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 
Last night was a late night at work, and I didn't have time to apply my usual annoyingly long-winded analysis to a study that I found interesting and had intended to look at today. It'll keep. In the meantime, there are always the brief "link-and-comment" (or in my case "link-and-snark") posts. Also, there was an article a couple of days ago that I have been meaning to bring up since I saw it but somehow allowed myself to get distracted. With the impending resurgence of measles and other previously controlled or even vanquished infectious diseases, courtesy of Jenny McCarthy, Generation Rescue, and their supporters and enablers, the issue described in this story is going to become more and more contentious:
Karey Williams never thought a parenting decision would come between her and a good friend. The two had known one another for a decade, supported each other through infertility treatment and had their first babies around the same time. But when she told the friend that she had stopped vaccinating her daughter at age 1, the relationship abruptly ended."She said, 'Well then, your child can't come into my house,'" recalls Williams, 47, who lives in the Chicago area.
That's not the only time Williams has encountered conflict because of the decision she made for her daughter, now 7. "I've had people voice their opposition to me, that I'm ruining the herd immunity ... that my child would put their child at risk," she says.
The people voicing those sentiments are exactly right. Parents like Karey Williams are contributing to exactly that, and it is good to see that many parents actually understand this:
Jennifer Collado, 37, of Glen Rock, N.J., says members of her son's toddler play group were "stunned" when one mother mentioned that her child wasn't vaccinated. The group didn't kick them out though, and shortly after they moved out of state. But the group felt that information should have been mentioned upfront. "Someone pointed out to her that it was her choice to do that but that she was putting everyone's kids in jeopardy by not having her kids vaccinated," Collado says.
Indeed.
Many parents who choose not to vaccinate will argue that it is no one else's business but their own, that they're not hurting anyone. Poppycock. (I had intended to use another word, but I'm trying to clean up my language after a few recent lapses.) By their decision not to vaccinate, antivaccinationists make their child a potential nidus of infection for their community, something they either cannot understand or refuse to understand:
This is the part I'll never understand...if the parents who vaccinate their children have such confidence in the vaccines themselves, then an unvaccinated child could never harm their protected child. Which one is it? Do they believe that vaccines work with all kids 100% of the time or don't they?
Here's the simple answer: Vaccines are not 100% effective. Nothing in medicine is. They may be 99% effective, 95% effective, 90% effective, or even less. By medical standards, any intervention that's over 90% effective is a pretty darned good intervention, and most vaccines are at least pretty darned good, especially given how rare serious reactions are. But they are not 100% effective, and it is almost as foolish for parents who vaccinate their children to believe that vaccines will be 100% effective in protecting their children as it is for antivaccinationists to believe that vaccines do more harm than good. At the very least, it's naive. Also, there are children who for health reasons cannot be vaccinated and who thus rely on herd immunity. The larger the population of unvaccinated children, the weaker the herd immunity, and if the percentage of vaccinated children falls below a certain point herd immunity basically collapses. Indeed, one of the parents in the article doesn't seem to understand that:
Angela Corry, 33, of Shirley, N.Y., has faith that vaccinations are going to protect both of her girls, no matter who they encounter."I have no problem welcoming unvaccinated children into a play group, and I have no problem with them attending school," she says. "Simply put, my children are vaccinated, the risk is minimal. I may not agree with [other] parents' choices, but there's no reason to hold that against the child."
Actually, I would argue that it is the parent of the unvaccinated child who is responsible for any ostracism that child suffers due to their decision not to vaccinate. It is not incumbent on parents of vaccinated children to bend over backwards to accommodate non-vaccinators. Also, if herd immunity collapses, the risk will no longer be minimal, and, make no mistake about it, the antivaccine movement is a dagger aimed at the heart of herd immunity.
One thing that I find heartening this article is that the social norm is still to vaccinate and that most parents still support vaccination even in light of the contininuous antivaccine propaganda pumped out by Jenny McCarthy and her fellow travellers. Antivaccinationists may be tolerated in the abstract, but when the rubber hits the road and it's one's own children potentially at risk due to them suddenly that tolerance is severely strained:
But parents who don't know who's vaccinated and who isn't have their own concerns, highlighted by the measles outbreak in San Diego earlier this year that resulted when an unvaccinated 7-year-old boy traveling to Switzerland contracted measles. The virus spread to 11 other unvaccinated children at both his school and his pediatrician's office -- including a few babies who were too young to receive the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.When news of the outbreak hit, Dr. Ari Brown says her office in Austin, Texas, received a spate of questions from worried mothers wondering if there were any nonvaccinating families in her practice, which there aren't. "Parents were outraged," she says.
"From the vaccinating parent perspective, it's a little infuriating because you don't know who these kids are," says Brown, a vaccine proponent and co-author of the book "Baby 411."
Yes, it is, hence the question being asked of parents whose children are going to play with other children. Naturally, antivaccinationists are outraged:
"Do I think it's inappropriate to put a mark on people and kick them out from being able to participate in society, yeah I think it's inappropriate -- it's inappropriate and it's dangerous," says Barbara Loe Fisher, cofounder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, a group in Vienna, Va., that describes itself as "America's Vaccine Safety Watchdog" and opposes forced vaccinations.
