 13y ago
      "If the government really wanted to make sure you are healthy and alive - they would go after real threats" "Alcohol-impaired drivers kill 30 people every DAY. 200 kids die every year because a drunk driver killed them." Drunk driving is illegal in most places. People do get arrested and loose their license for it, get a record, and go to prison.
      - throwawayyyz 13y ago
        Exactly right. The drunk drivers get punished, not the wine makers or convenience store seller. But when a person becomes sick after buying raw milk - a SWAT team is sent to raid the local dairy that sold the milk. However, the same is not done when a person becomes sick from eating contaminated meat that came from a factory farm. Why? Because there's no raw dairy lobby in Washington. Pasteurization of dairy is of course necessary when the cows are raised in the terrible conditions that they are in most farms today and fed the soy and corn that makes them physically sick. When we used to get our raw milk it was from a local farm we could visit on weekends with our kids, and it was the product of healthy cows who did not have the need to be injected with hormones and antibiotics, who grazed on grass when not milked (by hand) and did not spend their time living on top of their own manure.
sneak 13y ago
What've you got against natural selection?!
Alex3917 13y ago
> 31 kids could've died because 1 religious zealot refused vaccinations. What about the 30 million people who have died of the AIDS epidemic, which is thought to have been started because of government vaccination programs?[1] Similarly, what about the fact that the US government has been repeatedly caught giving out fake vaccinations?[2] Or the fact that the safety standards for medicine in the US are generally abysmal?[3] All in all I think getting vaccinated is generally a good bet, but the idea that there are no rational arguments against vaccination is completely disingenuous. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS [2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccinations-osama-bin-ladens-dna http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccin... [3] http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Pharma-Companies-Mislead-Patients/dp/0865478007/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379046906&sr=8-1&keywords=bad+pharma http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Pharma-Companies-Mislead-Patients/...
- yuliyp 13y ago
  Well sure there are some concerns that might be rational causes for concern, but to come to the conclusion that the pros of vaccination are exceeded by the cons is not anywhere close to rational.
- nostrademons 13y ago
  Reading the Wikipedia article you cite for [1]: 1. That is hardly consensus theory: it is one hypothesis postulated by a small group of scientists, which is somewhat plausible but is very far from having a compelling body of evidence in support of it. 2. The theory is that vaccinations in the 19th century may have caused HIV due to unsterile injections given to many natives. Vaccination practice in the 21st century is much different from vaccination practice in the 19th century, and unsterile injections will cause all sorts of other problems.
  - Alex3917 13y ago
    Regarding point 1, I haven't read the book(s) so I can't speak to the extent of the evidence. It seems to be the primary theory at this point though; most of the alternative theories are just different variations on the vaccine theme, e.g. the version proposed by the book Down The River. Regarding point 2, the lesson to be learned I think is that with vaccines there is a relatively large chance of black swan type issues coming up. And even if there were a way to catch these sorts of problems, the medical system isn't designed to even look for them.
patrickg_zill 13y ago
You are being a drama queen. Stop it. And the issue of pasteurized milk is certainly a red herring in this case, and just makes you look as kooky as those you deride.

hayksaakian 13y ago

While Vaccinations are certainly something you should get, let's not go down the slippery slope where we blindly consume physically refined food. Don't let big pharma abuse your trust of actually necessary vaccines

jpatokal 13y ago

The big difference is that a consenting adult can drink raw milk and endanger himself without harming anybody else, while anti-vaccination nutjob parents endanger both their own offspring and everybody else's. (Feeding raw milk to your kids is halfway in between; at least it's not contagious.)

dobbsbob 13y ago
True, but they arrested plenty of conmen peddling raw milk as safe to the same religoius communities that don't get vaccinated. It wasn't until an outbreak of E coli that killed a kid that they discovered a vast network of raw milk stores run by foaming at the mouth conspiracy theorists and neo hippies. Diptheria also made a comeback, something even more terrifying than measles. What's wrong with people, damnit stop listening to Jenny McCarthy

throwawayyyz 13y ago

We live in a crazy world where it is a federal crime to transport raw milk across state lines, yet cigarettes you can get at any corner shop kill 500,000 people every year, 50,000 of them from secondhand smoke. But yes, protect us all from the evil raw dairy.

