CA Vaccine Law - Pt 2 - Now W/arguments about everything!

[VelociRapture]

I'm a glutton for punishment. So I came back with several websites that can educate people on the main topic of this thread:

Vaccination Information (courtesy of the World Health Organization): http://www.who.int/features/qa/84/en/

Vaccine Information (thank you CDC): http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/howvpd.htm

An article on why disease can spread so easily when more parents decide not to vaccinate (from the always reliable NPR): http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot ... drens-risk

An article that contains the personal story of a family who is pro-vaccination for children to enter public schools (again, thanks NPR): http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot ... d-children

The quote that really stands out to me from that last article is this:

"It's very emotional for me," he said. "If you choose not to immunize your own child and your own child dies because they get measles, OK, that's your responsibility, that's your choice. But if your child gets sick and gets my child sick and my child dies, then ... your action has harmed my child."

This debate is not a bunch of parents getting their panties in a twist because their kid got time out for misbehaving. It isn't a bunch of Doctors looking to run concentration style camps in order to create a perfect race of people. This argument, at its very core, is really about protecting the most innocent in society - children, especially those who are medically incapable of receiving vaccinations.

And why is it okay to deny kids a non home based education when they are rich. Someone above was seriously saying its OK cause those family's are rich.

I don't get it???

Everyone deserves an education.

Let me ask you this. It may be a bit off topic to what you were saying, but I feel its important to ask:

Should a child, such as Rhett Krawitt, be punished by not being able to safely attend his public school because there are parents who refuse to vaccinate their children? Should a child that battled leukemia and won be forced into social isolation and refused entry into their school just because some parents don't want to vaccinate their speshul snowflakes due to their grossly inaccurate belief that vaccinations cause Autism? Should the other parents be allowed to continue to deny the vaccinations, while putting other children with compromised immune systems in danger?

Lets say that Rhett's parents kept him home. And lets say he has siblings who attend public school who have perfectly healthy immune systems and have been vaccinated. Should they be punished and kept home too because they run the risk of carrying home deadly viruses to their brother, even though they themselves would be highly unlikely to fall ill? What about families with multiple children? Should they keep their older children home from school because they have younger children too young to receive vaccinations? Should we say "Fuck it!" and close public schools altogether because we have to be fair to all students at all times and that just isn't possible in some cases?

You said everyone has the right to an education. And I agree with you. However, I also believe that there are times that adults have to suck stuff up and do what is best for the vast majority of people in society - that means vaccinate your healthy child or keep them out of public school. . . because the vast majority of parents who choose to vaccinate (or would if they could) outweighs the wants and desires of the vast minority of parents who don't want to vaccinate.

[Snarkylark]

Are you saying that you believe that the rise in vaccinations has caused people to have asthma, Type 1 diabetes, or multiple sclerosis? And if so, can you explain how you arrive at this belief. Do you have any scientific evidence to support your theory? Because it sounds like complete bull shit to me but I don't want to be too hasty.

ETA: As a Type 2 diabetic, I do monitor my BG levels daily, several times per day. It's not really that big a deal. I have a handy little monitor and contraption that pricks my finger. Takes me less than a minute, doesn't hurt, and helps me know whether I'm eating to my meter, or not. Being up to date on my vaccinations has no bearing on my diabetes, one way or the other.

No, that's not what I'm saying. That's what the hygiene hypothesis that someone up thread alluded to seems to state.

Type 2 diabetes is MUCH different than type 1.

[Snarkylark]

Are we ignoring all the other diseases which people are immunized against? And just telling people who can't be vaccinated due to medical reasons, "too bad for you, I guess you get to die now?" Also if you want to pose an unscientifically based argument that these diseases can prevent chronic illness :cray-cray: you can't ignore the chronic illness and/or disabilities these diseases can cause.

Who's the one that's fearmongering?? Seriously.

Do you want me to list all the disease we vaccinate against? I just picked a few to make a point. I was not the one who posted the hygiene hypothesis. I was answering her question.

[HarryPotterFan]

Who's the one that's fearmongering?? Seriously.

Do you want me to list all the disease we vaccinate against? I just picked a few to make a point. I was not the one who posted the hygiene hypothesis. I was answering her question.