Fisher, "Libertarian" that she is who so forcefully opposes "forced" vaccination or anything that "tells her what to do about her child's health" seems to think that she should be able to make her decision not to vaccinate and face zero consequences, that she shouldn't face societal displeasure at her decision. In other words, for all her piously hypocritical appeals to "freedom," she clearly thinks her rights trump everyone else's. But what about parents who do the right thing by having their children vaccinated and do not want to put their children at risk from children whose parents are less responsible? This has nothing to do with government telling Fisher what to do and everything with shared values of society, where a parent wants to know if she's putting her child at risk by letting that child play with another child. As part of assessing that risk it's perfectly reasonable to want to know the vaccination status of the playmate. True, that doesn't eliminate the risk of being exposed to disease thanks to the unvaccinated in various public areas, but children playing together often involve close contact with the typical spitty and snotty hands that children in their lack of concern for hygeine often have, a far more effective means of transmitting the various infectious diseases that we vaccinate against than any random encounter with a stranger in a public place.
Now don't get me wrong. I understand that health information is private and that no parent is required to reveal her child's vaccination status to another parent. However, the flip side of that is that it is not wrong for a parent to ask about the vaccination status of potential playmates for her child. With that in mind, I'll make three points.
First, society is always a balance between competing interests of personal freedom and the good of society as a whole. In the U.S. we tend to value individual freedom over society, which has for many issues (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.) served us very well indeed, although arguably not as well in others. Unfortunately, all too often advocates for "personal freedom" forget or don't care that the corollary of this balance is that one person's rights do not allow him or her to infringe on the rights of another. It's that whole "balance" thing, admittedly a cause of contention since the republic was founded. Given that schools and day care centers, with their large concentration of children in relatively small spaces, represent perfect incubators for children to pass viruses and bacteria between each other, it makes scientific, medical, public health, and legal sense to require full vaccination according to the currently recommended schedule before a child is permitted to enter school or day care, with the only exceptions being children who for medical reasons cannot be safely vaccinated. Indeed, the push for "religious" and "philosophical" exemptions undermines that protection and is intentionally being exploited by antivaccinationists to get their children into school to endanger the other children there.
Second, a parent has every right to ask about the vaccination status of potential playmates for her child. Parents of said potential playmate, whether they vaccinate or not, have every right to refuse to answer. However, the parent asking also has the right to judge for themselves whether they will accept that answer. Personally, I would not accept a refusal to answer and recommend to pro-vaccination parents out there that they refuse to accept a nonanswer as well.
Finally, and most importantly, what this conflict shows is that antivaccinationists seem to think they have some God-given right to inflict their pseudoscience on society as a whole. They don't want to vaccinate their child because of fears of autism or various other "complications" of vaccines based on fearmongering, pseudoscience, or religion? Fine, but there will be consequences, and I don't care if they don't like those consequences. Their choice based on fear is endangering the rest of society by making the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases more likely. If a parent makes the choice not to vaccinate, that parent should not whine when parents of vaccinated children decide that they do not want to risk their children's health by letting them play with unvaccinated children.
After all, if antivaccinationists claim have the right not to vaccinate, they should not be disturbed if the parents of vaccinated children also claim the right to take action to protect their child from the risks introduced into society by antivaccinationists "exercising their rights."
ADDENDUM: Apparently there is a poll at MSNBC on this issue.
Medicine & Health
Comments
One of the components of freedom is the right to accept the consequences of one's actions. If your idiocy makes your child a potential Typhoid Mary, well expect people to avoid you like the plague.
On a side note, when I was in the military, we got vaccinated against a lot of stuff. I remember one poor guy lost proof of vaccination (they gave us a booklet) a couple of times and was vaccinated all over again. He never suffered any ill effects. Might be something worth pointing out.
Posted by: I am so wise | August 27, 2008 9:46 AM
The only thing that would make this complicated for me would be considering those children who can't be vaccinated because of medical conditions. Would it make more sense to be consistent (exclude all unvaccinated children, whatever the reasons, which seems somewhat hard on the unvaccinated kids who can't be vaccinated for legitimate reasons) or to be selective (exclude only unvaccinated kids who could have been vaccinated, which seems more 'fair' but also punitive rather than simply risk-avoidant). Not sure what I think.
Posted by: Elizabeth Reid | August 27, 2008 9:49 AM
Put another way, Fisher et al don't want anyone else to even have an opinion on their (Fisher etc) health practices, but are perfectly fine with making decisions for those very people who aren't allowed any opinions.
Well, here's a hint that I've mentioned before: one group that very well may have an opinion -- and the legal power to enforce it -- is a jury in a civil liability trial twenty years from now.
Those babies who were harmed by the willful negligence of nonvaccinating parents who brought their measles shedder to the pediatricians office have about twenty more years before the statute of limitations runs out for the kids to sue for damages.
Those juries twenty years from now may not be as forgiving as those today. Many of today's parents don't think of measles etc. as serious diseases. If Fisher, McCarthy, and company have their way that will change -- and the juries twenty years from now will be judging their actions with that hindsight.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 27, 2008 10:03 AM
There is one fundamental difference that I can see, and that is that your neighbor who has an immunocompromised (or whatever) child isn't likely to come to playgroup fresh from a measles party.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 27, 2008 10:29 AM
There are essentially two types of unvaccinated children attending school, i.e., those who cannot be vaccinated and those whose parents will not vaccinate them. The former has no choice, the latter does.
The choice not to vaccinate should include not allowing those unvaccinated children into school, period. They are wilfully putting those who have no choice, and those who chose, but the vaccination did not confer immunity at risk.
If I had a school age child, I would want to know if there are any unvaccinated children in my child's school, and, allow the responsible parents an option of having them either segregated into one class, but NOT IN MY KIDS class.
As for DCS' suggestion, I would think that the day is coming where some parent will listen to Jenny, or Generation Rescue, and not vaccinate, and wind up with a dead or disabled child as a result. I recall several years ago that a radio talk show financial advisor, or paid spokesperson, was sued when someone listened to them to their detriment. Sounds like a similar scenario.
