Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued 
Whatever criticisms I may have had for prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris otherwise, one area that I'm totally down with both of them on is their criticism of the undue respect and consideration we as a society give to religious ideas. This consideration is rarely, if ever, based on the merit of the ideas, but rather solely because they are religious ideas. Many of these ideas, if they were not based on religion, wouldn't be given anywhere near the respect or deference that they are now. But, because they are based on a faith in the supernatural, for some reason we as a society tend to bend over backwards to show them "respect," whether they deserve it or not, and accommodate those who hold them. One area where this is especially true is in the area of vaccines and religious exemptions. I've written before how this misplaced deference has resulted in a spate of laws that allow parents easily to declare a religious exemption and refuse to have their children vaccinated--all legally. In the last couple of months, news has come out that indicates that the problem of parents taking advantage of "religious exemptions to avoid vaccinating their children has grown worse than previously thought:
BOSTON (AP) -- Sabrina Rahim doesn't practice any particular faith, but she had no problem signing a letter declaring that because of her deeply held religious beliefs, her 4-year-old son should be exempt from the vaccinations required to enter preschool.She is among a small but growing number of parents around the country who are claiming religious exemptions to avoid vaccinating their children when the real reason may be skepticism of the shots or concern they can cause other illnesses. Some of these parents say they are being forced to lie because of the way the vaccination laws are written in their states.
"It's misleading," Rahim admitted, but she said she fears that earlier vaccinations may be to blame for her son's autism. "I find it very troubling, but for my son's safety, I feel this is the only option we have."
An Associated Press examination of states' vaccination records and data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that many states are seeing increases in the rate of religious exemptions claimed for kindergartners.
The magnitude of the problem:
From 2003 to 2007, religious exemptions for kindergartners increased, in some cases doubled or tripled, in 20 of the 28 states that allow only medical or religious exemptions, the AP found. Religious exemptions decreased in three of these states - Nebraska, Wyoming, South Carolina - and were unchanged in five others.The rate of exemption requests is also increasing.
For example, in Massachusetts, the rate of those seeking exemptions has more than doubled in the past decade - from 0.24 percent, or 210, in 1996 to 0.60 percent, or 474, in 2006.
In Florida, 1,249 children claimed religious exemptions in 2006, almost double the 661 who did so just four years earlier. That was an increase of 0.3 to 0.6 percent of the student population. Georgia, New Hampshire and Alabama saw their rates double in the past four years.
The numbers from the various states cannot be added up with accuracy. Some states used a sampling of students to gauge levels of vaccinations. Others surveyed all or nearly all students.
Fifteen of the 20 states that allow both religious and philosophical exemptions have seen increases in both, according to the AP's findings.
While some parents - Christian Scientists and certain fundamentalists, for example - have genuine religious objections to medicine, it is clear that others are simply distrustful of shots.
Some parents say they are not convinced vaccinations help. Others fear the vaccinations themselves may make their children sick and even cause autism.
In other words, the fear-mongering over vaccines of antivaccinationists, coupled with religious exemption laws in many states, are making it possible for more and more parents simply to lie in order to claim a religious exemption to which they are not (morally, at least) entitled, just as Sabrina Rahim chose to lie through her teeth to do so. (I reject her rationalization that she was "forced" to lie. She wasn't.) It would be one thing if these parents lived in isolated communities, where they could exist without exposing others to the dangers due to their foolish choice not to vaccinate, but such is not the case. The children of these parents are going to schools or being cared for in day care centers with your children, and their children can and do serve as a nidus for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease. This is because no vaccine is 100%, and those who fail to develop immunity are protected by "herd immunity," the indirect protection of susceptible members of the population by the presence of a high percentage of immune individuals. Generally, if a certain percentage of the population is vaccinated, the exact percentage varying but usually around 90%, the spread of a disease in the unvaccinated proportion of the population is greatly inhibited. It's like a firebreak against the spread of the disease. Those who refuse to vaccinate in essence take advantage of herd immunity, whether they realize ir or not.
Of course, if the percentage of people unvaccinated increases too much, then outbreaks become much more likely. Moreover, it does not take a lot of unvaccinated to result in outbreaks. In pursuing religious exemptions, these parents are not only lying, but they are endangering other children:
Unvaccinated children can spread diseases to others who have not gotten their shots or those for whom vaccinations provided less-than-complete protection.In 1991, a religious group in Philadelphia that chose not to immunize its children touched off an outbreak of measles that claimed at least eight lives and sickened more than 700 people, mostly children.
And in 2005, an Indiana girl who had not been immunized picked up the measles virus at an orphanage in Romania and unknowingly brought it back to a church group. Within a month, the number of people infected had grown to 31 in what health officials said was the nation's worst outbreak of the disease in a decade.
Although I'm dismayed at such behavior and the undue deference to religious ideas that allow such laws to make it easy for parents to lie, I can sort of understand why some parents, mislead by antivaccination misinformation, might decide that they have no choice but to lie to "save their children." Sort of understand, but not condone. My contempt is more reserved for antivaccination activists who spread the misinformation that leads parents to fear the rare complications of vaccines more than they fear the diseases prevented by the vaccines. In particular, I have a special contempt for physicians who encourage parents to lie this way, physicians such as Dr. Janet Levitan:
Dr. Janet Levitan, a pediatrician in Brookline, Mass., said she counsels patients who worry that vaccines could harm their children to pursue a religious exemption if that is their only option."I tell them if you don't want to vaccinate for philosophical reasons and the state doesn't allow that, then say it's for religious reasons," she said. "It says you have to state that vaccination conflicts with your religious belief. It doesn't say you have to actually have that religious belief. So just state it."
