It's certainly true that the more things child a receives at a time, the more difficult it may be to attribute an adverse reaction to any one of them. Which doesn't support your original claim, that "doing 1 vaccine every few months is less likely to cause risk to the life and well being of the child." Your second argument, that being infected with two diseases at once produces greater mortality, may or may not be accurate (you've provided no supporting evidence), but that's only material if vaccination produces disease. If your contention is that children are at risk of mortality due to concurrent infections caused by vaccination, then please provide some evidence that this actually happens in the real world.

It might seem like I'm unfairly placing the burden of evidence on you by demanding these things, but I need to point out that the U.S. vaccine schedule is determined by doctors and experts in immunology and infectious disease who take this very seriously and who have access to the best data available. If you're suggesting we do something different, then the amount of evidence you'll need to provide to justify that is pretty substantial.

In your last line you suggest that there's a problem with the way this issue is studied--fair enough. Can you explain to me what you think the problem is? I'll point out that the government requires that vaccines be studied the same way they'll eventually be used, so you have kids in group A who get the new vaccine, and kids in group B who get a placebo. Groups A and B will be as alike as possible in all other respects, including the other vaccines they receive. These studies don't turn up the evidence of harm that you seem to think should be there. Likewise, there have been numerous large (as in tens of thousands of patients) observational studies conducted in multiple countries which compare different vaccine schedules, and none of these have identified a smoking gun. So what about the current state of the evidence allows you to dismiss it out of hand?

What does the H5N1 research you reference have to do with vaccination, exactly?

So, you can cite some facts to support your contention that spreading vaccines out is less risky? Or is that just your amateur opinion?

No to mention the fact that at this time of his 'study' he was on the payroll of a lawyer looking to gin up some anti-vaccine lawsuits.

You're a little off. It is possible to be vaccinated but not immunized--the vaccines aren't perfect, after all, so maybe you got the shot but you're still susceptible to infection if you're exposed. Herd immunity protects you by decreasing the odds that you'll be exposed. The same goes for people who are vaccinated, but who are immunodeficient for some reason--even though their immune systems might recognize the pathogen it may not be able to mount a robust response. So it's not just the people who aren't vaccinated who benefit.

To be fair, there are plenty of medications a person might choose not to take as prescribed apart from antibiotics, but on the whole I agree with you. If there is some reason why you can't or aren't willing to take your medication as prescribed, then you should speak to your doctor about that and identify a course of treatment you are willing to comply with. Nonadherence to prescriptions is a major source of reduction in patient well-being and a drive of increased healthcare costs. If a simple technological solution to that is available, why not use it?

Will Whedon--didn't he play Wesley Crusher?

Can you provide some evidence to support your statement that ebola as we know it could "cripple the world?" Not arguing with you, I just didn't think that it was transmissible enough to cause a problem the way, say, a flu virus with high lethality would be. As case in point (and I know this is poor quality evidence, but take it with as much salt as you need) in 'The Hot Zone' Preston describes someone infected with Marburg on a commercial flight who is massively contagious--shedding virus in blood and vomit. And yet I don't recall anyone on the flight becoming infected.

As I said though, weak evidence on my part, and if you could help me become better informed here I'd appreciate it.

But a developed country also has decent hospital infrastructure in place, which means that once you know you have something nasty (and people will figure it out when patients come in bleeding from their eyes) they'll institute proper infection control protocols. The reason there was such explosive transmission in many of the early African outbreaks is that you had nurses reusing hypodermic syringes between patients because they didn't have clean ones. So I'm not really sure a first world country (or even a more developed third world country, really) has too much to worry about a catastrophe.

I don't think being a man invalidates your opinion (I'm a man myself), but I do think our opinions carry less weight on this topic than those of a woman. Not because women are born with an innate and deep understanding of feminist employment issues, but because you and I benefit from male privilege in ways we don't even notice. I have worked in environments where I was perfectly comfortable, but where a woman understandably might not be. So while we don't want harassment policies that completely stifle all employee interactions, we do need clear definitions of what behavior is okay and what isn't, and what do to when disagreement exists. It's not about zero tolerance; it's about making sure the work environment is inviting and open for everybody, regardless of gender, age, orientation, etc. Does that make sense?

You think we're closer to walking on eggshells than to providing a non-hostile environment. May I ask whether or not you're a man? Because very often those in a position of privilege don't recognize that privilege. I think if more men did, there would be less worry that the goal is to create some kind of PC police.

Because what if the one making the remarks is her boss? Can you think of any reasons why a new employee might feel uncomfortable telling the boss, "Hey, that made me uncomfortable, and I don't want you to do it again"? Particularly if everybody else in the office thinks it's just fine, because hell, they do that kind of stuff all the time. And of course, a perfectly well-intentioned person might cause offense unintentionally. That's why you have a policy--so that everyone is clear on what is okay, and how to seek redress if something not okay happens. It also provides protection because if your 'spoiled entitled princess' alleges harassment, there's a clear process for adjudicating the complaint and addressing it, which, if followed, should provide solide defense against any harassment lawsuit.

Seriously, it's not about killjoy women wanting to ruin your life. It's about creating an environment where nobody feels like they just have to smile and put up with bullshit because the alternative means getting fired. I really don't know why a decent person would object to that.

Right. It's not a man's fault if he can't refrain from acting like a horny jackass all the time. It's those damn wimmenz and their sensitivity. Don't fix your environment because you want your female coworkers to feel comfortable and welcomed; fix it because those bitches will ruin your company the second you grab her ass (just in a fooling around kind of way, which totally makes it not sexual harassment).

You, big fellah, are part of the problem. This kind of thing is why women have to put up with so much BS. And don't pull that stupid "I'm a guy, I'm biologically programmed to think about sex constantly!" It's a BS excuse for not acting like a goddamn adult.

Yes, because that's what Planned Parenthood is: the government forcing birth control and abortions on those deemed unworthy of procreation. All that stuff about women's healthcare and reproductive freedom is just window dressing.

Hell yeah. 'Everybody Get Laid Tonight' is on my iPod right now. "He is the Lord of Light...and he commands you...GET LAID!"