SB 277 clears another major legislative hurdle

I bet antivaccinationists would be annoyed if they knew what I was up to yesterday. This week, our department had a visiting professor for Grand Rounds, and that professor was a Nobel laureate. Of course, it's not every day that we have a Nobel laureate visiting us (actually, it's rare). This time around the Nobel laureat visiting us was Harald zur Hausen. He won a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2008 for a discovery he made decades ago, namely his discovery of the role of papilloma viruses in causing human cervical cancer. Yes, antivaxers, not only did I meet the man whose science gave the rationale for the later development of HPV vaccines like Gardasil and Cervarix, but I got to sit at the same table with him at the dinner in his honor last night.

As a result of that, I got home rather late and didn't have the time to produce my usual epic Insolence last night, leading to a rushed composition of this before I went to work. However, I doubt any one will begrudge me that, and if anyone does, I don't really care. In the meantime, by the time I got home I had had a long day in the OR, where the air conditioning was on the fritz, leading to rather uncomfortable working conditions. I was so beat that I didn't notice until I got up earlier than usual this morning that something great had happened. A bill to eliminate nonmedical exemptions (SB 277, which has been discussed here multiple times before) that's been wending its way through the California legislature, had cleared another hurdle blocking its way to passage:

California lawmakers on Tuesday approved a hotly contested bill that would impose one of the strictest vaccination laws in the country, after five hours of highly emotional testimony that brought hundreds of opponents to the Capitol.

SB277 is intended to boost vaccination rates after a measles outbreak at Disneyland that sickened more than 100 in the U.S. and Mexico. It has prompted the most contentious legislative debate of the year with thousands of opponents taking to social media and legislative hearings to protest the legislation.

The Assembly Health Committee approved the legislation 12-6 Tuesday evening with one lawmaker abstaining, sending it to the full Assembly for its final legislative hurdle.

If the bill becomes law, California would join Mississippi and West Virginia as the only states with such strict requirements.

To be honest, I was amazed in a good way. When SB 277 was first introduced into the California Senate by Senators Richard Pan and Ben Allen in the wake of the Disneyland measles outbreak, I thought it was a good thing, but I was pessimistic about its prospects of ultimately becoming law. The reason was simple. SB 277 would eliminate religious and philosophic exemptions to school vaccine mandates in a state with high concentrations of antivaccine belief and some of the most famous antivaccine pediatricians out there (e.g., Jay Gordon and Bob Sears, who are antivaccine although they swear otherwise), as well as a large Hollywood contingent of really dumb celebrity antivaccinationists like Rob Schneider. And, no doubt, the antivaccine contingent did fight tooth and nail against SB 277, as they had done unsuccessfully against AB 2109, which had only proposed to make it more difficult to obtain nonmedical exemptions (i.e., religious or philosophical exemptions) to school vaccine mandates. As I noted yesterday, they mobilized on Twitter and tried to co-opt libertarian/conservative rhetoric to make the issue about "health freedom" and "parental rights" rather than about protecting children, because it's always all about them more than anything else, not their children.

When they failed to prevent SB 277 from passing the Senate three weeks ago, they lost it.Now the bill is in the Assembly, and they failed to prevent it from passing its major committee hurdle, the Assembly Health Committee, and not by a little. I and other observers had been concerned that the vote would be close and that SB 277 might not even make it out of committee, but the Assembly Health Committee provided the antivaccinationists a resounding rebuke, despite their bringing in protesters, and antivaccine luminaries like Dr. Jay Gordon, who, in a fit of derpitude, tried to argue that because the Disneyland measles outbreak didn't occur in a school and SB 277 wouldn't have prevented it then it's not necessary. Not surprisingly, Barbara Loe Fisher testified as well. It also probably didn't help the antivaccine cause that in the lead up to the committee hearing the American Medical Association weighed in at its annual meeting as supporting the elimination of nonmedical exemptions, producing stories like this appearing on the morning of the hearing:

The American Medical Association, the country's largest association of physicians, is weighing in on the vaccination debate by supporting the end of personal vaccination exemptions on both the state and federal levels.

At the group's annual meeting in Chicago on Monday, members voted to mobilize the organization in order to persuade state legislatures to eliminate nonmedical reasons for exemption, such as religion, which are used to dodge crucial immunizations against diseases such as measles and whooping cough.

