[throwawayyyz]

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.

[argonaut]

So... were you going to make an argument as to why it shouldn't be a crime to transport raw milk? Or is it just this irrelevant non sequitur? For all we know, dobbsbob also supports banning cigarettes AND raw milk.

[throwawayyyz]

My point was that some people don't have a sense for proportions. I don't vaccinate my own kids. However, in the grand scheme of things, I think that most parents who vaccinate do more harm and put more people at risk, including their own, than my wife and I.

My kids are breast-fed. That means they have a stronger immune system and spread less disease. Kids who are fed formula contract more diseases and are therefore putting infants at risk of developing complications of flu, for example.

We don't drink. Alcohol-impaired drivers kill 30 people every day in the US. More than 10,000 people die every year because alcohol is legal.

I don't smoke. Cigarettes kill 450,000 smokers. As an added bonus, thanks to tobacco being legal and easily accessible, 50,000 people die just because of secondhand smoke exposure.

My wife doesn't smoke either. 2,000 babies die from SIDS in the US every year. Maternal smoking is the strongest risk factor leading to SIDS. Again, thank the tobacco companies.

My kids don't eat junk. They know not to touch soft drinks. Parents fill up their shopping carts with nasty candy and Coca Cola and so 17% of children and adolescents in the US are now obese. Oh, but wait, they vaccinated. Very responsible parents. Thousands of children die every year from obesity-related complications, including cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. But hey, at least they didn't have polio.

Measles is a concern because 50 kids had to be hospitalized last year for treatment? Big fucking deal. Really, big fucking deal. 150,000 and 300,000 annual cases of lower respiratory tract infections in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to secondhand smoke exposure. Between 7,500 and 15,000 result in hospitalization . Some of them die. Far more damage just from this societal fuckup of legalizing tobacco than any anti-vac parents will ever do.

I really respect and enjoy what folks on HackerNews have to say and this place is filled with very smart people. But when it comes to vaccines, personal health, pharmaceuticals and mega-corp-funded so-called science submissions here, I wonder what it is about tech folks that make them so brain washed.

[pyre]

So, the crux of your argument is, "You can't criticize me for not vaccinating my kids because other bad things happen that may or may not get the same amount of attention."

Also, you say this:

> I wonder what it is about tech folks that make them so brain washed.

But earlier you said this:

> My kids are breast-fed. That means they have a stronger immune system and spread less disease. Kids who are fed formula contract more diseases and are therefore putting infants at risk of developing complications of flu, for example.

Do you have a citation for any of this?

> Thousands of children die every year from obesity-related complications, including cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.

How many children die from heart disease caused by obesity? How many cases of childhood cancer are linked to obesity?

[throwawayyyz]

I'm saying that people on HN are quick to judge parents who don't vaccinate as if it's about to bring armageddon. Meanwhile, they themselves contribute to more harm to themselves as well as their kids and other people's kids. I have many friends and acquaintances who criticize me on a regular basis for not vaccinating (I only admit to it or even bring up the topic when asked directly), yet see no problem in giving their 5-year-old kids soft drinks or smoking while strolling their baby, or giving their kids Tylenol at the first mention of them not feeling well, etc. In fact, it's taboo to even question their parenting style, yet they have no problems telling me I'm evil.

"There are many ways that breastfeeding and breast milk protect babies’ health. Flu can be very serious in young babies. Babies who are not breast fed get sick from infections like the flu more often and more severely than babies who are breast fed." - http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/infantfeeding.htm

As for the stats for obesity-related deaths, best I could find right now is this article includes some useful stats and citations from the CDC: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/may/31/rob-e...

[darkarmani]

> I have many friends and acquaintances who criticize me on a regular basis for not vaccinating (I only admit to it or even bring up the topic when asked directly), yet see no problem in giving their 5-year-old kids soft drinks or smoking while strolling their baby, or giving their kids Tylenol at the first mention of them not feeling well, etc.

None of those things are infectious. At least those harmful things come with a benefit. Choosing to not vaccinate your children doesn't even come with a benefit.

[res0nat0r]

I think people on HN are quick to judge because we happen to be technically/scientifically inclined, and not vaccinating your kids and discounting a hundred years of scientific research by people who've gotten degrees and dedicated their lives to the subject, just because you read some articles on the Internet is the problem.

[pyre]

> "There are many ways that breastfeeding and breast milk protect babies’ health. Flu can be very serious in young babies. Babies who are not breast fed get sick from infections like the flu more often and more severely than babies who are breast fed." - http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/infantfeeding.htm

Talking about "babies" here is too generic. Babies get antibodies from breast milk for maybe the first 4 ~ 5 months, but they don't after that, which is when talk of vaccines start.

[grannyg00se]

I have the same type of tendency to make hype sanity checks. I like to go to traffic deaths. Around 35,000 per year in the US. So that sets the bar for what we are willing to accept. Measles seriously affects 1500 people per year. It really doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

But just because some things are worse than others doesn't mean we should ignore the lesser threats. We should do what we can for all threats.

Also, if my kid dies of measles it isn't going to matter that cigarettes and alcohol or anything else is worse for society. Or that my own neglect through diet had set the child on the path to obesity. What's going to matter is that your kid brought measles into the school and caused my kid to die mere days later. That then translates into you having killed my kid because you think you're better than everyone else. It's not a good situation. It'll go over just as well as if you had killed my kid because you drank irresponsibly.

[derleth]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

[grannyg00se]

Industrialized edible product creation is largely a sick, perverted, disgusting process and it is supported by huge corporate financial interests.

Selling raw milk should not be criminal.

Those are two separate issues and trying to argue for one by pointing out the other isn't really effective.

[grannyg00se]

I don't think a simple claim that can be shown to be false qualifies as fraud. If evidence was doctored to back up the claim that might qualify, but otherwise it's just be an opinion. It's up to you to believe it or do your own research. Which from what I've seen, does put raw milk in pretty decent standing.

[derleth]

> I don't think a simple claim that can be shown to be false qualifies as fraud.

Then what does? If they're using claims they can't back up, or that they know are false, to sell their product, that's pretty clear-cut fraud to me.

> If evidence was doctored to back up the claim that might qualify, but otherwise it's just be an opinion.

Well, you have a much different standard for fraud than I do. I think my standard is more useful for preventing harm and sending scammers to prison, however, so I'll stick with it.

[grannyg00se]

"Then what does? If they're using claims they can't back up, or that they know are false, to sell their product, that's pretty clear-cut fraud to me."

Why do you think they know the claims are false? Do you even know the claims are false? It doesn't seem so clear to me based on a quick bit of searching. They don't have to back anything up, they only have to reasonably believe it to be true.

"I think my standard is more useful for preventing harm and sending scammers to prison, however, so I'll stick with it."

Your standard would prevent harm. It would also render a large fraction of all advertising illegal. Fortunately we don't go around sending everybody to prison just because their company included some questionable claims in their marketing.

[derleth]

> Why do you think they know the claims are false?

It's just as bad if they don't know the claims are true. Bullshitting when someone's health is on the line is simply sociopathic.

> It would also render a large fraction of all advertising illegal.

Not all advertising. Just advertising connected to things that are claimed to be healthier, make you healthier, or prevent or treat disease.