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 
I've been sarcastically "thanking" Jenny McCarthy for bringing the U.S. the gift of measles through her tireless efforts on behalf of Generation Rescue and other antivaccine groups and will continue to do so whenever I deem it appropriate. But Jenny isn't the only one who deserves our "thanks" (no, I'm not going to thank Andrew Wakefield again). Let's not forget all those religions who, either because they think vaccines are messing with God's will or because of some interpretation of a holy book written in prescientific times, religions like this one in Canada:
With the number of confirmed and suspected mumps cases in the Fraser Health region closing in on 200, public health officials are worrying it will spread into the Vancouver Coastal region and looking for ways to avoid such a daunting scenario.Since the outbreak began in Chilliwack in February, cases having been spreading like wildfire through the Fraser Valley, fuelled by a high rate of transmission among vaccine objectors from unnamed Christian fundamentalist groups that are against vaccines of all kinds.
About half the 190 confirmed and suspected cases are individuals who have never been immunized, either on religious or philosophical grounds, said Dr. Elizabeth Brodkin. She said another 25 per cent of cases involve people who are only partially immunized.
Public health officials have declined to disclose the church affiliations, saying that would violate confidentiality, but said the denominations' interpretation of the Bible dictates their aversion to vaccines.
This is stupidity itself. Why on earth would officials not reveal the churches spreading vaccine rejectionism, churches directly responsible for this outbreak of mumps? There are nearly 200 cases; no individuals will be identified, just the church(es) responsible for this outbreak, which is something the public needs to know. After all, it's causing a serious problem for the health authorities in Fraser:
"This outbreak is really taxing us, and we think a provincial consensus is needed to determine whether we should just resign ourselves to large numbers of cases, or [determine] what to do to mitigate the spread through some sort of immunization campaign," Brodkin said in an interview."After all, this is not a trivial disease. We've had many cases resulting in hospitalizations and complications like deafness, meningitis and testicular involvement, which can cause sterility," she added.
But, antivaccinationists tell us, mumps is not serious. Oh, no, they tell us, it's just a benign childhood disease. Rubbish.
Worse, as is often the case, concentrations of unvaccinated individuals are putting everyone else at risk:
Because of the mobility of individuals, she said "there's no guarantee it won't spread to the Vancouver region.""At the moment, there is some evidence that it is moving out of the faith-based communities and into the broader communities," she said, noting that there are now cases as far west as Burnaby.
I'm not Canadian; so I can't express my "thanks" to the religious fundamentalists responsible for letting mumps run wild in Western Canada, but I'm sure there are Canadians reading who can.
Medicine & Health
Comments
Unbelievable.
Posted by: Paholaisen Asianajaja | August 27, 2008 1:07 PM
Well, the current story from John Scudamore and associates is that vaccination programs are a nefarious plot to sterilize whole continents (they don't seem to be able to distinguish between polio programs in Asia, rubella campaigns in Latin America, or tetanus prevention in Africa.)
Looks like the religious antivax set are going for copycat status. A few score cases of orchitis in their menfolk ...
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 27, 2008 1:23 PM
Before we had vaccines for many of these diseases, public health officials had broad powers to close down sources of infection and quarantine homes of the infected. I have no love for government intrusion into our lives, but if these people are endangering the lives of other citizens, it is the proper role of government to intervene.
Posted by: Ruth | August 27, 2008 1:23 PM
I really wish they would start being more truthful about the number who were vaccinated and still contracted it. Also, when were they vaccinated? Recently? I honestly would not doubt it if all 200 were vaccinated. Also, did the strain match the vaccine used? Another bogus scare tactic. Nice try though.
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 1:29 PM
Dawn,
what part of
About half the 190 confirmed and suspected cases are individuals who have never been immunized, either on religious or philosophical grounds, said Dr. Elizabeth Brodkin.
don't you understand? We are (I assume) looking at the same community that already brought Canada Polio and CRS. Sad.
Posted by: Catherina | August 27, 2008 1:32 PM
Don't even get me started about CRS. The Rubella Vaccine has done more harm than good. There were only 14 Cases of CRS reported in the U.S. one year before the vaccine came on the market according to our government officials here in the U.S. There were even less in previous years. So, my hearing loss was not worth it.....especially when I learn that the number of CRS cases skyrocketed as soon as the vaccine came on the market.
Polio, another joke.
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 1:36 PM
Dawn,
on which planet do you live and how do you get this fast internet connection there?
Posted by: Catherina | August 27, 2008 1:45 PM
Dawn;
Do you really believe the things you say (the generalities about diseases) or do you merely make them up as you go?
Posted by: Dean | August 27, 2008 1:51 PM
Dean, I'm not following. What is your question? Which part do you doubt?