YOU are the one who stated that if we just let kids get these diseases then they won't have chronic illness. Short of death, I don't see how that is possible. Please provide actual scientific evidence to back up this claim.r

And yes, you did just provide a couple examples - the ones with the lower death rates and chose to ignore the more serious diseases.

ETA: so you seem to be arguing that it's okay not to wash hands because not everyone will die when you refuse to do so? And that seems to have nothing to do with vaccines, am I right? Just that hand washing is a silly waste of time?

[Snarkylark]

I'm a glutton for punishment. So I came back with several websites that can educate people on the main topic of this thread:

Vaccination Information (courtesy of the World Health Organization): http://www.who.int/features/qa/84/en/

Vaccine Information (thank you CDC): http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/howvpd.htm

An article on why disease can spread so easily when more parents decide not to vaccinate (from the always reliable NPR): http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot ... drens-risk

An article that contains the personal story of a family who is pro-vaccination for children to enter public schools (again, thanks NPR): http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot ... d-children

The quote that really stands out to me from that last article is this:

This debate is not a bunch of parents getting their panties in a twist because their kid got time out for misbehaving. It isn't a bunch of Doctors looking to run concentration style camps in order to create a perfect race of people. This argument, at its very core, is really about protecting the most innocent in society - children, especially those who are medically incapable of receiving vaccinations.

Let me ask you this. It may be a bit off topic to what you were saying, but I feel its important to ask:

Should a child, such as Rhett Krawitt, be punished by not being able to safely attend his public school because there are parents who refuse to vaccinate their children? Should a child that battled leukemia and won be forced into social isolation and refused entry into their school just because some parents don't want to vaccinate their speshul snowflakes due to their grossly inaccurate belief that vaccinations cause Autism? Should the other parents be allowed to continue to deny the vaccinations, while putting other children with compromised immune systems in danger?

Lets say that Rhett's parents kept him home. And lets say he has siblings who attend public school who have perfectly healthy immune systems and have been vaccinated. Should they be punished and kept home too because they run the risk of carrying home deadly viruses to their brother, even though they themselves would be highly unlikely to fall ill? What about families with multiple children? Should they keep their older children home from school because they have younger children too young to receive vaccinations? Should we say "Fuck it!" and close public schools altogether because we have to be fair to all students at all times and that just isn't possible in some cases?

You said everyone has the right to an education. And I agree with you. However, I also believe that there are times that adults have to suck stuff up and do what is best for the vast majority of people in society - that means vaccinate your healthy child or keep them out of public school. . . because the vast majority of parents who choose to vaccinate (or would if they could) outweighs the wants and desires of the vast minority of parents who don't want to vaccinate.

Immunocompromised kids can get ANYTHING from ANYWHERE they go. A cold can be fatal to these kids if it turns into pneumonia or a secondary bacterial infection, which is much more likely than them coming into contact with measles (just an example!) and let's think about where measles comes from- travelers! It comes in from other countries. Little Rhett could get sick directly from one of these travelers. It's not necessarily kids that aren't vaccinated here in the states that are going to get him sick.

[Firiel]

Man, guys, Fundie Friday gets old when it's been going on for three weeks.

[Snarkylark]

YOU are the one who stated that if we just let kids get these diseases then they won't have chronic illness. Short of death, I don't see how that is possible. Please provide actual scientific evidence to back up this claim.r

And yes, you did just provide a couple examples - the ones with the lower death rates and chose to ignore the more serious diseases.

ETA: so you seem to be arguing that it's okay not to wash hands because not everyone will die when you refuse to do so? And that seems to have nothing to do with vaccines, am I right? Just that hand washing is a silly waste of time?

I don't know what you're talking about with the hand washing. I said that was the first line of defense to protect against spreading disease.

And no, I didn't say that! Gee, don't you people read? I was responding to the poster who said that the hygiene hypothesis may explain the rise in AI conditions. The hygiene hypothesis states that we may be seeing more AI conditions because we are too clean and healthy and our immune system gets bored and starts attacking self. I replied saying that maybe we need to get some of these common childhood diseases to prevent chronic illnesses later. Does that make sense? A bout with measles or chronic asthma?

