Pharyngula

Posted by: squealpiggy | July 13, 2010 7:42 AM

At first I thought that the Angry Video Game Nerd had awoken your ire...

Posted by: Cosmic Snark | July 13, 2010 7:48 AM

I never understood the "mentality" of the antivaxers. Vaccines have proven to be a world-saver for many, many decades, yet many parents would rather turn a blind eye to that and instead place their faith in quacks - to the point where they put their children's lives in danger.

I have always been a proponent of mandatory debate/critical thinking classes in the public schools. Maybe if more people learned to think critically and had instilled in them the ability to separate fact from woo, the antivax movement wouldn't exist at all, and the children who have died because of these bastards would be alive today.

Posted by: Will Morrid | July 13, 2010 7:57 AM

but seriously I once had a conversation who wouldn't vaccine her kid yet was still faithful to her "God". What I don't understand is how people can put there faith in one area where there is no scientific or refutable proof yet can't in area's where millions have dollars in research has.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 13, 2010 8:08 AM

It's not like they are getting spanked, they're being threatened to be spanked with no repercussions for choosing not to. The agencies here are essentially powerless to do anything other than give a stern warning.

Posted by: Q.E.D | July 13, 2010 8:15 AM

Does the Pharyngula horde have a theory as to why Medical watchdogs appear to be so completely toothless and inefectual at regulating spurious complementary and alternative medecine (SCAM)?

SCAM True believers and fraudsters alike seem to be able to operate with impunity even when caugth red-handed endangering sick people, the public health and people's finances.

While SCAM woo is completely innefective and/or deleterious in regards to people's health it does seem to have some serious mojo against regulators and governments.

If one follows the money, lobbyists and politics I suspect there are homeopathic remedy manufacturers lobbying and spending money but do Anti-vaxers, herbal medecine and acupuncture people have the money and lobbyists to affect legislation/regulation? Or is a series of alleged success and sob stories enought to make politicians back off and not touch SCAM issues with a barge pole?

I am very interested in your feedback on this.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 13, 2010 8:18 AM

Does the Pharyngula horde have a theory as to why Medical watchdogs appear to be so completely toothless and inefectual at regulating spurious complementary and alternative medecine (SCAM)?

I can't speak for the rest of the horde, but in this instance it seems the government hasn't adequately empowered the watchdogs.

Posted by: John Morales | July 13, 2010 8:23 AM

[OT]

Will Morrid @8,

This is why we need the Chasers around in aus still.

Providentially, Chaser team back for election.

Posted by: ambulocetacean | July 13, 2010 8:42 AM

the government hasn't adequately empowered the watchdogs

And it's put the foxes in charge of the henhouse. Last time I looked, the guy in charge of deciding which woo medicines get government approval was a Canadian naturopath

Posted by: Aliasalpha | July 13, 2010 9:00 AM

When I first saw the title I thought it was about the other AVN, the one where spanking isn't a rarity, its a searchable category.

It'd be nice to see these idiots get a severe fine or some jail time. Maybe we could get a class action lawsuit going for defamation of our species, "everyone with 2 brain cells to rub together" vs "the embarassing idiots who shame us by their mere existance". The list of defendants would be huge, probably 3/4 of the planet but it could be worth it.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 13, 2010 9:14 AM

One serious problem in sorting out the medical frauds from those who are practicing science-based medicine is that the medical societies don't want a strong law. Many of their treatments are traditional, poorly tested or not shown to work better than other, less invasive treatments, but any law that effectively makes it clear that chiropractors are just physical therapists who make false claims about treatments will also get in the way of surgeons who 'treat' lower back pain.

Citation?

Posted by: Great Waves | July 13, 2010 9:22 AM

Ah, though PZ'd linked to another video I uploaded, looks like this one's gone up four or five times. Anyway, go Lateline.

Posted by: atheistzombie | July 13, 2010 9:42 AM

What's interesting is that the antivax websites that I've visited host some of the most angry, invective hurling, dogmatists I've come across. The religious wingnuts can't hold a candle to these guys in terms of pure, vile, hateful stupidity.

Posted by: blindfaithiness | July 13, 2010 10:12 AM

At the AVN site is a story about LR Myers. Any relation?

Knew I shouldn't have started looking around my own link.

Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie | July 13, 2010 10:44 AM

There really should be laws against this.

Posted by: edgar.phillips | July 13, 2010 11:29 AM

Ken Mcleod got it right in the video.

Fucking ratbags.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | July 13, 2010 12:15 PM

Google her. Second link: this post. First link: whale.to.

Orac's head must be about to explode as we speak.

Posted by: jennie.erwin | July 13, 2010 12:26 PM

Ok, yes vaccines are lifesavers, but the amount of vaccines the CDC recommends for infants/toddlers is INSANE!
Look up the current recommendations. In my humble opinion it's TOO MUCH for young children's developing brains and bodies. I do vaccinate my son, but we took the CDC schedule and elongated it. My son only gets 1 or 2 shots at his well child check ups, (instead of the 3 or 4 that are recommended for most of the first year check ups). And we're certainly not paying for vaccines for chicken pox and 'ear infections' (Prevnar). It seems to me, from the research I've done that some vaccines, especially the last two I mentioned, are lifesavers for sickly kids, kids predisposed to illness, but are merely money makers for the pharmaceutical company when pumped into healthy children.