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 1:57 PM
Here, Dawn, are the rubella and CRS numbers for the USA from 1966 through 1986. CRS wasn't reportable until 1969:
Year_rubella_deaths_CRS
-----------------------
1966__46,975___12___NA
1967__46,888___16___NA
1968__49,371___24___NA
1969__57,686___29___31
1970__56,552___31___77
1971__45,086___20___68
1972__25,507___14___42
1973__27,804___16___35
1974__11,917___15___45
1975__16,652___21___30
1976__12,491___12___30
1977__20,395___17___23
1978__18,269___10___30
1979__11,795____1___62
1980___3,904____1___50
1981___2,077____5___19
1982___2,325____4____7
1983_____970____3___22
1984_____752____1____5
1985_____630____1____0
1986_____551____1___14
The only year with 14 CRS cases was 1986. Are you telling us that the rubella vaccine "came on the market" in 1987?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 27, 2008 2:09 PM
Dawn,
Nice job in continuing to run your mouth after having your original point completely destroyed. Now go back to polishing your tinfoil hat and watching Kevin Trudeau infomercials.
Posted by: Joseph C. | August 27, 2008 2:23 PM
D.C. Sessions, that is too funny. Something very fishy here.
http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel/yellowBookCh4-Rubella.aspx
Funny, those figures that you previously cited match mine exactly. However, I ALSO have the number of CRS cases reported for the years 1966, 1967, 1968.
CRS cases reported by the CDC
1966 - 11
1967 - 10
1968 - 14
Also, how does it work that 20,000 cases of CRS were reported in 1964-1964, yet the figures are not available in your information until the vaccine came out (missing for 3 whole years)??
Weird, huh?
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 2:26 PM
I'm Canadian, so I get to say it: Thanks heaps, ya whackaloons.
The west coast seems to have a lot of that sort of thing -- either you get crunchy-granola hippy-dippy liberals or else right-wingers who feel anything that happened after 1900 is bad for the trees. (Not all right-wingers are anti-environmentalists, and not all liberals run screaming from the term "technocrat," either, especially in the Canadian context.)
Incidentally, a number of those religious colonies out there are neopentacostal, and they are not nice folks to tangle with. Every so often, the RCMP goes in to one of those communities and arrests a bunch of guys whose catchphrase seems to be "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!"
Posted by: Interrobang | August 27, 2008 2:29 PM
Here's a hint: Your source doesn't say that.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 27, 2008 2:31 PM
My source is the same source...the CDC.
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 2:33 PM
For those of us who don't know...what is CRS?
Also, I'm feeling vaguely alarmed that this corner of the world keeps getting these preventable diseases. According to the MSNBC graph, Washington State has over 6% vaccination exemptions, presumably of kids entering school. I wonder how much higher the figure really is if we include the unvaccinated homeschoolers. If this keeps up, my state will get demonstrate what happens when herd immunity drops.
Posted by: Diane | August 27, 2008 2:34 PM
Well, I'm Canadian, so I'll say it; thanks! Jerks.
Posted by: Dave Ruddell | August 27, 2008 2:36 PM
CRS is congential rubella syndrome. You can look it up on Wikipedia if you want to know more.
I have no idea how Dawn can be claiming that "20,000 cases of CRS were reported in 1964-1964." As far as I know, that would be one year, though an odd way of putting it.
Posted by: Dave | August 27, 2008 2:43 PM
Catharina said "on which planet do you live and how do you get this fast internet connection there?"
and
Dean said "Do you really believe the things you say (the generalities about diseases) or do you merely make them up as you go?"
During her last pregnancy Dawn had preemplamsia. More than likely the high blood pressure caused bleeding in her brain. That should help explain her alternate reality.
Posted by: HCN | August 27, 2008 2:44 PM
I don't think you guys are understanding the "big picture".
D.C. Sessions figures are exactly what I have. The only difference is that D.C. Sessions is lacking the number of CRS cases reported for the 3 years prior to the vaccine making its big debut. This evidence clearly shows that the rubella vaccine did not do a thing to change the reported CRS cases.
Don't believe me? Locate a HARD copy of MMWR dated October 25, 1996 which clearly outlines reported CRS cases from 1966-1980. Apparently, the "online version" is missing those three very important years - 1966-1968.
Wow, thank you D.C. Sessions for pointing out that alarming fact. Not only is the CDC responsible for altering studies, but also responsible for omitting statistics that they already reported too.....12 years ago. Big oopsie on their behalf.
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 2:50 PM
Diane, from http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/rubella.pdf ... "Prevention of CRS is the main objective of rubella
vaccination programs in the United States.
A rubella epidemic in the United States in 1964-1965 resulted in 12.5 million cases of rubella infection and about 20,000 newborns with CRS."..."Congenital infection with rubella virus can affect virtually all organ systems. Deafness is the most common and often the sole manifestation of congenital rubella infection, especially after the fourth month of gestation. Eye defects, including cataracts, glaucoma, retinopathy, and microphthalmia may occur. Cardiac defects such as patent ductus arteriosus, ventricular septal defect, pulmonic stenosis, and coarctation of the aorta are possible. Neurologic abnormalities, including microcephaly and mental retardation, and other abnormalities, including bone lesions, splenomegaly, hepatitis, and thrombocytopenia with purpura may occur."