[bekahdimples]

I'm a glutton for punishment. So I came back with several websites that can educate people on the main topic of this thread:

Vaccination Information (courtesy of the World Health Organization): http://www.who.int/features/qa/84/en/

Vaccine Information (thank you CDC): http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/howvpd.htm

An article on why disease can spread so easily when more parents decide not to vaccinate (from the always reliable NPR): http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot ... drens-risk

An article that contains the personal story of a family who is pro-vaccination for children to enter public schools (again, thanks NPR): http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot ... d-children

The quote that really stands out to me from that last article is this:

This debate is not a bunch of parents getting their panties in a twist because their kid got time out for misbehaving. It isn't a bunch of Doctors looking to run concentration style camps in order to create a perfect race of people. This argument, at its very core, is really about protecting the most innocent in society - children, especially those who are medically incapable of receiving vaccinations.

Let me ask you this. It may be a bit off topic to what you were saying, but I feel its important to ask:

Should a child, such as Rhett Krawitt, be punished by not being able to safely attend his public school because there are parents who refuse to vaccinate their children? Should a child that battled leukemia and won be forced into social isolation and refused entry into their school just because some parents don't want to vaccinate their speshul snowflakes due to their grossly inaccurate belief that vaccinations cause Autism? Should the other parents be allowed to continue to deny the vaccinations, while putting other children with compromised immune systems in danger?

Lets say that Rhett's parents kept him home. And lets say he has siblings who attend public school who have perfectly healthy immune systems and have been vaccinated. Should they be punished and kept home too because they run the risk of carrying home deadly viruses to their brother, even though they themselves would be highly unlikely to fall ill? What about families with multiple children? Should they keep their older children home from school because they have younger children too young to receive vaccinations? Should we say "Fuck it!" and close public schools altogether because we have to be fair to all students at all times and that just isn't possible in some cases?

You said everyone has the right to an education. And I agree with you. However, I also believe that there are times that adults have to suck stuff up and do what is best for the vast majority of people in society - that means vaccinate your healthy child or keep them out of public school. . . because the vast majority of parents who choose to vaccinate (or would if they could) outweighs the wants and desires of the vast minority of parents who don't want to vaccinate.

Again we are not just talking about public school. Private schools are included in the law.

Ok sooooo.

Lukimea kid or any one like that who are more susceptible / can't vaxx

Ok

Laws passed everyone at kindergarten school is vaccinated ( did you keep them out of school for preschool, those kids don't / can't be fully vaccinated)

But yay kindergarten! Are you going to still keep this child out of stores, malls, parks, other public places?

I totally think people should vaccinate but don't tie it to school. I think the financial pressure of higher insurance or something like that could help.

The world is not a sterile place and it shouldn't be. People ( kids) should play in the mud- they should get messy. And yeah getting sick is part of that.

[VelociRapture]

Immunocompromised kids can get ANYTHING from ANYWHERE they go. A cold can be fatal to these kids if it turns into pneumonia or a secondary bacterial infection, which is much more likely than them coming into contact with measles (just an example!) and let's think about where measles comes from- travelers! It comes in from other countries. Little Rhett could get sick directly from one of these travelers. It's not necessarily kids that aren't vaccinated here in the states that are going to get him sick.

Your correct - to an extent.

How often Rhett comes into contact with other people who are unvaccinated is an incredibly important point to keep in mind. School-aged children spend the majority of their waking time at school during the week. That means that children at his school who aren't vaccinated have a higher chance of passing on infectious diseases than a random traveler from another country does.

Not only that, but Rhett lives in Marin County, which has a much higher than average rate of vaccination refusals - his school recorded around 7% of students not being vaccinated this year if I remember correctly. That means every time he or his siblings go to school they run a higher than average risk of coming into contact with an unvaccinated student. It also means that if one of those unvaccinated students contracts a disease - such as measles - the disease is likely to spread among the other unvaccinated students, increasing the risk of the virus reaching Rhett eventually.

So, I'll ask you the same questions I asked the other poster:

- Should Rhett (and children like him) be denied a public education due to the choices of other parents that could have a direct and major impact on his health?

- Should the choices of parents who refuse to vaccinate override the rights of other parents who do want to vaccinate, but are unable to do for various reasons?