Posted by: TheProbe | August 27, 2008 10:38 AM
Education is key in all of this. Hold the pseudoscience folks accountable for fearmongering, and for using their children as a platform for their own anti-societal issues. We also need to provide new parents with accurate, non-biased information about vaccines prior to those first confusing moments in the pediatrician's office when the needle goes in before you have the chance to comprehend what's happening. Talk about feeling like livestock!
Posted by: E.P. Who? | August 27, 2008 10:47 AM
I wonder what the vaccination denialists will use for an excuse when that one class ends up having a massive measles outbreak while the others cruise on largely unaffected.
As I understand it, it's a lot harder to sue for advice than it is for "assault with a deadly virus." Not least because in the latter case, there was nothing that the parent of the victim could have done to prevent it -- the critical decisions were all made by the nonvaccinating parent.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 27, 2008 10:51 AM
Micha http://www.wdr.de/tv/quarks/sendungsbeitraege/2007/1030/001_impfung.jsp?pbild=3 and Natalie http://www.kinderaerzte-im-netz.de/video/krankheiten/masern/Natalie-SSPE.wmv are dying because one family decided not to vaccinate their child, but took him to a evidence based doctor's practise when he developed a fever in 2000. He turned out to have measles. The boy infected a number of babies in the waiting room (media reports vary between 6 and 9), Micha (then 5 months) and Natalie (then 11 months) among them. Micha came down with SSPE in late 2005, Natalie in Summer of 2007.
Measles are spread to babies in doctors' waiting rooms in almost every outbreak now. If non-vaccinators at least had the decency to get a primary care physician who does home visits, I would have a much easier time accepting their non-vaccine decision.
Posted by: Catherina | August 27, 2008 10:59 AM
It is an entirely circular argument with the anti vaxxers.
Vaxer: Not vaxing your child is a danger to society.
Anti-vaxer: If vaxes are so great your child should be protected!
Vaxer: No vax is 100% effective, "herd immunity" is affected and some people depend on that due to immune deficiencies.
Anti-vaxer: Why should I sacrifice my child for "herd immunity"?
Vaxer: Because these diseases are nasty and kill people.
Anti-vaxer: Vaxes have nasty side effects and hurt people too!
Vaxer: Side effects are far more rare and not as bad as the disease itself.
Anti-vaxer: But it should be 100% safe or not be used at all!
Vaxer: That is unreasonable. True side effects are very uncommon.
Anti-vaxer: But VAERs has TONS of reports.
Vaxer: A reporting system is not a valid method of statistics, particularly when anyone can enter a report.
Anti-vaxer: But Big Pharma are paying people like Offit off to not report things and keep it quiet!
Vaxer: To the contrary, the only medical studies that indicate a link between vaccines and autism/etc. are ones by people with significant conflicts of interest and a major financial stake in the connection. Like Andrew Wakefield and Mark Geier.
Anti-vaxer: But autism rates are through the roof at 1 in 150 children!
Vaxer: The diagnosis for autism has changed in the no so distant past. Many people went un-diagnosed in the past that are now being recognized. The standard changed so you cannot compare the numbers.
Anti-vaxer: But I know a child that was perfectly normal then got a vax and then BOOM, autistic!
Vaxer: Autism is typically noticed around the time several vaccines are first given. That does not mean causation. Most parents also typically miss signs of autism at earlier ages.
Anti-vaxer: But my "Mommy Intuition" is telling me it will hurt my kid.
Vaxer: Then your "Mommy Intuition" can keep your child away from my child.
Anti-vaxer: If vaxes are so great your child should be protected!
Vaxer: ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
No matter how logical and valid the answers, they always find their way around to the same questions. How many times does the same question have to be answered before we reach comprehension? Sadly the only thing that will make some people understand is an object lesson. It is really sad that a child (likely many) will have to pay the ultimate price before the anti-vaxers finally start listening. And it is the parents that are just trying to do the right thing that are being misled and will pay it.
I was reading a forum the other day where parents where complaining about how "143 cases of measles isn't an epidemic!". No, but it is 4 times more than ALL of last year. Assuming that it grows no further this year (unlikely). At that rate of growth (4 times the cases means it is 4 times as likely to be transmitted), next year we will have over 400 cases next year. Within FIVE years we have almost 150,000. By current death rates that will be over 70 dead people that year alone. Brilliant!
I hope that the people running these websites and posting information trying to convince parents to not vax have had a good lawyer look over what they are saying. And, I hope the parents that choose to not vaccinate realize the liability they may be opening themselves to, especially as they fill out their bogus "religious exemption" so they can get their child into public school. Because if they think for one minute a personal injury lawyer won't jump on a wrongful death case like that they are sorely mistaken.
And one final note of humor, I have actually seen parents posting for advice on falsifying a "Religious Exemption" so their child can attend a Jewish or Catholic private school. Can you see someone explaining to their priest that their religion does not allow for vaccination? The stupid really does burn.
Posted by: Indiana | August 27, 2008 11:05 AM
I think my response to "If vaxes are so great your child should be protected!" would be, "Ever heard of a condom breaking? Nothing's perfect, but a reduced risk is better than nothing." Exposing yourself or your kids to someone who won't vaccinate would be as stupid as sandpapering your condom before you use it...
Posted by: Interrobang | August 27, 2008 11:42 AM
A lot of us who got chickenpox in the days before chickenpox vaccine (and are thus susceptible to shingles after re-exposure) are going to come into contact with increasing numbers of unvaccinated kids as we get older. At the same time, the efficacy of the new shingles vaccine is still under discussion, and those of us who are under 60 can have a difficult time obtaining it anyway.