Yes, that's what I like in a physician, a willingness to violate the spirit of the law by hewing to its letter combined with a lack of compunction about giving people reasons to lie about their religious beliefs. Good job, Dr. Levitan! Encourage your patients' parents to lie! No wonder she gets glowing recommendations on the Mothering.com discussion boards about antivax-supportive pediatricians:
We see Dr. Janet L. Levatin in Brookline (on Beacon St. right over the Boston city line, and on the green line). She does not vax at all except that she special orders single tetanus if you want it. She also prescribes homeopathy before jumping to traditional prescription meds.
In fact, there is a "Dr. Janet Levatin" of Brookline, MA listed as a speaker for the American Institute of Homeopathy and as a homeopathic doctor. I don't know which one is the correct spelling, but all of the links above are likely describing the same pediatrician, a pediatrician who has been quoted in the homeopathic literature thusly:
There are dissenting points of view. Janet Levitan, MD, a Boston area pediatrician, writes in a recently published article (Resonance, Sept-Oct. 1992)," As a pediatrician I have seen a number of children suffering from both the acute and chronic sequelae (i.e. results) of vaccinations....I do not believe that the immature immune systems of the two-month-old infant is capable of responding effectively to vaccines...In addition to the fact that the vaccines many not 'take' well in young infants, I also have concerns about the possible deleterious effects of exposing such tender, young, delicate organisms, our newborns, to such an onslaught of bacterial and viral particles, as well as the potentially toxic chemicals with which they are processed (including mercury and formaldehyde."
It's another example of bad reporting that the newspaper failed to mention that Dr. Levitan is not just a pediatrician but a homeopath with a long history of being hostile to vaccination, who even used to write a regular column for The National Journal of Homeopathy in which she apparently parroted some of the dumbest antivaccination canards (the whole "toxic chemicals," "mercury," and "formaldehyde" schtick) for a long time. Clearly, she is an activist, not an expert, and her uncritical acceptance of such antivaccination talking points raises serious questions about her critical thinking skills.
Few religions actually explicitly forbid vaccination or even discourage it. Most mainstream religions, in fact, fully support and encourage it as a moral good that benefits the individual and community. However,the pernicious effect of undue deference for religion here is more than because of the few adherents of such religions that do forbid vaccination. Rather, it is due to the deference that society gives to such religious beliefs in forming policy, even if those beliefs are clearly irrational and have the potential to endanger public health. Undue respect for religious beliefs that clash with the scientifically demonstrated ability of vaccines to prevent disease safely enables parents who are either antivaccinationist or who have been mislead by antivaccinationist fearmongering a relatively easy method to bypass vaccination laws and an easy avenue for physicians peddling non-evidence-based attacks on vaccination to help them do so.
ADDENDUM: The California Medicine Man weighs in. Money quotes:
Some states, though not all, allow similar exemptions for purely philosophical reasons (read: reasons based on junk science). Therefore, as the above article reports, many parents are lying about their religious convictions and the state is de facto designating them criminals.To me, this is unfair. If we're going to allow parents to refuse the vaccines for their children for any nonmedical reason, it shouldn't matter why they refuse. Patient autonomy is patient autonomy.
And:
Parents should either be allowed to refrain from the vaccinations for nonmedical reasons or not. If we decide that the decision can be left up to the citizenry then it shouldn't be up to the state to decide if the belief system from which the decision arose is appropriate or not.
Exactly. Either non-medical exemptions should be allowed for any reason, religious, pseudoscientific, or whatever, or they should not be permitted at all. Why should religious objections to vaccination be privileged above any other objection, such as philosophical or plain "I just don't want to"? There's no rational reason why they should.
Medicine & Health
Politics
Comments
That is shameful...shameful reporting, shameful doctoring.
But of course, they have no shame.
Posted by: PalMD | October 18, 2007 9:38 AM
Does anyone have any idea how far this stupidity has to go before we start seeing the effects? How big of a hole can herd immunity have before we start having outbreaks? Hell I'm all for vaccinating but these fear mongering dip sticks have me nervous about the Flu vaccine. I will still be getting it but even I had/have some lingering fears. I can imagine what some parents feel with exposure to this blatant lieing (yes CS I can't spell).
Posted by: vlad | October 18, 2007 10:13 AM
Well, easy fix, implement a philosophical exemption for all states. No issue.
Posted by: Common Sense | October 18, 2007 10:24 AM
Sadly the pandering to religious sensibilities has become all to pervasive in both the US and here in the UK. Even sadder is the fact that some who should know better are going along with it. Ed Brayton recently posted about a kid, in the US, who was trying to claim a religious exemption from his school requiring male students have short hair. Brayton rather oddly seemed to be approve that the ACLU was taking the side of the kid. To my thinking the reason for wanting wear your hair long in school, or not having your kids vaccinated should not be contingent on religious, or anyother belief. Either everyone can wear their hair long or no one can, and either all kids should be vaccinated (with exemption for medical reasons) or there should be no requirement.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 18, 2007 10:27 AM
Wow, your on the east coast I just read the Associated Press article out here.
newspaper article buy AP in my local paper;
"Parents using religion to stop vaccinating children"
Dr. Paul Offit is is quoted quite extensively in our article and the article I read highlights a 1991 outbreak in measles that claimed 8 lives when a religious group chose not to immunize.