- Should Rhett be forced into social isolation until his immune system recovers enough for him to receive the vaccines? And what about children with chronic conditions, such as Cystic Fibrosis? Should they be forced into isolation forever because other people refuse to vaccinate? Should they be punished for being born with a disease that prevents them from safely receiving vaccines?

- Should the rights of a very small minority of parents outweigh the rights of the vast majority of people not to get ill or die from preventable diseases?

[FundieFarmer]

VelociRapture has a good point, which also circles back to my repeated point that something always has to give in this situation. When one child is not vaccinated and goes to school under the argument that no child should be denied an education, that in turn denies another child their education because of somebody else's choice. I think if someone is going to lose out regardless, it should be the child whose parents chose not to follow the vaccination requirements. That child is probably already avoiding a lot of venues anyway, and school does not need to be one of them.

Also, BekahDimples...last I checked, kids don't get the measles from mud. And the hypothetical financial pressure of higher insurance doesn't solve the problem that they'll still be running into and potentially endangering other people.

[Snarkylark]

These kids who are that immunocompromised are usually not in school. I know a boy who had leukemia and did not go to school until he was fully recovered. It was a couple years. His mom quit working to be able to take care of him. These kinds of kids have a lot more to worry about than measles or the flu when a simple cold can hospitalize them. The really sick kids aren't in schools. If there's an outbreak keep your kids home, sick or well! That's the best way to control the spread.

[VelociRapture]

Again we are not just talking about public school. Private schools are included in the law.

Ok sooooo.

Lukimea kid or any one like that who are more susceptible / can't vaxx

Ok

Laws passed everyone at kindergarten school is vaccinated ( did you keep them out of school for preschool, those kids don't / can't be fully vaccinated)

But yay kindergarten! Are you going to still keep this child out of stores, malls, parks, other public places?

I totally think people should vaccinate but don't tie it to school. I think the financial pressure of higher insurance or something like that could help.

The world is not a sterile place and it shouldn't be. People ( kids) should play in the mud- they should get messy. And yeah getting sick is part of that.

I'm having trouble attempting to understand your post. I'll give it a shot though.

I'm aware private schools are included in this bill. I was referring specifically to public schools because those are the ones that everyone has the ability to attend thanks to taxes.

As I wrote to SnarkyLark -

How often Rhett comes into contact with other people who are unvaccinated is an incredibly important point to keep in mind. School-aged children spend the majority of their waking time at school during the week. That means that children at his school who aren't vaccinated have a higher chance of passing on infectious diseases than a random traveler from another country does.

Not only that, but Rhett lives in Marin County, which has a much higher than average rate of vaccination refusals - his school recorded around 7% of students not being vaccinated this year if I remember correctly. That means every time he or his siblings go to school they run a higher than average risk of coming into contact with an unvaccinated student. It also means that if one of those unvaccinated students contracts a disease - such as measles - the disease is likely to spread among the other unvaccinated students, increasing the risk of the virus reaching Rhett eventually.

To put it simply - constant contact with unvaccinated children at school increases the risk that a child unable to receive vaccinations becomes ill. Yes, going out in public at all comes with risk. The fact that school aged children spend such a huge amount of time in school makes it a hot spot for catching germs though and that is why there is a focus on making sure students are vaccinated.

Yes, getting sick is a part of life. But we aren't discussing the possibility of a kid catching a cold or scraping their knee (normal occurrences that usually don't lead to major problems) - we're talking about protecting children from dangerous diseases like Measles and Polio, diseases that used to cripple and kill children on a regular basis.

[EmmieJ]

No, that's not what I'm saying. That's what the hygiene hypothesis that someone up thread alluded to seems to state.

Type 2 diabetes is MUCH different than type 1.

Yes, I am aware that Type 1 diabetes is much different than Type 2. I was responding to the part where you said "BG monitoring DAILY", and capitalized the word "daily." Just pointing out that daily BG monitoring is not that onerous.

You ask in your post why we are vaccinating, rather than letting kids fight off the diseases we are vaccinating against. Hasn't this question been asked and answered numerous times on this thread already? (to answer my own question -- yes, it has, and quite thoroughly answered.)

"So WHY are we giving more vaccines instead of letting kids fight off some of these childhood illnesses instead of ending up with lifelong diseases like asthma, Type 1 diabetes, UC, MS..." And by your phrasing, you certainly sound like you are equating increased vaccination rates with people "ending up with lifelong diseases."

