Hepatitis, Diphtheria, Rubella...Each year millions of children are vaccinated in order to prevent potentially fatal illnesses like these. But should schools be able to mandate vaccines? Some parents see them as vital lifesavers, but others fear serious or perhaps even debilitating risks. How much authority should schools have in determining your child’s health?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Unvaccinated Kids Can't Threaten Others' Health if Shots are Effective
- From ThinkTwice Global Vaccine Institute
By ThinkTwice Global Vaccine Institute - Uncensored Information About Vaccines
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Herd Immunity
The concept behind all vaccination is herd immunity. It is the concept that as more people are immune, the lower is the likelihood that a susceptible person will become infected. This then leads to the irradication of the disease. But, this requires vaccination of almost all of the population. Therefore, to protect the species, everyone should be vaccinated unless it is medically contraindicated.
- jross72
October 18, 2008 7:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Better Safe than Sorry
Vaccinated students contracted a disease b/c the vaccine wasn't effective, so it's their fault. You are very right, it isn't the unvaccinated students fault. However, how are you going to explain how one student gave this bad disease to 1/3 of those school children who didn't get vaccinated? Fault isn't the matter at hand, it's those unvaccinated students coming down with the disease and possibly result in death is what is important. For example, if schools required that students be vaccinated, say against measles, and 1/2 of those students did, then great. They don't have to worry about getting measles. But when a measles epidemic occurs in schools, whats gonna happen to the other 1/2?
- pioneerlinh
February 19, 2009 5:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Measles in the UK
Vaccination numbers for measles mumps and rubella in the UK dropped recently because of worries that it may cause autism in children. While this was swiftly discredited in medical journals the message never filtered through to everyone, resulting in parents not immunising their kids. Because of this we have effectively reintroduced measles to the UK. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7872541.stm )
I would say that vaccination is definatly worthwhile if the disease is a serious threat and the vaccine is effective, as the above BBC story would agree.
- bjrhodes
February 23, 2009 9:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My thoughts exactly
This was the point I was going to make. Glad to see someone already pointed out this logical fact.
Of course, there is NO justification for "public schools" in the first place. Education is MUCH too important to leave to government.
- KentMcManigal May 30, 2009 12:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
natural immunity, anyone?
I was a young child in the 1950's, when my mother was persuaded with many other mothers that it was best to expose young children to measles, so that immunity for life might be had. Some of my siblings did get the measles. I seemed immune already, as i recall and never got those lovely red dots on my face. I was the family member who "played in the dirt" everyday and who was intimate with the the nearby rural valley, fields and loved climbing trees, exploring generally and even played in a stream, where a local village drained it's (low-flow) septic-seepage. (My mom worked abroad where we were stationed, and i somewhat predated the latch-key kid era).
My counter vaccination argument-- What if school kids today got diseases from additional sources, such as failure to immunize through natural means, as i did? Perhaps much less invasive, external methods exist, to immunize kids, including rational nutrition, (and banning junk foods from schools ).
Therefore why not test kids for susceptibility, straightforwardly? Is our society too primitive to rule out dangerous experiments upon the public at large? Why not use external immunization? Is it the feared loss of profiteering which prevents rational approaches?
- TruthBeautyGoodness
October 4, 2009 7:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
rates
"I was a young child in the 1950's, when my mother was persuaded with many other mothers that it was best to expose young children to measles, so that immunity for life might be had. Some of my siblings did get the measles. "
For centuries measles was a deadly disease, but after the introduction of the vaccine in the mid sixties the number of outbreaks dropped to nearly non existant... spiking only in unvaccinated populations.
This can be seen in the measles outbreak in 2006 (449 cases, vs 56 in 1998) which included the first measles death in the UK in over ten years.
"What if school kids today got diseases from additional sources, such as failure to immunize through natural means, as i did?"
Then you are accepting the high number of deaths that will correspond from allowing the disease to run through the population.
"Perhaps much less invasive, external methods exist, to immunize kids, including rational nutrition, (and banning junk foods from schools )."
Nutrition does not lead to immunization.
"Therefore why not test kids for susceptibility, straightforwardly?"
Test them for what? Cases of vaccine injury have involved very rare underlying conditions that are hard to detect without specific tests.
"Is our society too primitive to rule out dangerous experiments upon the public at large?"
There are serious ethical concerns with running such experiments... largely due to the risk of increased outbreaks in diseases (as has consistently followed reductions in vaccination ).
"Why not use external immunization?"
What do you mean by external immunization?
"Is it the feared loss of profiteering which prevents rational approaches?"
It is more like the reasonable fear of lethal outbreaks keeps such tests from being performed.