I'm not a crazy nutter, I understand that these diseases can kill, but I think the current schedule is too much too quickly for an infant. Really, does my 1 year old need to be fully vaccinated for sexually transmitted diseases? I don't think so. He'll be fine if he gets it when he's 4 or 5, when it gets slotted into our elongated schedule.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 13, 2010 12:36 PM

Ok, yes vaccines are lifesavers, but the amount of vaccines the CDC recommends for infants/toddlers is INSANE!

Says who?

In my humble opinion it's TOO MUCH for young children's developing brains and bodies.

And your opinion is based on what?

but we took the CDC schedule and elongated it.

Because of what medical reason?

It seems to me, from the research I've done that some vaccines, especially the last two I mentioned, are lifesavers for sickly kids, kids predisposed to illness, but are merely money makers for the pharmaceutical company when pumped into healthy children.

Please show that "research" here. Go ahead. You say you've done the research, please enlighten us.

I'm not a crazy nutter,

Maybe not, but you are displaying crazy nutter tendencies.

Really, does my 1 year old need to be fully vaccinated for sexually transmitted diseases?

You do know you can get Hepatitis from more than sexual contact right?

I don't think so. He'll be fine if he gets it when he's 4 or 5, when it gets slotted into our elongated schedule.

Again on what medical authority do you make this judgement beyond some built up fear you're coddling?

Posted by: DaveH | July 13, 2010 12:42 PM

And the link: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=full

Thanks to taylorbad for the link.

Posted by: drbunsen | July 13, 2010 1:07 PM

jennie.erwin @#33:

Herd immunity. Heard of it?

Posted by: Yoav | July 13, 2010 1:28 PM

What is it with quacks being unable to come up with an original acronym for their organization. The Australian antivaxers steel their from the porn people and ken Ham and his pork fuckers steel their from the good people who brought us the recent economic meltdown.

Posted by: cag | July 13, 2010 1:58 PM

My mind is not going, the name did sound familiar.

Not the first time

Her mind hasn't improved.

Posted by: jennie.erwin | July 13, 2010 2:52 PM

Dave H and jaybgee, very interesting links, thanks.

Erk, I didn't realize too much too soon has become a rally cry for the anti-vaccinators. I probably stirred up a hornets nest using that phrasing in my first post. I didn't intend it as a mouthing of anti-vax rhetoric, just trying to succinctly state my feelings.

jaybgee's link regarding study between vaccinated and less vaccinated was interesting, but doesn't change my mind. I'm still concerned about interactions.

In general I don't trust the FDA to look after our best interests and I don't just blindly follow their advice. And if that means my son gets vaccinated slower, then so be it.

Posted by: AlisonS | July 13, 2010 3:15 PM

@jennie.eriwin #33 Have you ever had chicken pox or seen children with a severe case? It is, at best, miserable. A horrible side of effect of having chicken pox as a child, is the possibility of getting shingles as an adult. This can be a very debilitating condition and can seriously impact someone's job if you don't have a good medical leave policy or are self-employed.

I had chicken pox (unfortunately I infected the neighbourhood by going to a birthday party before we knew I had it). I am hoping I will not be afflicted with shingles as quite a number of my friends have been. Would that there had been a vaccine when I was a child.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 13, 2010 3:23 PM

Jennie.Eriwin, meet Dunning-Kruger. Methinks you aren't as smart as you think you are. Otherwise you could present real evidence for your beliefs.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 13, 2010 3:57 PM

Says me. I've looked up CDC recommendations, read the inserts from all the vaccines, talked to Doctors for and against vaccinations and made an informed decision about my own child. I decided that some of the vaccines really are worth the money, time and small risk. I decided that some are NOT worth the time, money or small risk. I do this countless of times every day about everything that my son eats, drink, plays with, etc. That's what parents do, make decisions.

But you're basing that on little more than some fear you have that is fully unsupported by anything other than your own idea that you know better than the people who have the experience and education to back them. I find it hard to believe you've spoken to Doctors against vaccination that could support their claims with actual, you know, science or that you even asked for that. If so please enlighten us.

I elongated the schedule to give his body time to cope with smaller amounts of immunizations and minimize the chances of negative interactions. Some of the inserts in vaccines state right on them that they either A)Interfere with other vaccines, or b) they were not tested with other vaccines, and so nobody knows whether they react positively or negatively with other simultaneous injections. Check out the Prevnar insert if you want proof of this. I can't link, I'm at work and don't have it saved here, but a simple Google search for the Prevnar insert should find you the information I'm referring to.

Why do you think he needs time to cope with the immunizations and that opening him and other children to the chance of him being infected is worth the virtually non existent risk of following the schedule? Again this sounds like you making medical decisions based on your emotions instead of science and experience.

Can you please point to the Vaccines on the CDC schedule that say they will interfere with the other vaccinations on the same schedule. Serious. Do it when you get home. I find that incredibly hard to believe.

You suggest Prevnar, ok I just looked up Prevnar and here are the warnings that I assume you read.

