It never ceases to amaze me how very smart people can miss some very obvious points. Now, as most of my readers know, I was at NECSS over the weekend. Because I was busy giving a talk, doing panels, and then enjoying other speakers' talks, I wasn't paying much attention to some of the issues that had consumed my blogging in the couple of weeks before NECSS. Also, as I mentioned here yesterday, science communication was a big issue as well, which is why I appreciated Julia Belluz's suggestions for how the media should cover pseudoscience and quackery.
There was, however, one point where I didn't entirely see eye-to-eye with her, and that was her concern about making martyrs of quacks like Andrew Wakefield with critical coverage. Consider today's post a follow up on that idea, although it's more a variation on the same theme. This time around, the complaint comes from Brendan Nyhan at the New York Times' The Upshot in a post entitled Why California’s Approach to Tightening Vaccine Rules Has Potential to Backfire. Yes, I could could tell from the title that the content of this post would cause my back teeth to start grinding, and, predictably, it did. Oh, did it ever.
First, a little background. There's a bill wending its way through the California legislature, starting in the Senate. It's sponsored by State Senators Richard Pan and Ben Allen and only became possible in the wake of the recent Disneyland measles outbreak, which started, as its name implies, at Disneyland and spread all over the country, although most cases were in California. As a result of that outbreak, legislators in some states started getting a bit of backbone and have tried to curtail nonmedical exemptions to school vaccine mandates. Unfortunately, they failed in Oregon. They might succeed in California, because the bill, SB 277, would if passed eliminate nonmedical exemptions. Predictably, the antivaccine movement has reacted to this as if it were mandating a government takeover by fascistic jackbooted thugs, who would immediately dispatch their Vaccine Gestapo to bust down doors and stick big scary needles into their children while destroying, Truth, Justice, Freedom, and the American Way. Indeed, right before I left for NECSS, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. himself was in the state throwing around Holocaust analogies as though his brain had been chomped by the Hitler Zombie. (Remember him?)
So what irritated my about Nyhan's post? Let's take a look:
In a number of states, parents are allowed to opt out of legal requirements to have their children vaccinated before entering school by claiming a “personal belief” or “philosophical” exemption. These provisions have raised a great deal of concern since the Disneyland measles outbreak, including in California, where it began. Unfortunately, the blundering approach state legislators there have taken shows how direct attacks on exemptions can rally the anti-vaccine cause.
So, in other words, it's the legislators' fault that the antivaccine movement is letting its freak flag fly and going into full mental jacket meltdown over SB 277. If only legislators would be more...reasonable. After noting what I mentioned above, namely RFK, Jr.'s Hitler Zombie-worthy spewing of Holocaust analogies, plus some other antivaccine activity in California, such as an antivaccine group from Minnesota airing a television ad showing an infant having a seizure. Nyhan also noted the ridiculous antivaccine claims being made in testimony to the Health committee and how antivaccine activists jeered vaccine advocates from the audience.
Nyhan's preferred solution to such a polarizing issue? This:
A smarter approach would be to retain a narrow personal belief exemption in states that already have one and avoid the kind of polarizing fight that California is now having. These states could tighten exemption rules as experts recommend to more appropriately strike the balance between parental choice and the health needs of the community. Given the potential risks that unvaccinated children pose to the community, the process of obtaining an exemption can be rigorous and demanding. Until a recent change in the law in California, for instance, it was easier to obtain a personal belief exemption than to document that a child was fully vaccinated, which gets the burden of proof precisely backward.
Yes, wouldn't it be reasonable to tighten vaccine exemption rules while retaining nonmedical exemptions. Where have we seen this strategy before? I wonder...? Yes, we have indeed seen it in California just a couple of years ago. Nyhan, however, seems blissfully unaware of what happened when California tried to pass a bill to tighten nonmedical exemptions.
Let's take a brief trip in the Orac TARDIS. (Come to think of it, wouldn't a crossover between Doctor Who and Blakes 7 be awesome?) The year was 2012. The bill was AB 2109. The idea behind the bill was to make nonmedical exemptions to school vaccine mandates more difficult for parents to obtain, given that before AB 2109 all the parents had to do was to sign a form. In many ways, back then it was easier to claim a personal belief exemption to school vaccine mandates than it was to go to the trouble of getting your children vaccinated. So Richard Pan tried to do something about it. He introduced AB 2019, which required parents to receive counseling, in essence informed consent, from pediatrician or other named health care professional, who would inform them of the risks of not vaccinating. A signature from a pediatrician or other listed health care provider was then required on the exemption form.
I wonder what happend. Surely, if Nyhan is correct, the reaction of the antivaccine movement must not have been nearly as batshit crazy in 2012 in response to AB 2109 as it is in 2015 in response to SB 277. I mean, all Senator Pan was proposing back then was to add one little step, one relatively minor hoop that parents had to jump through in order to prove their dedication to wanting a personal belief exemption to school vaccine mandates. It shouldn't have been such a big deal to them, should it? Surely they wouldn't trot out Nazi and Holocaust analogies, the way RFK, Jr. just did last week, would they?
Of course they would.
Let's step into the TARDIS and look at the reaction of the antivaccine movement to the very reasonable reform proposed in AB 2109. No big surprise, the reaction of antivaccinationists to AB 2109 in 2012 looked very much like the reaction of antivaccinationists to SB 277 in 2015. In 2015, we have RFK, Jr. speaking of a "vaccine holocaust" in response to SB 277 while a group called Californians against SB 277 use photos juxtaposing antivaccine mothers with Jews wearing the yellow Star of David in Nazi Germany. Echos of three years ago! For example, comedian Rob Schneider called the California legislature "Nazis" and likened school vaccine mandates to violations of the Nuremberg code. Then, as now, antivaccine rallies against AB 2109 were ubiquitous (as were Nazi and Holocaust analogies linking SB 277 to incipient fascism) as they are now against SB 277:
Meanwhile, the grande dame of the modern antivaccine movement, founder and president of the Orwellian-named National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), Barbara Loe Fisher, was saying things like this:
This bill, if passed, would effectively make the personal belief exemption in California another type of medical exemption. Because there is no religious exemption in California, this would make the only exemption option in California one in which a parent has to go through a state approved medical provider that they may not normally use for their child. Many families in California embrace complementary and alternative medicine for their family health care needs and AB2109 clearly discriminates against these families by defining such a limited subset of medical providers.
- Especially in California, many families utilize health care providers not reliant on pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and only practitioners part of the pharmaceutical paradigm or medicine are allowed to provide the information and sign the form under this bill.
- AB 2109 discriminates against families utilizing complementary and alternative medicine by forcing them into paying money to a medical practitioner they wouldn’t otherwise use who is already philosophically opposed to the parent’s personal and religious convictions regarding vaccination.
Hmmm. It sounds as though the antivaccine movement reacted to what Nyhan would consider to be a reasonable bill (AB 2109) with the same level of batshit crazy as it is currently doing with respect to SB 277, even though AB 2109 was not Draconian or even particularly onerous. Yet the antivaccine movement reacted to it as though it were a full-on frontal assault against their very freedom. That's how the antivaccine movement rolls. Any attempt to limit what they perceive as their "freedom" to refuse vaccines for their children, consequences be damned, is automatically viewed as a direct assault on everything they hold dear—nay, on their very identity.
Indeed, "Dr. Bob" Sears was also on the warpath, even going so far as to pen a missive entitled California Bill AB2109 Threatens Vaccine Freedom of Choice. You can read it for yourself, but it contains the usual tropes about "freedom" and how even such a weak requirement as that which was embodied in AB 2109 was an intolerable affront to freedom and an obvious ploy by big pharma to crush any dissent from those who consider vaccines to be dangerous.
Now, I won't dismiss everything Nyhan has to say. He does have a reasonable concern here:
What’s worse is that most of the votes for the bill so far have come from Democrats, which could politicize a decidedly bipartisan issue. The safety of our children and our communities shouldn’t become a partisan matter, which could spur some people to oppose vaccine requirements as a result of their political views.
Certainly, it is of concern that the thorny issue of vaccine mandates has been politicized more than it should be. On the other hand, it has commonly been assumed that antivaccine views tend to be the province of affluent, hippy-dippy, New Agey left wingers, when such is clearly not the case—and Nyhan knows that. As I've said before, antivaccine views are the quack views that are truly bipartisan. Be that as it may, let's look at the two states that do not permit nonmedical exemptions. These states permit neither religious nor personal belief exemptions to school vaccine mandates. Can anyone guess which two states they are? Mississippi and West Virginia. Neither of these states is exactly what one would call bastions of liberal thought or strongholds for the Democratic Party, although to be fair it must be noted that in the case of West Virginia it wasn't always that way. West Virginia has fairly recently flipped from blue to red, and it will be interesting to see what happens with its no compromise vaccine laws.
In any case, worrying about the bipartisan support for vaccines rather misses the point, which is that it's not pushing for laws like SB 277 that undermines the bipartisan support for vaccine mandates. Rather, it's antivaccinationists who have successfully co-opted the message of "freedom" (as in "health freedom") in order to link tie vaccine mandates to a narrative of an overweening state seeking to control everything in the lives of its citizens and an affront to parental "choice." It's also certain elements of the Republican Party since the Tea Party became such a force. If you want to see detailed explanations and particularly annoying examples of this phenomenon, look no further than the recent bleatings of everyone's favorite antivaccine pediatrician who claims he's not "antivaccine," Dr. Bob Sears, who fuses antivaccine rhetoric with anti-government rhetoric to perfect the antivaccine dog whistle.
Because of this unholy fusion of right wing, libertarian-leaning conservatives aligned with the Tea Party and antivaccinationists, even mainstream Republicans feel as though they need to pander to this group and are learning how to send out antivaccine dog whistles. For instance, Rand Paul is very much against vaccine mandates because, you know, parents own their children, not the state. Yes, I know. Everyone knows that Rand Paul is a perfect example of the apple not falling too far from the tree, but when New Jersey Governor Chris Christie starts tooting that antivaccine dog whistle, even tentatively and then followed by a rapid retreat after criticism, you know that there's something going on there.
So, basically, although it is concerning that, even though antivaccine pseudoscience is the pseudoscience that is as bipartisan as support for vaccines has been, it is concerning that only one political party seems to feel the need to pander to these views, this was happening anyway. Moreover, the only way not to outrage the antivaccine movement is to weaken or eliminate vaccine mandates. Any attempt to strengthen or eliminate vaccine mandates will draw a response like the one we're seeing now in California. The response was just as vociferous three years ago to a much milder bill, AB 2109, which, by the way, Governor Jerry Brown effectively neutered with a signing statement that ordered the California Department of Public Health to add a line to the exemption that let parents sign for a religious exemption to vaccine mandates without seeing a pediatrician, an utter betrayal of California children and an almost certainly illegal disregard for the legislature's intent when it passed the bill, not to mention the statutory language that didn't give him the power to do this. Oh, and Jerry Brown's a Democrat and used to be known as "Governor Moonbeam" back in the 1970s; so maybe pandering to antivaccinationists isn't as Republican a phenomenon as Nyhan thinks. After all, even Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did it briefly back in 2008, along with John McCain.
So, when it comes to vaccines, legislators are right to push for a science-based policy to protect children. In an ideal world, that would mean no nonmedical exemptions to vaccine mandates, but I understand that the most that can often be achieved is tightening of requirements for obtaining vaccine mandates—and even that sort of strategy can get watered down. That's because, regardless of what legislators do to try to increase vaccination rates, antivaccinationists will go full Godwin and react just as they're reacting now. So legislators might as well go for broke, because the backlash from antivaccine organizations is not appreciably more intense now than it was three years ago for an incremental solution, and I don't see the fence sitters or pro-vaccine parents rallying to their side now. Given the opening in the wake of the Disneyland measles outbreak, it might now be politically possible to begin eliminating—or at least making the requirements tighter for—nonmedical exemptions to school vaccine mandates. The time is now.
We might as well go for the policy that will be most likely to prevent future outbreaks. Even if we go for lesser measures, such as tightening requirements for nonmedical exemptions, I guarantee we'll still see the NVIC paying for "no forced vaccination" advertisements and antivaccine "luminaries" like the banished Jake Crosby trying to link attempts to eliminate nonmedical exemptions to his favorite conspiracy theory.
- Log in to post comments
A look at the recent fierce battle in Colorado - over a bill that would have just added an educational requirement - reinforces your point.
Anti vaccine activists would brutally and fiercely resist any attempt to tighten requirements.
And they oppose anything that could support immunization. If you look at the least of bills and positions, NVIC, for example, also recommends opposing resolutions encouraging higher immunization rates. No mandates, just encouraging. Though the intensity of opposition would hopefully be less for those.
One thing about Mississippi: remember tgat the lack of nonmedical exemotion there did not come from the political process and this kind of battle. Mississippi's Supreme Court struck a religious exemption down in Brown v. stone - though the fact that activists were unable to legislate a new one since is telling. See: http://www.publichealthlaw.net/Reader/docs/Brown.pdf
Ugh. I hate those misleading NVIC billboards.
I saw some tweets about Nyhan's piece. Didn't get a chance to read the whole thing, but the opening couple of paragraphs made me wonder what he'd propose that wouldn't be met with similar vitriol by the anti-vaccine movement. Because I can't think of anything.
Neither can I, other than a state going in the opposite direction and loosening requirements for nonmedical vaccine exemptions. For instance, if Mississippi or West Virginia added a personal belief exemption, you'd see the antivaccine movement going orgasmic. Not something I want to see.
"The Kid" has a post up on his own blog which is cross-posted on his Epoch Times blog. He's been watching Dr. Richard Pan's "tweets" and managed to "misinterpret" Dr. Pan's tweet directed to # CDC Whistle Blower.
I've posted some comments at Jake calling him out for his libelous hit job:
From the article, by Ms. Fisher: ". . . Many families in California embrace complementary and alternative medicine for their family health care needs and AB2109 clearly discriminates against these families by defining such a limited subset of medical providers. . ."
Let me fix that to: "We'd have to go to real physicians, not our chosen anti-vax quacks!" and insert the oft-used link to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxGqcCeV3qk .
I live in Northern CA, and I fully support this bill. It is interesting to me that the people I know that are against SB 277 are people who are all for vaccinations, but buy into the whole "health freedom" and "parental choice" tropes, and are the ones who exclusively homeschool their kids. They are very threatened by this mandate, calling it "too broad", it's absolutely NOT, and "scary". It's not that either. Personally, I truly hope the state does the right thing and pass this bill.
Wow, these people are really nuts.
"Sen. Richard Pan, a Sacramento Democrat who introduced SB 277, said the in-house law enforcement unit has provided him with extra security in recent weeks, after his office began receiving alarming phone calls, e-mails and Facebook comments from opponents of the bill.
“They’re basically trying to silence us,” Pan said. “It’s disturbing.”
The messages range from images depicting Pan as a Nazi to posts on his Facebook page calling for him to be “eradicated” or hung by a noose. Pan said his staff has forwarded all of the threats to the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms office, as is procedure, which has assessed them and responded as needed. Additional guards attended a community forum last month, for example, after bill opponents discussed throwing things at Pan."
I notice how the reaction to any vaccination enforcement with "freedom" is analogous to the gun control fight. Here in rural Lanaudiere region in Quebec, there was an outbreak in a small, sect-like community who had children go to Disneyland....over 150 measles cases, none vaccinated. So that outbreak became international. And there is another fallacy. The government doesn't own children, it's true, but neither do the parents. They're guardians, but not owners. Nobody owns them, they're not slaves. Parents have rights and obligations.
This is why politics is so frustrating. You will never see anti-vaxers moderate their demands, so legislators are always being pulled toward an appeal to the middle, which in this case, will always be on the quack side of the argument. The anti-vax movement is driven by fanatics who can rally internet and phone campaigns that get far more attention from legislators than they deserve, and legislators do what they think they are supposed to do: make compromises.
To see the anti-vaxxers' vile remarks about The Holocaust, go to Jake Crosby's Epoch Times blog.
Kennedy has already issued an apology...sorta. Perhaps one of his advisers informed him that today is Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day).
Pfft. We had "mandatory" vaccination in Mexico when I lived there. No one worried about it because my parents and their parents (and their parents) remember what it was like before vaccines.
We've forgotten those epidemics here in the U.S., and those jerks trying to take us back to those times should not be given the time of day.
That TV ad is --- ugh, I can't even find the appropriate word to describe its awfulness. :/
How about a counter ad with babies stricken with VPDs? And a the odds of an "injury" occurring vs. contracting the VPD? And a comparison of the seriousness of adverse reactions vs. the effects of VPDs? I mean, anti-vaxxers are all about "the truth", so let's give it to the people.
Vaccine mandates "discriminate" against antivaxxers the same way that laws against stealing discriminate against thieves,
Brendan Nyhan. It figures. On of my pet outrages lately is that anyone takes his 'unpersuadable anti-vaxers' study seriously. It's utterly worthless claptrap, and this NYT post offers some clues to the baises that led Nyhan's to foist his unsupported conclusions in Pediatrics where gullible journalists and sbm advocates mistook them for "science."