That means that unvaccinated kids can be dangerous to their own parents and, especially, to their grandparents. I'm sure that folks with grandchildren adore them sufficiently to not mind picking up the occasional sniffle or tummy bug that's been making the rounds of pre-school -- but post-herpetic neuralgia is a different beast entirely. Two of my relatives have had it, and it's one of those things I wouldn't even wish on a Republican spin doctor.
The stupid may burn figuratively, but it also hurts literally.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | August 27, 2008 12:30 PM
The response to whackjobs like Ms. Fisher is very simple. It is, "your rights end where my nose begins."
Posted by: SLC | August 27, 2008 12:31 PM
You guys all make me laugh. Actually, if you feel that way, then all adults should be providing proof of their "vax status" - to include doctors. Wait a minute, I just read something a few months ago that stated a poll was conducted among the AAP members - surprisingly enough, 5% of pediatricians do not even vaccinate their own children. While that may not "seem like a lot", it is rougly 3,000 across the country. Imagine that. Now, I'll have to try to find that link.
Furthermore, if a person "may" be contagious for up to 6 weeks according to the vaccine literature, we must hang a sign around their neck too. After all, we don't want to have them come in contact with people either if they are freshly vaccinated.
Lastly, I for one, am not willing to sacrifice the life of my child for the sake of this phony "herd". Vaccines have the potential to kill - the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program will attest to that too. Whether it be 1 in 100, 1 in 1,000, or 1 in a million - my child will not be sacrificed in the name of "science". Don't like it? Then move to China where you may all live in harmony under a dictatorship. If the government commands you to "kill" your own children for the sake of others, then you "must". Again, pack your bags and get the heck out of the U.S.
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 12:32 PM
Julie,
shingles have nothing to do with "re-exposure". Once you have chicken pox or the varicella vaccine, the virus resides in your nervous system and will resurface at times of stress, illness, etc. Think herpes virus - same family, same behaviour. If anything, contact to a chicken pox infected/shedding child will boost your immune response and decrease the likelihood of shingles.
Posted by: Catherina | August 27, 2008 12:34 PM
Dawn said "Furthermore, if a person "may" be contagious for up to 6 weeks according to the vaccine literature, we must hang a sign around their neck too. After all, we don't want to have them come in contact with people either if they are freshly vaccinated.Furthermore, if a person "may" be contagious for up to 6 weeks according to the vaccine literature, we must hang a sign around their neck too. After all, we don't want to have them come in contact with people either if they are freshly vaccinated."
You've been challenged on this, and had it explained to you already.
Now show us which literature and exactly what it said.
Posted by: HCN | August 27, 2008 12:39 PM
That's such an excellent summary of the debate, Indiana. I've debated this issue online many times and it went on exactly like that.
The only thing we can do is keep posting good material. Most people are not irrational. Give them the facts and they will vaccinate.
Posted by: Stacy | August 27, 2008 12:47 PM
"Then move to China where you may all live in harmony under a dictatorship. If the government commands you to "kill" your own children for the sake of others, then you "must".
Fine, then you stay here and prepare for the possibility of paying large amounts of money in the civil courts. Every action or inaction has consequences.
Posted by: ozzy | August 27, 2008 12:50 PM
Dawn,
my other post is held because of two links. I had written about Micha and Natalie, who were unfortunate enough to share a waiting room with an unvaccinated preteen coming down with measles in 2000, when Micha and Natalie were still babies. The preteen infected a handful of babies in the practise. Micha came down with SSPE in late 2005, Natalie in Summer 2007. It is one family's non-vaccine decision that is effectively killing two other children.
Transmission of measles in a medical setting due to unvaccinated children (or worse even: unvaccinated medical personnel) happens in many outbreaks these days and underscores the importance of community immunity.
Posted by: Catherina | August 27, 2008 12:53 PM
HCN stated: "You've been challenged on this, and had it explained to you already.
Now show us which literature and exactly what it said".
Just take a look at any live-virus vaccine package insert HCN. I refuse to do the work for you.
Ozzy stated: "Fine, then you stay here and prepare for the possibility of paying large amounts of money in the civil courts. Every action or inaction has consequences".
Fine, but before that happens the doctors, nurses, scientists, and courts must acknowledge all the vaccine injured AND reward them for their injuries. Then you must further acknowledge the people who were harmed by coming in contact with a freshly vaccinated person too. Smallpox is just one vaccination example.
http://www.hrsa.gov/smallpoxinjury/default.htm
Deal?
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 12:58 PM
Dawn,
You already have the opportunity to receive compensation via the NVICP where the standard of evidence is weaker than a civil court. Eventhough the standard is weaker there must be some evidence other than a parent/relative saying so. So, I believe that ALL "vaccine-injured" people are already being paid.
Posted by: ozzy | August 27, 2008 1:06 PM
If you're worried about a vaccination *directly* killing you, your child, etc. then you should also worry about cars, food and water. See, these things can also kill you (fatal car accidents, food poisoning or choking, and drowning), but typically, they don't. In fact, they have such a low rate of "deaths" that people eat and drive all the time, every day. Vaccines are the same way. The vast, vast majority of the time, there is essentially no complications with them, even if a small fraction of the time they "kill". Of course, why "take the risk", right?
Posted by: Josh from Canada | August 27, 2008 1:07 PM
Catherina stated: "my other post is held because of two links. I had written about Micha and Natalie, who were unfortunate enough to share a waiting room with an unvaccinated preteen coming down with measles in 2000, when Micha and Natalie were still babies. The preteen infected a handful of babies in the practise. Micha came down with SSPE in late 2005, Natalie in Summer 2007. It is one family's non-vaccine decision that is effectively killing two other children.