Because clinical trials are conducted under widely varying conditions, adverse-reaction rates observed in the clinical trials of a vaccine cannot be directly compared to rates in the clinical trials of another vaccine and may not reflect the rates observed in practice. As with any vaccine, there is the possibility that broad use of Prevnar 13 could reveal adverse reactions not observed in clinical trials.

HOWEVER

The safety of Prevnar 13 was evaluated in 13 clinical trials in which 4,729 infants and toddlers received at least one dose of Prevnar 13 and 2,760 infants and toddlers received at least one dose of Prevnar active control. Safety data for the first three doses are available for all 13 infant studies; dose 4 data are available for 10 studies; and data for the 6-month follow-up are available for 7 studies. The vaccination schedule and concomitant vaccinations used in these infant trials were consistent with country-specific recommendations and local clinical practice. There were no substantive differences in demographic characteristics between the vaccine groups. By race, 84.0% of subjects were White, 6.0% were Black or African-American, 5.8% were Asian and 3.8% were of ‘Other’ race (most of these being biracial). Overall, 52.3% of subjects were male infants. Three studies in the U.S. evaluated the safety of Prevnar 13 when administered concomitantly with routine U.S. pediatric vaccinations at 2, 4, 6, and 12-15 months of age. Solicited local and systemic adverse events were recorded daily by parents/guardians using an electronic diary for 7 consecutive days following each vaccination. For unsolicited adverse events, study subjects were monitored from administration of the first dose until one month after the infant series, and for one month after the administration of the toddler dose. Information regarding unsolicited and serious adverse events, newly diagnosed chronic medical conditions, and hospitalizations since the last visit were collected during the clinic visit for the fourth-study dose and during a scripted telephone interview 6 months after the fourth-study dose. Serious adverse events were also collected throughout the study period. Overall, the safety data show a similar proportion of Prevnar 13 and Prevnar subjects reporting serious adverse events. Among U.S. study subjects, a similar proportion of Prevnar 13 and Prevnar recipients reported solicited local and systemic adverse reactions as well as unsolicited adverse events.

Um humm.

Generations of people survived without being fully immunized by age 1. Yes there were losses to disease and such, but in general we survived. No, that doesn't equate to the survival of my son, but I'm playing the odds here, and think it'll be just fine. And if he catches something and dies then our gene pool will be that much stronger.

Generations of people drank untreated water, had poor food safety, thought that illness came from your sins and not germs and in general we survived as well. Many did not.

Million upon millions of kids are vaccinated on the CDC schedule and are perfectly healthy too. Your argument really fails in the face of all of the medical and scientific advances we've made through out history and how they've made our lives better and healthier despite all the people that survived before them.

Do you advocate natural childbirth outside in the woods without ever consulting a OB-GYN until after the fact?

Do you think that when your doctor prescribes an anti-biotic for an Strep Throat that you can put the doses on the schedule you think is appropriate because you just can't see your child being able to handle that much amoxicillin at one time. And that the rare chance of the strep turning into a peritonsillar abscess means your mother MD makes you better suited to know how to treat your child?

The risk you take is not just your own and your child's risk. You are effectively saying "I know better than the experts" and are a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I'm sure you are a nice person and a wonderful mother (I mean that), but in this case you are flat out wrong.

Posted by: Dianne | July 13, 2010 4:16 PM

I totally agree, our children need to eat more dirt, but last I checked, my dirt wasn't made with mercury or mercury subsitutes.

Oops, looks like the goalposts moved while I was away. First it was "too many too soon" now we're back to mercury. So does that mean you're giving up on the "too many too soon" argument? Because if it's antigenic load your worried about (as you seemed to be initially) then vaccines are the least of your worries.

Ok, so now on to mercury. Thimerosal, the mercury derivative used in some vaccines, is not even in and never has been in the majority of childhood vaccines. It's used in multi-dose vials of things like influenza vaccines, but not in (for example) the MMR. Furthermore, it has never been proven to do anything at all except inhibit the growth of bacteria. It does not cause a methylmercury-like toxic effect. It does not cause autism.

In contrast, if you live in an area where coal is used for fuel, your ground probably does contain a fair amount of methylmercury. Certainly your fish does. Again, I think you're worrying about the wrong things.

Posted by: Dianne | July 13, 2010 4:34 PM

And if he catches something and dies then our gene pool will be that much stronger.

That's not how evolution works. There is no gene that is "stronger" in an absolute sense, only genes that are better or worse in a given environment. If a hypothetical child (I am NOT going to use Jennie's son as an example here) contracts a disease-perhaps chicken pox-and dies of it then the gene pool will be out one person with a genetic makeup that makes them more vulnerable to chicken pox (the chickenpoxcomplication gene or CPC gene). All good and well...as long as chicken pox is a threat. If it is no longer a threat-as in, if a good vaccine is available-then the CPC gene is of no interest evolutionarily: people will do equally well with or without it. However, suppose CPC gene also controls something else...suppose, for example, it is a CCR-5 mutant. An HIV resistant CCR-5 mutant. Then it might be beneficial, even critical to humanity's survival as a natural reistance to HIV.The gene pool is weaker-in the current context-without it. Now aren't you sorry the hypothetical parent didn't vaccinate as we all die of AIDS?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 13, 2010 4:43 PM

Technically weez that was Dianne, but as soon as jennie started waving the mercury flag, we got to see exactly who we are dealing with.

