Robert De Niro's triumph is in an Australian woman who rejected vaccination against whooping cough because she was 'healthy, fit, organic woman.' The woman contracted the disease right at the end of her pregnancy and consequently transmitted it to her newborn baby. (BBC: 'Anti-vax' mother's regret over whooping cough 'nightmare')
Both survived the disease and the baby should be released from the hospital soon. Doctors observe babies are highly vulnerable since vaccinations don't start until they're two months old and, in this case, likely would have been refused anyway.
The Sisters of Schweitzer, the ever so passionate liberals in Beverly Hills, have decided to countermand some of the most fundamental aspects of medicine in terms of disease control and the irony is this is the same as some GOP logic: if I can't see a problem then there is no problem.
We remember iron lungs and the fear people (i.e. my parents) had of them. We knew people who had even survived polio but with inevitable disabilities from it. There are probably not many still around but if I can't see a problem so there is no problem.
Sorry about flogging this but the story came up today and it's further on the same deranged topic as Robert De Niro and "Vaxxed" in rejection of vaccination because it causes autism, along with other urban myths of the day.
The film will haunt De Niro as he put his name on it and, in so doing, branded himself. That's a highly-conspicuous act for something which never should have seen the light of day in the first place.
Some of y'all like to talk of accountability but where is it for De Niro in something which is tantamount to cinematic malpractice. If someone follows his advice and, instead of getting measles, this one dies. Then what.
Surely the limit to free speech is reached in advocating something which will cause harm for people. Who is accountable for that and no-one is the wrong answer because "Vaxxed" was a deliberate act to spread this false message.
Both survived the disease and the baby should be released from the hospital soon. Doctors observe babies are highly vulnerable since vaccinations don't start until they're two months old and, in this case, likely would have been refused anyway.
The Sisters of Schweitzer, the ever so passionate liberals in Beverly Hills, have decided to countermand some of the most fundamental aspects of medicine in terms of disease control and the irony is this is the same as some GOP logic: if I can't see a problem then there is no problem.
We remember iron lungs and the fear people (i.e. my parents) had of them. We knew people who had even survived polio but with inevitable disabilities from it. There are probably not many still around but if I can't see a problem so there is no problem.
Sorry about flogging this but the story came up today and it's further on the same deranged topic as Robert De Niro and "Vaxxed" in rejection of vaccination because it causes autism, along with other urban myths of the day.
The film will haunt De Niro as he put his name on it and, in so doing, branded himself. That's a highly-conspicuous act for something which never should have seen the light of day in the first place.
Some of y'all like to talk of accountability but where is it for De Niro in something which is tantamount to cinematic malpractice. If someone follows his advice and, instead of getting measles, this one dies. Then what.
Surely the limit to free speech is reached in advocating something which will cause harm for people. Who is accountable for that and no-one is the wrong answer because "Vaxxed" was a deliberate act to spread this false message.
6 comments:
Free speech is still protected even if the result could result in harm
They let politicians give speeches
Sure they do but I don't hear any saying stop taking this or that medicine. I do believe that crosses into a different realm. It's all very well to play the posturing warlord and threaten to nuke them until they glow but I don't believe that's at all the same as endorsing something known to be harmful while acting like it is not.
Your sense of humor sucks
But yes that is still protected speech
Not sure which part was supposed to be comedy but the law permitting this sucks!
politician giving speeches cause harm therefore should not be allowed
goos thing I dont do it for a living. sucks if you have to explain them
law is fine. probably based on people having some degree of intelligence
You can fool people even if they are intelligent by shouting FIRE. Milgram and psychologists following demonstrated how people will be obedient to any apparent authority figure, regardless of what that figure is saying. He's the one who studied how his subjects behaved when they were asked to administer electric shocks to someone (actor) on the other side of a wall.
De Niro makes himself that authority figure and becomes overtly destructive medically. The Beverly Hills whizkids probably aren't stupid but they sure have a rampaging case of delusion happening.
Post a Comment