"Do I think that religious exemptions have become a default? Absolutely", said Dr. Paul Offit, Head of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital in Philiadelphia and one of the harshest critics of the anti-vacc movement. He said the resistance to vacccines is "an irrational, fear based decision."
Dr. Lance Rodewald, Director,CDC immunization Services Division is quoted in bold
"When yo choose not to get a vaccine, you'renot jsut makding a choice for yourself, you're making a choice for the person sitting next to you"
The article I read our here in California was quite to the point about the rising dangers.
Unfortunetly barbara Fisher was also sited as the co-founder and president of the National Vaccination Information Center one of the leading skeptic groups.
This group supports parents in thier choice to not get children vaccinated.
Small but growing number of parents....
I have many friends the work as teachers in the public schools systems out here.
First there is not enough money to employ enough school nurses. One nurse handles about 4-5 schools in the local district here. Now we have parents bucking the vaccine system.
I hope this is not becoming the perfect storm....
Posted by: Uncle Dave | October 18, 2007 10:29 AM
I assume that when their kids get sick from vaccine-preventatable disease, they will demand all that expensive hospital care modern medicine can provide. If we have outbreaks (it seems inevitable), I would have no problem with priority given to sick kids who were vaccinated. Not fair to the innocent children, as their parents make the choice to not vaccinate, but I would hate to see families that followed the rules having to wait for care after these deadbeats.
Posted by: Ruth | October 18, 2007 10:30 AM
To protect the vaccinated children, the school should banish the unvaccinated children, and the community should follow suit.
Posted by: CRM-114 | October 18, 2007 10:31 AM
"In 1991, a religious group in Philadelphia that chose not to immunize its children touched off an outbreak of measles that claimed at least eight lives and sickened more than 700 people, mostly children."
It would be nice to get the original source on this. It goes back to AP and stops. The trouble with any press report is that one has no idea whether it is true.
"Generally, if a certain percentage of the population is vaccinated, the exact percentage varying but usually around 90%, the spread of a disease in the unvaccinated proportion of the population is greatly inhibited."
The priniciple seems obvious, but interesting to note that 90% is approximately the necessary number.
One would hope, with an increase in people opting out of vax, that careful health studies would follow these people and the schools in which they are enrolled, to study the results.
Even a Xtain "scientist" cannot deny its child appropriate medical health if they get really sick. Why should a religious exemption be allowed for immunization?
Posted by: sailor | October 18, 2007 10:35 AM
Just to play Devil's Advocate here for a minute, I must say that I don't blame the parents who claim religious exemptions if that's what they feel they must do to avoid vaccinations. (For the record, my own son DID receive all his vaccinations, and I'm in favor of vaccinating children). While part of me does find it troubling that people lie (and are being encouraged to lie by their doctors), and I wish they would choose to do the healthy thing for their children, I find it far more troubling that the government insists on dictating some of the decisions which I believe it is for the parent to make. Not to mention the double standard. If the government decrees that it's okay to opt out of vaccinations because of your religion, then it should be okay to opt out for *any* reason. You're right - religion carries too much weight in our society; we shouldn't have to justify our decisions in this way.
And yes, I realize that what I'm saying here opens the door for some parents to make stupid decisions for their children (and sometimes those decisions affect others, as well). But that's true of a great many things, isn't it? If we legislated against everything that was harmful, cigarettes would be illegal, because they kill people. All women should be forced to breastfeed, because it is absolutely the healthiest choice for their babies. While we're at it, let's get rid of alcohol, too, because even though it's okay in small amounts, a great many people abuse it, harming themselves and others, so let's just outlaw it, okay?
Think about this for a minute. Do we really want to go down this road? As it is, the government is doing a great many things in "my name" which which I do not agree. We talk about freedom, and yet it's being eroded right before our eyes. If we want parents to make healthy choices for their children, we need to educate the parents to make these choices willingly - not force them into compliance (or put them in a situation where they feel they have to choose to tell a lie). Forcing people to do things which scares them is not an appropriate thing to do. Especially when that coercion comes from the government.
All this is just my humble opinion, of course. :)
Posted by: Wendy | October 18, 2007 10:36 AM
P.S.
Pardon my lousy spelling, but I am so freakin appalled at this rising phenomena that I can hardly type.
I believe there is a book called "March of the Morons" that is about the advancement in technology and the simultaneous regression of intelligence amoung the general population. Technology advances to the point where most of the general population has not understanding of it.
Hence the title "March of the Morons".
Posted by: Uncle Dave | October 18, 2007 10:37 AM
"I find it far more troubling that the government insists on dictating some of the decisions which I believe it is for the parent to make."
Wendy,
If you drink you effect yourself, of course if you drink and drive that is another matter, but there are strong regulations against it.
Don't breast feed you effect your kid not others.
Immunization is more complex because, as Orac's post points our you not only affect your kid's health (in which case I would agree with you) but also, becase vax are not 100% effective, you also endanger others.
Posted by: sailor | October 18, 2007 10:42 AM
So I wonder what would happen if a parent asked to make sure that at least 90% of the children in a school were vaccinated before they sent their child to that school.
And what would happen if that was not the case and the parent then refused to send their child to school?
I would gladly test the waters if my kids weren't in their 20s (and fully vaccinated thank you very much).
Posted by: longsmith | October 18, 2007 10:47 AM
Scary. It diden't take that long for diphteria to re-emerge in Russia in 1990s (http://0-www.cdc.gov.mill1.sjlibrary.org/ncidod/eid/vol4no4/vitek.htm). Weren't there also measles outbreaks in the UK not that long ago?