Transmission of measles in a medical setting due to unvaccinated children (or worse even: unvaccinated medical personnel) happens in many outbreaks these days and underscores the importance of community immunity".
Catherina, unfortunately, vaccines are solely responsible for shifting the vulnerable age groups - to the elderly and young infants AND pregnant persons. What would your solution be then? Vaccinate every 5-10 years despite the numerous injuries and deaths associated with vaccinating? My family of 5 injured (one death) were never acknowledged or rewarded for their injuries. So, what do we do?
I think that we all must come up with a reasonable solution to the problem. I compare this crises with that of technology. Yes, we have achieved many great things in this new age, but we are destroying this planet in the meantime. How do we fix it? Ignore it and hope that it goes away? Or do we let it keep boiling until the lid blows off? How do we undo this nightmare that the medical establishment has started?
You are willing to sacrifice your life and the life of your child by vaccinating with the "hope" that it will work for them. I am not willing to take such a risk ever again. Again, what do we do?
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 1:10 PM
Dawn,
You deliberately mislead by stating "live-virus" but it is actually a live attenuated-virus. A big difference. Attenuated means it is not infectious. So you "may" be shedding non-infectious measles particles. Kinda like comparing the buzz you get off of near-beer compared to real beer. (I'd thought I'd put it into a context that you were familiar with.)
Posted by: ozzy | August 27, 2008 1:15 PM
Dawn,
vaccines are solely responsible for shifting the vulnerable age groups
that is the usual anti-vaccine lie. In pre-vaccine USA, an average of 57 infants (as in children under 1 year) died of measles every year. Contemporary sources speak of underreporting. If you assume a conservative 0.1% death rate, this translates into 57'000 annual cases in under 1 year olds - there were scores (as in over 50) additional cases of SSPE per year, too. Do the maths: in which time pre- or post-vaccine were infants better protected?
It is the stubborn, (psuedo)religious refusal of a minority that keeps measles circulating and this kills children, every year. Most of the children of anti-vaccinationists are protected by the good vaccination morale of their community. But catastrophes like the slow and painful deaths of Micha and Natalie (watch the movie when it posts) cannot be avoided as long as the intentionally unprotected mingle with the vulnerable.
Posted by: Catherina | August 27, 2008 1:20 PM
@Dawn:
I assume you are being deliberately stupid (if, as HCN says, you have had this explained to you before).
Currently used vaccines consist of either killed organisms (which have no infection risk to anyone else) or clinically attenuated stains of organisms (which may pose a possible onward risk of transmission, but if so this is brief and actually advantageous, helping promote wider "vaccination", and it is of far, far less clinical risk to a child catches as opposed to catching the natural infection)
As HCN says, let's see the literature you keep quoting and how this applies to all the standard childhood immunisations please. Or else just STFU.
Posted by: DT | August 27, 2008 1:22 PM
Ozzy stated:
"Dawn,
You already have the opportunity to receive compensation via the NVICP where the standard of evidence is weaker than a civil court. Eventhough the standard is weaker there must be some evidence other than a parent/relative saying so. So, I believe that ALL "vaccine-injured" people are already being paid".
Incorrect Ozzy. Apparently, because I never had a comprehensive hearing exam prior to the rubella vaccine, I do not have a case. However, if it resulted in total deafness, a would have "a chance" of winning. If my hearing was perfect prior to this vaccine, why would I have a comprehensive hearing exam? So, I am just "out of luck" now with my partial hearing loss. Even though it is listed as an adverse reaction to this vaccine??!! There isn't a thing I can do about it. Believe me, I've already consulted with numerous attorneys.
As far as my infant is concerned, the reactions were never even documented by the nurse after hours. She never logged the calls properly or even informed his doctor. I may have a chance still with him because Easter Seals evaluated him before any vaccines (standard with premature babies now) and evaluated him after (when he lost acquired skills for up to a year and I called them back into the picture). Only time will tell with him whether or not justice is served.
So, it is only my opinion, but the program is a joke.
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 1:22 PM
You are willing to sacrifice your life and the life of your child by vaccinating with the "hope" that it will work for them. I am not willing to take such a risk ever again. Again, what do we do?
The assumption here is that those of us who vaccinate our children are bad parents. Frankly, Dawn, I could care less about your children. As long as they are quarantined and safely away from my children, then are free to practice your superior parenting skills as you wish. So there's your solution.
Posted by: Todd | August 27, 2008 1:32 PM
So do you allow your child to ride a bicycle (leading cause of ER visits for children and adolescents, with hundreds of thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths every year)? How about organized sports (3.5 million injuries per year)? Do you drive your kids to the movies? I've asked these questions before and you have avoided answering them. Is it fair to say that you are willing to "sacrifice" your own children in the name of play and entertainment, but not to save the lives of other children?
Posted by: trrll | August 27, 2008 1:35 PM
Try to think about this rationally for a moment. Do you imagine that somehow, the fact that most people are vaccinated somehow makes infants more vulnerable to infection than they were prior to near-universal vaccination? Do you seriously believe that the elderly, infants, and pregnant persons are at greater risk from vaccine-preventable illnesses now vaccination has greatly reduced the risk of an encounter with an infected individual?
Posted by: trrll | August 27, 2008 1:42 PM
Todd stated: "The assumption here is that those of us who vaccinate our children are bad parents. Frankly, Dawn, I could care less about your children. As long as they are quarantined and safely away from my children, then are free to practice your superior parenting skills as you wish. So there's your solution".