[HarryPotterFan]

I don't know what you're talking about with the hand washing. I said that was the first line of defense to protect against spreading disease.

And no, I didn't say that! Gee, don't you people read? I was responding to the poster who said that the hygiene hypothesis may explain the rise in AI conditions. The hygiene hypothesis states that we may be seeing more AI conditions because we are too clean and healthy and our immune system gets bored and starts attacking self. I replied saying that maybe we need to get some of these common childhood diseases to prevent chronic illnesses later. Does that make sense? A bout with measles or chronic asthma?

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No. That makes no sense.

We do read, you just don't express your illogical opinions very well.

[bekahdimples]

Your correct - to an extent.

How often Rhett comes into contact with other people who are unvaccinated is an incredibly important point to keep in mind. School-aged children spend the majority of their waking time at school during the week. That means that children at his school who aren't vaccinated have a higher chance of passing on infectious diseases than a random traveler from another country does.

Not only that, but Rhett lives in Marin County, which has a much higher than average rate of vaccination refusals - his school recorded around 7% of students not being vaccinated this year if I remember correctly. That means every time he or his siblings go to school they run a higher than average risk of coming into contact with an unvaccinated student. It also means that if one of those unvaccinated students contracts a disease - such as measles - the disease is likely to spread among the other unvaccinated students, increasing the risk of the virus reaching Rhett eventually.

So, I'll ask you the same questions I asked the other poster:

- Should Rhett (and children like him) be denied a public education due to the choices of other parents that could have a direct and major impact on his health?

- Should the choices of parents who refuse to vaccinate override the rights of other parents who do want to vaccinate, but are unable to do for various reasons?

- Should Rhett be forced into social isolation until his immune system recovers enough for him to receive the vaccines? And what about children with chronic conditions, such as Cystic Fibrosis? Should they be forced into isolation forever because other people refuse to vaccinate? Should they be punished for being born with a disease that prevents them from safely receiving vaccines?

- Should the rights of a very small minority of parents outweigh the rights of the vast majority of people not to get ill or die from preventable diseases?

If the kid is truly immune compromised again a cold could do it.

And using the logic I was was given last thread it would be OK to make him stay home for a home based education if he's rich.

( ov. I don't agree- but that was someone argument and its still bothering me)

And fundie farmer I'm not sure what u mean by your last line because the way it is now they can still run into people without vaccines- just not at school

Okayyy they spend most of their day at school. That's true. But what about preschool?

Also the law doesn't just include vaccines for things that regularly kill people.

The flu laws not in the kid one but it is in the teacher and nursing ones.

[Snarkylark]

And I would feel terrible if my kid or I got a kid with cancer sick with any disease. And we are vaccinated. But some people don't seroconvert and thus aren't protected and can spread disease even though they are fully vaccinated. Wash wash wash your hands, don't touch your eyes, nose, or mouth without washing your hands first. Cough and sneeze into your elbow. Easy ways to prevent passing along germs.

[Snarkylark]

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No. That makes no sense.

We do read, you just done express your illogical opinions very well.

Well that's what the hygiene hypothesis seems to state. That's what I was replying to.

[VelociRapture]

These kids who are that immunocompromised are usually not in school. I know a boy who had leukemia and did not go to school until he was fully recovered. It was a couple years. His mom quit working to be able to take care of him. These kinds of kids have a lot more to worry about than measles or the flu when a simple cold can hospitalize them. The really sick kids aren't in schools. If there's an outbreak keep your kids home, sick or well! That's the best way to control the spread.

And what should that family have done if they had other school aged children during that time? Should they have kept all their children at home? What about families where the parents are not able to stop working in order to care for their sick child and their other children? What should they do in order to protect their children to the best of their ability?

I'll say it again - the beliefs and choices of the vast minority of parents should not outweigh the right to good health of the vast majority of people. If they don't want to vaccinate their kid and their kid gets sick and dies - that's their choice and their responsibility. They have to live with the fact that their choice caused that outcome and took their child's right to a healthy life away.