- MrBook
October 4, 2009 12:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
shadow of a hair turning...
"Then you are accepting the high number of deaths that will correspond from allowing the disease to run through the population."
No, my point is that I was naturally immune, due to elements of lifestyle and/or perhaps my own recessive genes which my siblings lacked.
"Test them for what? Cases of vaccine injury have involved very rare underlying conditions that are hard to detect without specific tests."
Then let the focus be your "very rare underlying conditions"-- Pinpoint causes and effects. Consider preventative measures. Why continue on with thoughtlessness of internally invasive immunization. Instead support the immune system by providing for it's particular needs. Perhaps your "very rare underlying conditions" refer to unhealthy conditions of life needing correction, (even in our day and age).
So you might argue and instead focus on some narrow issues of statistics. Statistics lacking the controls of reasoned, healthful lifestyles. Indeed nutrition and lack thereof plays a huge part of disease susceptibility. We see billionaires bragging about sending pharmaceuticals by the ship load to Africa, purportedly to improve public health . Yet far better health is to be achieved if these recipients could have normalized diets, municipal hygiene technologies and financing. Also sustainable-local-economies will help greatly. Remove the incentives for slavery which still today sneaks in through sweat shops and very unsafe living conditions generally. The list goes on. Scholarship is to be found which supports these mere sentences.
"There are serious ethical concerns with running such experiments... largely due to the risk of increased outbreaks in diseases (as has consistently followed reductions in vaccination )." Touche- I seriously doubt this assertion. Let us chart this out using the best scholarship on both sides of the argument. Surely a concept-experiment is far safer than experimenting directly on the public with newly formulated vaccines .
"What do you mean by external immunization?" This refers to the difference between internal medicine and external medicine. External medicine or therapies are the least invasive and extremely effective when proper remedies are applied. When healthful lifestyles are lived, as a precondition. When mixed practices are not conflicting. In my case immunity from measles was apparent at around age six, when my siblings got the measles, i didn't, we lived in close quarters daily, as young children .
"It is more like the reasonable fear of lethal outbreaks keeps such tests from being performed." I agree. let us prevent mass-experimants using designer-vaccines!
PS-- I am fine with self quarantine-- I am not sending kids to any schools . Don't create public unrest with outrageous vaccine police , (just because populations of people mix all sorts of disease vectors into their lives-- In which the experts find troubles in sorting out causes and effects of outbreaks).
- TruthBeautyGoodness
October 5, 2009 3:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
immunization pt1
“No, my point is that I was naturally immune, due to elements of lifestyle and/or perhaps my own recessive genes which my siblings lacked.”
Or you experienced a mild form of the disease that your body was able to handle without showing symptoms.
“Then let the focus be your "very rare underlying conditions "-- Pinpoint causes and effects.”
We are… take the Hanna Polling case, her condition was caused by a very rare reaction between the vaccine and a very rare underlying mitochondrial condition… she is one of the few people in medical history to even have the reaction.
“Consider preventative measures.”
A vaccine is a preventative measure.
“Why continue on with thoughtlessness of internally invasive immunization.”
What is so invasive about immunization? A vaccine is a controlled exposure to a weakened or dead form of a known pathogen. It is actually very similar to what likely happened to you as a child where you were exposed to a form of the disease that your body was able to fight off without causing symptoms.
“Instead support the immune system by providing for it's particular needs.”
Vaccines do that, by ‘educating’ the immune system about what a pathogen ‘looks like’ so that it can be recognized in the future. All the immune boosting vitamins and such can’t help you if the body does not know what to target.
“Perhaps your "very rare underlying conditions" refer to unhealthy conditions of life needing correction, (even in our day and age). “
Possibly some of them are, but since they are so rare they have to be examined on a case by case benefit. Again I use Hanna Polling as an example; her condition is a genetic one.
“So you might argue and instead focus on some narrow issues of statistics.”
Narrow? How else are we supposed to study the effects of vaccination or disease of a population of more then three hundred million?
“Statistics lacking the controls of reasoned, healthful lifestyles.”
I’m not sure what you are getting at here… the statistics are looking at the incidence of diseases in the general population. Since many people live unhealthy lifestyles they have to be included because they can get sick and spread pathogens.
“Indeed nutrition and lack thereof plays a huge part of disease susceptibility.”
Are you seriously suggesting that by diet alone you can prevent smallpox or polio?
- MrBook
October 6, 2009 6:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
immunization pt2
“We see billionaires bragging about sending pharmaceuticals by the ship load to Africa, purportedly to improve public health .”