The Nyhan (et al) paper floats in a vacuum of ignorance of communication theory, the long history of persuasion studies, and decades of scathing critiques of the methodological nonsense Nyhan's sort of survey research just assumes as givens... A full elaboration would take an Orac-length post or two, but I'll note a couple major points (there are lots more down the scale in significance))
• The tested messages are defined only by content, with no regard to form. This is kind of analogous to attempting to find out if a joke is funny, but paying no attention to how it's told, who's telling it, etc. When Nyhan gets results that suggest none of the rhetorical strategies yield significant opinion change, he concludes the problem is "no strategies work with anti-vaxers" without controlling for the possibility the CDC just bungled the presentation in a way that reduced them all to the same level of nothingness.
• Most importantly there's no warrant for the assumption that a single presentation of any message could have a significant effect on belief, opinion or action. On the contrary, DECADES of empirical research, and COUNTLESS studies indicate the opposite. Any sort of stimulus-response direct effect hypothesis is known in the field of Mass Comm research as the 'the bullet theory' or the 'hypodermic model.' - neither term being uttered without laughter or spitting.
Media persuasion professionals know (and multitudes of research confirm) that mediated messages generally only play a significant role in opinion change via repetition over time. Yet Nyhan's paper has no lit review of the multitudes of empirical studies in media effects, no recap of the major theoretical positions offered to explain research results, not one citation of an important scholar in the field.
Academia is fragmented enough that researchers inside one disciplinary bubble are sometimes completely oblivious to even major traditions in some other bubble. But given the historic public profile of effects research, and the fact Nyhan's position is in Political Science, I have a hard time imagining he could be so insulated, and i have to suspect some kind of willful adoption of blinders is at work. But, just from the anti-vax paper and his comments to journalists about it, I've not known enough about the guy to even venture a the most tentative guess "Why?"
But reading between the lines of what Orac has quoted, I can begin to come up with some very speculative and fuzzy possibilities. We now have two major public statements from Nyhan, to the effect of "Don't do that. It will backfire." Both on VERY shaky grounds. That doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong, and there's evidence for the inverse. Just that he's talking out of his ass. My clue to motive lies in the statement Orac calls a "reasonable concern":
What kind of political scientist can imagine that policy decisions affecting the safety of children and communities has ever been anything BUT a product of partisan politics? What serious student of American politics could imagine that partisan issues like 'parents rights' (for just one example) wouldn't be dragged up by any public health initiative, pitting powerful social forces into conflict? That progress could ever be made without sometimes bitter and divisive struggles? That opposition is 'bad,' rather than a sign you're doing something right?
Do a substitution test, replace "the safety of our children and our communities" with any other progressive change, and the statement reads as shockingly naive. 'Racial equality shouldn’t become a partisan matter, which could spur some people to oppose voting rights legislation as a result of their political views.' Or how about, 'Science education shouldn’t become a partisan matter, which could spur some people to oppose school curricula as a result of their political views.'
My guess, then, is that Nyhan lives in the fantasy land of Radical Centrism, where anyone with a political passion is a 'dangerous extremist', (Nancy Pelosi is the mirror of Ted Cruz), and if everyone would just act sensibly and 'objectively' like Dr. Nyhan, we'd all come together, do the practical thing, in consensus without opposition, and sing cumbaya in 3-part harmony. THAT would be your 'false balance', fallacy of the Golden Mean, yada yada yada.
Umm, maybe Prof. Nyhan might want to read the news. I'm sure Oscar Grant's family would be comforted if Nyhan reminded them, 'Police executions and cover-ups of the murders of African-American men shouldn’t become a partisan matter, which could spur some people to oppose law enforcement reform as a result of their political views.'
The more the rules about vaccine exemptions are tightened, the more parents will go ahead and vaccinate, and the less of an anti-vaccine movement there will be.
It's ultimately the opinions of the parents that matter, not the statements of anti-vaccine leaders.
I think that a good counter ad to the one showing the baby having a febrile seizure would be one with a split screen--on one side (labeled "MMR vaccine") we'd see a single image of a child having a seizure, and on theother side (labeled "measles infection) we'd see multiple images of babies having a seizure, in proportion to relative risk.
We could do the same for encephalopathy--on the MMR side we'd have the image of a single child, and on the disease side we'd have the images of 1000 children...
AV'ers are self entitled egoists. They don't care about anyone other than themselves and their own smug sense of superiority for 'knowing better' - which is laughable.
NVIC. Ugh. They're a seeping pustule sitting on the taint. Annoying as all f*ck and a pain in the a*s to boot.
Anti-vaccine advocates stress how they are 'just like other parents'- and this is part of their appeal to young parents, the uninitiated and fence-sitters.
HOWEVER they are by no stretch of the imagination _average_. This should be our job, to instruct the public about just how far these people vary from the mean and from reality..
Think about it:
-they support many alt med ideas and conspiracy theories
-they disparage the opinions of professionals in SBM and refer to doctors as '@ss hats', criminals and prostitutes
-they challenge consensus in complex subjects without benefit of an appropriate education
-they parade their personal narratives and carelessly discuss their children's problems on public display
-they accept many fraudulent practitioners whom most people would suspect
-they reject governmental data and agencies
-they reject most of the media
-unlike most parents, they seem to have a lot of free time to spend on the internet socially and in political manoeuvering.
We can get others to question their motives as well-
they are not as selfless as they portray themselves.
Is it really all FOR THE CHILDREN?
- or is it a way for them to get attention and validation when they appear to have no other means of achieving that?
Would any of the 'writers' at AoA get their books published without their association to the movement on vaccines and a publisher who is a fellow traveller ?
"What’s worse is that most of the votes for the bill so far have come from Democrats, which could politicize a decidedly bipartisan issue. The safety of our children and our communities shouldn’t become a partisan matter, which could spur some people to oppose vaccine requirements as a result of their political views."
So according to this guy, it's the Democrats and the Bill's fault that republicans don't care enough about our community/children's health to support such a bill?
"AV’ers are self entitled egoists."
And arrogant. "It's only the dirty poors who get diseases."
Here are some of the health-related statistics for Mississippi (MS) and west Virginia (WV), the only two states that have disallowed all non-medical exemptions for nearly 40 years. Both MS and WV are near the bottom in almost every category. Of course, this could be a coincidence (since vaccinations are a great source of coincidences), but had these two states been near the top, the pro-vax folks would have surely advertised these statistics everywhere.
MS and WV have the lowest life expectancy at 75.0 and 75.4 years respectively. Hawaii is at the top at 81.5 years (2013-14).
INFANT DEATHS PER 1,000 LIVE BIRTHS (2010)
1. Mississippi 9.62 (highest)
10. West Virginia 7.33
50. Alaska 3.57 (lowest)
United States 6.14
See the figure on p.5:
Only MS, WV, and TN have 15%.
And foreigners. Measles may kill a few hundred people per day, but that's in other countries, so we don't have to worry about it!
Over a few blogs I have started to note how the reaction to any vaccination encountering with is similar, they are almost every time a few parents who do not want their children to be vaccinated. Parents need to remember that they took a vow when their children were born saying that they will look after their children and give them the proper medicine they need to live a healthy life. Nobody owns anyone, no parent owns their child. A child is a living breathing human being with rights. Parents have responsibilities towards their children’s health which they need to fulfill.
Don't parent care about their children's health anymore. A child can get measles so easily at school these days, and vaccination will help prevent that....
Victor @22: Yes, and I'm sure that the relative level of poverty in MS and WV have *nothing* to do with those states' abysmal standings in the rankings of life expectancy, infant mortality and physical fitness.
Not to mention: How do vaccines given in *childhood* affect infant mortality? It's well understood that infant mortality is most closely related to pre-natal care.
And how do vaccines affect the physical fitness of adults? How is the MMR shot I got when I was 2 impact whether or not my neighborhood has sidewalks?
These things, they are not related the way you seem to think they are.
@ Narad #26:
What "doesn't work" is citing a crap 'study' by a jerk who has no clue how to properly research the topic. Just read the damn thing. The flaws ought to be as plain as the blinking lights on Orac's case to anyone who can actually practice skepticism.
Perfectly described. Their behavior is deplorable. Anti-vax cult uses terroristic tactics intended to hijack democratic process. And children will suffer even more if we continue to concede to their batshit craziness.
Thank you for this piece, Orac.
It doesn't help to have people like mad Megan Heimer in the community. I have never read such a complete load of nonsense in my life. I detest these sanctimonious middle- class mothers with their utter, wilful ignorance of science.
Looks like Chris Christy has had a change of heart and is supporting mandatory vaccination now :
"New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Wednesday expressed his full support for vaccines for children, telling a woman who favors a conscientious belief objection that he "cannot be someone who supports voluntary vaccination."
"Yeah, no you can’t count on me for that," Christie said, garnering a round of applause from nearly 300 people gathered at a town hall in Londonderry, New Hampshire. "I would err on the side of protecting public health through vaccine unless that vaccine has proven to be harmful to the public."
@ NZ Skeptic:
I wonder if being middle class might be a risk factor for succumbing to this *alternative vision* because:
if they really had money, they could pay for full time caretakers and not be as involved in day-to-day care themselves- and work or do as they pleased;
if they were more financially strapped, they might need to work outside the home in addition to caretaking, perhaps sharing duties with the other parent/ family members.** Thus, they would be too exhausted to proselytise on facebook or write memoires, quasi- investigative reports ( comme Dachel) or parent guides ( Stagliano).
They expected high achieving children and were disappointed perhaps also.
In addition, they may have had an education and background where they expected to work outside the home in more sophisticated venues than childcare. Their alliance to the movement allows them to be writers, advocates, political operatives, medical experts and social critics rather than merely caretakers.
** I learned that the guys who repair my car - a father and son- share caretaking duties with their wife/mother, respectively, for an adult who has severe autism in the home.
So each works 50 hours or so a week at the repair shop and then go home...Whew!
Ooops! Moderation for mis-spelling my name!
NZ Skeptic: "It doesn’t help to have people like mad Megan Heimer in the community. I have never read such a complete load of nonsense in my life"
She apparently will also use sock puppets in order to try to show she has support. That is really a pathetic tactic. See:
Then go to the bottom where there is this statement from one of the blogger/moderator:
This isn't exactly uncommon.
ACTUALLY, more like clumsy fingers added a superfluous A.
Annie: He lies.
I'm beginning to dislike almost all new white parents. Maybe vaccines should just be quietly disappeared from the more affluent suburbs- they'll never notice. And while we're at it, there should be a campaign to encourage pediatricians to relocate from non-vaccinating areas and the mayor or local city council should read their letters home at all town meetings.
Is that like a Modest Proposal type thing, or are you being serious? Because I think we've been over this a few times before.
I’m beginning to dislike almost all new white parents.
Since you dislike everybody, what difference does that make?
PGP does not dislike everybody.
PGP dislikes everybody who is in a different demographic than herself.
Well, maybe not dislike. She just thinks that they are less than human, are not worthy of health care, shouldn't be allowed in her country, and shouldn't be allowed to have children. But it isn't because she dislikes them. It's just easier than thinking of them as people.
In the sense of recreationally offending people who are exempt from the self-declared "IRL" existentential fraud, or something. Maybe.
"A California vaccination bill (State Bill 277) that has generated intense debates pitting personal rights against public health stalled in the state Senate Wednesday, with lawmakers saying it could unconstitutionally deprive unvaccinated children of an adequate education by barring them from schools."
"It's generated such an angry debate that the proposal's author, Sen. Richard Pan, a Democratic pediatrician from Sacramento, has received added security. In addition to threatening messages sent to his office, opponents of the legislation have posted images online comparing Pan to Adolf Hitler."
In politics, you don't need to be right, you just need to be very loud and committed.
Today Heckenlively @ AoA compares the proposed legislation to "segregation in the South" and "racial laws" in Germany prior to the war.
Interestingly, he claims that 1100 people showed up to speak in opposition to the law. Is that so?
Liz? Or anyone else who was there?
@Denice Walter: I don't know the exact number, but there were a lot of opponents. A very, very long line.
They wore red and we wore blue, so everyone - well, most people - were easily identifiable.
@ Dorit Reiss:
re red and blue
Does that have a political significance *a la* red vs blue parties?
Some alties are carping about how the "liberals" are all for vaccination now and are looking to those of a more liberation bent. In other words, nothing new.
PGP does have a point.I wonder if there is some way to publicly shame antivax parents by name.Sort of like the way they use to publish names of those arrested for DWI in local newspapers.Remember them?
@ Roger Kulp:
Actually, an AoA commenter, Greg ( well-known here) suggests that the solution might be to have vaccinated AND un-vaccinated schools.
I'm not making that up.
I suspect it will run afoul of HIPAA rules.
It came up when one of the special snowflakes was sent home from school. Of course it was OK for Mom to broadcast the health information all over the news media when complaining that the school did something that might lead some parent to suspect the health information if they figured out that SpecialSnowflake was gone from class during the time one might suspect they would quarantine the child for their own safety.
Don't feed the hysteria, Roger. Their leaders have already convinced them we're about to start sewing yellow stars on their clothing.
A proposal I've seen going around in various places:
Ration nonmedical exemptions at a level calculated to not impact herd immunity. Establish "public health boards" similar to the military "draft boards" in local communities to rank-order the exemptions and then grant the ones that come to the top of their list. The "public health boards" could rank them any way they choose but have to make their method of rank-ordering public.
Those "public health boards" could be staffed on the basis of at-large elections in each county, or could be appointed, or whatever. Ideal case, they have naturoquacks and the like on them, even a majority. Let anti-vaxers decide which fellow anti-vaxers to say Yes to and which ones to say No to, because in the end the total number would be limited empirically so it's not a public health risk.
It occurs to me that this might have a side-effect of dispersing some of the geographic nexes of anti-vaxism. Too many people for the allotment of exemptions in Marin County, so you can't get an approval? Great, move to BlahBlah County where there are few requests for exemptions and your approval will sail through just like a special snowflake on a gust of special winter wind. This isn't a bug, it's a feature: it dilutes the anti-vax vote.
Re. Orac @ 4: If W.VA. and MO. enact exemptions, the anti-vaxers there will be proclaiming "Natural and Orgasmic." Eww.
Injecting aluminum and mercury into our blood streams drinking aluminum fluoride in our water and in our toothpaste, are the main reasons why our world and all creatures great and small are in the most dis-eased state of health in the history of the world
Gee "Dr." Blake, lemme guess naturoquack or chiroquack? Aluminium and mercury aren't injected into our bloodstreams and no one is putting "aluminium fluoride" in water nor toothpaste.
@Dr. Blake - so you're saying that we're less healthy than say, during the Middle Ages, where the average life expectancy was about 30?
He is a veterinary homeopath: http://theavh.org/
I hope several of his patients bite him. Homeopathy for animals; I mean, really.
"dis-eased". No further comment necessary.
They have them. They're called Waldorf Schools.
Who do you believe is doing this, Stephen? vaccines aren't injected intravenously, and no vaccine formulations incorproate elemental aluminum or mercury.
Some may contain aluminum salts as adjuvants, and multi-dose vials may contain thimerosal as a preservative, but that isn't the same thing at all, anymore than table salt is metallic sodium which can be expected to react explosively when you add it to your soup.
Citations truly, amdly desparately needed: your evidence that (for example) the people living in the US today are less healthy than those living in the US in the late 1800's would be...what, exactly? Be specific.
A few important points to consider:
1. The vast majority of the people you call "anti-vaxers" have given their children some vaccines. Very few of the "anti-vaxers" reject all vaccines all of the time. So a better description might be cautious vaccinators. If a parent declines even one of the scheduled vaccines, they fall into the "anti-vaxer" villanous category.
2. Even the medical community agrees, Vaccines sometimes have side-effects and on rare occasions these side effects are much worse than the illness being vaccinated against would be.
3. Every child has a right to receive a puplic education and every parent has the right to make an informed choice about what medicine their child receives. This bill would trample on these rights.
4. It is arrogant to presume that we know everything about the human body and how best to take care of it. Since the number of vaccines given to children has dramatically increased in the last 2 decades, the long-term effects of so many vaccines may not be discovered for another few decades. There have been many mis-steps and cover-ups throughout the history of vaccines. These parental concerns exist for valid reasons.
5. This year parents seeking vaccine exemtions at California schools did have to speak to a medical professional before being allowed the personal belief exemptions (PBE). Also this year the number of PBEs decreased in California. It seems like the system is working just fine. Wy start trampling on parental rights now?
Even worse, he's had medical education and training.
I know a few people in the anti-vax movement, you are wrong about the opposition to SB 277 and SB 1209 being similar. One was mostly rhetorical. The opposition to sb 277 is much more activist in nature. The number of people showing up at events is gigantic. They are meeting, setting up Facebook groups, exchanging information... This is organizing them in a way they have never been.