"As evident from the recent measles outbreak at Disneyland, protecting community health in today’s mobile society requires that policymakers not permit individuals from opting out of immunization solely as a matter of personal preference or convenience," said board member Dr. Patrice Harris, according to Forbes. "When people are immunized they also help prevent the spread of disease to others."

Yes.

So what next? SB 277 will go in front of the full Assembly for debate and final vote. Look for the antivax Twittersphere and the antivaccine contingent to crank up the crazy to 11, even though arguably in a way they are their own worst enemies, examples being threats against legislators and using full blown conspiracy theories to justify their opposition, you know, normal behavior in the antivaccine movement. The question is: Will SB 277 pass? That, I don't know, but it's gotten further than I ever would have predicted, and its progress is starting to take on an air of inevitability, to the point where one of our favorite antivaccine Dunning-Kruger examples, Ginger Taylor, is declaring that SB 277 is a "victory" for the antivaccine cause.

If SB 277 passes, though, I do worry about some things. Most importantly, I worry that Governor Jerry Brown will betray California children and sabotage the new law, as he did when AB 2109 passed by adding a signing statement instructing the California Department of Public Health to allow a check box for a religious exemption on the form that needed to be signed, thus bypassing the requirement for consulting with a pediatrician or health care provider to learn the benefits and risks of vaccines. There was no provision for doing that in AB 2109, but that didn't stop Brown from crippling the law. Given his deference to religion, I could easily see him doing that again. I could also see him putting pressure on the legislature not to eliminate religious exemptions, with the implicit threat of a veto. We shall see.

Depressingly, in the meantime, the very same magazine that published the excellent network analysis of the antivaccine Twittersphere that I discussed yesterday published a terrible bit of anti-SB 277 propaganda by senior editor Sarah Fallon that parroted lines straight from the antivaccine movement. For instance, there is this straw man:

Now, there are those who might say vaccines are perfectly safe, so what’s the harm in requiring them. Like a seatbelt, right? But vaccines are not quite like seatbelts. For one thing, if your seatbelt goes wrong, or isn’t really that safe, you can sue the car manufacturer, or you can stop buying its cars.

If there's someone out there who says that vaccines are "perfectly safe," I've never encountered him, and I've been looking for a decade. I mean, seriously. At the risk of never being asked to write an article for WIRED while Fallon is editor, I can't help but say it. There's just no other way to put it: This is major derpitude, and Fallon should be embarrassed for having written that paragraph. (Heck, she should be embarrassed for having written the whole article!) It's an argument straight out of the antivaccine playbook that completely ignores the history of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 that created the Vaccine Court funded by a surcharge on vaccines and required that vaccine injury cases first go through this court. At the time, bogus lawsuits were driving vaccine manufacturers out of the country, threatening the vaccine program. Trial lawyers and antivaccine activists would love to go back to those bad old days, even though obtaining compensation through the Vaccine Court is easier and more straightforward than regular courts and the Vaccine Court pays complainants' legal fees, win or lose.

There's so much else wrong with this article. Fallon touts high vaccination rates in California, but fails to note that the overall vaccination rate in California is not the problem. It's the pockets of low vaccine uptake that compromise herd immunity that exist in abundance. She trots out anti-big pharma rhetoric (distrust of big pharma and/or anticorporatism being, most likely, her motivation for this piece). She cites the Cochrane Review that criticized the design of studies examining the safety of MMR but ignores the part where the review also concludes that exposure to the MMR vaccine was "unlikely to be associated with autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn's disease, demyelinating diseases, bacterial or viral infections." She cites the case of the "Merck whistleblower" with no nuance (and, apparently, not much understanding of what the case was about and what the findings meant).

Unfortunately, even as California appears to be marching forward with measures to protect its children from infectious disease, it could be people like Sarah Fallon, who in their desire to appear "reasonable" über alles in comparison to (apparently) us pro-vaccine advocates aid and abet the antivaccine movement.