Posted by: HCN | August 27, 2008 2:53 PM
Care to provide a link to that hard copy? Scanning is easy and you can put it up on flickr or any other hosting site of your choice.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 27, 2008 2:54 PM
Distressing as this is, why do you overstate by several orders of magnitude?
An exercise for you - go to Google Maps. Look at western Canada. Big place, isn't it? Now zoom in ... zoom way in ... on the area affected. Miniscule piece of western Canada, isn't it?
This is not deny the stupidity or the seriousness of the trend, but gross overstatements do nobody any favours.
Posted by: Scott Belyea | August 27, 2008 2:55 PM
the CDC says:
"During 1964 and 1965 a rubella epidemic in the United States caused an estimated 12.5 million cases of rubella and 20,000 cases of congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) which led to more than 11,600 babies born deaf, 11,250 fetal deaths, 2,100 neonatal deaths, 3,580 babies born blind and 1,800 babies born mentally retarded."
Posted by: catherina | August 27, 2008 2:55 PM
Rev. BDC said "Care to provide a link to that hard copy? Scanning is easy and you can put it up on flickr or any other hosting site of your choice."
No she won't because she has never seen it. It is probably one of the unverifiable bits of "information" she picked up on a Yahoo group, often from the math illiterate homeopath Sheri Nakken.
Posted by: HCN | August 27, 2008 2:57 PM
Dawn,
Care to share your "CDC source" for your CRS cases in 1966-68. Let me guess, hmm, you're "paraphrasing" that vaccine book you love to push.
Posted by: ozzy | August 27, 2008 3:02 PM
Not on the page you linked.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 27, 2008 3:07 PM
Oh yeah I know.
Dawn do you have access to the paper you claim? If so settle this and support your assertion. If not you're just running your mouth.
Something we've all see here from the anti-vaxxers. Lots of noise no actual support of their side.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 27, 2008 3:08 PM
I wonder how Dawn and the like feel about being placed on par with extreme religious fundamental fanatics. Their reasoning skills are about the same. "Hey, it's what I am believe, regardless of the scientific evidence! you cannot prove (to me) that you are right or that I am wrong! Therefore, I am going to do/not do ____ because you are going to go to hell/you are going to give kids diseases/disorders."
At least they can get a good reference as to where they stand rationally and ultimately in the eyes of society.
BTW, Kim Stagliano wrote back to me about a response (answer) to a posted comment (question) Craig Willoughby placed on the AoA website. I submitted in another message, intended for her, that it's curious that they need to edit and filter out what doesn't match up with their agenda and that speaks volumes about the quality of information, the strengths of their position, and how these "journalists" really fell about free speech and the truth. She said that she doesn't have to post my comments or any that she doesn't want to and I should go to the science blogs with my medical professional and pharma/biotech friends.
I guess the truth hurts.
I really feel sorry for those poor parents who are being deceived. They deserve help and answers, not propaganda.
Other than profanity, it appears all positions are posted (although Dawn is really walking a fine line here since it is probably only fueling her paranoid schizophrenic delusion).
Posted by: RJ | August 27, 2008 3:35 PM
Has anyone explained to Dawn that the CDC updates the data when they get better information?
BTW: She's quoting this: "The last major epidemic of rubella in the United States occurred in 1964 and 1965 when millions of rubella cases led to 20,000 cases of infants born with CRS."
That was what led to it being a reportable disease in 1969 ... the inability to track the risk and figure out what to do.
Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | August 27, 2008 3:41 PM
DC Sessions said "Not on the page you linked." ...
this is what Dawn said "D.C. Sessions, that is too funny. Something very fishy here.
http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel/yellowBookCh4-Rubella.aspx
Funny, those figures that you previously cited match mine exactly. However, I ALSO have the number of CRS cases reported for the years 1966, 1967, 1968.
CRS cases reported by the CDC
1966 - 11
1967 - 10
1968 - 14
Also, how does it work that 20,000 cases of CRS were reported in 1964-1964, yet the figures are not available in your information until the vaccine came out (missing for 3 whole years)??"
This is what that link says:
"The last major epidemic of rubella in the United States occurred in 1964 and 1965 when millions of rubella cases led to 20,000 cases of infants born with CRS. Following vaccine licensure in 1969, rubella incidence declined rapidly."
Basically, it shows that Dawn is cribbing her stuff directly from the Yahoo group without bothering to look at the links she posted.
By the way, the figures of rubella, CRS and others are easily seen at a scanned PDF here:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/appdx-full-g.pdf ... in those tables the CRS cases are not reported for the early 1960s. I'm looking for where the those cases were reported. That epidemic did not go unnoticed, it was documented somewhere.
Posted by: HCN | August 27, 2008 3:49 PM
Okay, I will repeat it...
Locate a HARD copy of MMWR dated October 25, 1996 which clearly outlines reported CRS cases from 1966-1980 in a graph version. Apparently, the "online version" is missing those three very important years - 1966-1968.
Wow, thank you D.C. Sessions for pointing out that alarming fact. Not only is the CDC responsible for altering studies, but also responsible for omitting statistics that they already reported too.....12 years ago. Big oopsie on their behalf.