Don't forget that California isn't the entire world. Even if mandatory vaccines are accomplished in California, the movement will continue in others states and people who never really thought about it much will investigate, and some will end up becoming anti-vaxxers, no matter how little sense it makes. All you need is maybe 0.5% of them across the country, and you now have MORE unvaccinated children. And since this is now shaping to be a left vs right thing, do you really think 0.5% is unreasonable? And this says nothing about skeptics in third world country(there are plenty, more than in the US!), who can now point to this and say "Look, even the Americans have to force their citizens to take them!" And there, the damage caused will be much more devastating.
If all you want is to be right and to show just how darn right you are, go ahead. But if you're actually concerned with immunity from deadly diseases and the well being of children, this is a very risky direction to go.
Just in case you think I'm exaggerating about third world countries : http://wwrn.org/articles/16177/?&place=nigeria§ion=health-medical
This is certainly not the case under the U.S. Constitution, so your homework now is find something in Serrano I or Serrano II that would trump California's interest in public health.
^ "is to find"
That has a strong aroma of equal protection failure to it.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck; it's a duck. That is the same stupid argument RFK Jr. makes on his road show. Merely having had your children vaccinated in the past does not suddenly make you in favour of vaccines. Your so-called "cautious vaccinators" employ anti-vaxx talking points to justify their erroneous decisions. People need to just own their actions; they're anti-vaxx.
Yes there are rare very serious complications accompanying vaccination. But please name one side effect which is worse than any disease complication and rate thereof.
Wrong. With rights come responsibilities. Parents aren't being forced to vaccinate; they have other options for education. Too bad if they don't like them. Does a child have the right to spew racial epithets at school? Does a child have the right to bring a gun into school? Why not? Those are actually constitutionally-protected acts so if you support your "health freedom" why not these also? These children's rights are being trampled on so by your logic they should be supported, not just the "rights" that are convenient to you.
No what is arrogant is to think that you can have all of the rights and privileges of society with none of the responsibilities or none that you don't agree with. You obviously don't know much about vaccines because these "mis-steps" are hiding out in the open and have been used to increase vaccine safety and oversight. Nothing will ever be perfect and it's delusional to reject something that is beneficial to most simply because of past mistakes and imperfection. Go ahead and apply that to other products and facets in your life. You won't then have a car, plumbing, electricity, store-bought food, etc.
Whoopdedoo. Have you seen some schools' vaccine rates? Do you honestly think that the vast majority of parents who aren't swayed by the new PBE requirement are going to suddenly capitulate? And the requirement is a joke since a religious exemption was tacked on and naturopaths can sign off on a PBE. Even pseudo-physicians like Sears and Gordon just sign off without actually educating their patients.
Given that this bill would exclude philosophical exemptions, which only very ill-informed people would view as a justification for non-vaccination, this comment is a total non-sequitor.
As for John Long, that's a level of concern trolling I've not seen in a long time.
Interesting, how so? I ask because this is something I proposed so I'd like critique.
I applaud Sen. Pan and Allen. If you are in CA and support the bill make sure to thank them (and support them when they are up for re-election).
Not completely off topic. Well, it's about vaccines.
A few quotes -
Since the number of vaccines given to children has dramatically increased in the last 2 decades
The total antigen load has decreased considerably. The 'too many, too soon' faction should be delighted.
Occasionally, I look at AoA's comments in the hope that at least one person will say something meaningful. I am usually disappointed. Today is no different.
Under Heckenlively's post about Dr Pan, someone concocts a conspiracy involving child protective services, "private psychiatric gulags", foster care and adoption corporations who ALL stand to profit when the government takes children away from their parents. One should look and see exactly who is on these companies' boards.
Another discusses the NSA.
Still another copies a facebook page wherein Dr Bob dreamt up a tale that imagines the powers-that-be changing education board members in mid-stream. " This is not democracy" quoth he.
As for John Long, that’s a level of concern trolling I’ve not seen in a long time.
If you strike Antivaxxers down, they shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
Occasionally I look at NaturalNews in hopes of finding a vaccine story which doesn't involve NN lying through its teeth, but I am always disappointed - and that includes a headline story today in which the writer (Ethan Huff) claims only 14% of those who caught measles in the Disneyland-centered outbreak were unvaccinated.
How did he get that figure, you wonder? It turns out that a study published recently in JAMA Pediatrics calculated the vaccination percentage in areas where case clusters occurred (not coverage among those who got sick), and pegged it at 50-86%.
So NN's writer evidently glommed on to the high-end 86% estimate, stupidly (or maliciously) claimed that was the actual percentage of vaccination among measles victims, and used the number to argue for ineffectiveness of vaccination. Never mind that the study's conclusion was 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
A link to a report on the study is provided at the end of the NN article. They apparently are confident their readers are too lazy or stupid to read it and draw their own conclusions.
For the vast majority of those readers, I think they're right.
No one is making this assumption, however: research is ongoing continuously to improve our knowledge of the human body and how to best take care of it. Some of that research is directed at the development of vaccines for unaddressed infections diseases (Ebola and HIVm, for example) as well as improved vaccines for diseases we now vaccinate against.
The fact that we don't know everything about the human body doesn't mean we know nothjing about it, and there are a couple of things relevant to vaccines we know to a high degree of certainty:
vaccines have not been causally associated with autism spectrum disorders, diabetes, SIDS, etc.
the current recommended routine childhood vaccination schedule does not overwhelm a child's developing immune system
herd immunity is a real, quantifiable and effective mechanism which reduces the risk of infection in a population thereby extending protection from infectious diseases to individuals who are for valid medical reasons (they're too young, they're immunocompromised, they are alergic to vaccine incipients, etc.) suitable candidates for vaccination themselves
and finally that the development of safe and effective are arguably the single most effective medical intervention mankind has come up with (the only one that comes close to challenging for the top spot, in my estimation, might be the developement of surgical anesthesia.
OK, I was half-awake when I wrote that, so let me try to sort it out. First of all, I don't know where anyone got the idea that there was any resemblance to military conscription in the U.S., as there was no fixed allotment of 1-A-O or 1-O/1-W classifications. And draft boards were done away with in 1969.
There is no reason to have anyone "evaluate" philosophical exemptions anyway, as there's no legal category in the first place – those are religious exemptions. It would be a due process nightmare in any event, not to mention the suggestion of adding local whimsicality to the setup.
So one is left with a pure lottery system, predicated on an fictional magic number, since (R₀ – 1)/R₀ is a hopelessly crude idealization. Now, being awarded an exemption would really seem to create a property interest, so once awarded, the exemption is pretty much permanent. Does it vest in the parent or in a given child? If the latter, one faces the absurd situation in which some of one's children may be entitled to exemptions while others are not. If the former, larger families are disproportionately rewarded. That's likely a no-go, so it would seem to have to be per-child.
Now, having been awarded a PBE in the lottery, is one obligated to use it? The whole system collapses otherwise – unless, of course, PBEs could be traded, but that's tricky if they really belong to the child. So, what's the enforcement mechanism? In the likely case of a property interest, there would have to be a formal, appealable process for revocation due to disuse. In short, PBEs would have to come with mandatory documentary requirements of non-vaccination.
Since the magic number is presumably based on some sort of regional granularity, the PBEs also couldn't travel. What happens when people move in or out of the region? It's not like Section 8 housing, where a vacated unit can be trivially assigned to the next person on a waiting list at any time; the losers will have qualitatively segregated into homeschooling and compliance groups, even though the latter will presumably still desire an exemption going forward. Are the homeschoolers going to squawk that they deserve priority?
The whole thing seems like such a mess that it's hard to identify all the possible failure points. Combine this with the inherent arbitrariness, and it's not exactly a model of sound public policy.
Ohhhhhh those terrible anti-vax quack conspiracy theorists wont line up like lemmings for their measles vaccine.
Oh no! The sky is falling! The herd immunity will implode!
Wish this so-called 'science' blog would stop with the name calling and fear mongering. Drs thought leeches & bloodletting were effective and scientific too and now we know better, 100 years from now vaccines will be shown as the frauds they are.
In the meantime, chill out and remember what measles is really all about before Merck came to the rescue.....
Thanks Narad for explaining the impracticality of the idea.
That's just a quick take on my initial impression; Dorit's the person you should really check with. Remember, I'm a rank amateur.
One might note that, by implication, you're stuck with also asserting that all modern medicine will be "shown as ... frauds" in a century.
Or maybe you skipped a step.
Veronica: "In the meantime, chill out and remember what measles is really all about before Merck came to the rescue….."
Argument from TV sitcom? Veronica, do you have issues telling the difference between fantasy and reality?
Watch Veronicas posted video and note the sitcom punchline by the Brady bunch addressing measles like another cold or flu and no big deal. It's 8 mins and worth seeing a different perspective from decades ago. It proves conclusively the American population is being manipulated. I dare all of you to watch that and then think about your unjustified fear of measles and the hysteria going in California . You cannot reconcile that era with this era without coming to the same conclusion.
We are lucky to live in a country with good healthcare but per the WHO:
Hardly benign. Even in Germany which arguably has a better healthcare system than the US there was a death earlier this year. Isn't even one preventable death too many?
And finally, how about countering sitcom video with a real life one. SSPE is absolutely devastating and a very real complication. It's also untreatable and nondiscriminating. I can only hope that none of the children infected in the current outbreak have to go through this in the future: SSPE - a serious complication of measles: http://youtu.be/aB8kGwKZiq0
Can anyone tell me who among elected officials are willing to go out on a limb and challenge the cranks? Do influential legislators ever attend functions sponsored by skeptics? Have they ever been invited? What would it take to get them engaged?
I am afraid this is asymmetric warfare and the cranks are winning. I don't know of a single politician who is willing to endure a career's-worth of hounding from even a handful of committed antivax or anti-GMO fanatics to defend what most of them consider to be a side issues.
Skeptics may be fighting the good fight, and they may even be gaining ground in internet wars, but in legislatures across the country, elected officials continue to choose a path of less resistance.
Yah. I guess it's also impossible to reconcile "that era's" belief in cursed tiki necklaces with this one's.
In related news, the truth of the severity of pubertal voice changes appears to have been suppressed by doubtlessly ve$ted interests in the modern day.
Perhaps you can give me back the three weeks of my final year of high school (1956), when measles kept me from representing my school at the state drama festival and the state spelling bee. It's not clear whether my hearing difficulties are from measles or chicken pox...
Or perhaps you can give back to cousin L the use of her right arm and leg, and her ability to speak clearly, taken from her by measles encephalitis, in the 1950s.
Or perhaps my coworker Larry, wheelchair-bound from his bout with polio...
Veronica and Theo: please realize that sitcoms seldom represent reality. This sitcom episode certainly does not. Larry, L, and I are part of the pre-vaccine reality, whether it suits your imaginings or not.
Veronica, since you prefer television over reading science you might enjoy this more accurate program:
and Veronica since leeches are an FDA approved medical device maybe that means in a hundred years vaccines will still be seen as a great way to protect yourself and your community.
Argumentium ad Brady Bunchum, Veronica and THEO? Seriously?
By that logic, we can say that aliens that like to eat cats landed on Earth.
Or that androids with artificial intelligece exist.
Here's an account of an ordinary case of measles, without complications.
Do you really think it's fine for that to become common again?
And many people with measles get complications:
Yeah, I can just imagine a family comedy show in the 1960s / 70's showing one of their cast members going blind or dying....wow, when you have to bring out the Brady Bunch to support your argument, you've just about hit rock bottom.
What it illustrates is that before the measles vaccine, people were used to children getting very sick.
Just like people nowadays are used to the risk involved in driving. We become less aware of risks that we have to live with.
As I have pointed out many times before, these diseases weren't considered "benign" before vaccines - they were considered inevitable....since there was nothing they could do to prevent infection or much that could be done once the child had been infected, all a parent could do was hope that they'd be one of the lucky ones & their child wouldn't suffer any sever complications.
Another piece of the puzzle that anti-vaxers just don't understand.
Darn - I mean "severe" complications.
I don't have to watch some video on YouTube to remember what measles was all about. I remember (as a survivor of both measles and whooping cough - which almost killed me), and I remember Gene Tierney's baby (rubella), and I remember friends crippled from polio, and all the rest. I remember arguing with my pediatrician when he told me, regarding my youngest child, that smallpox vaccines were no longer given - until he explained why - vaccines had wiped out the disease! But, I understand. We who were afflicted with these diseases lived in caves, drank mud, and were completely ignorant of sanitation and nutrition. Then, along came a Playboy bunny and a pet detective to show us the light.
Yes, agree. one preventable death is too many...thats why its very odd to hear silence on this blog about the HUNDREDS of deaths worldwide from recalled & or defective vaccines!..... Anyone? (Crickets chirping).....
Or is it more like....
'Oh its ok that we killed /maimed X amount of kids while experimenting on the vaccine as long as Y kids who didnt suffer is larger than X..." Collateral. Damage and all that.
One of the reasons that vaccines get recalled when something bad happens is so we can fix the problem. One suspects if the goal of vaccines was to injure as many people as possible they'd rush to make more of a bad batch that caused a problem.
And how many of those hundreds of deaths you cite (was there a citation?) due to automobile accidents or other things that happen to be temporally associated but hard to see why there may be a causal relationship.
But yes there is something called risk benefit analysis.
If we do absolutely nothing we expect that 10,000 kids will die each and every year.
If we make a vaccine and have universal vaccination 1 kid will die each and every year directly from the vaccine and not because the plane they were on a week later was crashed by the co-pilot or something.
See most of the we can't vaccinate unless it is 100% totally save and you can prove it will prevent all causes of death, not just the vaccine related ones...you are fine with millions of kids dying from preventable diseases. Because if nature kills you, that is OK, or you have some belief that even if we bring back all the diseases so all kids get almost all of them that your snowflake will be protected because well it's so special no disease would dare to take that one from you, just from all the other less special parents.
Hey folks, its ok to watch the video she posted it wont hurt or are you to unsure and insecure about your positions on measles?
You simply cannot view the attitude in decades past with these episodes of the Flintstones and Brady Bunch and then reconcile todays environment. It does not add up. People are terrified of the measles in 2015 but in the 1960's it was just one of those inevitabilities that we lived with. Measles should be respected not feared. Just because you can die from a disease like the FLU, does not mean you should be terrified of the Flu.
Classic case of media hype paid for by Pharma to scare the masses, they use death stats from 3rd world countries to fear you into getting vaccinated. Joseph Goebbels would be impressed
Any complications from the measles are solved with Vitamin A. Well documented.
Notice how "Theo" doesn't provide any documentation?
And I'm sure I can dig out an episode of Quincy or Hospital or some other medical drama from the 1960s & 1970s which portrayed Infectious Diseases in a much more realistic light, than that of a family comedy.
Seriously Theo, what planet do you live on where you believe we should take medical advice from a comedy program?
If everyone was so convinced in the 1960's when the vaccines came out that measles and all the others were just piffles, nothing to be worried about...why did anyone even bother to vaccinate at all back when people had it. Just try to make sure they get sick in the summer so they don't miss school. Heck why did they even bother keeping the sick kids out of school...everyone loved the diseases and couldn't wait for their kids to get them, right? :-)
I mean my Mom must have been crazy after the joy of my brothers getting all the diseases to not have welcomed every disease into the home for her baby girl. Dating myself but between my older brothers youthful adventures with infectious diseases and my infancy a bunch of vaccines came out and she got me all of them as soon as it was available.
Yeah, because comedies derive their humor from a realistic description of real-world hazards.
If I was to judge from Wild E Coyote documented behavior, receiving an anvil on the head or dropping off a cliff were just minor inconveniences in the 60-70's.
Actually, it depends which show you were watching. In one episode of Zorro, created in the 50's, the eponymous hero decided to hide the fact that the local priest has been kidnapped to free himself of interference from local authorities while going after the kidnappers.
So what did he do? He put a big sign across the priest's house door: "Beware Measles".
The viewers were expected to easily infer that this was enough to keep curious people from even approaching the house.
Just two entries from this article.
1875: The HMS Dido brought measles to Fiji, killing 20,000 people — up to a third of the island’s natives. Measles outbreaks would continue to hopscotch Pacific islands for much of the next century.
1912: The United States required physicians to start reporting measles cases, which gave scientists a precise grasp of the disease’s widespread impact inside the country. Almost all Americans caught measles sometime in their life – mostly when young – and the outcome could be deadly. A study in the U.S. from 1912 to 1916 found 26 deaths for every 1,000 measles cases.
@Veronica: Please point to ANY comment by a regular where they state vaccines are perfect. What we DO state, in all correctness, is that the risks from the vaccine are far lower than the risks from the disease (for measles, let's say 1 death from the vaccine as opposed to thousands of deaths from the disease).
Any death is a tragedy. None of us would deny that. And if the death or severe reaction happens to your own child, it's devastating. BUT...again, the risks are a lot lower than that of the disease.
Theo - really? The Brady Bunch? I watched the original show, I don't need to watch you.tube to waste my time. I'm also of the generation where my parents, who remembered getting the measles, etc (and I also had them) were very happy to drag us off for any and all available vaccines.
Let's eliminate the diseases...then you don't have to vaccinate against them. I have a smallpox vaccine scar I'll carry till I die. My 5 years-younger sister never had to have that because we'd eliminated smallpox....