Posted by: jennie.erwin | July 13, 2010 5:04 PM

mikerattlesnake

No, my ability to birth a child does not imbue me with anything. I have an Engineering degree from an accredited school, I have training in logical thinking and experience with parsing scientific lit.

That's quite an assumption about my research, yes I did Google a lot of things, but I also read books and talked to Dr's.
No, I didn't know about their latest rallying cry because I did my research a couple of years ago, made the decision and haven't done a lot of researching since, especially not with the loons.

I certainly can distinguish scientific consensus from the quackery, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Consensus has been wrong before and will be wrong again. I'm certainly allowed to respectfully disagree.

AlisonS:
Yes I've had the chicken pox, for the majority of kids it's a few days of itching and a little fever and then they have an immunity that's higher than that granted by the vaccine. Shingles, please, the frequency of shingles is basically constant between the ages of 20 and 50 years at 2.5 cases per 1,000 people per year. A healthy immune system will keep shingles at bay for quite awhile, I would argue that mandatory physical exercise and veggie eating could keep shingles cases down just as easily as vaccines. But that wouldn't make the pharma companies any money, so the gov't pushes vaccines instead.

Dwpeabody
"From a mother that is disgusting. "

Bah, don't be squeamish. Biologically speaking, that's what species DO, they adapt to diseases, the survivors making the gene pool stronger against that particular organism. How do you think humanity survived for the tens of thousands of years prior to pharmaceuticals and their vaccines?

I don't have a "fear of warning labels." I READ them. You say the interactions are unproven, but it's written on the inserts.

tnordloh
I don't think a child with chronic ear infections is what I would call perfectly healthy :-P And from what you say, your son sounds like the perfect candidate for the Prevnar vaccine, from the insert I read, it really shines when used with children that have such chronic problems. My son has never had an ear infection and thus I feel that vaccine is a waste of time and money for us.

REV Chimp:
Little more than fear? What part of reading vaccine inserts is fear? Unsupported by my own ideas that I know more than experienced people? What part of reading books and inserts and talking to Doctors is unsupported?
I'm sorry you find it hard to believe that I talked to Dr's, but I did. The pediatrician we went to in Des Moines wouldn't even recommend the chicken pox vaccine to most of his clientele. (most, not all, some children need it)
I found his reasons to be very clear and very soundly based on science. He did quite a bit of study on disease behaviors prior to vaccination invention.
Millions are vaccinated and are perfectly healthy, sure, except for those that have adverse reactions, which using the Prevnar example, Serious adverse events reported following
vaccination in infants and toddlers occurred in 8.2% among Prevnar 13 recipients and 7.2%
among Prevnar recipients. 7 and 8% is pretty high.
The risk of infecting other children that you are so concerned about is very small in our case, our son is an only child who has a stay at home Daddy. If he was in a nursery/daycare arrangement, your fears would hold more weight, but he's not, thus my ability to safely spread out his vaccines to my comfort level.
Yes I make decisions based on my emotions and gut feelings, that is the hallmark of humanity. I try to keep a touch on scientific evidence and debate, but sometimes science and regulation lag, and at the end of the day I'm accountable to myself, and 'myself' is not interested in swallowing the FDA or the CDC's recommendations without any thoughts of my own.

"Do you advocate natural childbirth outside in the woods without ever consulting a OB-GYN until after the fact?"
Hahaha.. to a point yes. I'm actually with the midwife group here in Iowa, we actively campaign to get women out of hospitals and away from Ob-Gyns and into their own homes to have babies. Our (USA) mother/baby wellness stats are far below other industrialized nations, nations who keep mothers at home with midwives instead of sending them to hospitals and ObGyns.

All, as is said in jury trials, "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt." I have doubt. Pharmaceutical companies don't make vaccines out of the kindness of their hearts, they make them for profit. And while they can do great good AND make a tidy profit, it doesn't behoove us to get complacent and swallow everything they offer on a silver platter. If I wanted to blindly obey, I'd be a Christian. :-P
I don't think this demonetization of anyone who doesn't follow lock step with the CDC does your atheist movement any favors, and I doubt it does much to convert anti-vaxors. The FDA is not perfect, the CDC is not perfect, and vaccines are not perfect. I will continue to do my own research and make my own decisions.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 13, 2010 5:14 PM

I don't think this demonetization of anyone who doesn't follow lock step with the CDC does your atheist movement any favors

What does this have to do with atheism? :-/

Atheism isn't a "movement". It's an absence of belief in gods: nothing more, nothing less. Nor is it a guarantee of rationality. There are plenty of atheists who are anti-vaxxers, or who believe in other forms of nonsense like homeopathy.

The reason for criticising anti-vaxxers is that they are wrong, and their unevidenced beliefs cause serious harm to children. This isn't anything to do with the "atheist movement"; rather, everyone who is scientifically literate, and believes in the importance of saving lives, should recognise the importance of supporting a proper vaccination programme.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | July 13, 2010 5:18 PM

I would argue that mandatory physical exercise and veggie eating could keep shingles cases down just as easily as vaccines.