No, don't expect me to do the work for you. Besides, even if I do scan it, you will probably assume that I altered the statistics before scanning the page. I'm not an idiot.
However, I do have a very bad habit of hitting the post button before proof-reading. With a correction to my previous post, it was years 1964-1965 (20,000 cases of CRS?)that cannot be explained (based on the CRS cases reported for the three years - 1966-1968, again, all information being reported by the same agency - the CDC.
The only people that must be "stomping" their feet saying it isn't so, must be either
a. confined to a wheelchair and going out is not an option
b. true blue employees of Big Pharma that already know I've proven my point based on D.C. Sessions accidental boo-boo, AND I have even provided a reference for my source.
Hard copy, hard copy, hard copy. That is all I have to say for all of you non-believers. The CDC is a very corrupt and misleading organization. If you do happen to research this very alarming and amusing fact, you will probably then begin to question everything else that you've ever been brainwashed into believing. All lies - about every disease and every vaccine.
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 3:51 PM
Tsu Dho Nimh said "That was what led to it being a reportable disease in 1969 ... the inability to track the risk and figure out what to do."
Yep, that is what I found with my PubMed search. There are some notes from separate states, a paper on the impact on schools for the deaf, and calls for more research, surveillance and prevention. One complete paper I found is here:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1503251&pageindex=1
Which is titled "Rubella: Some Comments on the 1964-1965 Epidemic in California" It is a photocopy PDF, so no cut and pasting. But I can type in the introduction:
The rubella epidemic of 1964-1965 resulted in the birth of a group of children with defects of vision, of hearing or of the heart. In this study of cases known to five Los Angeles agencies, it was found that about half of those affected have more than one defect. Findings demonstrate a need for more sensitive communicable disease surveillance and for the development of services for the multiple handicapped child.
Posted by: HCN | August 27, 2008 3:57 PM
Here is a chart of the CDC data on incidence of rubella before and after introduction of the vaccine, demonstrating the drastic decrease in incidence.
Posted by: trrll | August 27, 2008 3:57 PM
This Dawn person isn't funny anymore. She's scaring me, can't we just make her go away somehow. How about a trip outside of Vancover where you can attend an unnamed church which we hail you as a new prophet as they watch all their children get sick, go deaf and possibly die.
I know scienceblogs is an educational (and some entertainment) tool, but at some point its just not worth trying to educate those who are purposefully obtuse.
Posted by: Evinfuilt | August 27, 2008 3:57 PM
"The CDC is a very corrupt and misleading organization. If you do happen to research this very alarming and amusing fact, you will probably then begin to question everything else that you've ever been brainwashed into believing. All lies - about every disease and every vaccine."
How would you explain the fact that other nations have similar statistics, evaluations, analysis, and positions? Why do they model their systems and practices on our (U.S.) system? Are all people that work for the CDC (5 of them, in the basement somewhere) all in on the conspiracy too? Do you think they vaccinate their children or have a secret handbook somewhere about the REAL facts about these diseases?
I could ask a lot more questions, but you won't answer them...just like you skip over the glaring faux pas pointed out to you by other posters.
What a kook!
Posted by: RJ | August 27, 2008 4:01 PM
Dawn,
The burden of proof is on you. You're the one claiming this broad conspiracy. Let's see what you have.
Posted by: ozzy | August 27, 2008 4:11 PM
They believe in God more than they believe in Science. They yearn for a time when Science did not show the unlikelihood of the existence of their God. They claim their God punishes those who disobey or disbelieve in Him. They have a theory that to use vaccines is to not put their trust in their Lord.
I wonder how they avoid the conclusion that their God is punishing them for not accepting the gift of the vaccines.
Oh and thanks, by the way. Thanks a lot. At the end of the week we will be taking our daughter to her new university there on the fringe of these fools. Booster shots are suddenly on my mind.
Based on the latest news report that the virus entered the religious community near Agassiz via 2 children from a similar community in Alberta, I'd guess they are Mennonite, or similar.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | August 27, 2008 4:12 PM
RJ, what were you trying to respond to from one of my posts on AoA? I can answer here if you'd like.
And Dawn, please stop...this is getting painful to watch.
Posted by: Craig Willoughby | August 27, 2008 4:17 PM
Hey Craig,
It was nothing big, but it was about Merck and other big pharma's getting "caught" with their business tactics. My question to you (rhetorical, go figure) was WHO caught them? My point was the that the same scientists and regulatory agencies that have been sucked up into this conspiracy theory were the ones that provide took existing data, from Merck itself, as well as additional info that was produced by labs after FDA approval. The institutions that are nebulously described as "big pHARMa" are made up of people, like you, who have committed their lives to bettering humanity, through extensive education, exhaustive research, and a standards and ethics just like everyone else. Their families are affected from their products just like everyone else. The business elements in these corporations, however, are very questionable. Their motives are based on sales and revenue...oh, maybe a little safety on the side if that works out for their marketing departments. But do not be so quick to dismiss the people who make up this mysterious entity "big pHARMa"...they are just like you and me (an analogy would be like saying American's are evil because they torture people. Most of us do not believe in torture, but certain governmental policies put in place by a minority have led us to this position).