Can anybody provide a quick link to the original article and sources where Brian Deer revealed St. Andrew was about to patent his own version of a stand alone measles vaccine,for fun and profit? I can't find it offhand
Yen, you can die from the flu. You tell me that you can die from the vaccine. So why are you terrified of the vaccine?
Oh I see the problem. I'm expecting you to make sense.
@ Roger Kulp: http://briandeer.com/wakefield/vaccine-patent.htm
The Victorians regarded pulmonary tuberculosis as a romantic, even perversely desirable disease of the spiritually exalted, the artistic and the beautiful". They also handed opiates out like candy. Does that mean you would be happy for that to be the case today?
When measles was inevitable it made sense to minimize people's concerns; why make people worry about something when there is nothing at all they can do to prevent it? Now that measles is entirely preventable it makes sense to remind people of the possible consequences, as compared to the risks of the vaccine which are small as to be essentially zero.
What I truly don't understand is why you and your ilk are so blasé about the serious complications of measles, but apparently terrified by the far, far rarer serious side effects of the vaccine.
You cannot reconcile that era with this era without coming to the same conclusion
I lived through that era. Like Bill, I don not come to that conclusion. Particularly after my two bouts with shingles.
Theresia @ 62: "3. Every child has a right to receive a puplic education and every parent has the right to make an informed choice about what medicine their child receives."
So: answer me this:
Does your kid have a right to spread measles and whooping cough to other kids?
And does my kid have the right to defend him/herself physically against your kid spreading those diseases to him/her?
Science Mom @ 71: aha!, it was you who proposed the "draft board" system. Excellent. Though, Narad @ 79, I have to concede that your points are pretty well conclusive.
Just one thought though: The exemptions should be per child. If a family has 14 kids and only gets exemptions for 6 of them, then that family is a microcosm of a partially-vaccinated community, with all the risks and "benefits," including getting first-hand experience of how "minor and inconsequential" measles & whooping cough are.
Kay Marie @ 100: "...your snowflake will be protected because well it’s so special no disease would dare to take that one from you, just from all the other less special parents."
Exactly right. It's all about "my genes are better than your genes, so my kid won't get sick but yours will, and my kid will get ahead and get stronger while yours falls behind and gets weaker." Under all the flowery quack-speak, and the New Age and Libertarian bull stuff, that's the real bottom line, and it's frankly disgusting. Those parents should be ashamed of themselves and their atavistic urges, or they should get help.
Perhaps the Brady Bunch episode accurately reflects the attitude of most people towards measles at the time.
But do you conclude from this that measles wasn't dangerous?
If so, why?
People tend to minimize dangers that they have to live with.
What's your evidence for this claim?
Even if I buy your unsourced statement that there are hundreds of vaccine related deaths the WHO says (from my eaelier link):
As others have stated, nothing we do is 100% safe or 100% effective. Vaccines are pretty damn close though. And also as others have stated part of the ongoing surveillance amd research watching for adverse effects we may have missed at first (i.e. intussusception from the rotavirus vaccine) so we can keep making them safer.
It's ok to watch the video I posted too. Somewhat more powerful even, given it's real. SSPE is a hell of a complication. Or are you too insecure to acknowledge this very real complication of measels?
Well...maybe a little more fear of the flu is warranted. It is deadly after all. Maybe some fear can help improve vaccination rates and get people to be a little more responsible about self-quarantine if they have it.
Good old Godwin. Never fails. I suppose you didn't have any credibility to destroy in the first place.
I'd certainly be interested to see this documentation. Especially for curing pneumonia and SSPE.
Any complications from the measles are solved with Vitamin A.
THEO is referring to one complication (vitamin A deficiency-related blindness) of measles that can be treated with vitamin A. One.
Here's a tip: Since you're documented on this very site to believe that human sacrifice is morally defensible and that any pain or disease complication short of death is no big deal, you're not in a great spot rhetorically for making Nazi comparisons.
I am, on the other hand, impressed that you managed to post a whole comment in this thread that didn't advertise vitamins.
You seem to be having trouble with the challenge I gave you. Here's a little refresher:
You seem to be having a little trouble with this, so I'm here to help. The first author on one of the papers that got RotaSHIELD withdrawn from the market was Piotr Kramarz, MD. Surely if researchers that discover problems with vaccines are treated as terribly as you're insinuating you should have no problems pulling up examples of him being called a quack. You might also be surprised at the institutional affiliation of the authors of that study.
I will note that the third author on that study has been accused by some of research misconduct. How do you reconcile that?
Note that at this point I've made this an easy enough thing to do that if you don't respond everyone will have to assume you've conceded the point. So it's in your best interest to look the things I've mentioned up.
Seriously Theo, what planet do you live on where you believe we should take medical advice from a comedy program?
its not advice its perspective that proves we are being manipulated by fear mongering especially by CNN asshats.
But do you conclude from this that measles wasn’t dangerous?
If so, why?
It can be dangerous it should be respected not feared just like the Flu. y’all need some deprogramming.
What I truly don’t understand is why you and your ilk are so blasé about the serious complications of measles, but apparently terrified by the far, far rarer serious side effects of the vaccine.
The chance of complications from measles is minuscule in 2015 living in the USA. Plus our ilk feels its a right of passage for the early development of the immune system. There is some important messaging these viruses, bacteria and parasites signal to our developing immune systems.
Look vaccines are an incredible idea but we don’t know the real risks long term.
You need a strong vibrant immune system to fight cancer. Our ilk believes Vaccines tamper, confuse and artificially weaken it.
Terry Wahls M.D.
a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine in Iowa City, Iowa, U.S.A., discusses her concerns about this and is not anti Vax nut or a crank. She is very measured in her thoughts and concerns
in 3 minutes she lays out why I am terrified of the vaccine schedule.
The chance of complications from measles is miniscule in the US in 2015 because....
wait for it....
PEOPLE VACCINATE THEIR KIDS.
So, THEO, you want to hide in the herd? Let others take the risks to benefit your family? How public spirited of you.
Perhaps because most people get vaccinated against it.
Other than developing immunity to the disease, what is this important messaging?
Define long-term as you're using it here, Theo.
Smallpox vaccination arguably goes back to Jenner, and routine vaccination using a bifurcated needle in the US since 1960. Diptheria vaccination dates to the 1920's. Whole cell pertussis vaccines since the 1940's. Measles vaccination became available in 1963. Mumps in 1967, Rubella in 1969. Combined MMR in 1971.
We've been routinely vaccinating (and monitoring vaccination's effects on health) for decades. How much longer do you think it will be before evidene of the long term harm you seem to feel is inevitable first shows up?
That wouldn't be the same Terry Wahls who claims--entirely without evidence--to have cured herself of MS by embracing a paleo diet, would it?
Saying that we should all get potentially fatal diseases to strengthen our immune systems seems like a far cry from respecting it. What about those who don't make it? Write them off because they were too weak?
[citation (desperately) needed]
This is just patently untrue. Just search vaccine safety on Pubmed. Try actually doing your research.
Terry Wahls is very much a crank.
Theo - research has shown that Measles originated in humans in about the 8th Century (when it diverged from Rinderpest to infect only humans)....how exactly is a mere 1200 years sufficient time for it to have become "necessary" for the development of an immune system which has evolved - just in humans, for a few million years?
Not to mention the literally Billion or so years that an immune system as evolved in animals in general?
The only person that seems "afraid" is you - afraid of things that you seem to have only the most miniscule concept.
A "strong and vibrant" immune system was exactly what killed all of those otherwise healthy and young adults during the Spanish Flu Pandemic.....
#116 Shay Vitamin A Deficiency
"VAD is associated with an increase in the severity of infections, particularly measles and diarrheal disease;
Through synergism with measles infection, VAD contributes to the estimated 1.1 million childhood deaths from measles every year;"
This statement is false, Theo. The incidence of complications associated with measles is the same as it ever was--for example, measles will cause one case of encephalopathy in every 1000 individuals infected, just as it did prior to vaccination.
Perhaps you meant to say "Because we vaccinate against the disease the chanceof becoming infected by measles is minuscule in 2015 living in the USA"?
While vaccinating against measles will help prevent not only these deaths--the ones that VAD contributes to--but also all other measles associated deaths where VAD is not a contributing factor. Agreed?
So, we try and guess which people might have VAD or we can prevent measles infections by vaccinating.....
Which one is more logical?
Vitamin A supplements reduce deaths caused by measles and diarrhea, study finds
@ken - you know what else does that, with a higher rate of success?
ken-get back to us when someone has done a study showing the success rate of Vitamin A in treating pneumonia and encephalitis.
The point is prevention by adequate Vit A. MMR (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella ) vaccine
"Some people should not get MMR vaccine or should wait.
•Anyone who has ever had a life-threatening allergic reaction to the antibiotic neomycin, or any other component of MMR vaccine, should not get the vaccine. Tell your doctor if you have any severe allergies.
•Anyone who had a life-threatening allergic reaction to a previous dose of MMR or MMRV vaccine should not get another dose.
•Some people who are sick at the time the shot is scheduled may be advised to wait until they recover before getting MMR vaccine.
•Pregnant women should not get MMR vaccine. Pregnant women who need the vaccine should wait until after giving birth. Women should avoid getting pregnant for 4 weeks after vaccination with MMR vaccine.
•Tell your doctor if the person getting the vaccine:
◦Has HIV/AIDS, or another disease that affects the immune system
◦Is being treated with drugs that affect the immune system, such as steroids
◦Has any kind of cancer
◦Is being treated for cancer with radiation or drugs
◦Has ever had a low platelet count (a blood disorder)
◦Has gotten another vaccine within the past 4 weeks
◦Has recently had a transfusion or received other blood products
•Any of these might be a reason to not get the vaccine, or delay vaccination until later.
ken -- if your point (it's hard to tell) is that adequate Vitamin A obviates the need for the MMR vaccine, you're wrong and neither of your cites supports it.
If you think about it for just a minute or maybe even less, you'll see why.
So ken, you are trying to say that Vitamin A prevents infection?
Yes, being vitamin A deficient makes you a whole lot more likely to die from things and unfortunately one of the most obvious signs of deficiency (night blindness) is a late symptom not an early one.
Yet I doubt ken or any of the other anti-vaxxers would back any of the initiatives that would help get more vitamin A to the people that need it because all of those things are even more ebil or something. So not only do they not care that people over there die from measles more, they actively tend to block exactly the things that would prevent at least some of the deaths.
I do so loathe people who barf up press releases and expect everyone else to do their homework for them.
"There was no significant effect of VAS on cause specific mortality of measles, respiratory disease and meningitis."
"The point is prevention by adequate Vit A."
Actually, the point is that adequate vitamin will not prevent measles infections, ken. it might prevent some deaths when one already has contracted measles, but that's not at all the same thing--is it?
Vaccination reduces the incidence of measles infections itself.
Among the children who suffer severe complications of measles due in part to vitamin A deficiency, just how many have ready access to vitamin A when the extreme necessity arises? If a child is VAD, it seems remarkably unlikely that her mom can hop in the car and run down to the store to pick up some vitamin pills or a nice bunch or carrots. WikiP list 24 footstuffs as vitamin A source. I would be that only one of the better sources is even remotely available to many kids to suffer VAD.
It would be nice if kids everywhere had good nutritious diets. They don't.
that should be "... bet that only ..."
My children and grandchildren are vaccinated with the MMR.
You really must be paid pharma reps.
Some people can't be vaccinated. Vit A might just help those who can't.
@ken - actually, it won't prevent them from being infected. It may "may" prevent or reduce the chances of going blind, if they are deficient, but it certainly won't prevent pneumonia & encephalitis (or SSPE for that matter).
All you seem to do is throw up a bunch of disjointed information, with usually no context whatsoever, and then expect, what? That we're just going to agree with you?
Seriously, first - learn context. Second, have a point. Third, don't expect that people are just going to roll-over without checking the facts first.
KayMarie stop be so self-righteous-get the facts first. How dare you say that?
@ken - you seem to be mighty short on "facts" yourself.....perhaps you should take some time to rectify that.
We eliminated smallpox so no one is getting the vaccine now?
Guess that throws the whole "we have to keep vaccinating to keep up HERD immunity" out the window.....
Btw, smallpox is just one bad lab error away from getting out into the public so saying its ben eliminated is like saying volcanic eruptions have been eliminated on Hawaii since its been X years since the last one.... Dumb.
Severe measles can actually cause vitamin A deficiency
Crunchy Christian Mommy interviewed Megan Heimer about vaccines - http://crunchychristianmommy.com/i-interview-my-protege-megan-from-livi…
Would you support mandated VitA supplements or is that too
If you're confused between what THEO believes and what the Nazis believed, here's one easy way to keep them straight:
The Nazis didn't believe that disabled people in the 1940's should exist.
THEO doesn't believe that disabled people in the 1940's did exist.
See, it's easy.
Vitamin A supplements for people with measles who have low blood levels of Vitamin A are part of the standard of care.
I do so loathe people who barf up press releases and expect everyone else to do their homework for them.
You shouldn't be surprised. Ken has elsewhere explained that she doesn't have time to read the material to which she links, but she provides the links anyway in the hope that other people's time is less valuable.
#137 Narad This is the study you cited and misquoted-Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) is a major public health problem in low and middle income countries affecting 190 million children under 5 years of age. VAD pre-disposes children to increased risk of a range of problems, including respiratory diseases, diarrhoea, measles and vision problems, and can lead to death.
This review, including 43 randomised trials representing 215,633 children, shows that giving vitamin A capsules to children aged 6 months to 5 years can reduce death and some diseases. The results of 17 of the studies were summarised and indicate that vitamin A reduces the overall risk of death by 24%. Death due to measles, respiratory infections or meningitis was not specifically reduced, but vitamin A can reduce new occurrences of diarrhoea and measles.
Most of the world where you can't get MMR vaccines to the poor you also can't get vitamin A shots emergency or routine to them either.
Golden Rice which could be grown and get through the ways that most places actually get food to people even if you can't get medical supplies and those trained to use them could solve a lot of the vitamin A problems in at least a good part of the world if they replaced the rice that gets to them now with Golden Rice.
But the everything science like vaccines is evil so that same sort of people won't let them use it are often the same sort who would let all the kids get the vaccine preventable diseases. Because it is GMO so must be prevented at all costs no matter how many people die in the mean time.
It is so easy to say take a vitamin A supplement when you really only have first world problems to deal with, but really do you care about all those vitamin A deficient kids going blind and dying enough to actually demand something be done about it or are they only useful to you as a talking point on a blog.
Yeah maybe I'm wrong, maybe you give to or go to backwater places where people barely have enough to eat and give out vitamin A shots and distribute multivitamins, but I doubt it, I really do. I doubt you even give money because those ebil doctors who would to to those places would also bring vaccines and who knows what other first world miracle you can't stand that people actually use. The poor and dying aren't real to you, they are just a talking point so you can go to bed at night and tell yourself that you told off a few science people who think they are too damn smart so that makes you the smartest and bestest of them all!!!!eleventy!
But I could be wrong, you might care, it just really doesn't seem like you give a flying fig how many people die in your quest for whatever purity you think you need.
You know what would (not might, would) help them even more? IF everyone who can be vaccinated is vaccinated according to the recommended schedule, so that herd immunity is maintained.
Would you support mandated VitA to all school children?
KayMarieCheck your eyesight and read what I wrote-
instead of narcisstically getting off on your self-righteousness.
Perhaps, if vitamin A deficiency were a major issue in this country. I support the use of enriched flour in school meals to avoid rickets.
Not to mention vitamin D in milk.
I assume you're advocating changing 21CFR104.20. I currently don't see that as being necessary, but I'm open to discussion.
ken, do you work for Big Supplement?
Please provide answers to the following in the form pf PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers:
1- Statistics on Vit A deficiency in American children.
2- Vit A effectiveness for measles pneumonia.
3- Relative between MMR and wild measles.
I fυcking linked to it, dipshіt; I don't need another one. (Although I should have omitted the session cookie.)
What part of my comment was misquoted, Ms. Quinlan? Does this help?
Subclinical vitamin A deficiency: a potentially unrecognized problem in the United States.
A 1996 Air Force nursing speculative suggestion, with no link to the paper. Where are the statistics?
Key sentence: "The problem is probably under recognized in the United States and other developed countries who do not normally consider their citizens to be malnourished."
They are guessing.
It's not cost effective to do the study since Vit A supplements are relatively inexpensive.
Is the possible subclinical vitamin A deficiency proposed significant enough to be a cause of measles complications?
And how do you plan to get vitamin A supplements daily to kids we can't get a vaccine to once, or get them two shots a year when we can't get any vaccinations to them.
You do know we could get rid of measles and polio 100% forever like we did smallpox.
And yeah you complain about my self-righteousness but you never address how you wrap yourself up in yours.
Vitamin A supplements for infants could save thousands of lives a year
Is it you actual position that no research is done about vitamin supplementation?
Why didn't that disgusting cod liver oil I was forced to ingest as a child, protect me (and most children that I knew) from getting measles? Perhaps Big Pharma has a Wayback machine and traveled in time to tamper with the oil?