Maintaining a strict regimen of exercize and nutrition throughout life is "just as easy" as a one-time jab in the arm? Allow me to disagree.

How do you think humanity survived for the tens of thousands of years prior to pharmaceuticals and their vaccines?

The answer to that would be "poorly". For most of that time, people were less likely to reach adulthood than to die trying.

Posted by: jennie.erwin | July 13, 2010 5:25 PM

Walton
What does this have to do with atheism? :-/

:-D Sorry, a good chunk of the posts I read here are about atheists, that's why I read it. Movement was the wrong word, you're right.

I support a vaccine program, I just like to keep my options open and I don't appreciate a one size fits all program.

Snowflake, you're right, there was more die-off. But now we have a different problem on this planet, too many people living too long. Perhaps a return to "normal" would ease the burden on our planet.
As for good food and exercise vs a jab in the arm, look at it this way. Good food and exercise protects you from dozens and dozens of ailments. A jab in the arm only protects you from one or two. In terms of bang per buck, I prefer the good food and exercise.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | July 13, 2010 5:26 PM

How do you think humanity survived for the tens of thousands of years prior to pharmaceuticals and their vaccines?

You don't see too much smallpox around any more. It wasn't exercise, good living, and not eating mercury-laden dirt that eradicated smallpox.

Posted by: jennie.erwin | July 13, 2010 5:30 PM

Nerd, I don't care where they get the information that they rubber stamp. They've been wrong before and they'll be wrong again.
Yes, they're right a lot, but they are human and thus make mistakes and I refuse to follow their advice without doing some due diligence of my own.

Posted by: Becca the Over Socialized | July 13, 2010 5:37 PM

And we're certainly not paying for vaccines for chicken pox and 'ear infections' (Prevnar)

If there had been such a vaccine available when my son was little, I'd have jumped on it. As it was, he spent the first 18 months of his life in pain, had to have an early operation to put tubes in his ears because of the infections, and had language delay issues because of hearing problems caused by the infections. no, they're not worth anything (end snark)

Posted by: jennie.erwin | July 13, 2010 5:38 PM

Tis Himself, that's why my son has the small pox vaccine. I'm not arguing against the really deadly ones, I'm arguing against those that are statistically minor.

Dwpeabody, a troll? Really? That's not nice, just because I'm kinda new to this blog. I've been polite and responsive, how is that troll-like?
Yes, I realize what science's aim is, I have a science degree. What about the scientific view of a flat earth or earth centric universe that was so popular at one point in our history? Or the scientific consensus that thalidomide was safe for pregnant mothers? Or the scientific view that until very recently propagated the excess use of antibacterial soaps? Science isn't perfect.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 13, 2010 5:54 PM

Dianne compared vaccines to dirt, and I just thought I'd point out a difference between dirt and vaccines.

Except you didn't. You compared it to what the anti-vax army wants people to think vaccines are not, as dianne pointed out, they actually are.

If you don't want to be considered and anti-vaxxer, stop falling for their tricks and repeating their lies.

Yes I am concerned about mercury, I'm careful about what fish we eat,

Please. Stop. Again you're parroting anti-vax propaganda.

The delivery of and dose of mercury in fish is not the same as thiomersal. It doesn't compare. It's just does not. See Dianne's comment above. Mercury isn't an issue in vaccines. It's not and every time you point to that, or hint that it is it moves you closer and closer to the idiocy that is the anti-vax movement.

I don't get flu vaccines

Um, why?

and I'm certainly careful about what kinds of salt we consume as a family. (But not because of the chlorine, as I've stated, I'm not an idiot.)

Ok

There are a lot of things we don't consume in my house because I'm not convinced that they are healthy for us. That questioning mentality continues on into our medical care.

DESPITE the entire medical community outside some quacks and confused people saying that the vaccine schedule is not only safe but important.

Blind overuse and misuse of antibiotics is causing problems with resistant germs.

Yes we all know this but this is more a result of poor public education and lazy doctors wanting to appease their poorly educated patients who call for anti-biotics every time they get the slightest sniffle. A problem yes.

Wide use of hormones and anti psychotics is causing some of those compounds to show up in our water supply.

Yes, trace amounts. Again this has nothing to do with the recommendation of the medical community regarding vaccines unless you think the Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus or in other words "science was wrong before" gambit is a logically sound position to speak from.

Plastics that were considered safe 5 years ago? 10 years ago? are now recognized as carcinogenic. But anyone a decade ago ranting against plastics was labeled just as nutty as y'all seem to think I am.

Ooops I guess so.

Just sayin. I question things. That doesn't make me wrong or nutty, it just makes me unconvinced.

Welcome to a blog partially built on skepticism. I, and I assume most here celebrate questioning things and being a skeptic.

Part of being a skeptic is being able to recognize when you've moved past being a skeptic and have strayed into the land of denial. The land of denial is a foggy cloudy place where the other inhabitants try to pull you deeper in.

You're on the border in at least one aspect.