Many people believe, because the read the news, that somehow their big buddies in the media are there to protect them, as in this case. This is WRONG! All they do is report what others find, and generate as much hysteria in the process as possible, all for viewership and ratings. It is organizations like the CDC, the FDA, etc., and the professional scientific and medical staff that is what discovers and exposes these problems. Not CBS, not AoA. Scientists. If we thought for an instant that these agencies were up to no good, "in the pocket of big pharma", the game would be up. You can bet on that. We have families too.
I guess I don't know why Kim would have been so threatened by this. I guess it goes against what they over at AoA want you to believe. And looking at the narrow topics a site that purports to be about autism cover, I can see why. Clearly, autism is a mere side note in their campaign.
Anyway, thanks for chatting and to everyone else for letting me use this discussion board, on the topic of Kunukle heads and mumps to share an off-topic opinion.
Posted by: RJ | August 27, 2008 4:38 PM
Dawn, I am willing to accept your data the the CDC reported 11, 10, and 14 cases of CRS in 1966, 1967, and 968, respectively.
Why do you think this makes a case against vaccinating against rubella? Clearly rubella cases dropped precipitously after vaccination started. You seem to be looking at a transient increase in CRS reports from 1969 to 1970, but why do you think that is significant? There was a doubling of CRS reports from 1978 to 1979 and a tripling from 1982 to 1983. So what? It dropped again after each of them.
Posted by: delurking | August 27, 2008 4:39 PM
By the way, for those who still think the mumps is nothing more than yet another harmless childhood disease, fellow ScienceBlogger Sandra Porter has written a good summary as to why you are wrong, with the promise of more detail later.
Posted by: Orac | August 27, 2008 4:40 PM
I quite disagree. Dawn, like Scudamore, is no end educational. (Entertaining only in my guiltier moments.)
The thing that transforms Dawn from farce to education is the realization that she's telling the truth as she sees it -- and that includes the amount of effort she puts into influencing elected officials.
How much do you want to bet that those officials will recognize a kook and pay her the attention she deserves instead of the attention she demands? How about those of similar bent but better presentation skills? Are you sure? Are you willing to bet your grandchildren?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 27, 2008 4:41 PM
Why is it painful Craig Willoughby? These people are even bigger idiots than I thought. Here I am stating that my statistics on rubella and cases of CRS are almost exactly what D.C. Sessions has for "scientific evidence" (his are a little off though by just a couple of cases in some areas, but pretty much the same for the most part). However, I noticed that the hard copy of the MMWR that I cited is different than the online verson of the same publication by the same agency!! There are three years missing in the online version - which speaks volumes as to why we even have the rubella vaccine in the first place!! The years 1966-1968 are, in fact, missing from the online version. However, these years are NOT missing in the hard copy.
How hard is that to register in one's brain?? Yes, the number of rubella cases have dropped since the introduction of the vaccine. At the same time though, the vaccine did not do anything for the number of CRS cases - nothing at all. In fact, 1986 had the same number of CRS cases as 1968. 1967 had the same number as 1978 - 11! Again, the vaccine was not on the market in 1967 or 1968 either. It came out in 1969. Please explain this.
Thank you D.C. Sessions for further proving my point too... that if the CDC can lie, withhold important figures, AND change statistics about one disease - what is to stop them in all areas?
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 4:44 PM
You really should take Craig's advice. He's basically on your side of the vaccine/autism issue, and even he realizes what a fool you're making of yourself. That's why it's painful to him to watch your antics. Heck, I'm utterly opposed to antivaccinationists like you and Craig, and even I find it painful to watch you. It's a human thing. After a certain point, watching even an opponent make a fool of herself ceases to be amusing or satisfying and reaches the point where I'm truly embarrassed for you.
Part of me wants you to stop, just so you stop digging yourself in deeper, while the darker side of me wants you to continue to make a fool of yourself (while my better side experiences guilt for feeling that way), because you're the best argument against antivaccinationism I've seen in a long time. Only John Best is a deeper embarrassment to the antivaccine movement.
Posted by: Orac | August 27, 2008 4:50 PM
IMHO, the folks leaving comments on this blog need to do a better job of speaking to their opponents in language they understand. People like Dawn are swayed by the anti-vaccination movement because their ability to interpret scientific data is so poor. And we are trying to counter her arguments with PubMed searches.
Someone please explain to her in clear, layman's terms, why the pre-1967 numbers she has seen are misleading, and why it matters that CRS was not a reportable disease before 1967.
Instead of getting frustrated, issuing nasty posts laden with insults, and asking "can't we just make her go away?", we should be asking ourselves why we are failing to change her mind.
You can be correct and still loose a debate. Maybe we need to polish up our debating skills.
Posted by: Clydicus | August 27, 2008 4:59 PM
Until you show us a copy of the document, your "numbers" mean nothing. Mind telling me what page that was on. Just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing.