Oh I don't doubt that universal full on everyone has all the vitamin A they need from either figuring out how to distribute shots, supplements or Golden Rice.
The data from Indonesia I read in Vitamania recently are quite clear more children with so little vitamin A they are night blind or have other signs of deficiency die at a faster rate than kids who are sufficient. A lot of the vitamin A sufficient kids still die, but not nearly so many.
So instead of 300 or 600 kids dying every three months you only see 100, but that doesn't prevent all deaths and it isn't as if your parent is glad that at least you had enough vitamin A when they stand over your grave. But hey only one of their six kids died rather than all of them, so rejoice! or something.
Yay, another press release. I suggest that you return to a more pressing matter, Bitsy: You have accused me of misquotation, so where the fυck is it?
Is this how you roll? Just throw out accusations and chickenshіt out when you're called on them?
BTW, re #166's referent:
I'm not going to bother sorting out whether this is simply another version of the Cochrane review.
ken, here is what the abstract says: "Vitamin A supplements for infants could save thousands of lives a year.."
How exactly does that apply to American children? Again where are the verified statistics showing Vit A deficiency in American children?
Ken stop muddying the waters. We're talking about vaccination in north America generally and CA specifically.
Even if we were talking about vit a instead of vaccines, this study points out that perhaps 5% of VAD preschoolers and childbearing age women live in the region of the Americas (which includes both north and south America and all the islands in the western hemisphere). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12221262. VitA isn't a substitute for vaccination.
Vitamin A?? Ohh, you need *golden rice* slavered in monsanto FuckUp(™).
No, wait.. The phytic acid binds zinc and magnesium and stuff?
Monsanto hates 'pigweed'. They are quite animated about it, megadosing populaces for miles around to keep it in check. AKA amaranth, it has been a staple food in many South/latin-american diets. And it is much, much higher in vitamin A than poison-pumping *golden rice*.
People need to research how many kids get hurt from vaccines every year 1000s , this form of labeling a group of people just cause they want to protect their kids , instead of putting people down why don't we work together to make vaccines safe , by taking out all the extra chemical that make kids sick . Their talking about injecting chemicals and viruses into a baby/kids body , . Remember when smoking was safe . Gmo was safe . Lead paint was safe . And black people had to sit in back of the bus .. your talking about putting chemical into a baby's body and hopefully it was work.
Jesus Tim, Golden Rice was developed by University researchers....not a Corporation.
ken, Vitamin A does not prevent measles. Administering it to those who can't get a vaccine will do absolutely nothing to protect them. And, in an otherwise healthy American with sufficient amounts of vitamin A in his/her system,excess amounts of vitamin A will do bad things to the metabolism.
(by the way, you keep harping on the fact that your grandchildren are vaccinated. That does not mean you are pro-vax. It just means your children are smarter than you are).
Thanks Ken for the back up and the on point science.
Its abundantly clear by the research that Vit-A saves lives and is a deficiency in a lot of places around the world. It prevents complications of measles making it not deadly or scary. So relax take your vitamin supplements and everyone will be fine.
I wonder what other vitamins prevent death? VIT-C and Whooping cough? Oh look a study from 1937 conveniently ignored for decades by pediatricians.
I wonder how many children died because MD's were never trained to administer VIT A and VIT C?
That wouldn’t be the same Terry Wahls who claims–entirely without evidence–to have cured herself of MS by embracing a paleo diet, would it?
Why yes, it would be JGC. Food supports the body to heal itself. its called functional Medicine. People are healing from all kinds of ailments all across America. Its coming to TAKE DOWN the MYTH of modern medicine. Imagine that food heals the body.
Why do you think ORAC hates Dr OZ? Oz is promoting functional Medicine. Its the future of medicine and healing.
Weekend deprogramming assignment read about it. What prevents disease heals diseases.
Thanks for admitting that Vitamin A does not prevent measles, as vaccines do. Pity you haven't grasped that it doesn't prevent all complications of measles, and is ineffective in children with normal vitamin A levels.
Add a "some" and we can agree.
Add a "not quite so" in there and you might be partially correct. So relax take your vitamin supplements and everyone will be fine.Citation needed.
oops - left out a quote:
Citation needed. Which is a polite way of saying "Check your data".
I don't see how that could possibly be a negative, Krebiozen #111. Unless one is creul and wishes to deny the victim a few minutes of peace or relegate him to spend every waking and dreaming moment absorbed with the oppressive, unrelenting, crushing panopticon of it all.
Winston had to be kept miserable because, if not, The State could not be sure if he was doing their will or his own.
I don't think that means what you think it means.
In that case, I should note my comment a few back does not really apply. I should know better than to sniff at any of ken's droppings. I was thinking in terms of global issues with vitamin deficiencies, where as-required or prophylactic administration of vitamin A is probably much more difficult to assure than vaccination. I have little doubt that adequate vitamin intake would be a great benefit to millions of kids and adults - but then, so would sufficient calories.
Even if every single person on the planet got adequate vitamin A, it would not eradicate measles. Vaccination has the potential to do it.
The notion that things of potential benefit aren't developed or studied because there is no money to be made is nonsense. For example, about 2 million kids a year are saved from death by a mixture of sodium and potassium chlorides, sodium citrate and glucose that costs a few cents. The WHO has published a freely-available document that lays out everything that needs to be known for anyone to undertake production - right down to how much space would be required for staff toilet facilities.
And what became of those 'university researchers' work, Lawrence #178??
This bargain-basement monoculture crap sure has the stench of camel-licking-interior-of-tent to me.
Narad #173 my apologies-you cherry-picked that-you did not "misquote" Who is "bitsy"?
Here's the study cited in the"press release". www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5094
ken, do you ever read what you post?
Highbeam has a sample. The salient bit is a reference to PMID 1285727:
"Our data show that many children younger than 2 years in New York City have low vitamin A levels when ill with measles, and that such children seem to have lower measles-specific antibody levels and increased morbidity."
PMID 1436764 followed six months later:
"Children with no known prior vitamin A deficiency exhibited a significant decline in their serum retinol levels during the acute phase of measles. This decline in circulating retinol was associated with increased duration of fever, higher hospitalization rates, and decreased antibody titers."
Hey, I can think of another way to address that problem.
ken: "Here’s the study cited in the”press release”. "
A paper done in Pakistan. Do you need geography lessons?
#116 Shay- all references to Vit A and measles were directed to this comment. I did not say it would prevent measles or that children in the US are deficient.
You never say anything of substance, ken - you just vomit up links & then sit back...
#194 You are definitely projecting. Arrogance personified. You don't even bother to read or post links. At least narad posts.
#194 I'm sure the hard working researchers would love to read that you called their studies vomit.
Shut up, ken. The fact that you think that uncritically barfing up press releases and random links that don't say what you think they do makes you somehow smarter than the average bear and entitled to smarmy passive aggression is kind of cute, in a stupid sort of way, but I think we've all had it up to hear.
Incidentally, speaking of "not bothering to read links," I recall linking to a review of over 1,700 studies on GMO safety a while back in response to some idiocy of yours or other. I also recall that you were too freaking lazy or stupid to read to the second page of the referenced review, since you came back claiming that it showed no information on human consumption of GMO crops.
Honestly, you're a maroon.
The Challenge of Measles Control
^ "up to here."
#197 actually maroon is my favorite color. Your memory is faulty-wasn't me.
Eat your carrots, spinach and shut up.
My memory is excellent, ken. Either yours isn't very good, or you're a freaking liar.
Thanks for the advice! But no, thanks.
Grammatically speaking, she actually seems to be advising spinach to eat its carrots and shut up. I was heretofore unaware that spinach was able to eat carrots, though it's certainly very good at being quiet.
I'm sorry, I mis-understood and thought that "spinach" was a pet name she had for me. Forgive me for my presumption.
I was referring to your post at #189.
I have eaten spinach one time in my life.. It was the day that our first color TV arrived and Popeye somehow was still black and white with just a little smearing of convergence-misalignment.
Ohh! I was so mad. I took time off my busy schedule of collecting cicadid husks to procure a can of spinich from a friend. He, his sister, and I all went out to rip up a telephone pole. Well, I took one or two spoons off the top and *strong to the finish* did not manage to pull up the pole. However, I learned a great deal about mechanical resonance from rhythmically swinging the guy and also about catching the praying mantis flung off from the violent six-year-old induced shaking.
In other news,an unvaccinated girl in Florida has contracted measles,and the virus laden first grader has been sharing her "gifts" around the school the last couple of weeks.
Until any of you has to spend your life caring for a vaccine damaged child, your words, assurances, insults, threats mean nothing.
You can all go f**k yourselves!
Perhaps you should heed your own advice. The only thing you're accomplishing here is stomping your feet and demanding ridicule. As well deserved as it is, you seem to have an insatiable appetite.
Perhaps you're out of dynamic balance among the internal and external body, mind, and spirit.
I'd suggest that THEO could help you out on that front, but -HE- seems to have a very low quality guru in this regard.
As others have pointed out, that's mainly because of vaccination. Have you stopped wearing a seat-belt in your car because of the fall in head injuries due to RTCs since they were introduced?
Do you really believe pathogens evolved for the benefit of our immune systems? Or did our immune systems perhaps develop to protect us from pathogens? The measles virus, for example, suppresses the local immune system so it can get a foothold, and then irritates the lining of the respiratory tract to cause coughing and sneezing that will spread it to other hosts. Does that seem like something that is designed to help our immune systems, especially since measles has only been a human pathogen for less than a thousand years, as I see Lawrence has pointed out?
We do know they are orders of magnitude smaller than the real short, medium and long-term risks of the diseases they prevent.
If vaccines somehow encourage cancer, why have cancer rates and cancer mortality rates been steadily falling for decades?
You are terrified of an intervention that has saved an estimated 732,000 children's lives in the US over the past 20 years, yet you sneer at concerns over a disease that caused 8 deaths, 27 cases of measles encephalitis, and 1,482 cases of pneumonia in Europe in 2011 alone.
I think it is very clear that it is you that requires some "deprogramming".
Stay classy there Connie.....stay classy.
Ah, yes, the true colors of a anti-vaxxer, showing her true class.
The Vaccine Court has compensated 3,332 injuries over the past 20 years (PDF), of which a few hundred (I believe 390 as of 2011) were deaths. Since the Vaccine Court compensates any table injury that occurs within a specified period, the majority of these were undoubtedly not true vaccine injuries but happened after vaccination by coincidence.
If I understand her correctly, Connie is suggesting that it would be better to have 732,000 children die (see my last comment) rather than see a few thousand children suffer and a few hundred die. Any child suffering or dying is horrible, I know, I have had more than my fair share of experience in that area, but surely anyone can see that vaccines have saved at least 2,000 times more lives than they have ended. Isn't that a good thing?
If seat-belts save 2,000 lives but one person dies because they are trapped by their seat-belt in a burning vehicle, does that somehow negate the lives saved?
Antivaxxers kids are all SPESHUL SNOWFLAKES; except the autistic ones, they're "damaged." "Vaccine damaged" always strikes me as particularly offensive but I hate to take offense on someone elses behalf, especially if it diesn't bother them. Can someone with autism or autistic children confirm that this attitude is as awful as it looks to me?
Wow, this is the first time I've ever heard someone proclaim that they are part of an "ilk". Always before it's been a term of disdain applied to others (people of _that_ ilk).
How refreshing to see someone embrace their ilkitude.
My grandfather was an ilk - he belonged to the ilk's lodge.
Connie: "Until any of you has to spend your life caring for a vaccine damaged child, your words, assurances, insults, threats mean nothing."
And then there are those of us take care of disease injured children. Please provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable researchers that any vaccine in the present American pediatric schedule causes more harm than the desease.
Addressing another claim made by Theo:
I looked at the study, which is essentially a literature review and a case series of ten children with cases not confirmed by culture, and with no controls. The results are underwhelming, with the duration of symptoms looking very typical to me, despite vitamin C being given.
A followup study a year later (PDF), this time using controls, concluded:
Compare the around 85% efficacy of the acellular pertussis vaccine at preventing the paroxysmal cough of pertussis, and I think it's clear that we are far better off using the vaccine than relying on vitamin C.
I meant to address this:
I hope you are joking. Even children were given opiates back then, though life for many was so miserable that laudanum and gin must have been a welcome respite from reality.
Though in principle I would advocate for legalization of all drugs, in practice the current state in regard to opiates (over 2 million addicted to prescription opiates in the US) suggests to me that making them freely available without prescription would be a recipe for disaster. Look what happened in Japan when the market was flooded with cheap and easily obtained amphetamines after WW2. The problems that caused continue to this day.
Many have thought they could control their opiate use, and while some may have succeeded, a substantial number have not, and their lives have spiralled out of control as a result. Admittedly many (perhaps most) of the negative repercussions of opiate addiction are due to prohibition, but I don't see being addicted to anything as being a good thing.
For a moment I thought you meant Churchill :-) You do know 1984 is a novel, don't you? Besides, he had religion (in the form of Big Brother worship), which is the opiate of the people.
You're dead right we find it offensive. Feel free to rip into Connie as hard as you like.
Here is a plant, Kratom, that actually helps opium addicts drop opium -- Some had a problem with that:
Ahh, the young adults these days drifted from their youthful cannabis purity.
There seems to be a new 'drug of abuse' floating around and this one is *supposed* to be for staving off withdrawal from opiates -- SUBOXONE ® (buprenorphine and naloxone). It is apparently easy to get a script as one must only "pee dirty"... Judging from the proliferation of pinpoint pupils, they seem happily messed up. Is it some kind of potentiator/amplifier? What am I missing out on?
This whole "vitamins will save us all" argument by Ken & Co is really hilarious.
It is interesting that how they prefer to concentrate on Vit. A deficiency, but leavу Vit. A overdose out of equation, which is equally dangerous.
I hope Ken et al know that vit. A - like other vitamins by the way - is outright toxic in high doses and its consumption should controlled.
Vit. A overdose in particular can result in teratogenic effects.
Oh, I have an idea for a conspiracy theory "Vitamins cause autism. Stop vitamin supplements ! Fight with Big Supplement Industry conspiracy !"
Cage of Freedom:
Chrass Christie wouldn't need any laws to stop vaccinations -
"Time for some traffic problems at the vaccine manufacturers".
Aaaaaand this is how you get it done in Australia.
"Just a week after The Sunday Telegraph revealed Mr Morrison was scrapping exemptions for so-called conscientious objectors, he said that there will also be no registered religious exemptions in the future."
Just a week after The Sunday Telegraph revealed Mr Morrison was scrapping exemptions for so-called conscientious objectors, he said that there will also be no registered religious exemptions in the future.
Oops - here's the link.
From a U.S. perspective, the story's describing the decision as having been explicitly predicated on state endorsement of specific religions strikes me as disturbingly backward.
'Watch these pictuary meatards bang their fuckin' skulls together:
We Want Your Soul, Adam Freeland
Ah, a reward to dithering:
I particularly like "Will heavy Kratom use cause liver damage?" The true genius, of course, is the pairing with this rambling demonstration of not understanding what "begging the question" means:
Maan, they told us never to mix uppers and downers in high skool.
“Will heavy Kratom use cause liver damage?
So a website of the general form "Buy-X-online.com' is asking the question "are there adverse consequences from using X"? I cannot guess what answer they will provide but I can't be bothered looking to see.
Consider your concession graciously accepted. Thanks for placing, THEO. For our viewers playing along at home, our resident human sacrifice advocate just agreed to the following:
When CDC researchers discover harmful effects of vaccines, they report them promptly, and there aren't any signs that they are treated negatively. The only people who accuse researchers who find and publish real negative aspects of vaccines of research misconduct are antivaxxers.
I actually think my child would be a lot more hurt by the insinuation that my child's presence is some horrible thing no person should have to endure than any notion of "damage," but I haven't tried to find out for sure, for obvious reasons.
Obviously you must be a saint to be able to raise an autistic child. For normal people like antivaxxer it is The Worst Thing To Ever Happen To Anyone. /sarcasm
I try so very hard not to judge since I have never raised any children autistic or not. But I have cared for a number of autistic kids who's parents love them very much and who wouldn't think of them as damaged even at the worst of times. I can't help but feel sorry for the children of antivaxxers. Having your parents constantly refer to you as damaged would be difficult for even the most well adjusted "normal" child. I feel like I should be the one saying "think of the children."
Thanks for the go ahead. I'm pretty sure connie is long gone by now though. I'll keep this in mind for the future. Good to know that my Terrible Person detector functioning nominally.
From your comment I gather that you have child
Goddamn submit button.
From you comment I gather you have an autistic child. I hope you can dig deep and love him/her for who he/she is, not what you expect him/her to be. Regardless of whether or not vaccination caused whatever you believe it did (autism I assume) I think it's terribly sad that you think of your own child as damaged. That seems like a certain way to assure he/she is maladjusted.
Here are some homeopathic active ingredients:
Now I know there is not a company that sells positronium.
And truly, they buy plutonium nitrate? Don't only terrorists do that?
Smallpox pus???? Another terrorist item!
To ridicule and call irritatingly WRONG parents and people on either side of this issue is short-sighted and unjust.