That is your assumption. I have never stated that. Do not speak for me Todd. You sincerely hold a belief that vaccines carry more risks then benefits because that is what you've been taught. I sincerely hold a belief in just the opposite based on experience. Yes, people that use "herd immunity" do not care about others. Thank you for pointing that out.
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 1:48 PM
Kind of hard to avoid when you refuse to answer requests to clarify your position.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 27, 2008 1:53 PM
Sorry, rephrase.
Todd stated: "Todd stated: "The assumption here is that those of us who vaccinate our children are bad parents. Frankly, Dawn, I could care less about your children. As long as they are quarantined and safely away from my children, then are free to practice your superior parenting skills as you wish. So there's your solution".
That is your assumption. I have never stated that. Do not speak for me Todd. You sincerely hold a belief that vaccines carry more "benefits then risks" because that is what you've been taught. I sincerely hold a belief in just the opposite based on experience. Yes, people that use "herd immunity" do not care about others. Thank you for pointing that out.
trrll stated: "Try to think about this rationally for a moment. Do you imagine that somehow, the fact that most people are vaccinated somehow makes infants more vulnerable to infection than they were prior to near-universal vaccination? Do you seriously believe that the elderly, infants, and pregnant persons are at greater risk from vaccine-preventable illnesses now vaccination has greatly reduced the risk of an encounter with an infected individual"?
Yes, I do believe that trrll. In fact, the majority of people contracted these diseases prior to adulthood. With the majority of mothers already experiencing the disease in childhood, then bear children later, they were able to offer immunity to their newborn. That is no longer the case - which is exactly why there is a campaign to vaccinate every child by two because they are now more vulnerable than ever before, thanks to vaccines. The same goes for the elderly and pregnant persons. People who are immune compromised are no more important than the vaccine-injured. They are not recognized unfortunately.
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 1:54 PM
"Poppycock. (I had intended to use another word, but I'm trying to clean up my language..."
Well then you can't say poppycock. Poppy is a source of drugs and cock is, well, a fallacy. You should try saying "mommyhen" instead....
Posted by: Ian | August 27, 2008 1:56 PM
Dawn of Sedna flatulated: "With the majority of mothers already experiencing the disease in childhood, then bear children later, they were able to offer immunity to their newborn."
Perhaps you are "thinking" about the antiboidies passed in mother's milk. That protection runs out when breastfeeding stops, and is non existent if the mother does not breastfeed.
Seriously, did you ever take biology in high school?
Posted by: TheProbe | August 27, 2008 2:01 PM
TheProbe stated: "Perhaps you are "thinking" about the antiboidies passed in mother's milk. That protection runs out when breastfeeding stops, and is non existent if the mother does not breastfeed.
Seriously, did you ever take biology in high school"?
Actually, that would explain why our healthcare professionals are now promoting "breastfeeding" once again, huh? They did fall away from the notion for a short period, but common sense kicked in recent years. However, breastfeeding is no longer the same if the mother
1. Never acquired the disease naturally
2. Has been vaccinated
Those antibodies are no longer offered thanks to vaccines. Breastfeeding is still better than formula feeding, but nowhere near what it "used to be".
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 2:09 PM
One thing you could have mentioned is that siblings under 12 months will also likely not have been vaccinated.
I suspect it is pretty common for younger offspring to accompany a parent picking an older child up from school or daycare.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 27, 2008 2:17 PM
As I've pointed out before, this mainly works because the mothers were exposed recently, thanks to the disease being endemic. You could get the same result, without the thousands of deaths, blindness, etc. simply by giving women a booster when they decide to have children.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 27, 2008 2:28 PM
That is nonsense. There is no measles or rubella immunity in breastmilk. The bulk of maternal immunity is transplacental and the placenta has no mechanism to distinguish between disease and vaccine acquired immunity. The level of immunity of the baby is determined by the maternal titer and whether the child was full term (as the placenta does not let IgGs pass until some weeks before delivery). The transplacental antibodies are degraded in the baby's blood with a half life of 3 to 4 weeks, so that a 4 months old baby usually is not protected from measles infection anymore, although some may have a subclinical infection under maternal immunity (this does not save them from SSPE, though, hence the cases in developing countries where babies get measles very early) and measles antibodies can be detected much longer than they are protective. I have contemporary pre-vaccine (pre WW1) sources that speak of maternal immunity in the first quarter year of life. That matches the time course of IgG degradation. No measles IgA in breastmilk past 2 weeks post delivery, so strike that.
Posted by: Catherina | August 27, 2008 2:32 PM
Dawn,
"However, breastfeeding is no longer the same if the mother
1. Never acquired the disease naturally
2. Has been vaccinated"
Says who? Let's see the study or is this another "data-free opinion." Show me the cohort of breastfed infants with mothers who contracted the disease who have lower measles incidence rates than breastfed infants from mothers who were vaccinated.
By the way, while your at it show me the evidence that "natural immunity" is quantitatively better than "vaccine immunity."
Posted by: ozzy | August 27, 2008 2:41 PM
This is really nuts. Do you really think that vaccinated people don't have antibodies? It doesn't matter if the mother has antibodies because she had the disease as a child or because she was vaccinated as a child. Either provides the same (limited) protection to the infant. The same goes for adults. Prior to vaccination, there was a greater risk that a person might somehow escape acquiring immunity in childhood, and then contract the disease in later on in life when it is even more dangerous. Currently, this hazard mainly applies to people whose parents denied them vaccination as children.
Posted by: trrll | August 27, 2008 3:08 PM
=rude bodily noises= Yeah. Right. When is an antibody not an antibody? =more rude bodily noises=
When I was a kid, the schools had a blanket policy of not enrolling children without proof of vaccination. But that was back in the days of polio. I knew a few kids who actually got quarantined for measles and other preventable stuff.