They do improve health… look at the incidence of polio and smallpox within those populations between now and before the vaccines were made available, then look at the incidence of polio in areas where vaccinations are refused. Nigeria is a good example, as due to the actions of extremists the percentage of the population vaccinated has dropped below the level needed to maintain herd immunity. This has been followed by a resurgence of the disease in both the regions the extremists are active in and in surrounding regions. This can also be seen in Bangladesh, which borders India (where polio is still endemic)… Bangladesh experienced a resurgence in polio in 2006 due to the import of the disease from India.
“Yet far better health is to be achieved if these recipients could have normalized diets, municipal hygiene technologies and financing.”
Vaccination is part of improving the health of a population, it is not in opposition to that heath improvement.
“Also sustainable-local-economies will help greatly. Remove the incentives for slavery which still today sneaks in through sweat shops and very unsafe living conditions generally. The list goes on. Scholarship is to be found which supports these mere sentences.”
Then please offer citations. I do not disagree that improvements in hygiene and diet help prevent the spread of disease… but those are only part of improving public health.
“Touche- I seriously doubt this assertion. Let us chart this out using the best scholarship on both sides of the argument. Surely a concept-experiment is far safer than experimenting directly on the public with newly formulated vaccines .”
Alright… what do you want to look at first? The rate of infection for a given disease in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations? The worldwide rate of some diseases before and after the introduction of vaccines for those diseases?
“This refers to the difference between internal medicine and external medicine. External medicine or therapies are the least invasive and extremely effective when proper remedies are applied.”
You are talking about things like dietary changes and exercise ? Those are an important part of maintaining health, but they are not the sum total of health as even someone with a good diet and lots of exercise can get ill.
“In my case immunity from measles was apparent at around age six, when my siblings got the measles, i didn't, we lived in close quarters daily, as young children .”
How can you say for certain that you did not get the measles? It is likely that you were infected with a mild strain of the wild virus and did not become symptomatic (or that the symptoms were not noticeable). Your claim about diet seems to fall apart in this example as your sisters would have had the same diet as you did.
“I agree. let us prevent mass-experimants using designer-vaccines!”
Huh? Vaccines are tested before they are released into the population. Further there are vaccines in use that have been tested extensively for years.
“PS-- I am fine with self quarantine-- I am not sending kids to any schools .”
Though this can be effective it is not as effective as vaccination , as we are often contagious before we become symptomatic.
“Don't create public unrest with outrageous vaccine police , (just because populations of people mix all sorts of disease vectors into their lives-- In which the experts find troubles in sorting out causes and effects of outbreaks). “
I’m not sure what you are trying to get across here, can you clarify.
An interesting side note… I’ve learned of another positive side effect of vaccination and herd immunity. It exerts evolutionary pressure on viruses to lower their ferocity. A disease that quickly makes its carrier to sick to interact with others cannot spread very far, and as such there is evolutionary pressure on viruses to have long periods where they are transmittable but have mild (or no) symptoms.
In a given population as the number of vaccinated increases the number of vulnerable people someone infected with a disease has a chance to come into contact with decreases, thus decreasing the chance for transmission. A virus that multiplies quickly therefore has an even smaller chance of being passed on, while a virus that does not incapacitate has longer to spread through the population. The result of this pressure is that less dangerous forms of a given disease survive.
- MrBook
October 6, 2009 6:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Citations
My personal experience is clear to me and disagrees with your suggested theory of my personal experience, (about my measles as a young child-- You completely sidestepped my combination of facts. You have a right to your suggested theory and we can leave it there).
As to lengthy shadow boxing debates-- My posting privilege is much smaller than yours appears to be, but here is a link to a pdf full of citations which is highly opposed to vaccination . It is from persons with credentials. I personally have no such credentials. So in case you are highly credentialed and wish to debate at that level, then perhaps you and your colleagues of similar opinion might like to address or perhaps invite some of these skilled experts to address the science and scholarship of the issues at hand.
Likewise, it is the individual responsibility of non-experts to determine which experts are closer to the truth and have the public interest at heart. We non-credentialed persons must also determine which protocol is "snake- oil " or profiteering and which side promotes better health . Governments are today preparing to enforce citizens to accept complex systems and pay heavily for them through taxes . A government by the people, requires the people to study the choices and vote by every means available (or suffer an unwanted bill of goods).
On Topic Citations through a pdf white paper-
http://www.garynull.com/SwineFluWhitePaper.pdf
- TruthBeautyGoodness
October 6, 2009 6:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
white paper
“My personal experience is clear to me and disagrees with your suggested theory of my personal experience, (about my measles as a young child-- You completely sidestepped my combination of facts. You have a right to your suggested theory and we can leave it there).”