Posted by: Diora | October 18, 2007 10:47 AM
Governments should avoid using force to vaccinate the population in the first place, regardless of "the potential to endanger public health". It is an individuals' choice. All reasons to declining should be accepted.
This isn't a religious issue, only a loophole religion leaves open (in the USA) in a disgustingly authoritarian practice.
Posted by: Superkuh | October 18, 2007 10:50 AM
When the discussion of pandemics is the main topic, the free market or the theory of natural selection does not apply because the whole population is at risk, not jsut the ignorant ones! Making people breast feed is not even close to relevant in this discussion, it is protection from a known virus. Those whom get the vaccine will live, however those that don't will swamp the health care system with life threatening disease.
Your choice to set yourself on fire is not likely going to kill many other people or swamp the health care system, but the potential to allow a virus to spread will impact everyone else. That's the difference in freedoms. Will it adversely affect the rest of the population either economically or otherwise, yes or no.
As my wife says, a lotta people are gonna have to die before something is done.
Posted by: Uncle Dave | October 18, 2007 10:51 AM
Maybe a little reverse pressure could help change this refusal to vaccinate. What would happen if health insurers refused to cover illnesses due to refusal to vaccinate? What would happen if those who were vaccinated but it didn't take (and their insurers) and who then became ill due to exposure to a sick unvaccinated kid whose parents refused vaccination on phony religious grounds sued the parents of that kid for damages?
Posted by: chezjake | October 18, 2007 10:52 AM
SuperKuh,
The problem with your argument is that it only grants rights to the child, or parents, not being vaccinated.
When a significant portion of the population is not vaccinated against an infections disease there is a sufficient population to maintain a resevoir of that disease in the community. In otherwords when enough people are vaccinated it provides protection even to those who are not vaccinated.
Your position is that those who cannot be vaccinated are not be considered. Children under 12 months, and those with certain conditions, or an impaired immune system cannot be vaccinated on medical grounds. I cannot see why a parent has the right to make a decision that puts at risk the lives of others.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 18, 2007 11:00 AM
I think every day care center and public school should have the right to deny access to unvaccinated children, seriously. There's no reason to indulge this kind of ignorance.
www.theskinofmyteeth.com
David B.
Posted by: David B. | October 18, 2007 11:29 AM
CDC site below highlights measles case in Indiana
that AP story sited. This Girl whom had supposedly not been immunized had visited Romania. Brought back measles to Indiana and spread throghout the church group, 34 cases....
Oops!
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5442a1.htm
Posted by: Uncle Dave | October 18, 2007 11:30 AM
But laws like these don't give consideration to ideas, they give consideration to the people holding them. Forcing people to act against their principal beliefs harms them, even if those beliefs are utter bullshit. To get the feeling just imagine being forced to act in a commercial for some homeopathic remedy. Yes, your belief about homeopathy being bunk happens to be correct, but that's not the point, the experience of being made to act against it would be the same.
I realize, that public interest can outweigh that right, but I don't think it does in this case. In Germany we don't have compulsory vaccination at all, and while that is dumb it hasn't so far brought down the nation. On the other hand most civilized countries even exempt conscious objectors from military service in times of war, where the states interest is massively more compelling. Now privileging "religious" objections over "philosophical" ones is wrong (and not done for conscripts), but i suppose that's not the direction you would want to change the law. Perhaps the analogue of a draft board would help, I figure most antivax parents would be quite unable to explain what their religious objection actually is.
Posted by: occasional visitor | October 18, 2007 11:34 AM
I think that vaccination of children should be required just as car seats are. Our society needs to have laws that protect the health of children since they can't protect themselves. Once a child becomes an adult, he or she should be free to make personal decisions about what risks to take, but until then its only humane for society to set standards that must be met to protect them. And yes, I'm totally in favor of laws that forbid people from smoking in cars where children are riding.
Posted by: Texas Reader | October 18, 2007 11:53 AM
occasional visitor,
I understand what you are saying but I can ask if you accept that a person deciding not to vaccinate their child should also accept there are consequences to that action ? Consequences such as schools being allowed to deny admission, play schemes, swimming pool etc likewise. And would you also accept that such parents should also accept liability if their unvaccinated child infects another child ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 18, 2007 11:53 AM
occasional visitor said "In Germany we don't have compulsory vaccination at all, and while that is dumb it hasn't so far brought down the nation. "
There really isn't compulsory vaccination in the USA... it is often a requirement to attend certain schools (public and some private schools), but as noted above this can be circumvented. There isn't even a requirement that a child MUST attend a public school (though once upon a time in the early part of the 20th century a law was passed in Oregon outlawing private schools... this was pushed through by the Ku Klux Klan to close Catholic school, it did not last long).
What really needs to be addressed are exposing folks like Levatin as medical frauds giving out wrong information.
Posted by: HCN | October 18, 2007 12:00 PM
"I figure most antivax parents would be quite unable to explain what their religious objection actually is".
Actually, it's quite simple. I believe in God. God taught me that my body (and therefore my kids' bodies) are sacred. I am opposed to injecting toxins into my children's bodies. Simple. Enough said.
Posted by: Common Sense | October 18, 2007 12:05 PM
"Actually, it's quite simple. I believe in God. God taught me that my body (and therefore my kids' bodies) are sacred. I am opposed to injecting toxins into my children's bodies. Simple. Enough said."