Posted by: ozzy | August 27, 2008 5:00 PM
RJ,
Fair enough.
Dawn,
What Orac said.
Peace out, guys
Posted by: Craig Willoughby | August 27, 2008 5:01 PM
Scott Belyea says:
Google map fu skills include noticing that the Lower Mainland is home to about 60% of the population of BC, concentrated in 0.4% of the land area. That's 4000 km2 that includes the farming area where the outbreak is. We aren't much worried about the mountains and trees catching mumps.
In March, the CBC reported that "there are usually less than five cases of mumps reported each year." Now we have just under 200 in about half a year. That's orders of magnitude to me.
Jumping from the 300 in Alberta all the way to the Fraser Valley sounds like wild fire spreading to me.
BTW how does one quantify 'run wild' as 'several orders of magnitude'?
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | August 27, 2008 5:02 PM
When I had mumps as a kid (many years prior to vaccination being available) I had the pleasure of mumps pancreatitis. Not funny. I'm glad I escaped with my testicles intact. When I was in medical school (still prior to a vaccination) the commonest form of viral meningitis was that due to mumps. Also not funny. As a paediatrics SHO I saw numerous HIB and meningococcal meningitis cases, some of whom died, and a few who would have, perhaps, been better off if they had. I saw a kid die of chickenpox encephalitis. None of it was funny. Now I have a high-functioning autistic son - clearly a result of genetics, with two generations of engineers in the family and me on the spectrum too. That wasn't funny either, but you won't catch me trying to blame vaccines, and encouraging the return of those diseases simply to assuage my guilt. My son was an enormous challenge to bring up, but after eighteen years of one long continuous rolling behavioural modification programme he starts university this week and has earned a full scholarship for his double honours in math and physics. There's more satisfaction in that, Dawn, than in knowing I have persuaded some parents to avoid vaccinating their kids so that some of them, in turn, will die unnecessarily. Think about it, you dangerous and deluded dingbat.
Posted by: Lancelot Gobbo | August 27, 2008 5:13 PM
Clydicus said "IMHO, the folks leaving comments on this blog need to do a better job of speaking to their opponents in language they understand. People like Dawn are swayed by the anti-vaccination movement because their ability to interpret scientific data is so poor. "
Okay, I'll try:
In 1962 rubella was called 3 day measles or German measles. It was very mild, it killed only a little bit compared to regular measles.
It was not reported because it only killed and hurt a little bit. Measles, polio, tetanus, diphtheria and mumps killed and hurt lots more kids (and sometimes grownups).
In 1964 there was lots of rubella. Lots of pregnant ladies got rubella. Then when the babies were born lots were hurt or dead. Most of the babies were deaf.
Because lots of babies were being born with problems, and lots of babies were dead before they were born, it caused lots of people to worry. Some of these people were doctors, and some were scientists. Also the mommies and the daddies of these hurt and dead babies cried to their public health people.
So when all these people got together, they figured out that this disease was not so nice and safe. They got together and decided to add it to the list of bad diseases they count. But that took time, so this disease that used to be a nice disease but is really a bad disease was added to the list of bad diseases they count in 1968.
Does this help?
Posted by: HCN | August 27, 2008 5:15 PM
Dawn:
These are the comments to which I refer.
"The Rubella Vaccine has done more harm than good. There were only 14 Cases of CRS reported in the U.S. one year before the vaccine came on the market according to our government officials here in the U.S. There were even less in previous years. .....especially when I learn that the number of CRS cases skyrocketed as soon as the vaccine came on the market."
HCN, I find your allusions that some medical condition influences her thought processes disgusting, regardless of how I feel about her point of view.
Dean
Posted by: Dean | August 27, 2008 5:16 PM
Well, you have the vaccine program to thank for that JohnnieCanuck, FCD. At least, here in the U.S, according to the CDC, these diseases were pretty much eradicated 5-10 years before the vaccines came into the picture. We just have some pretty upset parents that are sick of their vaccine-injured children taking the heat for our ancestors actions.
The vaccine program never should have happened. So, what do we do?? Draw a line in the middle of the U.S. and the pro-vaccine could live on one side and the anti-vaccine on another? I actually like that idea. After all, us "anti-vax people" don't want you giving us your newly created stealth viruses and you don't want your young, elderly and immune-compromised people (aka the "herd") suffering due to the decline of people vaccinating. What a great idea. Let's write to Congress and the President about it. The anti-vax shall take the East Coast because their stronger immune systems can handle the cold better than you guys can.
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 5:24 PM
Clydicus, I think if you read the threads where Dawn first appeared, you will see that people have tried to explain these issues to her in layman's terms. A lot of things have followed since then, most of them involving Dawn moving the goalposts each time she is proven wrong. This has included undermining her own position - she cited some things on PubMed until too many people pointed out how they didn't support her position, and then after that PubMed was part of evil Big Pharma/Big Medicine/Big Whatever.
In dealing with someone who is questioning vaccination, your approach would be very effective. The person has to be actually asking questions, though, not searching desperately for whatever little bits of information come remotely close to supporting their worlview. Dawn is the latter type, I'm afraid.