How do you support your theory? Both are untestable because they are based on your recollections from your childhood. You stated that your siblings got sick while you did not, was your diet or activities significantly different from them? Were you older then them? If your ‘natural immunity’ was genetically based then why did it not extend to your siblings? What about your personal experience disagrees with my theory?
Your statement: ‘I seemed immune already, as i recall and never got those lovely red dots on my face.’ Is not a scientifically valid one, where as my supposition that you were exposed to a milder strain of the virus and thus had developed immunity seems to be a reasonable one. Yet it does not follow that by playing in the dirt an individual can gain immunity to a virus, because the chance of exposure is to haphazard.
“I personally have no such credentials. So in case you are highly credentialed and wish to debate at that level, then perhaps you and your colleagues of similar opinion might like to address or perhaps invite some of these skilled experts to address the science and scholarship of the issues at hand.”
I’m not a physician, I’m an engineer and a scientist… as such I have some skill at reading and reviewing the evidence in these matters.
“Likewise, it is the individual responsibility of non-experts to determine which experts are closer to the truth and have the public interest at heart. We non-credentialed persons must also determine which protocol is "snake- oil " or profiteering and which side promotes better health .”
And the only true way to differentiate the snake oil from the real stuff is through the Scientific process… in which the evidence clearly supports vaccination .
“Governments are today preparing to enforce citizens to accept complex systems and pay heavily for them through taxes . A government by the people, requires the people to study the choices and vote by every means available (or suffer an unwanted bill of goods).”
True, but again when the body of evidence supports vaccination.
On Topic Citations through a pdf white paper-
http://www.garynull.com/SwineFluWhitePaper.pdf
When you bore down into it the evidence they posit seems rather weak... they cite that vaccines are not 100% effective, but this is a known fact... they claim that improved sanitation would have eliminated measles while ignoring the measles outbreaks that have followed reduced vaccination (as well as not mentioning smallpox or polio).
A truly wonderful example of this is the following:
“Vaccines are portrayed as being indispensable and somehow better at disease protection than what our innate biological defenses and nutritional resources have accomplished for thousands of years.”
Vaccines use the bodies 'innate biological defenses' to protect against viruses by 'educating' those defenses... and the bit about 'nutritional resources' makes little sense as well (good health can help mitigate the severity of a disease, and otherwise speed recovery, but it does not help the body identify viruses).
- MrBook
October 6, 2009 7:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Consider this recipe.
"What about your personal experience disagrees with my theory?"
My immunities were superior to my siblings. It can be suggested that i played in more beneficial dirt than my siblings did-- Dirt which provided my immune system an inspiration. This was external medicine , no injection into my blood stream was required. Also our genes are not identical, nor was our dietary preferences or our habits.
Let's consider this vaccine recipe from the CDC- http://www.whale.to/vaccine/measles_virus.html Quote follows:
In an online paper entitled 'Isolation and Identification of Measles Virus in Cell Culture,' the CDC, the central Health Research authority of the USA, lays out how isolation of this virus should be done so it can be used, say for a vaccine. It instructs, first obtain from the patient a small sample of urine or fluid from the nose or mouth.
Next 'sacrifice' a marmoset monkey, take some of its cells, then make these cancerous, perhaps by exposing them to radiation, and then give them, on top of this, Epstein-Barr disease! Such extremely sick cells, the CDC informs us, are '10,000 times' more sensitive to the measles virus than are normal human cells.
Now add to these cells a toxin called trypsin. The CDC tells us to expect some cells to fall off the sides of the vessel as if they have been poisoned. They have been. Now add nutrients and glucose and leave for two or three days so the cells can somewhat recover.
Now add to the cells the sample gathered from the patient. After an hour, inspect the cells in the culture with a microscope to see if any of the cells are becoming distorted, or are floating free as they did when trypsin was added. If they are, the CDC says this is proof that measles virus is present and making the cells ill.
- TruthBeautyGoodness
October 7, 2009 5:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If i may further indulge ;-)
You wrote "You are talking about things like dietary changes and exercise ? "
I speak of much more as in the word Holistic and the lack of government funding to extend the value of studies to include all possible disease vectors, contrasted with all possible vectors of immunity. Too complex would be it said? No surprise! The powers That Be avoid the bigger pictures, the deeper truths and the wider paradigms.
You wrote-- "Narrow? How else are we supposed to study the effects ofvaccination or disease of a population of more then three hundred million?"
I say-- Ha, try 6+ billion!
I had also written about-- “Statistics lacking the controls of reasoned, healthful lifestyles.”
You responded-- "I’m not sure what you are getting at here… the statistics are looking at the incidence of diseases in the general population. Since many people live unhealthy lifestyles they have to be included because they can get sick and spread pathogens."