Well that is a pretty piss poor argument.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 18, 2007 12:10 PM
The reporter calls the doctor's 1992 article "recent" publication? Resonance, claims to be refereed, BUT, here's what else it says about itself:
"'Resonance' is a journal of science education, published monthly since January 1996 by the Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore, India.
"It is primarily directed to students and teachers at the undergraduate level, though some material beyond this range is also included.
"Each issue contains articles on physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics and computer science.
"The format is attractive and easy to read, with pictures, illustrations, marginal notes, boxes and space for comments provided.
"The articles are of various types: individual general articles, series made up of several parts; concise article-in-boxes; classroom pieces; Nature watch pieces; research news; book reviews; and Information and Announcements useful to students and teachers.
"A chosen scientist or mathematician is specially highlighted each month, with a portrait on the cover, and articles describing his or her life and work.
"In some cases an article written by the scientist on a general theme is included as a Classic or a Reflections item at the end of the issue.
"Some of the personalities featured so far are -- Einstein, Schrodinger, Pauli, Chandrasekhar, Raman, S N Bose, von Neumann, Turing, Darwin, Mc Clintock, Haldane, Fisher, Lorenz, Mendel, Dobhzansky, Pauling, the Bernoullis, Fermat, Harish-Chandra, Ramanujam and Weil.
"'Resonance' has a council of editors drawn from institutions all over in India, with a Chief Editor and Associate Editors located in Bangalore.
"Articles may be submitted to any of the editors. All submissions are refereed. Students and teachers are particularly encouraged to submit articles to Resonance."
http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/aboutResonance.html
Posted by: mtarnowski | October 18, 2007 12:15 PM
@Common Sense: So your bodies are sacred, but God refuses to intervene to protect you against toxins? Come again?
Posted by: speedwell | October 18, 2007 12:16 PM
"As my wife says, a lotta people are gonna have to die before something is done".
Well, of course, we believe the same thing. Look at the after-effects of the Prevnar vaccine:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297168,00.html
We are creating superbugs in children due to this vaccine.
Then's there is this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/16/AR2007101601392_pf.html
"The researchers attributed the emergence of the strain to a combination of the overuse of antibiotics and the introduction of a vaccine that protects against the infection.
"The use of the vaccine created an ecological vacuum, and that combined with excessive use of antibiotics to create this new superbug," Pichichero said".
So, here we are today... between the Hib vaccine and the Prevnar vaccine we have now created these "superbugs"... Sounds great, doesn't it?
Never mind the fact that the Prevnar has a horrible record on VAERS (go ahead and take a look at the *deaths* associated with that vaccine).
Never mind the fact that in 1999 and 2000 a doctor testified in front of the FDA in regards to the Prevnar vaccine having the possibility of creating 7x the amount of type 1 diabetes as typically would happen. So let's see... The Prevnar vaccine causes super-bugs, kills babies and can trigger type 1 diabetes in young children. Sounds like a winner to me. LOL!
Posted by: Common Sense | October 18, 2007 12:21 PM
I doubt anybody will notice this, but I have a related topic that I've been meaning to broach somewhere for a long time.
I understand that the habit of smoking does significant damage to the respiratory system, including to the natural defenses of the lungs and airway surfaces. I also have observed, in passing in my surroundings, that smokers tend to get a lot more sick, more easily and for a lot longer when they contract the common cold. That being the case, a smoker who has contracted a cold has a longer period of time where they can inoculate fomites with their illness, or in general saturate the air around themselves with the infected vapors of their coughing. As such, a non-smoker will be exposed to a pathogen (like a cold) more frequently in the presence of one or more sick smokers, and is therefore more likely to contract the illness themselves.
I guess I'm simply claiming this: smoking as a prevalent habit disturbs herd-immunity to an illness for which there is no vaccination. As such, I would further be wondering if our population isn't being subjected to undue misery because of this stupid, addictive habit come cold and flu season when these simple illnesses are being most readily propagated.
Anybody have any thoughts, or am I making an erroneous deduction? I apologize that I've deviated from the anti-vaccinationist topic.
Posted by: viggen | October 18, 2007 12:21 PM
"God taught me that my body (and therefore my kids' bodies) are sacred." Do you like it when people take pot shots at you? Does it give you a sense of purpose by making your self a martyr to the stone of rational people?
He actually came down and told you directly that your body is sacred? He also told you the safe level of "toxins" to use. You stated that all 3 of your children are vaccinated to various degrees. So if you have information from God about what vaccines we should be using please share.
Posted by: vlad | October 18, 2007 12:22 PM
Taken from the editorial note on the CDC publication I listed above;
"Ongoing measles transmission has been eliminated in the United States by high vaccination levels (4). Of 540 measles cases in the United States during 1997--2001, 362 (67%) were linked to imports (i.e., 196 imported cases, 138 cases epidemiologically linked to imported cases, and 28 cases associated with an imported measles virus genotype), and most measles cases could have been prevented (5)."
Living in Southern california brings up the issue of large numbers of Central American children entering this region.
I'm not speaking of an immigration issue here, just a puplic health issue, and the importance of public health immunization programs. We share this section of the US with those that come from regions that do not have public health programs like ours.
Posted by: Uncle Dave | October 18, 2007 12:26 PM
"Well that is a pretty piss poor argument".
LOL! That's perhaps the funniest thing I've read all day.