Categories

More like this

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…
The Disneyland measles outbreak began over the Christmas holidays of 2014 and continued for several months into 2015, ultimately spanning eight states and two additional countries (Canada and Mexico). It also represented a seismic shift in the battle to contain the malign influence of the…
Antivaccine activism endangers children. Of that there is no longer any doubt. As vaccination rates fall, the risk of outbreaks of dangerous vaccine-preventable infectious diseases among children rise. In the wake of the Disneyland measles outbreak earlier this year, several states introduced…
Late last week, something happened that I never would have predicted, and it's all due to how the politics of the issue changed in the wake of the Disneyland measles outbreak earlier this year. The state that contains some of the most famous pockets of low vaccine uptake and some of the most famous…

I don't think Fallon thought his seatbelt analogy through - I've used the same analogy to make the opposite point. Everyone knows that wearing a seatbelt carries some risk of being injured or trapped by it in the event of a car crash, but most also people accept that seatbelts significantly reduce the risk of being seriously injured or killed in a car crash. For this reason, most people don't have any problem with "forcing" parents to buckle up their kids: we accept that the state has the authority to enforce a certain baseline level of childcare, and that seatbelts qualify because the evidence is very clear that the benefits far outweigh the risks.

Most people also understand that the same thing that makes a seatbelt work - the fact that it restrains you - is also what makes it potentially dangerous (to use the legal classification that antivaxxers love to abuse, seabelts are "unavoidably unsafe.") What many people don't seem to understand is that the same is true of vaccines: they protect us from disease by stimulating an immune response, and the immune response itself carries inherent risks, whether its caused by a vaccine or a pathogen. There may be incremental improvements in safety, but there will never be a 100% safe vaccine, just like there will never be a 100% safe seatbelt. But you can't sue an auto manufacturer if you're injured by a properly designed seatbelt that was just doing its job of keeping you in the car. Similarly, the gov't set up the NVIC to prevent people from suing pharmaceutical companies out of business when adverse events are caused, not by a manufacturing defect, etc, but by the vaccine doing exactly what it was designed to do.

Kudos to the AMA for standing up for vaccines and the elimination of nonmedical exemptions. And shame on the American Academy of Pediatrics for not having similar courage to do so.

By Chris Hickie (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

From Fallon's article: "For example, parents might elect to get their child immunized against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, and pertussis, but decide, not totally unreasonably, not to vaccinate their kid against hepatitis B. (Hepatitis B is not a readily transmissible disease—it’s mainly spread through sexual contact and intravenous drug use.)"

So I'm guessing it's not totally unreasonable to live in a world where children never bite their playmates, or scrape their knees and have it tended to by a teacher, a coach...get hit in the face with a soccer ball, bloody nose....nope, that would never happen.

More than a third of chronic infections are acquired by children. Major derpitude indeed.

Thank you Sarah A, that was a brilliant analogy.

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

@ Delphine

Also what's mind boggling is the fact that she believe that it's somehow reasonable to not protect a child against Hepatitis B when we actually have a way to do so via vaccine. Their only excuse is that it's a STD. As if protecting against STD is bad.

Senator Pan did a brilliant thing during the hearing -- one of the committee members asked Dr Gordon about thimerosal, and he conceded that thimerosal has mostly been eliminated from childhood vaccines except for multidose flu, and that thimerosal containing vaccines are safe. The member then asked Dr Pan if he agreed, and Dr Pan responded by asking Barbara Lowe Fisher what *she* had to say. She meekly stated that Dr Gordon was correct. Any future statements by her to the contrary should be immediately rebutted with her own documented testimony.

By asdadddad (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

@Julian Frost

Thanks - I belatedly realized it would be more useful to post it over on the Wired article itself. Come join the party - we can't let the antivaxxers have all the fun ;)

@Sarah A

Well, technically a person could sue a car/seatbelt manufacturer for a seatbelt doing exactly what it was designed to do, but they'd probably lose.

With vaccines, people are instead forced to use a system that is much more in their favor: all attorney's fees paid, win or lose; certain injuries presumed without having to offer much in the way of evidence; lack of Daubert rules for proving other injuries.

Part of where Fallon's analogy breaks down is the bit about just switching to a different car company. The irony of the history of NVCIA and VICP is that it's precisely because there were so many lawsuits, many without merit, that we have so few vaccine manufacturers. Most vaccine makers simply shut their doors because the risk of defending suits was too great, even if the suit had no merit. Without the panic and rush of suits in the late 70s/early 80s, we would likely have far more competition and innovation in vaccines today.

As has been discussed here already, the one effective Lyme Disease vaccine that was available was pulled, because of anti-vax nuttiness and frivolous lawsuits.

@Lawrence

There was also the problem that the manufacturer aligned themselves with the chronic Lyme crew, thinking they'd help get the vaccine approved, but the CL folks turned on them and opposed the vaccine because the makers were firm that Lyme was preventable and could be relatively easily treated.