Having said that, I'm sure you are a wonderful person and you seem pleasant and intelligent, but you're posting on a blog that thrives on argument so take that for what it is.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 13, 2010 6:00 PM

Yes, they're right a lot, but they are human and thus make mistakes and I refuse to follow their advice without doing some due diligence of my own.

If you have done due diligence, you can start presenting real scientific evidence by linking to the scientific papers that caused your decisions. If they aren't scientific paperes you haven't done due diligence. All you have at the moment, by what I is see, is unevidenced opinion and paranoia, which is worthless at a science blog, where evidence rules. Present real evidence. Until then, you have nothing cogent to say. All blather.

they're right a lot, but they are human and thus make mistakes

So do you. Why don't you cite some the FDA made, especially with respect to infants. Whereas I cite your above posts showing paranoia.

Posted by: Dwpeabody | July 13, 2010 6:06 PM

She has gone to the Woo, I would not be surprised to see her having acupuncture, going to the chiropractor and using homeopathy.

I think its time for someone to go buy their all natural food and crack open some Deepak Chopra or jenny McCarthy.

Posted by: Dwpeabody | July 13, 2010 6:18 PM

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/06/a_cranks_favorite_gambit_falsu_1.php

Posted by: jennie.erwin | July 13, 2010 6:29 PM

*sigh* fine, I'm done.
Yea, I like chiropractors too Peabody.

I didn't care for the anti-vax crowd and now I officially don't care for the vax crowd.

Swallow what the government tells you to. Be my guest. Ignore the money flow, and don't question who benefits. I'm going home to my healthy vaccinated son and healthy life, where I will harvest our dinner and continue to live simply and honestly.

The herd has survived without vaccines and may some day survive without them again. Big pharmaceuticals will happily take your money until then.

I will hope that you all get only good from them and none of the side effects.

Good night.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | July 13, 2010 6:33 PM

I NEVER said vaccines have mercury in them or that I was concerned about that.

DIANNE: I totally agree, our children need to eat more dirt, but last I checked, my dirt wasn't made with mercury or mercury subsitutes.

In bold: the first use of the word "mercury" in this thread. You brought up mercury, implying that vaccines contain it. You presented it as the reason why you are concerned about vaccines.

Posted by: AlisonS | July 13, 2010 6:39 PM

@jennie.eriwin #33 Have you ever had chicken pox or seen children with a severe case? It is, at best, miserable. A horrible side of effect of having chicken pox as a child, is the possibility of getting shingles as an adult. This can be a very debilitating condition and can seriously impact someone's job if you don't have a good medical leave policy or are self-employed.

I had chicken pox (unfortunately I infected the neighbourhood by going to a birthday party before we knew I had it). I am hoping I will not be afflicted with shingles as quite a number of my friends have been. Would that there had been a vaccine when I was a child.

Posted by: CW | July 13, 2010 7:18 PM

@83

I didn't care for the anti-vax crowd and now I officially don't care for the vax crowd.

Is it any wonder, that political "independents" are the least educated about politics?

Towards scientific matters, the hollow-headed always prove their ignorance by their insistence that only they are brilliant enough to know more than "mere doctors" through tepid appeals to nature and a poor grasp of history.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | July 13, 2010 7:49 PM

Swallow what the government tells you to. Be my guest. Ignore the money flow, and don't question who benefits. I'm going home to my healthy vaccinated son and healthy life, where I will harvest our dinner and continue to live simply and honestly.

Translation: I don't care what the experts say, my gut feeling, based on nothing in particular, says that since Ptolemy was wrong and the Earth revolves around the Sun, the experts are in the pay of Big Pharma. So I'm going to to let Lil' Igor get all the ear infections I want him to get, so there, nyah!

Posted by: jennie.erwin | July 13, 2010 8:16 PM

Wow Carlie, that's harsh. I'm merely stating the truth. I don't believe I'm heartless, immoral or ignorant. Of course I know what epidemics do.

My final final post, I've not gone back up to read anything since I said goodnight, so I'm not ignoring other rebuttals, I just don't have the time right now. As often happens in my drive home I was able to calm a bit and mesh an idea in my mind.

IF vaccines were 100% science, I wouldn't question them as much as I do. But they're not. They're tangled up in politics and money. Both of those things warp true science into something else. Something that MUST be questioned.

I think that we should look at every vaccine and evaluate it for our child and our circumstance and use them accordingly.

Let me relate this to something else I follow closely. Agriculture and food. The FDA has been quite happy to encourage monoculture production of our food, and I think they are doing the same thing with out immune systems. What's going to happen with a population that has the exact same levels of immunity to the exact same strains of diseases? I think it's going to be similar to what happens to a monocropped field of wheat when a resistant strain of rust gets in.

So there it is, my final final word on this post. Thanks for the discussion, sorry if I offended.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2010 8:21 PM

Let me relate this to something else I follow closely.

"let me toss out this red herring here..."

I hope people who were reading the homeopath thread are paying attention?

see the similarities?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 13, 2010 8:25 PM

I'm merely stating the truth.

No, you are merely stating your delusions. Truth requires hard evidence.

My final final post,

Once a liar, always a liar...

IF vaccines were 100% science, I wouldn't question them as much as I do.