Posted by: Common Sense | October 18, 2007 12:28 PM
I can't find the CDC report of the 1991 Philadelphia outbreak, but it is mentioned in this article:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/laws/fatal-exemption.htm
Posted by: Manduca | October 18, 2007 12:31 PM
Actually I think medical exemptions should be examined as well. I have heard from a parent in Los Angeles that local vaccine skeptic and pediatrician Dr. Jay Gordon gave her son a medical exemption because she felt his "immune system" was "weak" in some unspecified manner. I wonder if there is any way to systematically review medical exemptions and see if the fishy ones are all from the same few vaccine skeptic MDs -- most of whom are in private practice for cash only and have an incentive to please the customers.
Posted by: SoCal | October 18, 2007 12:32 PM
Refusing to allow any toxin into your body is going to mean a pretty restricted diet. Most food, if not all, contains toxins in invarying degrees. For example the biggest source of pesticides in the diet is not those that are sprayed onto crops but those that occuer naturally.
In otherwords the toxin argument is not an argument at all but an admission of ignorance and stupidity.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 18, 2007 12:32 PM
"He actually came down and told you directly that your body is sacred"?
Why, yes she did. No one ever told you that your body was sacred? I'm sorry ... Talk to your mommy about that.
Two Hail Mary's and five Our Father's for your ignorance.
Posted by: Common Sense | October 18, 2007 12:34 PM
I don't know what Oracs disagreements with Dawkins are but I think one thing is painfully obvious religion hurts alot of people and the more you have of it the more hurt it seems to cause.
Posted by: JimC | October 18, 2007 12:37 PM
Next time you talk to "Her" ask her why the vaccine
theory doesn't fit. Have her explain the identical twins, one with autism the other not thing to you.
Personally, I think "She's" play'n ya myself.
Posted by: Uncle Dave | October 18, 2007 12:40 PM
"In otherwords the toxin argument is not an argument at all but an admission of ignorance and stupidity".
How moronic... I don't want toxic substances INJECTED into my kid's body due to the fact that you are correct they get enough anyway due to eating and breathing....
5 Hail Mary's and 2 Our Fathers for you.
Posted by: Common Sense | October 18, 2007 12:43 PM
SoCal said "Actually I think medical exemptions should be examined as well. I have heard from a parent in Los Angeles that local vaccine skeptic and pediatrician Dr. Jay Gordon gave her son a medical exemption because she felt his "immune system" was "weak" in some unspecified manner"
Whoa, a blast from the past. I remember when he was a frequent topic on Orac's old blog:
http://oracknows.blogspot.com/search?q=jay+gordon
Posted by: HCN | October 18, 2007 12:47 PM
"Personally, I think "She's" play'n ya myself".
You mean Jesus did not walk on water? You mean Jesus was not born to the Virgin Mary? You mean women were not created out of the ribs of men? Crap, you've devastated me. LOL!
Now after one Our Father for myself... I have come to the conclusion that I can no longer carry on this line of discussion for fear of being struck down the next time I enter a Church. Thankfully My God has a sense of humor.
Obviously the philosophical exemption would be the best fit for me and my family but without that option... the religious exemption works just fine. Again, though, if the "powers to be" weren't so careless in the vaccinations that the recommend and/or mandate perhaps there would be other options. As an example, I once had a pediatrician (VERY pro vaccine) say to me that the worst thing that the CDC ever did was to mandate the Hep B vaccine. He said he knew that that vaccine was completely unnecessary for 99% of infants. By mandating it, he felt that he had to agree with many parents who refused the vaccination for their babies. In order to refuse, he accepted that they had to get a religious exemption... He said that he simply could not in good faith argue with them about that. It is what it is...
Posted by: Common Sense | October 18, 2007 12:59 PM
God didn't teach you anything. Someone who pretends to know something about God told you something and you bought into it.
Even if what you say is true(and thats doubtful) it doesn't come close to the multitudes of lives saved due to vaccines.
Posted by: JimC | October 18, 2007 1:01 PM
Common Sense, while I can see some of the points you are trying to make, I think you are touching on a few other problems that are not related to vaccination.
Antibiotic problems are coupled to the misuse of medicines by patients who might not finish their perscriptions or share their medicines out to other people when they shouldn't be (among other issues, including physician negligence, which I won't get into). The issue surrounding the superbug problems are more complicated than blaming one vaccine, and much of the blame probably should fall not on the medicines currently in use themselves, but on their misuse resulting from the ignorance of the users (both of those prescribing the pills and those popping the pills).
I would also point out that your references are not primary literature, but citations through the media, which tend to misunderstand the problems they are reporting and distort issues in sometimes critical ways. It's a folly to take one bad case and inflate that to be the norm or to generalize and say, "Because one person had a bad reaction to a vaccine that all vaccines are bad." The incidence may not in reality even be that statistically significant. I'm not saying that there aren't problems... I'm saying that you should watch out that you aren't cherry-picking for them, which the popular media--especially the internet--thrives upon.
I do understand people having strong emotional reactions to something going violently wrong. It does happen, and nobody wants to be the person it happened to. Nobody will argue that the failure tends to end up the sensation while the success (as with vaccination) is ignored. Small Pox anyone? People in the US have forgotten when this disease was killing people and the one sensational vaccine reaction in a million inoculations looks a lot more threatening than something that really was nasty. But, a world without bad things happening doesn't exist. In my opinion, subjecting yourself to a real threat in order to avoid a threat that has been artificially inflated is a bad bet.