Well Jay Gordon has apparently not learned a thing despite his frequent protestations on this block. Here is how media presented his testimony: "Doctor Jay Gordon testified the bill takes away the rights of parents to make informed medical decisions with their own doctors.
“It’s a bad bill,” he said. “It’ll create many problems and it’ll solve none."

So he thinks that higher vax uptake rates, resulting in lower incidence of measles, pertussis, tetanus, etc. is a bad thing??

And obviously, the bill does nothing whatsoever to obstruct informed decisions. If in the parent;s great wisdom the vaccine conflicts with deep held beliefs (ie., delusions) the bill would require home schooling but that is the price one must pay for having a delusional system which puts others at risk.

Considering the emphasis on martyrdom in many of the so called great relgions, with people being crucified and thrown to lions etc., one would think that these nutjobs would welcome the trial and tribulations of home schooling, where they could teach that Satan put all those dinosaur bones in the geosphere to trick us into believing in evolution etc...

@Barefoot

one would think that these nutjobs would welcome the trial and tribulations of home schooling, where they could teach that Satan put all those dinosaur bones in the geosphere to trick us into believing in evolution etc…

Yes, but homeschooling is an inconvenience to those non-vaxing parents. It requires them to take responsibility for their choices, something which they try to avoid at all costs.

I prefer analogies to obeying traffic laws, so that there is a danger to others, like with not vaccinating. How dare you oppose my right to go over the speed limit, and yes I have (bad) reasons why I think it's safer.

2 worries: I don't think I know of good evidence that the law being proposed will in fact increase the vaccination rate. I also wondered if it's possible it could increase the percent unvaxed in a few high-concentration areas, such as private schools with no policies.

So... how do we get the AAP on board with the AMA?

That "Victory" for the anti-vax folks piece mentions that they will get to take things to court. I suppose they've been beating the hell out of the West Virginia and Mississippi laws, and I just never noticed.

#13 RE " I don’t think I know of good evidence that the law being proposed will in fact increase the vaccination rate"

Even if it does not it will keep the infectious little buggers out of the public school and the outbreaks will be largely confined to the homeschooler where they can use faith healing, exorcism, aroma therapy or whatever it is they do when thier kids run a fever of 104.

RE it could increase the percent unvaxed in a few high-concentration areas, such as private schools

Not clear what machanism would cause vax uptakes to decline unless you are postulating that people would non-vaccinate out of sheer spite or as an antigovernment protest. But if so, note that 277 applies to private schools as well as public schools, so it would only be homeschoolers who would have the suicidal option of not vaccinating. And in time there will be headlines when their cohort of unvaccinated kids break out with various VPD's such as the recent reappearance of diptheria in Spain, after a 28 year hiatus, or the antivaxx mommy who's seven (7) kids developed pertussis.

In CA SB277 testimony, there was also a very sad letter from the doctor of a 4-year old who "will die in several months from a complication of measles contracted when the infant was only 5 months old…" (http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_28282200/vaccine-bill-protesters-r…)

I would hope that this would cause anti-vaxxers to rethink their stance that measles is natural and benign, but realistically it will probably just make them move the goal posts. It will mean that they can no longer say that the measles virus doesn't cause death within the US. Sucks that they couldn't just understand low number statistics to begin with.

By Aglaonice (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

But vaccines are not quite like seatbelts. For one thing, if your seatbelt goes wrong, or isn’t really that safe, you can sue the car manufacturer, or you can stop buying its cars.

As other posters have mentioned, Fallon did not think this analogy through. One of the purposes of seatbelts is to keep the driver in position during some kinds of minor incidents, such as sideswiping a guard rail. If the driver is still behind the wheel, there is some chance he can regain control of the vehicle and therefore not be a menace to his passengers or the occupants of other vehicles around him. Likewise, you may be exposed to a pathogen, but if you have been successfully vaccinated, you will not go on to expose other people to this pathogen. That's a big part of what herd immunity is for: to minimize the danger to those people who (1) for medical reasons cannot or should not be vaccinated or (2) do not acquire immunity from the vaccination.

Not to mention the minor detail that if your seatbelt does not work properly, there is a good chance that you will never buy another vehicle again, because you will not have survived the accident, or be too crippled to ever drive again. So it's your heirs, not you, who will decide whether to sue the manufacturer or not buy their products again. Likewise, vaccine preventable diseases are no joke: serious complications, or even death, can result from contracting many of these diseases.