In my grandparents' time, the "Spanish" flu was the big deal, but the "childhood" diseases did their share of the damage - my grandmother went completely deaf from the German measles around the same time.
I hate to sound like an old kermudge bitch, but the kids who are having their own kids now haven't a clue. Wake up, smell the history of infectuous diseases, and don't put my future grandchildren in danger with your stupidity. Either get your brats vaccinated or don't let them out in public, especially to school, which is already the germiest place on the planet. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!
Posted by: themadlolscientist, FCD | August 27, 2008 3:48 PM
This isn't even a question for me. I am happy to make exceptions for kids who were not vaccinated (or received an incomplete schedule) for medical reasons. When we are talking about the difference between not vaccinating or posing a significant and legitimate health risk, it is unreasonable to expect them to be vaccinated. Indeed, such individuals need the herd immunity more than most anyone else. If I have ninety-percent expected coverage, while they have zero, I would argue that they are the ones in need of most protection.
But people who choose to break down that herd immunity are not welcome in our home and I do my best to minimize our exposure. Sorry for the kids who lose out because of that, but their parents made a decision that makes their child a danger to themselves and others.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 27, 2008 3:54 PM
Personally I solve the problem very simply. Simple scenarios.
1)
Me: Do you vaccinate you children?
Parent: UM, why?
Me: Out!
2) Me: Do you vaccinate you children?
Parent: No
Me: Why?
Parent: AutoImmune.
Me: Ok everyone else is so you should be safe, any peanut allergies or some such? Have fun just no : list know allergies of group. Oh here are the Anti-bac wipes.
3) Me: Do you vaccinate you children?
Parent: Yup.
Me: Have fun just no : list know allergies of group.
4)Me: Do you vaccinate you children?
Parent: No.
Me: Why?
Parent: Well I'm afraid of (insert crazy delusions here)
Me: Out! I don't want my child to pick up a case of the crazy.
These 4 simple options cover all possible scenarios.
The price of freedom is the risk of stupidity.
Posted by: vlad | August 27, 2008 4:32 PM
I clicked the MSNBC poll. Seems that on both sides of the debate, people aren't worried about the possibility of herd immunity failures. meh.
Posted by: Rogue Epidemiologist | August 27, 2008 4:51 PM
That is your assumption. I have never stated that. Do not speak for me Todd. You sincerely hold a belief that vaccines carry more "benefits then risks" because that is what you've been taught. I sincerely hold a belief in just the opposite based on experience. Yes, people that use "herd immunity" do not care about others. Thank you for pointing that out.
You are scientifically illiterate, so your experience and your opinion count for squat. You and your children are threat to public health, and more specifically, my children. Antivaxxers, such as yourself, have a right to withhold vaccines from their children, but by doing so, they waive the right to participate in an open society because they are a threat to public health. Public health always outweighs the rights of the ignorant. The solution is simple. Quarantine antivaxxers.
So, unless you can show a scientifically backed medical reason why your children cannot receive vaccinations, its banishment for you and your pitiful children.
Posted by: Todd | August 27, 2008 5:06 PM
trrll stated: "This is really nuts. Do you really think that vaccinated people don't have antibodies? It doesn't matter if the mother has antibodies because she had the disease as a child or because she was vaccinated as a child. Either provides the same (limited) protection to the infant. The same goes for adults. Prior to vaccination, there was a greater risk that a person might somehow escape acquiring immunity in childhood, and then contract the disease in later on in life when it is even more dangerous. Currently, this hazard mainly applies to people whose parents denied them vaccination as children".
Well, trrll if that were true, why would we need boosters? In fact, the CDC is now calling for boosters for teens and adults. I guess they finally realized that the "protection" from childhood vaccines wore off long ago. So, no these babies are not offered any antibodies via breastmilk if the mom was vaccinated in childhood and did not receive further "boosters".
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 5:10 PM
Naturally acquired immunity doesn't last forever, either.
Posted by: Natalie | August 27, 2008 5:33 PM
why would we need boosters?
It's good question, with a reasonable, scientifically based answer. An answer that is even relatively easy to find out from a variety of basic medical and biology sources. An answer that took me all of 2 seconds to find on Google.
It's also an answer that would be wasted on you.
Posted by: Todd | August 27, 2008 5:35 PM
Dawn,
And you can demonstrate that one of these girls in the present outbreak who catch and clear measles will pass on anti-measles antibodies. Please do.
Here's an educated explanation as to the reason for a measles booster based on basic viral immunology concepts. Ever think that increased levels of measles virus spreading around the public due to endemic disease, in effect, boosts people who have prior immunity. In essence, every exposure is like a booster shot. They are exposed but don't develop disease, just like a booster shot. So in the beginning of the program when measles was more common, a booster following vaccination was not needed. Now with the greatly decreased level of measles virus spreading through the population due to vaccination, this natural boosting is lost. Therefore, booster shots are needed. It would be my guess that individuals who cleared spontaneously in this era (most likely 1980s and later) would need booster shots also.
Posted by: ozzy | August 27, 2008 5:39 PM
Todd stated: "So, unless you can show a scientifically backed medical reason why your children cannot receive vaccinations, its banishment for you and your pitiful children".
Well, Todd, my infant suffered from high-pitched screaming off/on for three days, congestion, CONVULSIONS complete with his eyes rolling back into his head AND he severely regressed (lost acquired skills for up to a year). According to the dimwits in the healthcare profession, a medical exemption does not apply unless you state which vaccine and for how long you are withholding it. If a child received 3 different vaccines against 5 different diseases at one time, which ingredient caused this in my baby? Was it the peanut oil, phenoxyethanol, pertussis, lactose, eggs, aluminum, formaldehyde, etc, etc. etc. OR was it the fact that his premature body couldn't handle that many neurotoxins and viruses at one time? Who knows? He will not be experimented on to find out either.