Posted by: viggen | October 18, 2007 1:04 PM
"As an example, I once had a pediatrician (VERY pro vaccine) say to me that the worst thing that the CDC ever did was to mandate the Hep B vaccine. He said he knew that that vaccine was completely unnecessary for 99% of infants. By mandating it, he felt that he had to agree with many parents who refused the vaccination for their babies."
Clearly he was against the HepB for reasons other than toxins. He was Pro vaccination, but the fact that he did not agree with that particular one becomes another issue entirely, not one of general vaccination danger.
We tend to go round and round here much as Orac warned about.
Posted by: Uncle Dave | October 18, 2007 1:20 PM
"No one ever told you that your body was sacred?" Yes they did but it wasn't God. You never said someone told you that your body is sacred, you specifically mentioned God.
Posted by: vlad | October 18, 2007 1:25 PM
Uncle Dave,
The book is titled The Marching Morons by Cyril Cornbluth. PZ has a post from May 8, 2007 here: http://tinyurl.com/32hklz discussing it, and an article by Ben Bova.
Posted by: Christ Davis | October 18, 2007 1:44 PM
Most of the pro-vax posts mention the societal toll if these "vaccine preventable diseases" were to re-occur. Did you ever consider that maybe parents use these exemptions to refuse only certain vaccines - like maybe the varicella vax? Or the Hepatitis A vax? Or the Hepatitis B vax? Simply because there is a vaccine does not mean that the disease is of deadly, epidemic proportions.
Parental doubt about the varicella vax preventing chickenpox has come to fruition, and a second dose has been added to try and boost efficacy through middle school. Next will be the adol/adult boosters, given that chickenpox actually is deadly in those age groups.
The birth dose of HepB, designed to protect our young children from an STD, is not showing to have much efficacy by the time they reach adolescence - maybe a booster dose will be added soon (before they reach their sexually active 20s?).
Just because the CDC recommended it (and we all know that there is no conflict of interest with the pharms there), does not mean that refusing the vaccine is going to pointedly put other children at risk.
Disclaimer: I use a philos exemption to decline the Varicella, but my daughter has received all other vaxes that were on the schedule at the time....
Posted by: Maybe too many | October 18, 2007 1:48 PM
Common sense, do you also think that inhaling toxic, corrosive gases is a sacrilege too ?
Posted by: T_U_T | October 18, 2007 2:01 PM
Sailor, the original source of the measles outbreak in Philadelphia may be found here:
Rodgers DV, Gindler JS, Atkinson WL, Markowitz LE. High attack rates and case fatality during a measles outbreak in groups with religious exemption to vaccination. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1993 Apr;12(4):288-92.
It reports 6 rather than 8 deaths in the church groups, but it might be that other deaths associated with the outbreak but outside of the church groups were reported in other media.
I think religious exemption is entirely appropriate. After all, these people have demonized vaccination, and have faith their children will neither be fall ill nor infect others with childhood diseases.
Posted by: jen_m | October 18, 2007 2:23 PM
Uh, I mean the source for the *report*, of course, not the source of the outbreak.
Posted by: jen_m | October 18, 2007 2:25 PM
To protect the vaccinated children, the school should banish the unvaccinated children, and the community should follow suit.
As the parent of a fully-vaccinated child in a community with a high woo-ratio (and a lot of contact with diverse germ pools due to tourism/travel), I find myself very sympathetic to this position. I had a friend, again fully-vaccinated, affected by the Iowa outbreak, too.
I keep thinking that there's something ethically and practically wrong with the idea, but if my child gets measles, I'm subpeona-ing the medical records of the whole school and anyone who's got a fraudulent religious exemption is getting sued.
Posted by: Ahistoricality | October 18, 2007 3:16 PM
Christ Davis
Thanks for the link!!
It figures I screwed up the title, I might be in that subgroup ;)
Posted by: Uncle Dave | October 18, 2007 3:31 PM
I agree with PZ Meyers in his review of the book.
Don't take my reference as an elitist additude by any means.
However much of this "contrarian, never mind the data, I'm convinced" movement reminds me of that book concept.
Posted by: Uncle Dave | October 18, 2007 4:22 PM
"Yes they did but it wasn't God. You never said someone told you that your body is sacred, you specifically mentioned God".
God never came and told you that your body is sacred? I must be truly blessed. I'm sorry that your God has forsaken you.
ps. Are their any Catholic priests here? I have a question. Does the overuse of sarcasm as it relates to God buy me a ticket to hell? (I'm somewhat concerned).
Posted by: Common Sense | October 18, 2007 4:47 PM
"I'm subpeona-ing the medical records of the whole school and anyone who's got a fraudulent religious exemption is getting sued".
What's a "fraudulent relgiious exemption"? Don't hold your breath on winning that case.
Posted by: Common Sense | October 18, 2007 4:51 PM
If an outbreak occurs in a school, and the infection can be tracked to the source child, can legal avenues be pursued against that child's legal guardians, at least in the United States? It seems to me that that ought to be an option.
Posted by: Andrew | October 18, 2007 4:57 PM
"If an outbreak occurs in a school, and the infection can be tracked to the source child, can legal avenues be pursued against that child's legal guardians, at least in the United States? It seems to me that that ought to be an option".
Who did that "souce child" get the infection from? I bet they could end up tracking it down and they would find that the original infection led back to a vaccine strain of the disease... which was caught by some poor kid at the pediatrician's office.