By Eric Lund (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Thankyou Barefoot, for fixing my ignorance. I was worried it would cause the unvaxed to bunch up more, not that their numbers would increase (for my second worry). Did not know private schools were covered.

to use the legal classification that antivaxxers love to abuse, seabelts are “unavoidably unsafe.”

Nope.

Lol when I saw you over in the Wired comments, I had a feeling you'd written about Fallon's piece. Thanks for doing it so well.

It was an All-Star AntiVax lineup last night for the SB277 health committee hearing! Not only Jay and Barb as witnesses, but Toni Bark and Dr Bob were there to offer their opposition in the public comments. Of course, none of them are antivax. Just ask them!

A few things that struck me:
Witnesses for the opposition couldn't agree on answers.
Jay Gordon insulted the assemblywoman who asked about the ease with which doctors can write medical exemptions.
The two red-shirt ladies that started screaming and yelling and had to be removed.
Using children as a prop and parading them in public — for more than 5 hours.
There is more, of course, including everything you pointed out, Orac.

It was like watching I was watching "AntiVaxxers Storm Social Media, the Movie."

I am so impressed with Dr Pan and Senator Allen. Throughout this process, they have handled themselves (and the material), masterfully. It has been fascinating to watch this bill wind its way through the process. I sincerely hope Gov Brown will sign this into law.

By I am not a doctor (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Todd, the Real #13
"homeschooling is an inconvenience to those non-vaxing parents. It requires them to take responsibility for their choices, something which they try to avoid"

I agree there is a lot of failure to take responsibility on the part of antivaxxers but consider the inverse proposition that they can and do when their kids develope VPD's eg
the now-destined-to-be-famous Spanish Diptheria rReappearance

ttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/10/spain-catches-anti-vaxx-fever…

Those parents did the right thing: lashing out at the antivax snake oil pushers.

I can hear johnny already: those parents of the Spanish child gave him sugar, or GMOs or ...or...or.... Because *healthy* unimmunized children don't end up fighting for their lives from a VPD.

And Toto, Keith, and all the other liars can chime in with their own raison du etre ... the boy must not have been breastfed, or fed purely organic foods, or has a gut problem or whatever. NONE of those jerks will ever admit their suggestions will lead to a child's death.

(BTW...does anyone know how the child in Ontario with tetanus is doing? I'm at work and can't find any sites with info.)

Correction - *could* lead to a child's death. I'm hoping very much this child doesn't die.

And my heart breaks for the poor parents watching their baby die of SSPS from the measles. But again, I'm sure the lowlifes mentioned above will readily find SOME way to blame the parents rather than their own antivax lies.

@ Narad #21

Could you elaborate? IANAL but it seems like seat belts have the basic characteristics of an "unavoidably unsafe" product (at least based on this explanation of the term - I know its probably drastically oversimplified.) Or did you just mean that seat belts aren't actually legally classified as "unavoidably unsafe?" I didn't mean to imply that they were (I probably should have made that clearer), I was just trying to draw an analogy between vaccines (which are classified as "unavoidably unsafe" and a similar (sort of) product where it's more intuitive why it can't, by its very nature, be completely safe.

Also (not specifically @Narad) what's with the red shirts? Didn't any of these people ever watch Star Trek?

To build on the seatbelt analogy a bit, well put by Sarah A, wearing your seatbelt also helps protect other people in the car with you from injury and death. Unbelted people become projectiles in the event of a crash, like all of the other debris in your car. Serious and fatal injuries can occur when unbelted people smash into other people.

In the same way, vaccines protect not only you, but the people around you, from infectious diseases.

Buckle up and get vaccinated; it's good for you, and it's good for your community.

Good timeing when AMA came out with it's endorsement of SB277-type legislation. (Of course, the woo woo mob will go crazy...) But note this uncharacteristically blunt statement:

The former president of the AAP, David T. Tayloe, MD, stepped up to the mic and reminded everyone that the AAP policy calls for no non-medical exemptions whatsoever. "The AMA does not need to leave a loophole in its policy for the likes of Jenny McCarthy, Bob Sears, etc ... Our vaccines are extremely safe

I would love to see the AMA take action against MDs that actively promote anti-vax ideals.....

@Sarah A

The antivaxxers decided to all wear red when they show up at these hearings (i think this makes #4).