What makes you think that your children are more important than mine? Who ever gave you that idea? Is it part of the "New Age Movement" that kids are learning in school these days?
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 5:43 PM
Natalie stated: "Naturally acquired immunity doesn't last forever, either".
Says who Natalie? The CDC? HA HA HA HA. I think I just peed myself.
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 5:47 PM
I've read your sob story before. It's melodramatic and hyperbolic, but ultimately meaningless to me as you've got nothing but your worthless opinion to back it up. What's sad is that your kid probably does suffer from some allergic reaction, but you're too stupid to figure out what it is. Your loss, not mine.
What makes you think that your children are more important than mine?
Funny, I was going to ask you the same question. I do hope they aren't too hopelessly damaged when they reach adulthood, so I guess I can try to muster up some amused pity for them.
Posted by: Todd | August 27, 2008 6:08 PM
Yikes. It only took, what, 4 threads for Dawn to go from "I have numbers you don't know about" to "there is a magical hard-copy somewhere that proves the CDC is lying, and, oh... I just pissed myself"?
What little scratching was needed to remove the thin, thin layer of rationality and reveal the gibbering, delusional wench beneath!
Posted by: StuV | August 27, 2008 6:16 PM
Dawn whined "Well, Todd, my infant suffered from high-pitched screaming off/on for three days, congestion, CONVULSIONS complete with his eyes rolling back into his head AND he severely regressed (lost acquired skills for up to a year)."
And my kid did the same thing, transported to the hospital by ambulance, EEGs, etc ... only it was due to a real illness. I guess that doesn't count as a potent enough sob story.
Because in Dawn-world the diseases are harmless, and all bad things come from vaccines.
By the way, on this subject, because my son had neonatal seizures he did not get a pertussis vaccine. At this time our county was having a pertussis epidemic. I did seriously ask other moms with babies if their children had been vaccinated.
I only came across one who said no. She was one of those self righteous "I'm a better mommy than you" types, that it was no great loss to never go near her and her kids again.
In later years I met other mothers who had vaccinated kids who got pertussis in preschool and elementary school (one got it from his grandmother, who was very sick). Since they had been vaccinated their symptoms were not as bad as it could have been. Usually only sick for a couple of weeks, not the way it is described in China, the 100 day cough.
Posted by: HCN | August 27, 2008 7:01 PM
One of the behaviors we see consistently from religious nuts and faux-libertarians is the desire to be a "dissenter" without consequences. This isn't "freedom of conscience" but a very un-libertarian attempt to infringe on the rights of others (in some cases to get proper medical care, in this case to not be exposed to the potentially unhealthy children of cultists).
If you want to make a stand, part of owning your beliefs is owning the consequences.
Posted by: PalMD | August 27, 2008 8:02 PM
PalMD stated: "One of the behaviors we see consistently from religious nuts and faux-libertarians is the desire to be a "dissenter" without consequences. This isn't "freedom of conscience" but a very un-libertarian attempt to infringe on the rights of others (in some cases to get proper medical care, in this case to not be exposed to the potentially unhealthy children of cultists).
If you want to make a stand, part of owning your beliefs is owning the consequences".
You couldn't have said it any better PalMD. With doctors seeing nothing but dollar signs for every prescription they write, who needs them? My cousin just complained that she was at her OB/GYN for her annual, casually mentioned a lingering headache and the doc wrote her a prescription for an anti-depressant!!!?? What, do you guys have classes on how to sell as many prescriptions to your patients in under 10 min or what?? It is no longer about care for most doctors, but money. Lavish trips, rewards, incentives paid out by the drug companies...pretty sick.
The majority of us "anti-vax" parents have all come to pretty much the same conclusion - we are far better off without allopathic care. After all, don't you docs accidentally kill far more patients than guns these days? That is not even including the vaccine-related deaths either!!
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 8:18 PM
My husband has had a bone marrow transplant. He can't be re-vaccinated for a year.
I am considerably more concerned about his getting measles, mumps, polio than I am about harm from vaccinations.
We will be asking people if their children are vaccinated. To die from a preventable disease after making it through a bone marrow transplant is not worth any friends who may be offended.
Posted by: MaryM | August 27, 2008 9:20 PM
Pardon me, MaryM, but what caused it? You would think that in this day and age....by now we would have come up with a "cure".....unless
1. it is not wanted because the business of cancer is far too profitable
2. vaccines/drugs cause cancer
3. all of the above
Sadly, with your mentality your husband will probably not lead a promising long life.
Posted by: Dawn | August 27, 2008 9:25 PM
As a homeschooler and mother of 8, I am quite concerned over the number of homeschooling families that don't vaccinate. My infant child was exposed to another homeschooling family that didn't vaccinate and had contracted pertussis. They were sick, especially their youngest for months and I was quite upset that we had been exposed since my baby had not completed all the immunizations - he wasn't old enough for the MMR.
I vaccinate all of my children. And FWIW, I have filled 2 Rx for antibiotics in almost 15 years - they don't get sick. And while I have a BIL and nephew w/ Aspergers, none of my children exhibit any signs.
And, for homeschooling families that use Apologia and Dr. Wile (not a text I use but popular in the homeschooling community), I offer this link from the author supporting vaccinations:
http://www.apologia.com/vaccines.htm
One other comment, while many / most children had measles as a child prior to vaccinations, there is no guarantee that being exposed will result in bec