Posted by: Common Sense | October 18, 2007 5:06 PM
The thing which particularly surprised me in this story was that many of the parents who tried to get out of vaccinating their kids apparently admit that their religious exemptions are fraudulent. This surprises me because, as Common Sense shows, it's incredibly easy to think that anything you consider "noble" on your part is in some way inspired by God.
Most religious people seem to be used to interpreting all important events and decisions in terms of what God or Spirit has in store for them. "What's a fraudulent religion?" I've no idea. If there's any intensity of emotion, where's the line that divides where God did and didn't get involved? And yet some people feel as if they are "lying" when they claim a religious exemption. They don't easily slip into rationalization.
As an atheist, I'm surprised. But in a strange way, it's a bit encouraging. By admitting they're lying, these folks have refused to lie to themselves, when they so easily could have. Interesting combination there, honesty and dishonesty.
Posted by: Sastra | October 18, 2007 5:47 PM
This country was founded on religious freedom. To state that those who practice their faith are wrong, goes against all we stand for. So, some misuse this exemption. Is it not normal for some to misuse priveleges? Just because some do does not mean we should do away with a vital freedom this country was founded. Just because some do not believe in relgion does not mean we can rip it from others. To say our government cowtows to relgion is just ludicrous. Of course this government is going to bend over backwards to uphold religios beliefs. We don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
With that said, I firmly believe in vaccination. I have seen photos of victims of Small Pox, have a relative who was crippled for life, and read history of how disease swept through villages taking first the old and young, and then healthy adults lives. These deaths were horrific, and they suffered greatly before they died. How many want to lay odds on how many of those hundreds of thousands who died whould jump at a vaccination?
We walk a thin line here between the greater good of society and the religious freedoms we were founded on. We would do away with this now? I don't think so.
I strongly believe the answer to this delema rests in education. If these parents misusing the exemption were properly educated, could invision what their child's death could be like, the fear mongers would be out of jobs.
Education will aid parents in truly making informed desicions for their children. We must work to educate young adults of what these vaccinations achieve, and all the various positive and potential negitive outcomes could be. I knew exactly what I was doing when I vaccinated my children. I knew I was taking a real risk with their lives. However, I also fully knew that the risk was much smaller than the benifit. I choose to risk the chance of contagion for the very real chance of healthy and happy lives.
If we add education of vaccinations to our health requirement in middle and high school, we can dispel the fear monger's campaign. We can greatly reduce those children who are at risk by going without vaccination, and stop this growing trend of parents who succumb to fear and making irrational decisions about vaccinations.
I never placed my child in a safety restraint due to fear of a ticket, but fear of their deaths in an accident when they were NOT restrained. Education showed me the benifits of safety seats and seat belt use, and I used them everytime I placed my child in a vehicle. They are grown now and use seat belts everytime they get into a car. They too will place their children into restraints, not because they fear a ticket, but because they know the benifits.
Force is not the answer. It can only be of use while we educate the masses. Education is key. If a person with real religious beliefs still wishes to withold vaccinations after fully educated, then they should have that right. They also should be held fully accountable for that decision. Children should never be held accountable for decisions out of their control and never excluded. If an unvaccinated child sickens another, then by all means the parent is liable. Not the child. Exluding children from school is counter productive. We are then denying the very education they need to break the cycle and make informed decisions for their own children. While these children are raised in the relgion of their parents, this by no way means they will grow to accept those beliefs blindly. Education is key in stopping fear mongers, and ignorant decisions of uneducated individuals.
The best and most productive way to stop ignorance and innoculate against fear, is education and enlightenment. Anything else is counter productive and a waste of our time and resouces.
Posted by: Serenity | October 18, 2007 5:54 PM
Serenity,
It seems you do not think people should be held accountable for their actions. If a parent refuses to have their child vaccinated then they have to accept the consequences that arise from that choice. One consequence of refusing to have your child vaccinated is that the child catches a disease that has a vaccine, such as measles. Measles is not a pleasant disease. We have forgotten in now, but it killed children, and left others with life long disabilties. Now taking that risk for your own child is one thing, but putting at risk other peoples children is another. Children under one are not vaccinated for very sound medical reasons. As a result they a susceptible if there is measles in the community. There is a real possibility that such a child will be infected with measles and die. In fact, they do. We are beginning to see children die from measles again. And the reason ? Stupid, ignorant parents who think they know better and are willing to lie in order to not have their children vaccinated.
At the start of your post you say "This country". I assume you mean the US. Please keep in mind that not everyone who reads this blog is American, and that in Europe talk of "founding" a country often makes little sense.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 18, 2007 6:07 PM
"Measles is not a pleasant disease. We have forgotten in now, but it killed children, and left others with life long disabilties".
Ah, vaccinations can also leave children with life long disabilitites...
Posted by: Common Sense | October 18, 2007 6:50 PM
jen_m, thank you for the reference.
Common Sense. one link you give is about a killer staph infection. It is hard to see that this has any connection with vaccinations. Contributory factors probably include overuse and improper use (on animals) of antibiotics.
Your second link also does not in any way suggest that vaccinations are the cause of the superbugs. Again misues of antibiotics are more likely - the new bugs are just not covered by the vaccine, not caused by it.
Finally "Ah, vaccinations can also leave children with life long disabilitites..." Even if true in a minute number of cases, it would be way less than if the population were not being vaccinated.
You wear your name like an ill-fitted cloak.
And by the way I really like the idea of an earlier poster that insurance companies should refuse to give coverage for diseases children get where the vaccination is intentionally withheld by the parents for religious or other reasons. (Not if the kid is allergic and may n