Makers of vaccines are legally protected from lawsuits.

See [new news]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/22/AR2011022206008.html
or [established decades ago]: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html

Drunk driving vs. flu deaths? Wow....

I wish people would stop comparing vaccines with things wildly unrelated.

Thanks for the insult. I know children aren't born vaccinated. Duh. Children are vaccinated the DAY they are born in the hospitals. Within hours of being born. For a disease they're not likely to get until at least teen years.

I'm not saying there are no valid diseases to vaccinate against -- and people can do whatever they want. I'm saying that buying the government's line [on herd immunity/the safety &/or necessity of vaccinations...] without questioning it is for fucking idiots.

Have you given birth? I have, twice. When you have a child, the assumption is you will vaccinate. If you don't stop them, they vaccinate your child within moments of birth. It starts with eye drops to prevent blindness from gonorrhea. If you know you don't have a VD, why are they putting drops in your kids' eyes? This is later followed up with Hep B vaccine -- same day as birth, before you're summarily dismissed from the hospital. Some of the diseases they're vaccinating your kids from are not the types that are spread by air or contact or drinking water... but they'll vaccinate your kid without full consent or full information.

Legally, vaccination is an invasive procedure (akin to surgery), requiring full disclosure by the doctor of potential side effects, the information packet included with the vaccine serum, etc. What happens IN the doctor's office? They reach in the cabinet "It's time for your vaccinations..." and they pull out a bottle & a syringe & get to work...

It's become so habitual that they're not even following their own industry regulations.

You probably don't have kids -- like most of the "fucking idiots" posting on this topic. If you do, you almost definitely didn't go through the labor to have them, didn't see what they did to the babies when they whisked them out of the delivery room, and probably didn't go with them to the doctor's office when they got their vaccines.... And you're probably ignorant of what the vaccine schedule actually is, and how many vaccines they routinely give to children nowadays...usually in violation of law. It's an assembly-line procedure now. But it's not supposed to be. But that doesn't worry anyone here. :)

I'm sorry, I fail to see the similarities between optional alternative "therapies" and a mandatory government-required system of vaccinations of which any and all profits roll into the same large companies. If the program was not profitable, the drug companies wouldn't produce the vaccines -- their boards of directors would shoot them (and they'd be legally fiscally accountable to their shareholders & boards for running a program at a deficit for decades...). So you have to assume that it brings in some type of profit -- or the companies wouldn't produce them.

Comparing this to homeopathic remedies, that are entirely voluntary, is ridiculous. Please stick to the problem at-hand. [Note: it's quite likely the same drug companies are making money on homeopathic remedies under subsidiary labels too -- because they'll sell whatever the public will buy to profit their board & shareholders -- just like they started taking an interest in herbal remedies during the big FDA-herb-banning fights in the early 1990s]

The vaccination program makes the drug companies money. Period. The more children are vaccinated, the more money. Period. This has nothing to do with what other companies are selling or with non-manditory medications/alternative therapies. This is an entirely different fact than whether we're benefitted by herd immunity, etc. If this program didn't make a profit, and the government thought it was of benefit to vaccinate regardless of whether a for-profit entity would supply the vaccines, the government would manufacture the vaccines or fund some small non-profit with grant money to do so. The fact is, there's profit being made here. The next question is what lobbying & what pressure is being put on legislators to insure these profits.

Well, then you want to catch every single child you can, to maximize the profit, right? After all, you invested in R&D, FDA approval & compliance with regulations. But once you have it on the assembly line, each vial of vaccine can't really cost much on top of those up-front costs.... so we'd better start immunizing all those stragglers too!

First Question: If vaccines really work, then how are unvaccinated children putting vaccinated children at risk? Study data about recent outbreaks of the vaccine-available illnesses for a clue on this one... Is herd immunity a myth?

Next: Is this issue one of those "Things the government & 'science' tell us are true but are actually only to benefit large corporate interests"? Every child from the day they are born has a "vaccine schedule" -- starting with Hep B vaccine which is a disease they must have unprotected sex or use injected dirty needles to get? Is this a case of over-vaccinated to go along with over-medicated children?

Correlation or causation? Increases of childhood developmental disabilities vs. being vaccinated... are they related? It's so hard to tell, since they're constantly giving children vaccines when they're growing. But there's plenty of parents whose children have problems within 72 hours of vaccines being administered to make at least the anecdotal cases seem compelling -- at least THAT child should not have had those vaccines. Would you rather your child had the mumps, or encephalitis resulting in autism?

Always! ask who benefits. Because I'd love to see the data that says that children benefit.

While I know some geeks that go to LAN parties, I don't know any diehard geeks who go to tournaments. Geeks don't show off, and they get paid just fine to code or support systems -- wasting hundreds of hours in tournaments for the golden carrot isn't a geek's style.

I respectfully agree about "jocks" -- or maybe they're donkeys lured by the carrots. Some are social parasites, wanting to climb on the backs of the downtrodden to get their moment of fame. You see that type in the business world all the time (I won't name names, but I can spell out some initials *cough* BG) -- some of whom *BG* were once something resembling geeks.

Most geeks can't be bothered. Most geeks don't have the social wherewithal to know that you CAN climb on the backs of the downtrodden. Besides, that would be too much like getting exercise!