I am a parent myself, with a child who has had many serious health issues in her first years of life, yet I am doubtful that her doctor would grant her an exemption to the vaccinations she hasn't had.
These are all individual children with different sensitivities and vulnerabilities. It is a tragedy when children on either side of this debate are injured in any way by vaccines or by disease, but for a parent on either side of the debate to say, "look, my child is healthy" so obviously I am right...well, that is just cruel, most especially to the parents who went against their own instincts and intuition about their own child to appease prevailing winds as to which side this year is "most right".
Leave parents alone to do their thing. We have all had our own experiences while entrusted to be the guardians of our beloved children, as well as of all children. None of us are completely right or completely wrong but most of us are focusing all of our resources on determining how to best take care of our child and all children. Until there is an actual death in California caused by one of these diseases, can't we let the freedom to make the best difficult choice that we make be our own? The government knows nothing of my child or our personal experience.... I am an intelligent and intuitive mother who believes strongly that the vaccines we have not done will further harm my child if we are forced to them in order for her to get an education. Does anyone really believe there are more California children injured by the diseases we vaccinate against than by vaccine reactions? Why are some so concerned with those not old enough to be fully vaccinated but not with those who have been permanently damaged or killed by vaccines? ALL OF US should be concerned about ALL of these kids and how best we can use what we've experienced with our children to benefit all kids.
STAY IN THE GREY!...choosing to see this issue in black and white is turning a blind eye to truth coming from both sides of this debate.
We need to all respect each other and stay the current path of balance. If one day there is a real and not just media-generated threat to the health of California kids that is worth forced vaccination of kids whom parents have experienced as vulnerable to vaccines, then we will all need to make even more difficult decisions as to what is good for the "herd". I care about every member of the herd and make the difficult choice over and over again as to what is safest for all children, not just my own.
And I am so tired of letters on both side of this debate that have as their highest purpose to ridicule, dehumanize and make wrong good people, parents with families so important to our good future. That is the part of this debate that brings up comparisons to the 1940's when those in power found a way to demonize...and worse...those who they did not agree with...and to make the public perceive a threat that in reality consisted of people no less loving and devoted to family AND SOCIETY than themselves who just had different opinions as to how to best care for all they loved.
For those still playing along at home, it appears that the specific Disneyland culprit is MVi/Harare.ZWE/38.09.
@Helen - you might want to check your facts....several babies have died of Pertussis in California already.
Why would it take a death in California to make you reconsider? Apparently there *have* been deaths in Ca from vaccine-preventable diseases. But why a death?
There was a death from measles in Germany, that doesn't make you reconsider?
Would a case of deafness from measles make you reconsider?
Since you have the welfare of all children at heart, why not do your best to achieve global eradication of measles?
Once measles has been globally eradicated, people would no longer have to get vaccinated for it.
Measles would be eradicated if enough people get vaccinated (and perhaps boosters).
Smallpox was globally eradicated by mass vaccination. With anti-vaxxers protesting the eradication effort.
So children no longer need to be immunized against smallpox.
Unfortunately, as far as the science goes antivaxxers are indeed wrong. We know vaccines don't cause autism. We know there are adverse reactions but we also know that the serious ones are exceedingly rare and less likely than harm from the disease. We have well researched guidelines for legitimate contraindications. There is a very large body of evidence about the safety and efficacy of vaccines and we are abaolutely correct to call someone wrong for ignoring based on their feelings.
Maybe you should try talking to your doctor. Usually, they are more than happy to listen to you and if they disagree they can explain why. Informed consent is a two way street.
Not really sure what you mean here. No one here is saying that. In fact, it seems the anecdotal evidence all comes from the AV side.
"Instinct" is a poor substitute for science. I'd argue it's a good thing if we can get parents to go against instinct and follow science based recommendations that's a good thing.
Intuition, like instinct, is a poor substitute for science. Don't want to vaccinate? Home school or private school.
Yes. This is what the science says too.
Oh we are concerned with all children, you seem to be the one unconcerned about children harmed by VPDs. We are more concerned with VPDs because they are much more lilely to harm than vaccines. But when vaccine risk is too high we stop them. Look at the oral polio vaccine or the rotavirus one.
Well forced vaccination is not what is under discussion. You are certainly free to choose not to vaccinate. But the flip side of freedom is responsibility. Choose to shirk your responsibilities and there are consequences, in this case being unable to attend public school. Freedom does not mean freedom from consequences.
I don't think you understand herd immunity. Choosing not to vaccinate your children absolutely is not what is best for all children.
You talk a lot about both sides but I only see you attacking the science side. It sounds like you think we are being mean to antivaxxers. Seems like a pretty narrow view. Take a look at the death threats at Paul Offit or the attempts to get Orac fired. Just look at connie's comment #209.
First, what threats has anyone made, Connie? Be specific.
Second, you sem to be suggesting that only parents who have a child who's suffered one of the rare but serious adverse outcomes causally associated with vaccination (to clarify, have suffered from something other than autism spectrum disorders, like encephalitis, as ASD's are not causally lnked to vaccination) they lack the right to speak to the issue of vaccine safety and compliance--why? Do you also beleive that unless someone has themselves been injured, or has a child who has been injured, in an automobile accident they should shut up about drunk driving? That unless you are yourself the parent of an unarmed black male who has shot by a policeman you should shut up about the need to reform law enforcement in the US?
I'm sorry to hear that your child has had serious health issues. Besides caution and being averse to exposing your child to another potential risk, why do you think she should not be vaccinated?
I'm not in the habit of appealing the prevailing winds. The data and science are pretty clear about the benefits and relative risks of vaccines. That science hasn't changed much, though the recommendations for some immunizations have changed over time as knowledge is increased and the situation changes.
Why do you believe that? What evidence do you have for that statement?
I believe that the reason there currently are so few children in California who are injured by vaccine preventable diseases is because they don't get exposed to those diseases. The reason they don't get exposed to those diseases is because the vast majority of people get immunized. If people stopped getting immunized (as you wish to do with your child), then I expect that the incidence of disease would increase and that the incidence of complications from those disease would increase. The only reason you can feel comfortable not protecting your child from these diseases is because your neighbors are doing it for you. The least you can say is "thanks".
Assuming that day comes, how quickly do you think we'll have a mass vaccination program to counter it? Do you expect that California will stockpile enough doses of the various vaccines so that they can vaccinate all the unvaccinated within, say, 3 weeks? Will manufacturers be able to ramp up production so that enough doses are available if California doesn't stockpile them? How many children will get sick and suffer the various complications associated with those diseases before a) it's serious enough to be a real threat and b) before the epidemic has burned itself out?
Am I the only one getting a strong Thelema vibe off of Helen's epistle?
Not really - mainly just the typical false balance, "mommy-knows-best" type of stuff. Plus what I think is a particularly inept Godwin attempt.
And yet more evidence on the side of vaccinations:
a particularly inept Godwin attempt
If people are going to Godwin the place up, I would rather they come out with an honest HITLER HITLER HITLER instead of sneaking around with "comparisons to the 1940’s when those in power found a way to demonize…and worse…those who they did not agree with".
Perhaps Helen was thinking of the internment of Japanese-Americans.
One might also point out even the internment of Japanese-Americans didn't really have anything to do with some sort of vague disagreement they had with the government.
Helen-of-the-false-middle-ground said: "Until there is an actual death in California caused by one of these diseases, can’t we let the freedom to make the best difficult choice that we make be our own?"
It's true - "choice" will look pretty good as a rallying cry, until deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases start accumulating.
Even then, we'll hear "well, it's only one death" or "only a few children have died, more than that die in hospitals from mainstream care every day".
It'd be nice if we could stop these disease outbreaks before someone has to die. Remember though, with antivaxers, we are dealing with a mentality that celebrates the idea of culling out the weaklings (in favor of those with "naturally strong immune systems"), and which tells us that plague in the Middle Ages wasn't so bad, since the human race survived.
A (relatively) few child deaths, plus a greater number of permanent disabilities and birth defects will not impress them.
"'The first people in our community to participate, up until this time are still strong,' Choko told VICE News, saying the experiences of his friends and neighbors encouraged him to participate. 'I saw their appearance, nothing happened to them, so it encouraged me to come too.'"
Mikey's minion weighs in at Natchurul Nooz
The anti-SB277 crowd is also muttering about the "suspicious timing" of the release of the new MMR study.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.Why does not any one say that this is unconstitutional against first amendment. We the people have the right to choose because of our faith or religion. Did not the U.S. raise because people where running from Great Britain telling them what they should believe in. I think the government telling people we should have our babies vaccinated just a way of making money and LAUSD not allow kids if they dont have up to date.
@Julio: OK, that's what you think. Everyone has an opinion. You might be right or you might be wrong. We decide these things by democratic processes, so best you convince other people you are right. Saying that vaccination is profit-based is not a convincing argument.
The government (that would be we, the people) can make rules for all. I don't agree with everything we/the government does, but in many areas we need one policy, not up to every individual's whim. Your faith is fine until it starts impacting other people. Then it becomes less than an absolute right. Polygamy and human sacrifice are religious too.
We all have a responsibility to those we share this world with.
Because the Supreme Court has stated that it isn't and has refused to hear all subsequent cases on the matter. Do you want it in detail, or are you just passing through? Have you heard of "West Virginia"?
Julio - while religious freedom is certainly part of the story of the founding of the US, it's important to note that at least one group (the Puritans) felt they were persecuted because they were surrounded by people who did things that offended them. Things like, say, celebrating Christmas.
Which particular religion claims that vaccination violates their basic beliefs?
Julio @253 The Christians who came over on the Mayflower, and I assume you are referring to them, made a stop in Holland first, where they enjoyed complete freedom of religion for some years. However, that didn't suit them, because they thought their children were becoming too Dutch. They went back to England, where as was mentioned, Christmas was celebrated. So, they headed off for the "New World," where they could make everyone do what they said, religion-wise, and make a few bucks at the same time. Yes, they went to make money as did all the non-pilgrims on that boat who weren't given much choice when it was "blown off course," but to sign the Mayflower Compact.
Has nothing to do with vaccines, of course. If you aren't going to have yourself or your children vaccinated, would you do me the favor of staying away from my pregnant granddaughter? I don't wish her child to suffer because FREEDOM!
We are one of those "batshit crazy" families referred to here.
We vaccinated our children on time, dutifully, for seven years. Our oldest became temporarily paralyzed in both legs hours after her Kinder boosters, and our 2nd child developed encephalitis hours after his 4 month shots, which resulted in permanent brain changes. We continued to vaccinate for another year, and he suffered further injury.
So, what do you say to families like ours? I mean, an M.D. is the one who told us we were "very lucky" that our daughter wasn't left a permanent paraplegic. And it was another M.D. who told us that any future vaccinations for either of our children, and any subsequent children, was likely to result in further injuries.
I've never once tried to convince ANYONE else to NOT vaccinate their children. Literally, not once. And I would never do that.
Nearly every other child I've ever known has had vaccinations without any injury (at least none that I am aware of). But, you know, it DOES happen. The inserts to the vaccines acknowledge that it happens.
I don't know what the answers are. I know that our family has struggled and ended up on a path we never thought we'd be on - that of being treated really terribly for something we have literally no control over. We certainly didn't choose this path. But I'm not going to force my son to risk any more of his cognitive ability just to appease you guys. And if it was your kid who was vulnerable to brain injury from vaccines, you wouldn't be willing to harm him further on my account, either. And you shouldn't be.
My son cannot get a medical exemption. Unless he is undergoing chemo, or suffered an anaphylactic reaction *in the presence of a physician*, he's out of luck.
I get the impression that most of those who are so hostile toward those of us who no longer vaccinate, believe that we'll all just run in and get the shots at the state's behest if this bill passes. You're wrong. Because what I've learned in recent months is that a HUGE number of families who don't vaccinate already have at least one child who has a vaccine injury. They were like us...dutifully vaccinating, totally on schedule, and then something awful happened and they realized they needed to stop.
If you've never dug deeper or paid much attention along the way, the CDC guidelines for abstaining from vaccines used to include conditions like autoimmune disease, familial history of seizure disorder, and familial history of serious adverse reactions to vaccines. THOSE HAVE ALL BEEN ELIMINATED. My children happen to have those very conditions.
Whoever believes we'll all just run to our doc's office and get the damn shots already, is wrong. I would LITERALLY leave this country before I would do something to my son that I know caused injury to his brain already. And nearly every single other family I have encountered since all of this craziness started a few months ago has said the same. Some can't leave, because of jobs, family, etc. But most have already investigated thoroughly where else they can go to avoid the effects SB277 would impose upon them.
And just a word on that "yellow star sewn onto their clothes"...comment someone made. You know, we stopped vaccinating 15 years ago (and no, it had nothing to do with autism or Jenny McCarthy, whose name I never even heard until more than a decade later), and we have never had it even come up in conversation. Suddenly though, people are publicly calling unvaccinated children filthy, disgusting, diseased (my children are none of these things, btw.), people are publicly calling for unvaccinated children to not be allowed in public places, or to be able to use the same facilities, or to even ATTEND SCHOOL. So..maybe you can see it and maybe you can't (and I truly hope you never have to know what this feels like, because it really sucks), but the prejudice and discrimination are already very much out of hand. Threats of unprovoked violence over it, even! I mean, if we're going to call anyone "batshit crazy", how about the woman threatening to attack any mother of an unvaccinated child who "dares" to bring their kid to a freaking park?!
I wish very much that it was safe to vaccinate my children. Our lives would be SO much simpler. My two youngest are entirely unvaccinated because of their older siblings' adverse reactions, and their lives have been turned upside down over this. All of the sudden, they are the focus of anger, and cruelty, and a push to legalize prejudice and discrimination. They are 10 and 14 and they didn't even really KNOW they weren't vaccinated until all this came up, and I had to explain it to them because we may have to pull them from their charter school and move to another state.
And, just something to think about...the vast majority of adults who have no problem with the way my kids are being affected, or that our family will have to uproot and leave the state if this bill passes, who are SO convinced that my children pose some kind of health threat to yours...nearly NONE of YOU have the immunity you screaming that my children must be forced to receive. Very, very few people keep up with their vaccinations as adults...which means most of you do not have ANY immunity for things like measles, either. So, YOU, theoretically, pose just as much threat to YOUR kids as any unvaccinated child does.
Ya know, since we're being honest here and all...
I'm sorry to hear of the problems your children have faced. Fortunately, I have some good news for you.
It sounds like you've been misinformed about the CA medical exemption requirements. I just looked over the text of the current requirements for medical exemption, and the text of the most recent draft of SB 277. Neither is nearly as strict as you've been led to think. All you have to do is find one licensed physician in the State of California who is willing to write to your school stating that in her opinion immunization is not considered safe for your child due to your child's specific medical circumstances.
You might want to look up the doctors that told you not to vaccinate in the first place to see if they are still licensed to practice in CA and willing to do the exemption.
I know it must sound terrible to you that those guidelines changed, but it's because those used to be there out of an abundance of caution, but research showed that none of those groups turned out to be more likely to have a bad reaction to a vaccine than the general public. Nobody's trying to injure your children; we just have more understanding now of who is at heightened risk now than when those older recommendations were made.
I do have to say that your story has a bit of feel of mitochondrial disease feel to it. I'm not a doctor, but that sounds like something worth checking out. Your kids would be much safer if they do have it by being diagnosed and treated appropriately for it.
I'd agree that's overboard. On the other hand, I've learned that it's generally not a great idea to get in the way of a mother who thinks she's defending her child from a potential fatal circumstance, real or imagined.
Prejudice and discrimination are legal in this country for pretty much any reason except for a tiny handful of specifically outlawed ones. Prejudice and discrimination against those who don't fully vaccinate is currently legal in CA.
SB 277 does institutionalize discrimination against non-vaccinators, but that's not unique. All laws institutionalize discrimination against some behaviors. This might be the first time a new law has affected you in a major way. Might be something to think about when you are supporting laws that apply to other people.
I know there are some websites that like to say this, but it's not actually the case. It's true that vaccine-caused immunity decreases somewhat with time, just like infection-caused immunity decreases somewhat with time, but the numbers are not all that different between them. For most diseases, most people who were immune because of a childhood vaccine are still immune today. That's certainly the case for measles.
If you stop to think about it, that makes sense, since otherwise the diseases we vaccinate against would be running rampant in adults but nonexistent in children. Obviously that's not what we see.
Nope, sorry. Last time I got my titers drawn they were still high for every disease I've been vaccinated against, or had as a child. That's not a surprising result.
Yes, this seems to be a fresh new talking point. Unfortunately, nobody seems to back it up. Here are the 2006 ACIP recommendations.
"The only contraindication applicable to all vaccines is a history of a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose of vaccine or to a vaccine constituent (unless the recipient has been desensitized).... A family history of seizures or other central nervous system disorders is not a contraindication to administration of pertussis or other vaccines."
Here is 2002. Same thing.
So, where are these "guidelines for abstaining" that have silently been taken away?
A history of seizures in first-degree relatives used to be a contraindication back in the 1980s. Let me see if I can dig up this reference I had from 1987.