What are they? Woo? Prove the case with hard evidence, not the blather of your delusional opinion.

They're tangled up in politics and money.

Only in your delusional mind.

I think that we should look at every vaccine and evaluate it for our child and our circumstance and use them accordingly.

Nope, you should protect everybody around you from catching a disease your child passed on. Personally, if they died, it would manslaughter on your part for willful negligence.

The FDA has been quite happy to encourage monoculture production of our food,

Are you sure it is the FDA. Last I knew, there were a half-dozen agencies involved with food depending on what it was.

So there it is, my final final word on this post.

Har, they always return to get in the last word.

Thanks for the discussion,

No discussion occurred. You preached at us. We know that. We aren't stoopid. You gave no scientific evidence at a scientific web site. Not smart, and also conclusive evidence for preaching your inane gospel...

Posted by: Weed Monkey | July 13, 2010 8:33 PM

She's just trolling and lying. Remember she claimed her son was vaccinated against smallpox? That hasn't been a routine thing for more than 20 years anywhere on this earth. And for good reason too, the vaccines we have for it are nasty stuff with "a high incidence of adverse side-effects" (according to WHO).

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 13, 2010 8:38 PM

Thanks Ichthyic, I will. I'm not yet over 60 (more than a decade to go) so I have hopes it will be routinely available in Australia when I become eligible.

BTW, I would have to agree that vaccines ARE, sadly, tangled up in politics and money. Politics - specifically a religious scare campaign - prevented the eradication of polio. Politics is preventing girls getting HPV vaccinations.

Especially in the third world, politics interferes with sound public health practices over and over again. Aid agencies are often required to buy their drugs or vaccines at inflated prices from their funders (the US is especially bad at tying up their "donations") and pay 10-100x the price they would need to pay otherwise. And thus treat or vaccinate far fewer people than they potentially could.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2010 8:43 PM

... shudder was directed at NoR's suffering, btw.

I've seen it for myself, and know exactly what you went through.

you're lucky you didn't get neuropathy afterwards.

well, luck being relative and all.

BTW, I would have to agree that vaccines ARE, sadly, tangled up in politics and money.

just to be clear, the production and distribution of vaccines ARE, it's irrelevant to the research to vet them though, which was my point.

Posted by: Robbie | July 13, 2010 8:52 PM

In the 'Australian' newspaper this morning there's a very positive story on the successful implementation of the vaccine against the virus' that cause cervical cancer; You'll find the piece here:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/cancer-vaccine-delivers-goods/story-e6frg8y6-1225891380486

What more do these anti vaccine idiots want? It works, like any medical therapy there's a risk involved, as there is driving a car. The positives outweigh the (small, potential) negatives. Also, I don't know about the US, but in this country, an organisation has to have a saleable product. Like organised religion, the AVN cannot back up their claims. Like a company marketing potato chips as that, when they're made from wood shavings thdey should be forced to remove their product from the market. Like organised religious belief systems, they should not be allowed to trade. Their info is rubbish and like religion, simply doesn't work. It's time to move on...to the 21st century.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 13, 2010 9:04 PM

Wow Carlie, that's harsh. I'm merely stating the truth.

I'm harsh because you're not stating the truth, and every person you manage to convince to go along with your vaccine-phobia is another step closer to killing more children.

IF vaccines were 100% science, I wouldn't question them as much as I do. But they're not. They're tangled up in politics and money. Both of those things warp true science into something else. Something that MUST be questioned.

NO. No, you can NOT get away with generalizing like that. HOW? Which part of how a vaccine works in the body is not "100% science"? Which part of it is tangled up in politics, and how, and to what effect? It's bloody easy to say "Oh, politics profit blah blah bullshit" and create an aura of suspicion, but it's not based on anything. It's a misty fog with nothing solid underneath except the bodies of dead children.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 13, 2010 9:20 PM

Ichthyic, yes, I agree.

I wanted to note an irony: the vast majority of political interference results in vaccines NOT being made available where they should be. All these people crying "politics and money makes us do too much vaccination!!1!" are dead wrong. For those of us with a connection to reality, politics and money makes for too LITTLE vaccination.

(I'm working in public health these days. Does it show?)

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 14, 2010 12:25 AM

IIRC, wasn't the whole thalidomide thing one of the key issues that jumpstarted the big inroads into developmental biology that resulted in much of the modern evo-devo synthesis?

something tickling my brain about having read about that in either Sean Caroll's book "Endless Forms Most Beautiful", or maybe in Shubin's "Inner Fish".

scratches head.

I do know it's a regular topic of most courses and texts on developmental biology:

http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=21&id=200

I think it was discussed in Shubin's book in the chapters on how we figured out the processes of limb formation?

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 14, 2010 12:43 AM

someone will have to point you to the relevant thread.

I just don't have the link, but I saw it posted somewhere around here fairly recently.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 14, 2010 12:48 AM

make sure you read the resulting comments.

Pure comedy

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 14, 2010 12:53 AM

ditto.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 14, 2010 1:12 AM

hmm, some end up here:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pharyngula

others end up on the regular wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngula_%28blog%29

but other than that, you just have to devote all your free time to reading and posting on this blog, like we do.