Posted by: Natalie | August 27, 2008 5:31 PM
Lancelot says: "When I had mumps as a kid (many years prior to vaccination being available) I had the pleasure of mumps pancreatitis. Not funny. I'm glad I escaped with my testicles intact. When I was in medical school (still prior to a vaccination) the commonest form of viral meningitis was that due to mumps. Also not funny. As a paediatrics SHO I saw numerous HIB and meningococcal meningitis cases, some of whom died, and a few who would have, perhaps, been better off if they had. I saw a kid die of chickenpox encephalitis. None of it was funny. Now I have a high-functioning autistic son - clearly a result of genetics, with two generations of engineers in the family and me on the spectrum too. That wasn't funny either, but you won't catch me trying to blame vaccines, and encouraging the return of those diseases simply to assuage my guilt. My son was an enormous challenge to bring up, but after eighteen years of one long continuous rolling behavioural modification programme he starts university this week and has earned a full scholarship for his double honours in math and physics. There's more satisfaction in that, Dawn, than in knowing I have persuaded some parents to avoid vaccinating their kids so that some of them, in turn, will die unnecessarily. Think about it, you dangerous and deluded dingbat."
Thank you kind Sir, for the strongest statement about how ignorant Dear "Dawn" is, that I've seen in a while!
Posted by: sick of dawn, PLEASE move on | August 27, 2008 5:33 PM
Favorite quote from Dawn;
"Polio, another joke."
Much like a tactical nuke can be an annoyance.
Got a friend (mid 50's) that is walking on crutches for life. What a crack up!!!
Posted by: Uncle Dave | August 27, 2008 5:44 PM
Natalie stated: "I think if you read the threads where Dawn first appeared, you will see that people have tried to explain these issues to her in layman's terms. A lot of things have followed since then, most of them involving Dawn moving the goalposts each time she is proven wrong. This has included undermining her own position - she cited some things on PubMed until too many people pointed out how they didn't support her position, and then after that PubMed was part of evil Big Pharma/Big Medicine/Big Whatever".
Really? Where? Please refresh my memory.
Natalie also stated: "In dealing with someone who is questioning vaccination, your approach would be very effective. The person has to be actually asking questions, though, not searching desperately for whatever little bits of information come remotely close to supporting their worlview. Dawn is the latter type, I'm afraid".
Natalie, I have actually given you one source today and you cannot even be bothered "looking into it". Again, this tells me that either you are
1. handicapped and cannot get around to find the hard copy of the source that I stated
2. know that I am exactly right and you work for Big Pharma
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 5:53 PM
Uncle Dave stated: "Favorite quote from Dawn;
"Polio, another joke."
Much like a tactical nuke can be an annoyance.
Got a friend (mid 50's) that is walking on crutches for life. What a crack up!!!"
Oh really Uncle Dave? Was it contracted from the vaccine?
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 5:55 PM
I wonder if the officials decided not to name the religious groups because they didn't want all the antivax freaks to go running en masse to the find the contagion. The antivaxers do not want their children ever to be vaccinated, but apparently they know that it's not smart for older boys or men to get mumps. I don't know if that makes a difference, but the belief seems to be that it's safer for boys to get mumps when they are like 6 or 7 compared to 13 or 18, or as adults.
What are they to do for their unvaxed boys then? Wait until they turn 13 and then hope for the best?
No, they need to make sure their boys get infected with mumps.
If I was a public health official I might think that...
on the other hand, I suppose it's more like they are trying to avoid stigmatizing the religious groups...
I don't think that's necessarily fair. I think these groups have stigmatized themselves by being stupid.
The Bible says nothing about vaccines. It does recommend quarantining for disease. The word "quarantine" comes from an Italian word for "40". From what I understand, in the days of things like smallpox epidemics the Jews in Spain tended to survive better because they would isolate obviously sick people for forty days (which is part of the Law given to Moses).
Here's what wikipedia says:
Jewish communities tried to separate infected people from others to prevent the spread of disease as early as 1513 BC, as recorded in Leviticus chapter 13 of the Old Testament.
The discovery of the contagious nature of infectious diseases and the use of quarantine to limit the spread of contagious diseases was introduced by Abū Alī ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) in The Canon of Medicine, circa 1020.[1]
The word "quarantine" originates from the Venetian dialect form of the Italian quaranti giorni, meaning 'forty days'. This is due to the 40 day isolation of ships and people prior to entering the city of Dubrovnik in Dalmatia (formerly known as Ragusa). This was practiced as a measure of disease prevention related to the plague (Black Death). Between 1348 and 1359 the Black Death wiped out an estimated 30% of Europe's population, as well as a significant percentage of Asia's population. The original document from 1377, which is kept in the Archives of Dubrovnik, states that before entering the city, newcomers had to spend 30 days in a restricted location (originally nearby islands) waiting to see whether the symptoms of plague would develop. Later on, isolation was prolonged to 40 days and was called quarantine.