Okay, I think this is the one I was thinking of. Actually, though, seizure disorders in first-degree relatives were not considered a contraindication by this point, although I'm pretty sure several commenters a while back mentioned that that used to be the case - so I'm thinking 1987 is when the recommendations changed.
Yes, this seems to be a fresh new talking point
'Brandy' popped up in the middle of an earlier thread with a tale of woe about the exemptions and contraindications that had been stolen by stealth overnight, as if by fairies:
These used to be things which the top minds in the field identified as contraindications to vaccines. It was that way for DECADES. It only changed recently, and evidently suddenly.
Skeptical Bimlers were skeptical; JP delved back into the decades.
Then Brandy popped up afresh at the end of the thread and reeled off the same tale of woe, having forgotten that she had spammed it already.
However, quite recently, nearly EVERY contraindication has been quietly removed from the list
‘Brandy’ popped up in the middle of an earlier thread with a tale of woe about the exemptions and contraindications that had been stolen by stealth overnight, as if by fairies:
Skeptical Bimlers were skeptical; JP delved back into the decades.
Then Brandy popped up afresh at the end of the thread and reeled off the same tale of woe, having forgotten that she had spammed it already.
Recommendation. For measles. Maybe.
Here's wP, from 1985 (updating 1981):
"The ACIP, after evaluating the evidence available concerning the risk of a neurologic illness following [DTP] vaccination of a child with a family history of convulsion or other central nervous system disorder, does not believe that such a history is a contraindication to pertussis vaccination."
So Kailee, who says that she stopped vaccinating 15 years ago, breezes by to inform everyone that "if you’ve never dug deeper or paid much attention along the way, the CDC [sic] guidelines for abstaining from vaccines used to include conditions like autoimmune disease [which all of her children have?], familial history of seizure disorder, and familial history of serious adverse reactions to vaccines," and maybe, 30 years ago, one of those items was correct for two vaccines?
I'm sorry, but this strikes me as simply reading from another antivaccine script and having the gall to make other people do the freaking homework. Time will tell whether she bothers to return to clarify.
Moreover, it really looks as though somebody went through this, picked a few entries that sounded promising, and set about embellishing.
Kailee Applegate's tale of woe is identical to that reported by Brandy a month or so ago.
The coincidence makes it all the more plausible.
Actually, thanks to hdb's link to the thread I was thinking of, I was able to find the link I actually had been thinking of, also from 1987, but regarding he pertussis vaccine. Similar language:
And this one definitely does seem to indicate a change in the recommendation regarding pertussis vaccine at least, FWIW:
Commenter dingo199 related that he recalled a history of seizures in first-degree relatives to be a contraindication back in the 1970s.
As well as identical families, Kailee and Brandy share a passive-aggressive tone and a taste for RANDOM capitalisation.
Buggrit. Link still works, anyway.
Oh, derp, Narad already linked to an even earlier update on the pertussis vaccine. I am a bit out of it after a long day of dissertating. (Ew, it sounds like a bodily function.
That's a supplement to the 1985 item, which did not consider a family history of seizure disorder to be a contraindication in the first place.
I looked briefly at 1981, but the formatting was all screwed up, and I'm going to go rooting around in G—le Books for scanned copies. I didn't see any such contraindication mentioned, but it may well be incomplete.
^ "not going to go"
I am a bit out of it after a long day of dissertating
What topic, may I ask? (somewhere in Slavic linguistics, I assume).
Oh, nothing even that practical, I'm afraid. Poetry. (Hey, at least I'm not paying for it.)
I did take some linguistic classes along the way - they were required at the time, though the requirement has been thrown out for the younger cohorts of grad students. Glad I had it, though. I also have some sort of mental tic that makes it extremely easy for me to pick up languages, so I know, um, a few. Not French, though.
What I generally say when people ask me what my dissertation topic is is "Russian and Polish poetry, late twentieth century," since I think most people are looking for a telegraphic answer. But to be very slightly more specific, I am writing on epistemology, gender, and the relation to history/temporality in the poetry of Elena Shvarts, Ol'ga Sedakova, and Wisława Szymborska.
Szymborksa's pretty easy to find in English translation, and there's a bit of Sedakova and Shvarts out there in translation now, too. I've got my own fairly extensive translations of Shvarts that I'm sitting on and have been meaning to publish for a while. I need to work out the whole publishing rights thing, though.
I am suitably impressed and a-scared. I can only talk about "epistemology, gender, and the relation to history/temporality" within dirty limericks.
DW: They expected high achieving children and were disappointed.
Exactly. The typical anti-vaxxer is whiter than white, (thus my dislike of white parents*) middle-class or upper, and usually fortyish, having stepped back from a career. Loss of said career makes them become insanely kid-centric, and the minute the child drops below standard, they can't deal with it. Most of the anti-vax parents only raise their kids because they'd face social consequences.
* Seriously, take a look at Age of Autism's staff photos sometime. You don't see immigrants (except for the Somali population) falling for this stuff.
Helen: Stay in the grey.
Lady, there's no grey there. You are just a typical California fluff-head with no empathy.
Kailee: So you're perfectly okay with your precious wittle snowflakes infecting someone's newborn or a kid with cancer? 'Cause that's what I'm getting here. Your family aren't the only people on this Earth. Also, find a writing class, yesterday, please.
I would like to subscribe to your limerick-book.
Is there some gradation of whiteness that I am unaware of? It would explain a lot, actually, as I have never really recognized myself, my background, or my relatives within this idea of "white people" that gets bandied about a lot.
Have you tried shopping them to Open Letter? I have a friend who's published with them.
My advisor mentioned Open Letter once, actually. In fact, he is the one I've been waiting on for the contact with the fella who is in charge of Shvarts's publishing rights. He was a personal friend of hers, and knows the guy with the rights as well; he lives in her old apartment in St. Petersburg, and has apparently completely transformed the place. (It is no longer dark, smoky, and impossibly cluttered, it turns out.) I have been pestering him this semester for the info, but he himself has copped to being pretty much incommunicado for most of the year, though physically present. Luckily, I am working as an RA for him over the summer, so I will be seeing him a lot, and will have an opportunity to bring it up as many times as necessary. (I'll also be teaching a month of first year intensive Russian, since they need me to, it turns out, which means I'll finally be in decent financial shape for a while. And I got one grant for the internship in Lviv, which I will wait and do in Sep/Oct.)
^ He has to find the contact info, evidently, the process of which I am unclear about. His own office is famously cluttered, not that I have any room to talk, but he is moving shop to Joseph Brodsky's old office, which was vacated a year or so ago when an emeritus professor of linguistics passed away. I overheard him making some argument to the interim dept. secretary that it's not just about fetishism, but also a good opportunity to organize his books and junk or something.
My friend probably had a slightly easier time, as the rights were still with a family member. Who was into the Lesser Sacrament. And rap music. I wound up sending a bootleg of 3 Feet High and Rising after my brief visit.
Yeah, I am wondering whether the relative paucity of Svharts's work being published in English translation might have something to do with the publishing rights situation. I have an in, at least, and I think my translations are pretty darn good, if I might say so myself; I've heard so from others as well. She's difficult to translate; somehow what is borderline intoxicating in Russian often ends up coming off as florid and over-the-top in English, unless you have the right touch.
Re: gradations of whiteness: the reasons for my feelings are either because I'm basically just poor white trash in academic drag or because I'm actually Jewish or something, going by a conversation I had with my advisor on the day I got a lot of good news about the summer, which I'm still fairly reeling about. We have similar histories, personalities, and pathologies, so I figured he'd know what I meant when I admitted my general pessimism and tendency toward catastrophic thinking.
"Y'know, the thing that always seemed weird to me about, well, goyim, is that they're always surprised when things go badly. It makes a lot more sense to assume that things will go badly, and then you can be pleasantly surprised when they don't."
"Wait, so are you saying I'm actually Jewish or something?"
"Let's just say you're not the least rabbinical person I've ever meant. I mean that as a compliment."
^ "I've ever met."
But the bottom line is that vaccines can cause extremely serious, even fatal, reactions. No one has the right to force anyone to take any vaccine himself or give any to his child. Parents in California, if SB 277 goes through, will stop paying property taxes if their children are excluded from school. If half of those now claiming exemptions drop out to homeschool in order to protect the children from vaccine injury, it will mean a loss of half a billion dollars to the schools in the first year. Children damaged by the vaccines accepted against the parents' will, will seek compensation in undreamt-of numbers. Parents will file felonious assault charges against the physicians who wield the hypodermic needle. When the child loses his speech and personality within days of a vaccine, the parents will sue the state and the doctor for everything they're worth, and rightly so, as they will have frivolously ended a life.
Perhaps a first degree relative with a taste for RANDOM capitalisation is a contra-indication for vaccination?
Fantasize on, Parker. Don't you want to go all out and advance your desire for the wholesale return of vaccine-preventable diseases? Start babbling about how childhood measles prevents cancer? How contracting a disease that only turned up about 1000 years ago is imperative to the functioning of the immune system?
Oh, good. I'd like to pick up another house at a tax foreclosure sale.
Sure, no one ever denied that. But they are exceedingly rare (far rarer than complicatoobs from the diseases they prevent) and autism is not one of them.
And no one is doing that. Which you seem to understand given your next couple sentences.
With consent it's not assualt; without it, no vaccine. I think frivolous is the word you were looking for.
Autism=death is highly offensive.
Interesting typo. Look at your keyboard, I swear it was unintentional.
Yes, I'm sure this would be a hardship to the schools with crappy PBE rates. A boon to the state treasury, though.
Yeah, this meme is distressing. "Lost their personality," "the light left their eyes" - whatever the code words are, the message is basically metaphysical: autistic people don't have souls.
It comes from some sort of problematic dualism, I guess - that there's some "essence" of a person that's supposed to always stay the same, and that any change in that "essence" is tantamount to spiritual death. None of us is the same all the way through life; some changes are more gradual, some more dramatic.
I mean, I can understand the sadness of seeing a personality that you thought was permanent slipping away. A friend of mine developed schizophrenia in her mid-twenties, as is the chronology most common among women. I have to admit that I do miss the Barb who Barb was before she got sick, but she's still my friend, and I still love her and care about her. And she's not even my kid. I really have to wonder about people who can't even find it in themselves to accept their own children when they don't turn out the way the expected or wanted.
I was going to say that this is just painfully stupid to see coming out of the keyboard of an officer of the court, but I see that 28590 has at least had the decency to allow her license to lapse.
You are perhaps unfamiliar with CIA.
I was sort of wondering about the basis for this calculation (which I now suspect is very crude indeed), but I must say that this pie chart that I found along the way seems like a pretty serious misstep for an education deparrtment.
Oh, fer chrissakes, Parker dropped by to barf up Mike Freaking Adams.
I perhaps was.
the parents will sue the state and the doctor for everything they’re worth
How are all those previous "vaccine damage" lawsuits working out?
With every post, Ms. Parker retreats further and further from reality.....
I see Cia Parker has made a visit and has produced all her usual silly claims.
I see that over at Cia's usual residence Adriana Gamondes has a strange, strange post that cranks the crazy up to 12. Seriously, this one outdoes anything the Mike Adams has ever written. Apparently, Bill Gates through his investment in Ecolab, Inc was responsible for the death of Osama bin Laden, for Paul Offit publishing a book, for Brian Deer writing an article for the BMJ on Andrew Wakefield and Seth Mnookin publishing a book. Or something. My brain could not comprehend the full depths of crazy conspiracy theories on display.
It's worse than the usual implicit endorsement of a lottery system (To the knees, Alice!), it's Marc Stephens–grade stupid posturing.
I saw it. I've thought of blogging about Adriana Gamondes' latest series of posts, but in reality she's so far down the rabbit hole and, given the multipart nature of her series, so verbose, that I don't think I can handle subjecting myself to it in sufficient depth to blog about it. It's bizarre in the extreme, and the art that accompanies it is particularly disturbing.
I had noticed the very strange art on Number 5 of 5 (Thank god for little mercies), but in the end decided it was less strange than the contents.
The contents are so strange that the denizens of AoA, for whom little is too far out when it involves vaccines, have struggled with finding something to say about it. Only one, rather rambling comment about mitochondrial disease.
I guess it was only a matter of time before AoA went completely down the rabbit-hole.....that last series of articles gives the Bolan Report a run for its money.
How anyone can read that screed and not see how completely and utterly insane the author is, is certainly beyond me.
re 'whiter than white'.
I certainly am. In fact, many of those who frequent RI are as well. ( Have you ever seen photos of Orac and various others ? I rest my case). I'm probably worse than most and fit other of the characteristics used descriptively above BUT at least PGP likes me a little.
Somewhere, IIRC, she said there would be TEN parts.
I also find her ...er.. *material* quite disturbing.
She appears to think that saying something ( or making a collage of diverse unrelated items or persons) makes her suppositions true and meaningful, a little like Jake. In addition, she wants so desperately to impress her audience through her familiarity with esoteric ideas and artistic** or arcane references. In fact, she reminds me of one of the idiots I survey, endlessly dropping names and concepts as though this *proves* his intellectual superiority and justifies his position as a leader of the woo-driven.
Although, as you know, I can't ( and won't) diagnose anyone, I think it fair to note that whenever someone tries SO hard, they must have something to prove. Every time she tosses out another reference it seems to me at least, she is begging for approval and applause. She wants to be called *brilliant* or suchlike. HOWEVER that sort of motivation may be endemic at AoA: after all, aren't they- without benefit of having appropriate educations or experience beyond their own homelife- attempting to critique medicine, psychology, education and politics all in one great gummy heap, crammed and congealed together - quite like her artwork?
I too thought about going over her material in depth ( as I mentioned previously I DO own a great pair of rubber boots) but it just gave me a headache and my commentary is unnecessary because anyone who attempts wading into that morass - her seething miasma of words and images- will soon understand that she has very little to say that hasn't been said before at that website.
In shorthand- vaccines are used as an instrument of both destruction of children and instruments of control which profits both corporations and governments.
NOW why would anyone think that harming children would benefit governments if they have to care for them?
Don't most countries support disabled kids?
** Did she have to mention The Lives of Others- a film I like?
@ Chris P:
I just looked at her latest entry- there will be a Part 6.
I'm a bit late to the party on this, but regarding the right to an education, it is actually correct that children do have a right to a free education. It's not in the Bill of Rights, but most things aren't. Rather, it has arisen out of a series of reforms to the educational system and child labor laws.
This effectively means that the public school system is obligated to accomodate all students. This does *not* mean they all have to attend school; the district can work out other ways of satisfying its legal obligations. A child who brings a gun to school and shoots up the place does not have to be invited back next semester; instead, he or she will receive education in prison. A child who is carrying a communicable disease can be quarantined; all schools have a system for the child to receive make-up homework so that they do not fall behind. School districts even support homeschoolers within their boundaries, and an increasing number of states are offering free online schools as well.
Vaccine requirements do not in any way, shape, or form compromise the responsibility of the school district to provide a free education to all children residing in its boundaries. On the contrary, since they help ensure the safety of the school environment, they are *essential* to the schools meeting their responsibility to their student bodies. Nobody is being helped by letting the entire student body come down with measles.
I don't think phenotype or skin hue has anything to do, really, with being more or less white in the sense that somebody who says "whiter than white" means. Or when somebody says something like, "OMG, he's sooo white" or whatever.
I'm reminded of South Asian friends who tell me they have been accused, by other South Asians, of being "coconuts" (brown on the outside, white on the inside) because they have white friends, like me. It's just yet another manifestation of the human tendency to overgeneralize and to conflate cultural characteristics with visible physical ones.
PGP is a perennial victim of this particular cognitive bias, which is very sad since one of the major themes of SBM is overcoming cognitive biases through use of the scientific method. She even seems to be proud of her biases (given her repeated display of bigotry even after being called on it multiple times), which saddens and disgusts me in approximately equal measure. For example, she wrote:
Even if the first part is true, which I'm not convinced it is - look at the antivaccine sentiments of the Nation of Islam for example - how can any intelligent person (which PGP undoubtedly is) think that "most Xs are Ys, thus my dislike of Ys" makes any logical sense. Try substituting "criminal" for "anti-vaxxer" and "black" for "white" and the bigotry, should it not already be self-evident, is exposed.
I know but I wanted to have fun with the concept.
Actually, I am descended from a long line of bohemians and free spirits who somehow managed to make money in assorted businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.
Well, I have been in a bit of a Procul Harum mood lately.
Fixed that for you, cia. The risks associated with vaccines are orders of magnitude lower than the risks associated with remaining vulnerable to infection by the infectious diseases they protect against, such that any rational determination of relative risk argues compellingly in support of routine vaccination.
Consider encephalopathy, for example: the MMR vaccine will cause roughly 1 instance of encephalopathy in every I million individuals vaccinated. Measles itself, on the other hand, causes 1 case in every 1 thousand people infected. That’s a difference of 3 orders of magnitude.
And when passed SB277 will not result in anyone being forced to take insulin of vaccinate their children.