Me-- Ahah! the unhealthy lifestyles must me studied along with all the support-systems as a disease vector! Currently your mentioned-approach lumps the unhealthy populations along with those who strive to abstain from unhealthy life styles. What sort of science is that? It produces a useless statistic in terms of finding causes and effects!
- TruthBeautyGoodness
October 6, 2009 7:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
6+
“I speak of much more as in the word Holistic and the lack of government funding to extend the value of studies to include all possible disease vectors, contrasted with all possible vectors of immunity. Too complex would be it said? No surprise! The powers That Be avoid the bigger pictures, the deeper truths and the wider paradigms.”
That makes no sense. Disease vectors are well studied, as are methods of immunization (immunity can only form following exposure to a pathogen, allowing the body to recognize the pathogen when encountered in the future).
“I say-- Ha, try 6+ billion!”
Again, statistics is the only scientific way to study a population of any appreciable size
“Me-- Ahah! the unhealthy lifestyles must me studied along with all the support-systems as a disease vector! Currently your mentioned-approach lumps the unhealthy populations along with those who strive to abstain from unhealthy life styles. What sort of science is that? It produces a useless statistic in terms of finding causes and effects!”
What causes / effects are in question here? That healthy people recover faster and get less sick is well known… but it does not prevent infection.
Look at the worldwide rate of smallpox, measles, and polio. The rate of infection drops suddenly and rapidly when vaccination is introduced, and spikes when vaccination is reduced / removed. The measles outbreak in England following the MMR scare is a prime example of this, but so are the outbreaks of polio in Nigeria, India, and Bangladesh. In all those outbreaks there was not both a removal of vaccination and a sudden shift in the health habits of the population, it was just the removal of the vaccine.
- MrBook
October 6, 2009 7:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
UTube Trailer & Another White Paper
"What causes / effects are in question here? That healthy people recover faster and get less sick is well known… but it does not prevent infection."
Causes and effects deserve more study beyond ivory tower assertions based upon severely restricted statistics. There are better methods and worse methods to 'prevent infection' (or preferably yet, to sustain good health ). The mantra 'prevent infection' ignores the importance of generally-acceptable living practices in the first place. Statistics ignore the fact that many populations are malnourished, that they lack sanitation and opportunity for hygiene and that they even lack calories ! Amazing! In the western-industrial settings, the industrialized statistical data is mixed with data from impoverished and repressed countries. Western-industrialized populations have very different causes and effects. Take the merca staff infection, for example. This merca infection is not prevented by any vaccine. Epidemics have ebbed and flowed for millennia before vaccines . The ebbing can occur naturally (not only artificially). Statistics confuse the causes of ebbing. Let us study this further before concluding. The flow or the causes of this pandemic have many questionable features, some of which might even be artificial. A sacred-set of broad-brush statistics for all people everywhere, regardless of specific causes and effects is not comprehensive science . It also prematurely triggers bad public health policies.To treat only one effect, such as a single infection, can miss the causes, the vectors, and consequently all the inevitable world problems. The advantage of missing or of smearing relevant causes and effects is an advantage of amassing colossal profits from gullible populations. This generally is managed by cozy media sponsorship, along with blackouts of competing science. Fudging statistics is cleverly achieved by extremely narrow foci. Pin-point foci like pandemic-vaccines can sound very impressive to the uninformed.
That old English folk lore inspired a profiteer to heavily invest and establish the earliest rudiments of a vaccine industry is not a noble chapter for science-history. I recommend reading about the entire history of vaccines. That the earlier folk lore observed and suggested immunities does not prove that the best implimentation of these immunities should be through internal-injections, through intravenous vaccination filled with dangerous substances. Apparently some enhanced immunities were obtained merely by the labor of milk-maidens and not by vaccination, per se. This reminds me of my childhood memory about my measles recollections. Please study this earlier history of the pox diseases. Chances are that your nearby library lacks these segments of history, so please ask for inter library sources. Or easier yet, use the internet . For a long researched multimedia presentation, see this trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUMZ-O-OsG0 The DVD: http://www.vaccinenation.net/buy_dvd.php Books: http://www.vaccinenation.net/books.php Uncensored FAQ: http://www.thinktwice.com / The history of vaccines is not a noble history like many proud human discoveries which are noble by contrast. Another white paper: http://www.garynull.com/VaccinesDarkInferno.pdf
We need more comprehensive science and less profiteering. More science- jobs for scientists may solve more world problems. Tax more profiteers to pay for more science-jobs.
- TruthBeautyGoodness
October 7, 2009 3:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.