derleth 13y ago
When raw milk sellers list the potential of disease risk their product carries on their packaging, I'll consider them equivalent. Oh, and any claims that raw milk is better for you must be backed up with real studies or else it's fraud. Agreed?
- throwawayyyz 13y ago
  I don't think the government can tell me not to drink raw dairy if I so choose. The only reason they raid raw dairies is because they don't want the masses realizing raw milk is safe to consume. Because if consumers start demanding it - the dirty and contaminated industrialized milk factories that get away with it by pasteurizing their milk will be out of business. If the government really wanted to make sure you are healthy and alive - they would go after real threats. Alcohol, for example. Alcohol-impaired drivers kill 30 people every DAY. 200 kids die every year because a drunk driver killed them. That's why I hate when people say "oh, get vaccinated to protect the babies who can god forbid contract your disease". What about my own kids who are at the hands of drunk drivers every day on the way back from school? Or when my next-door neighbor smokes outside when they're out playing? FDA and CDC go after raw milk to create the illusion that they're concerned about your health. In reality, it's a protection racket. You are much better off consuming raw dairy from a local farmer you trust and can visit in person than trusting some white liquid that's undergone numerous alterations and comes from sick cows.
  - grannyg00se 13y ago
    "If the government really wanted to make sure you are healthy and alive - they would go after real threats" "Alcohol-impaired drivers kill 30 people every DAY. 200 kids die every year because a drunk driver killed them." Drunk driving is illegal in most places. People do get arrested and loose their license for it, get a record, and go to prison.
    - throwawayyyz 13y ago
      Exactly right. The drunk drivers get punished, not the wine makers or convenience store seller. But when a person becomes sick after buying raw milk - a SWAT team is sent to raid the local dairy that sold the milk. However, the same is not done when a person becomes sick from eating contaminated meat that came from a factory farm. Why? Because there's no raw dairy lobby in Washington. Pasteurization of dairy is of course necessary when the cows are raised in the terrible conditions that they are in most farms today and fed the soy and corn that makes them physically sick. When we used to get our raw milk it was from a local farm we could visit on weekends with our kids, and it was the product of healthy cows who did not have the need to be injected with hormones and antibiotics, who grazed on grass when not milked (by hand) and did not spend their time living on top of their own manure.

sneak 13y ago

What've you got against natural selection?!

Alex3917 13y ago

> 31 kids could've died because 1 religious zealot refused vaccinations. What about the 30 million people who have died of the AIDS epidemic, which is thought to have been started because of government vaccination programs?[1] Similarly, what about the fact that the US government has been repeatedly caught giving out fake vaccinations?[2] Or the fact that the safety standards for medicine in the US are generally abysmal?[3] All in all I think getting vaccinated is generally a good bet, but the idea that there are no rational arguments against vaccination is completely disingenuous. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS [2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccinations-osama-bin-ladens-dna http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccin... [3] http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Pharma-Companies-Mislead-Patients/dp/0865478007/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379046906&sr=8-1&keywords=bad+pharma http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Pharma-Companies-Mislead-Patients/...

yuliyp 13y ago
Well sure there are some concerns that might be rational causes for concern, but to come to the conclusion that the pros of vaccination are exceeded by the cons is not anywhere close to rational.
nostrademons 13y ago
Reading the Wikipedia article you cite for [1]: 1. That is hardly consensus theory: it is one hypothesis postulated by a small group of scientists, which is somewhat plausible but is very far from having a compelling body of evidence in support of it. 2. The theory is that vaccinations in the 19th century may have caused HIV due to unsterile injections given to many natives. Vaccination practice in the 21st century is much different from vaccination practice in the 19th century, and unsterile injections will cause all sorts of other problems.
- Alex3917 13y ago
  Regarding point 1, I haven't read the book(s) so I can't speak to the extent of the evidence. It seems to be the primary theory at this point though; most of the alternative theories are just different variations on the vaccine theme, e.g. the version proposed by the book Down The River. Regarding point 2, the lesson to be learned I think is that with vaccines there is a relatively large chance of black swan type issues coming up. And even if there were a way to catch these sorts of problems, the medical system isn't designed to even look for them.

patrickg_zill 13y ago

You are being a drama queen. Stop it. And the issue of pasteurized milk is certainly a red herring in this case, and just makes you look as kooky as those you deride.