In which case I expect the state of California will institute legal proceedings compelling them to pay any taxes for which they are in arrears. Parents who don’t even have children are required to pay property taxes , after all—pulling a child out of public school and choosing to homeschool instead would in no way relieve them of the obligation to pay property taxes.
Highly unlikely, given the number of people who are not now vaccinating but would likely elect to vaccinate following the passage of SB277 and how rare serious adverse events associated with routine vaccinations are.
Which will not be upheld by the courts.
To win their suit, however, the parents would need to demonstrate that the vaccination given caused their child to “speech and personality within days”, and the evidence quite simply isn’t there.
'Forced to take insulin'? Auto correct is now advancing it's own arguments, it seems
Should read "And when passed SB277 will not result in anyone being forced to take vaccines or vaccinate their children."
All these years later autocorrect still has strong feelings about the Madeline Neumann case.
The Supreme Court disagrees. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
The existence of a right to education in California is a result of Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584 (1971), and Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal. 3d 728 (1976). That's pretty much it, as I couldn't find it explicitly stated in the (lengthy) state constitution the last time I looked.
If a state provides a public school system, it must be provided to all on equal terms. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). There's also the federal requirement to accommodate special education, etc., students, but the rest is on a state-by-state basis.
Well, I have been in a bit of a Procul Harum mood lately.
There is a paper in 'Visual Neuroscience' (I may or may not be co-author) with the title "A whiter shade of pale, a blacker shade of dark".
I should thank JP for that video altho' I then spent 45 minutes or so searching for other PH videos- one even turned up in an Eastern European site which I couldn't read except for the song title.
-btw- the band may have been named after a cat.
Perhaps Autocorrect's strong views are more centred on the case of Sunny von Bülow.
My favorite title ever is a social anthropology paper about the ambivalent relationship between Palestinian men and female tourists in Jerusalem, entitled 'F*cking Tourists: Sexual Relations and Tourism in Jerusalem' (let's see if the obscenity filter picks up a URL). It was on our reading list in the Anthropology of Gender course I took; seeing it there always made me smile.
Side effects straight from the CDC Website (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm):
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses) Several other severe problems have been reported after DTaP vaccine. These include:
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage.
Moderate problems following inactivated flu vaccine:
Young children who get inactivated flu vaccine and pneumococcal vaccine (PCV13) at the same time may be at increased risk for seizures caused by fever. Ask your doctor for more information. Tell your doctor if a child who is getting flu vaccine has ever had a seizure.
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage
Do some of THESE sound more serious than the disease being vaccinated against?
Whenever there is risk, no matter how minimal, there should be choice....
Here's a new one....GPI is recommending vaccanating pregnant mothers...
Who is GPI? Figure it out....
This is only the beginning of the vaccines they have in store waiting...and once the public foolishly gives away their right to dictate their own family's health, they will start vaccinating in schools, without parents' permission (They are already doing that with Gardisil...)
SB277 is about so much more than simply mandating vaccines....
PS....Vaccine Injuries are not rare...they are simply covered up
Anti-Vaxxers are not Anti-Vaccines...they are for safer Vaccines, better testing of vaccines, and accountability to the corporations that create the vaccines....
Right now, you CANNOT sue the Doctor or the Vaccine company if your child ends up vaccine injured....
Ask yourselves...how effective would the auto industry be if they had a blanket over being sued...if they could put out cars without the fear of being sued....
There is risk....absolutely...just because you haven't experienced it with your children doesn't mean the risk is not there for others....
Robert -- I will beat Chris to the punch by requesting from you the research data proving that the vaccines are worse than the diseases they prevent.
From the British newspaper, the Guardian: MEASLES – TO VAX OR NOT TO VAX?
If one million kids are given vaccine (MMR):
1000 will have a febrile convulsion.
30 will get thrombocytopenia.
10 will get a severe allergic reaction.
1 will get encephalitis (ADEM).
If one million kids get measles (in Europe, in the 21st century):
200 will die.
100,000 will be ill enough to need hospitalisation.
90,000 will get otitis media.
80,000 will get gastroenteritis.
50,000 will get primary viral or secondary bacterial pneumonia.
5000 will have a febrile convulsion.
1000 will get encephalitis (ADEM or SSPE), 100 of whom will die and 2-300 will have residual brain damage.
1000 will get various other problems such as hepatitis, myocarditis, thrombocytopenia or miscarriage if caught in pregnancy.
PS….Vaccine Injuries Alien abductions are not rare…they are simply covered up.
Have you ever heard of Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.?
Who is GPI? Figure it out….
Needs more spooky Theremin music.
Tdap has been a U.S. recommendation during pregnancy since 2011, genius.
Robert: "PS….Vaccine Injuries are not rare…they are simply covered up:
An archived link of ambulance chasers who got some rather pathetic claims. Lame.
Let's look at the compensation statistics:
The first table shows the data from the beginning of 2006 to the end of 2013, a total of eight years. The grand total of the first column shows the number of vaccines given from 2006 through 2013, which is 2,236,678,735. Now look at the total number of compensated claims for those eight years: 1,709.
Take note that the majority are settlements, which means there was no real proof the vaccines caused the injury. That is especially true for the influenza vaccine, which the lawyers mostly got a pittance of a compensation for their "clients." (despite their disclaimer, they do get paid from the same fund)
Now what is the ratio of numbers of vaccines given versus compensated claims? Is it a big or small number? Do you know how to divide 2,236,678,735 by 1,709? Would you understand the result?
Then the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers showing vaccines cause more harm than the diseases.
I am wondering why no one is asking any intelligent questions about this bill. Like, how will my child being vaccinated against tetanus reduce the chances of your child getting tetanus? And, why would my child need to get a chicken pox vaccine even though she has already had chicken pox? It almost seems like there is no intelligence behind this at all... I mean many of the vaccines do not address communicable vaccines, yet we have take away people's religious freedoms in order to "protect" school children? Umm... logic anyone?
Ms. Jones: "Like, how will my child being vaccinated against tetanus reduce the chances of your child getting tetanus? "
Because you cannot get the pertussis vaccine without getting the other two. Also, what kind of person would want their child vulnerable to tetanus? While it is not often encountered, it does occasionally happen with children being put on ventilators: Philosophic Objection to Vaccination as a Risk for Tetanus Among Children Younger Than 15 Years.
"And, why would my child need to get a chicken pox vaccine even though she has already had chicken pox?"
Perhaps you can provide proof your child had chicken pox. Get the records from your pediatrician and get some titers. Also, why would you want your child to suffer up to two weeks with dozens of itchy open wounds (pox)? That is a horrible thing to have a child go through when it is preventable with a safe vaccine. I know this because my kids got it the year before the vaccine came out, I do not think highly of those who actively avoid preventing that kind of misery.
" I mean many of the vaccines do not address communicable vaccines,"
The ones required for school attendance are for communicable diseases. The vaccines required for California are diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, hepatitis b (which is transmitted by kids to kids), measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella. Which one of those is not transmittable?
Also what religions prohibit those vaccines. Be specific and provide verifiable documentation.
You can also explain which of those vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases, Be sure to provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers to support your answer.
Measles notifications and deaths in England and Wales: 1940 to 2013
Measles notifications and deaths in England and Wales: 1940 to 2013
As has been noted over and over again, this question isn't even a red herring.
IIRC, these are the second and third times you've posted these, the first time carrying the very stupid qualifier "complications."
So here's your homework: go through and convert the tallies into numbers that are directly comparable to those in the comment that you're "replying" to.
AoA comment of the day about the passage of SB 277:
They need to stop making the CDC vax injury rates so accessable on the internet. Some people read that maybe 1 in 1000 people die after getting a vax and they suddley will not vax their child anymore. There is no good reason to risk millions of lives over a broad statistic.
If 1 in 1000 people died after getting a vax, the FDA would pull it from the market immediately, in the absurd scenario where it somehow managed to get approved in the first place.
After all, RotaShield was a lot less dangerous than that, and it got withdrawn from the market.
Nan, please provide the link to the CDC's vaccine injury rates showing that 1 in 1000 people die after vaccinations.
Nan, It is vital for the public trust that all of that data is publicly available. If it's all right there then no one can say it is being "covered up".
In fact, the American public thinks this is so important that there are actually laws requiring the publication of this kind of data.
Sadly, you can't make sure that people understand it (read 1 in 1000 when it's actually 1 in 1000000) or use it in a way that scientists or doctors or public health professionals want. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
I use some forms of alternative medicine, but mostly just healthy lifestyle. My child had an adverse reaction to a vaccine. He has always been extremely sensitive to all pharmaceutical products. He is now 21 and quite healthy I am very glad to report. I did stop having him vaccinated at 9 months. I am not an extremist, but I know that some people are very sensitive and cannot tolerate vaccines, especially when they are infants.
Why would anyone want the CDC's vax injury rates to be unpublished? Sounds like a slippery slope to me.
As far as all school-required vaccines being for communicable diseases, isn't Hepatitis B a sexually transmitted disease? My kindergartener needs to be protected from that?
It wasn't a very well-thought-through idea. That's why no one thought that it was a good idea.
Hepatitis B is also easily transmitted through contact with blood or saliva. Kindergärtners bleed and bite.
The wingnuts are in the minority but they are so vocal they get state assembly cowardice up to an all time high. http://ww2.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2015/06/03/two-thirds-of-californians…
Here is an article from one of the worst offender counties in the state with low vax rates http://www.newtimesslo.com/news/12432/bill-to-kill-vaccine-opt-outs-sb-…
"As a result of that outbreak, legislators in some states started getting a bit of backbone and have tried to curtail nonmedical exemptions to school vaccine mandates. Unfortunately, they failed in Oregon....We might as well go for the policy that will be most likely to prevent future outbreaks."
Orac, you can imagine my personal reaction to reading the above.
You will recall that only a few years ago, as chair of a policy institute’s committee on vaccination, you shut down discussion because you would hear no further additional arguments for creating a policy that opposed belief exemptions. When I said that it was no time for the institute to be "timid" on this issue, that the science on vaccines has clearly determined what is best for children and communities, you got all huffy, dismissing the point by claiming I had called you a "coward."
Well, now it's pretty clear, in my opinion, that when it comes to creating science-based policy, some people can prove to be a destructively obstreperous when they allow their (shifting) political and personal perceptions to have greater weight than the science.
You may also recall that the problems I had with the first draft of the policy went far beyond the disagreement over whether any nonmedical exemptions should be permitted.
Good grief, first drafts typically undergo lots of changes. You are evading the truth. I am referring to your position on belief exemptions, specifically on preserving the religious exemption.
Your position at that time was that any stance against religious exemptions was too Draconian in a democracy, dismissing out of hand the well-established legal rights of children in the USA (Novak; Khalili & Caplan). You opposed fully and unshakably those who argued for a scientific basis rather than political expediency on the issue.
I've had this argument with Orac before, but I was the one defending religious exemptions. From a practical standpoint, trying to simultaneously eliminate them with philosophical exemptions is doomed. From a tactical one, they're unconstitutional, but that's a longer view than whatever "policy draft" that's the source of this venting.
Linda is apparently attempting to air what she sees as dirty laundry, a dispute from our days at the Institute for Science in Medicine (where for a time I chaired the vaccine committee), and gloating that I've become a bit more hard line in my views than I was a few years ago. Of course, I always considered the discussions on the committee to have been (and to be) private. That's why since my time on ISM I've never discussed disagreements voiced in that committee with anyone who wasn't on the committee or on ISM's board, much less tried to air them in public in the comment section of a blog.
Never heard of it.
Orac: The idea that these were private discussions is true enough, and I haven't been quoting any of them or even revealed the name of the organization. But I have been characterizing, I think accurately, your hard and fast opposition to the repeal of religious exemptions.
Now to publicly claim that "legislators in some states started getting a bit of backbone" suggests that they are merely catching up with your long-held position. This pretense at rectitude is what made my gorge rise.
There could have been, alas, a forceful public statement by experts opposing belief exemption four years ago, but for your opposition at that time.
So you have been knowingly revealing the content of what you understand to have been a private discussion, but only in such a manner that Orac's statements arenot only not reproduced accurately but also are completely removed from context--that's you're position?
I was a party to those discussions. Orac has always been in favor of removing all non-medical exemptions. As I remember it,
the disagreement was not about whether religious exemptions should be repealed, but about the wording of the organization's policy statement. The concerns that Orac raised and that I and others on the committee shared were mainly about public perceptions and practicality. The failure to issue a forceful public statement cannot be blamed on Orac alone.
Linda somehow misremembers that it was all me, me, me, when in fact she couldn't sway the committee to her views and remained in a small minority on the committee despite multiple—shall we say?—increasingly concerted attempts to sway the rest. And that's all I'll say for now—unless Linda decides to violate the privacy of the conversations again.
I am pro-vaccine, but more that that pro vaccine safety...and above that I believe in a parents right to research and decide what is best for their child. It is obvious that you have never sat across from a parent of a vaccine injured child and that child's family. It is also obvious that you haven't heard of the vaccine injury court which exists...which in your convoluted thinking means vaccine injury is "real" now because the government says so. The thing that bothers me most about your spouting is the complete and utter disregard you have for other people and their experiences. Both sides have been affected and vaccine injury does exist...just look at the CDC website. Get off your high horse and start talking to real people and listening with your heart instead of your "need to be justified" ego. We're all people here and you are no better than those families who are caring for those children who have been injured by vaccines. My hope for you is that you are able to open your heart and mind to views other than your own. Stop justifying and start listening. I've done my research on both sides. Have you?
No it isn't obvious Noel Brit because I have actually spoken with parents whose children have experienced real vaccine injuries and what isn't obvious to you is how the NVICP is set up. The evidenciary standard is "50% and a feather" which means that it is more likely than not i.e. not even proved that a vaccine was responsible for said injury which means erring on the side of caution.
What people like you seem to have a hard time understanding is that just because a parent thinks their child has a vaccine injury doesn't make it so. The parents may believe it with all their hearts but emotive stories are just that and when you dig a little deeper, it's not hard to see how history has been revised (I can pull up a dozen NVICP cases to demonstrate in a flash). If you want to be a rube, go right ahead but your plea for us to be just because you wish to fall for appeals to emotion is going to be severely challenged.
" It is obvious that you have never sat across from a parent of a vaccine injured child and that child’s family."
I have a child injured by an actual disease. Tell how that is different, and which is most likely to occur.
"It is also obvious that you haven’t heard of the vaccine injury court which exists"
Why would you say that? Have you just stumbled upon this blog?
Here is a little math word problem for you to ponder: go to:
Now look at the first table, scroll down to the last line with the "Grand Total." You will notice that the total number of vaccine doses given between 01/01/2006 through 12/31/2013 is 2,236,678,735. Then run your finger along that row until you get to the column of compensated cases, which is 1,723. Now divide that number into the total number of vaccine doses. Is it high or low number? What does it mean? Show your work.
Another question: so how does actually getting measles, mumps, pertussis compare? Is it better to get sick than to get the vaccine? Provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that the vaccine causes more harm than the disease.
Can you explain why there is a column marked "Settlements" with an explanation underneath?
After a fashion.
Yes, actually. And what I've found is that the antivaccine (sorry, pro safe vaccine) side lies. It exaggerates and even flat out lies about the risks of vaccination, downplays its effectiveness as a tool to fight disease and downplays the harms vaccine preventable diseases cause.
My Irony and Hypocrisy Meters just melted.
The rest of your sanctimonious little rant has already been dismantled by Science Mom and Chris.
" I’ve done my research on both sides. Have you?"
Whenever I hear this argument, I like to turn it back around. Ok, if you have done your research, did you learn the pertinent concepts, statistics, and logic used when evaluating vaccine safety and efficacy?
Do you know the difference between absolute and relative risk? Do you understand what cognitive biases are? Do you understand sample size and how it affects the power of a study? Do you understand the difference between a cohort or case control study? What is P-value? What does it mean? What does it NOT mean? What is the VAERS and what does a report in that system actually mean? Do you understand how correlation is not causation? What is 'falsifiability' and conversely what is an 'unfalsifiable' argument?
If any of those concepts are foreign to you, you don't have the proper tools to evaluate vaccine research. Further, if those you got your 'research' from similarly don't understand them, it is nothing more than the blind leading the blind.
Lastly, if you DO understand those concepts . . . when you evaluate the current state of vaccine safety and efficacy, there is only one conclusion that can be rationally deduced...
Noel, no one is unaware that there are known adverse consequences associated with vaccination. Those that are common, however, are both minor and transient (e.g., soreness at the site of injection, low grade ever, etc.) while those that are serious (e.g., encephalopathy) are all but vanishingly rare. Any rational assessment of relative risk demonstrates the risks associated with being vaccinated are far, far lower (often by orders of magnitude) than the risks assocaited with reamining vulnerable to the infectious diseases vaccines protect against.
What injuries do you beleiee these children have suffered as a consequence of routine vaccination, such that caring for them is such a burdensome task? Be specific--and please note that as the development of autism spectrum and other neurodevelopmental disorders has not been causally associated with routine vaccination you will be wasting everyone's time by offering children with autism as an example of vaccine injury.