Posted by: Marella | July 14, 2010 1:37 AM

I got chickenpox at age thirty and it was bloody awful, I was sick for weeks and looked like I'd been dragged out of the middle ages for more weeks. Then at age about 45 I got the world's smallest case of shingles, (about an inch square) and it was even worse. I was ill for many weeks and it was months before that little patch of skin wasn't ichy and sore especially if I got hot. In fact it would still occasionally itch years later. I really hate to think what a proper sized case of it would be like and I live in fear that having had it I may get in again, not impossible apparently. If I could get a vaccination against shingles I would even though I've already had it. My poor uncle got it in his eyes!! Just think of that, geez.

Anyone who refuses to immunize their kids without medical reasons should be sent off to live on an island with all the other unvaccinated.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/NxE_lE0Lh_9JksaAqRedu6R7Vg--#bf6f6 | July 14, 2010 2:00 AM

@Ichthyic #119

Thanks for the links. I'll be sure to check them out in the future (though I notice that neither of them has any reference to 'starfart'). Still, better than nothing I suppose. Even with my unemployed-based free time am not able to keep up with every Pharyngula thread. I guess I should try harder. (-:

r.e. chicken pox and shingles, I had chicken pox as a kid (around the mid 70's or so) and I don't recall it being traumatic. I recall having it, but that's about it; I do recall several ear infections and twice having tubes in my ears. I recall much more profoundly the time (not more than a year before or after the chicken pox) when I was playing with a stroller outside our apartment and apparently tripped some sort of mechanism for collapsing it that caused the main metal tubes to squish my finger. I remember laying on a table at the hospital when a doctor (I presume) took an instrument that reminded me of the wood burning iron my older brother had and cauterized the wound on my finger. Painful, that, I recall. I have 10 more or less normal looking digits now so I guess it did the trick.

Anyway, if I had kids I'm pretty sure I would opt for the chicken pox vaccine--which I didn't even know existed until reading this thread. In recent years I've learned that my mother has had more than one bout with shingles and it does not sound fun at all. I'm sorry to hear of the others here who have had to deal with it. I'm not looking forward to those days, should they come my way.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | July 14, 2010 3:56 AM

I hope people who were reading the homeopath thread are paying attention?

see the similarities?

Funny you should ask, I literally forgot which thread I was reading for a second.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 14, 2010 6:18 AM

Watching that video is really hard. Meryl Dorey is an evil person!

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | July 14, 2010 9:17 AM

One thing that always stands out amongst those who play the "Big Pharma" card is how little they've thought the conspiracy theory through.
...
The doctors and pharmaceutical companies stand to make a lot more money if you're sick than if you're vaccinated.

Not trying to defend anti-vaxxers here, but I will play devil's advocate with the numbers. A true conspiracist would not concern themselves with the cost to the individual, but the profitability of the big picture. The number getting vaccinated is usually not the same as the number that would succumb to illness otherwise. So what you need to calculate is whether you get more money from millions being vaccinated or (tens or hundreds of) thousands (depending on how contagious the illness) getting sick.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | July 14, 2010 9:33 AM

What is it with engineers, man?

Hey now. My degree came from my university's college of engineering (though I don't really understand why). Granted, that building may have had the largest concentration of Christians on campus. Meh. Nevermind. Gotta agree with you. Just don't let 99% of them spoil it for the rest of us.

Posted by: monado | July 14, 2010 12:59 PM

Jen, I get shingles outbreaks every once in a while, and they are quite common in people over 50. Do your child a favour and get him or her vaccinated against chickenpox. The virus lives on in your nerves forever after, and breaks out on your skin in old age when immune response begins to fall.

The inoculations that children get now contain 4% of the antibodies that they received when the older pertussis formula was used.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 14, 2010 5:52 PM

That's what I wish people would ask whenever the topic of 'balance' comes up. WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT BALANCE??

all you have to do is explain the fallacy of the middle ground (or golden mean):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

much of america seems to have been completely infected by that fallacy, and appears to not be able to move beyond it.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 15, 2010 6:23 AM

I'm all for balance, real balance that is. Balance that's proportioned by the evidence. It's not balance to tell only one side of the case, to give positive data and ignore negative data. This is why we rebuke alt-med quacks for cherry-picking favourable studies and ignoring negative ones. The balance is presenting a view that favours the evidence.

A false balance is created when two alternative views are presented irrespective of the weight of evidence for each view. Think of the creation / evolution battle, the evidence (and weight of expertise) is overwhelmingly in support of evolutionary theory. To treat creation and evolution as two alternates would be a false balance.

And that's what the AVN is doing. They are treating pro-vaccines and anti-vaccines as two different sides that both need to be presented instead of presenting an evidenced view. By taking the opposing sides as the balance point they have made a false balance that doesn't take into account the empirical validity of either position.

Posted by: Steve | September 13, 2010 10:13 AM

Sorry for the late post; I am perusing this thread for the first time in mid-September.

Best quote from Jennie E. (Post #44):
"OF course I've heard of herb immunity."

I had naturally-acquired chickenpox as a child. It was a miserable experience, and I have a couple scars on my face.

Steve Weeks, DDS