Other diseases lent themselves to the practice of quarantine before and after the devastation of the Plague. Those afflicted with leprosy were historically isolated from society, the attempts to check the invasion of syphilis in northern Europe about 1490, the advent of yellow fever in Spain at the beginning of the nineteenth century and the arrival of Asiatic cholera in 1831.
Venice took the lead in measures to check the spread of plague, having appointed three guardians of the public health in the first years of the Black Death (1348). The next record of preventive measures comes from Reggio in Modena in 1374. The first lazaret was founded by Venice in 1403, on a small island adjoining the city; in 1467 Genova followed the example of Venice; and in 1476 the old leper hospital of Marseille was converted into a plague hospital. The great lazaret of that city, perhaps the most complete of its kind, having been founded in 1526 on the island of Pomgue. The practice at all the Mediterranean lazarets was not different from the English procedure in the Levantine and North African trade. On the approach of cholera in 1831 some new lazarets were set up at western ports, notably a very extensive establishment near Bordeaux, afterwards turned to another use.
------
From what I took away from a recent comment by Barbara "I love epidemics" Loe Fisher she doesn't think it's fair to keep antivaxers away from the public just because they might spread disease and death.
There's nothing in the Bible about people going out of their way to get their children sick.
Posted by: Ms. Clark | August 27, 2008 5:58 PM
Like I said, Dawn is no end educational. Look at how readily she discerns the existence of a deep, dark conspiracy.
Of course, those three years are present at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00039679.htm in Table 10, but I wouldn't mention it to her. She's so happy right now.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 27, 2008 6:02 PM
1. handicapped and cannot get around to find the hard copy of the source that I stated
2. know that I am exactly right and you work for Big Pharma
1. Google "false dilemma", Dawn.
2. You don't have a very high opinion of the disabled, do you?
3. Work for Big Pharma? I wish. They would probably pay more than my current job. And think of the free samples!
Posted by: Natalie | August 27, 2008 6:04 PM
Well, Ms. Clark, then if you read the Bible you surely know what brought about disease in the first place....sin.
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 6:04 PM
Yargh, my blockquotes did not work properly. Dawn's comments are the first 1 & 2, mine the second 1, 2 & 3.
Sin, Dawn? You really hit all the crazy notes, huh?
Posted by: Natalie | August 27, 2008 6:07 PM
Natalie stated: "When I have left my decidely-not-related-to-pharmaceuticals job and returned home, I will find the series of threads and refresh your memory. It will also be a nice illustration of your behavior for Clydicus".
Natalie, does your boss know that you are on the computer all day while he/she is paying you to work??? OR, is blogging, playing pro-vaccine parent all day/responding to news articles involving vaccines specifically your job?? Which is it?
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 6:08 PM
Yeah, polio is just a bowl of cherries, ain't it Dawn?
http://wehelpwhathurts.homestead.com/iron_lung_ward_op_650x546.jpg
Posted by: Laser Potato | August 27, 2008 6:10 PM
Natalie stated: "Sin, Dawn? You really hit all the crazy notes, huh"?
It has become very apparent Natalie that you've never even read the first book of the Bible, let alone the whole Bible.
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 6:10 PM
Dawn might want to go try to convince the folks at the CDBRA.ca site how benign and rare congenital rubella infections were.
"The Canadian Deafblind and Rubella Association is committed to assisting all persons who are deafblind to achieve, with Intervention, the best quality of life."
http://www.cdbra.ca/show.do?p=rubellaNews
Prenatal rubella infections can cause autism and mental retardation. When that was discovered, it was one thing that started people thinking that maybe autism wasn't caused by "refrigerator mothers" as the charlatan Bettleheim was telling them.
Another interesting thing is that they found that CRS kids with autism could improve with age so that they weren't so impaired. And that without a GFCF diet or chelation, if you can imagine! Stella Chess was the researcher who got famous for finding autism in CRS cases. Well, she may have been famous otherwise, but she's known for the autism/rubella thing, too.
Posted by: Ms. Clark | August 27, 2008 6:10 PM
Doc, you're forgetting John Scudamore.
I don't think you've seen "drcee" much, but if anything he makes Scudamore look halfway sane.
Nobody, and I mean nobody has found the limits of netkookery, and it's not for trying.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 27, 2008 6:10 PM
Actually, it is you D.C. Sessions who played the "fool" very well today. Thanks for the stats.
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 6:13 PM
"It has become very apparent Natalie that you've never even read the first book of the Bible, let alone the whole Bible."
And yet more parallels to Cocksnack. Remember when Bronze Dog pointed out some very obvious contradictions in Genesis and Cocksnack explained it away as "you just don't understand the Bible?"
I've lost track of the actual post. Anyone?
Posted by: Laser Potato | August 27, 2008 6:16 PM
Laser Potato stated: "Yeah, polio is just a bowl of cherries, ain't it Dawn?
http://wehelpwhathurts.homestead.com/iron_lung_ward_op_650x546.jpg"
Actually, Laser Potato, was this picture taken while the manufacturer was "studying the effects of the vaccine" or was the picture