If they choose not to vaccinate and their child causes another kid to fall ill and die (whether the child is immune-compromised or its the too young to get vaccinated sibling of another student) - how is that ok? How is that fair? Why does that set of parents get to make a choice that could impact far more people than just their own little family?

[zebra #13]

My cats are immunized and they know how to open doors and are able to imitate humans. Clearly your cat is an outlier. Correlation does not equal causation! This is how we got into the whole anti-vax mess in the first place :-p

Look, I know that cats have their fans (I'm one), but my dawg has his rabies vacs, and can open and close, from either side, all but one of the doors in my house. Clearly rabies vaccines make you *brilliant*!!

Off to call the health department and my congress critter!

[Wingnut]

My cat has her vacs and does NONE of what you all have mentioned. Did they mess her up? I think she is just lazy.

[Walking Cat Bed]

My cats are immunized and they know how to open doors and are able to imitate humans. Clearly your cat is an outlier. Correlation does not equal causation! This is how we got into the whole anti-vax mess in the first place :-p

Oh yeah??? Well...

YER MOM!!!

[FundieFarmer]

These kids who are that immunocompromised are usually not in school. I know a boy who had leukemia and did not go to school until he was fully recovered. It was a couple years. His mom quit working to be able to take care of him. These kinds of kids have a lot more to worry about than measles or the flu when a simple cold can hospitalize them. The really sick kids aren't in schools. If there's an outbreak keep your kids home, sick or well! That's the best way to control the spread.

No, the really sick kids aren't in school, you're right there. But those aren't the people I'm talking about, and it's important to remember that this situation wouldn't just affect kids in school, either. Think about the run-of-the-mill, immunocompromised people who are still high functioning and contributing members of society, such as yours truly, with only conditional bouts of severe compromisation. That's your HIV/AIDS patients, your cancer patients undergoing chemo, your congenital heart defect patients, your stem-cell recipients and your organ transplant recipients. Conservative estimates place number that at anywhere from 1-4% of the US population, though it is suggested that number is significantly higher with other conditions factored in as well, and doesn't factor in patients with comorbidities. I'm not even counting the most severe cases, like you mentioned above.

Many of us go to great lengths to stay healthy and clean, and people walking around unvaxxed makes that very difficult. Should all of those people, many of whom hold jobs and are active members in society, be required to stay home 24/7 because of the preferences of a few individuals for themselves or their children? For example, the American Cancer Society says that almost 1 out of every 2 men, and 1 of every 3 women will develop cancer in their lifetime, many of whom will need to undergo treatment, some of whom will be related to you, and may even be you. Do you want to be limited in the places you or your loved one can go while you're undergoing treatment to stay alive, because people are choosing not to take measures to protect you from real risks to your health because they simply don't want to get a shot because there might be risks?

[VelociRapture]

If the kid is truly immune compromised again a cold could do it.

Yes, it could. But, again, we aren't discussing the common cold here. We are discussing highly contagious and deadly diseases - ones that can have a horrific impact on more than just immune-compromised individuals.

And using the logic I was was given last thread it would be OK to make him stay home for a home based education if he's rich.

( ov. I don't agree- but that was someone argument and its still bothering me)

Yeah, I don't get what you're saying here. I've been in and out of this thread, so I didn't see where that was mentioned.

If a family is well-off and can afford to have one parent stay home to educate their sick child then that's great. That isn't the case for a lot of families though and they shouldn't be punished financially for having a sick child. No one chooses to be born sick or to be diagnosed with Leukemia as a child - there are parents who choose not to vaccinate their healthy children though and I do feel that there is a huge difference there.

[VelociRapture]

Look, I know that cats have their fans (I'm one), but my dawg has his rabies vacs, and can open and close, from either side, all but one of the doors in my house. Clearly rabies vaccines make you *brilliant*!!

Off to call the health department and my congress critter!

My sister's puppy can roll over, give you a high-five, and has beautiful table manners at dinnertime - all thanks to his rabies vaccine! Nothing to do at all with the fact his parents work hard on his obedience skills or anything. Nope. Rabies shots are a the whole reason!

[HarryPotterFan]

Well that's what the hygiene hypothesis seems to state. That's what I was replying to.

The way you stated it sounded like you truly believe that letting kids have preventable diseases like the measles causes diabetes and MS. Just confirming, this is NOT what you believe?