I guess having everybody wear the same color shows BigGovernment they are dealing with some truly independent thinkers, unlike all us stupid sheeple.
Lmao.

By I am not a doctor (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Lawrence I think plenty are disgusted when they see patients with VPD's. Maybe if private citizens collect collate and index various misrepresentations there will be a sufficient case against these quacks if the information is presented to petition AAP, CaMA or even the Attorney General. There are so many egregious falsifications even just on the web and their Youtubes IMHO it is doable and even if they retained their licenses they might get formal letters of admonishment or adverse publicity that would increase vax uptake. ALso, AJWakefield is making the rounds in California spewing his falsifications, that might be actionable under Ca law. Every time he dispenses medical advice he is violating the law.

Yes, but homeschooling is an inconvenience to those non-vaxing parents. It requires them to take responsibility for their choices, something which they try to avoid at all costs.

Some anti-vax parents, yes. But as has been mentioned on other threads, there is significant overlap between anti-vaxers and the Quiverfull movement, a bunch of religious lunatics who are very much into homeschooling. The Duggars, who have been in the news a bit recently, are the poster children (and I include the alleged adults in that description) for the Quiverfull movement (I have no evidence that the Duggars specifically, or a majority of Quiverfull parents generally, are anti-vax). There are probably other homeschool types in the anti-vax movement.

SB277 does not and cannot solve the problem of what to do with the children of anti-vaxers who homeschool. What it will do is stop these parents from inflicting their kids on other parents' children. Certain private schools, notably some of the Montessori and Waldorf schools, have developed a reputation for being anti-vax friendly, but not all parents of children in those schools may realize this.

By Eric Lund (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

...antivaccine luminaries like Dr. Jay Gordon, who, in a fit of derpitude, tried to argue that because the Disneyland measles outbreak didn’t occur in a school and SB 277 wouldn’t have prevented it then it’s not necessary.

That's like arguing there's no need to enforce a fire code at a warehouse because the last fire leveled a barn.

By kosk11348 (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

In some legislative settings, there are rules against holding up signs, shouting out, and other methods of interrupting the quiet order of the proceedings. Thus, organized groups long ago figured out that if they all wear the same shirt, the message will get through without them being ejected.

Bob Sears actually did a radio commercial that was broadcast in Los Angeles the day before the committee hearing. He spoke of 30,000 vaccine reactions, $3 billion paid by the vaccine fund, and the right to health freedom.

@MI Dawn

As far as I know, SSPE is universally fatal, so "will" is an appropriate, if depressing, word to use. At least, I don't believe there have ever been any cases of SSPE where the individual survived the complication.

@Eric Lund

You may be correct. During the public comment section of the hearing yesterday, there were a number of people opposing SB277 who mentioned they had lots of kids. I heard a couple different people mentioning 5 or 7 kids.

@ Barefoot #11: SB277 will fix the dangerous drop in vaccination brought about by Jay Gordon and Bob Sears--so for Gordon to blather that SB277 fixes no problems is ironic.

@ Barefoot #29: The AAP is all talk and no action unless they expel Sears and Gordon from their membership. For Tayloe to criticize the AMA about leaving a loophole in its policy for the likes of Sears is ridiculous given that the AAP doesn't have the courage of its convictions to sanction Sears (and Gordon).

By Chris Hickie (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Certain private schools, notably some of the Montessori and Waldorf schools, have developed a reputation for being anti-vax friendly, but not all parents of children in those schools may realize this.

Huh; I hadn't heard that about Montessori, but I guess it's true at some of the schools, although the Waldorf connection is much more obvious.

Incidentally, I notice that the Oregonian has a searchable map of vaccination rates up now, and data-at-a-glance type charts. I remember poring over the raw data this winter... but, in any case, Waldorf definitely stands out.

I am not a doctor@32:

I guess having everybody wear the same color shows BigGovernment they are dealing with some truly independent thinkers, unlike all us stupid sheeple.

Curse you. Thanks a lot Big Pharma for not giving us a vaccine against keyboard coffee spew.

@has

Be sure to detox your keyboard with some coconut oil and some breastmilk.

Lmao.

By I am not a doctor (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

I am not a doctor@22:

The two red-shirt ladies that started screaming and yelling and had to be removed.
Using children as a prop and parading them in public — for more than 5 hours.

I cannot imagine how hideously humiliating it must be to be stuck in a committee room for five long hours with a bunch of screeching emotional 2-year-olds throwing tantrums all around you. My sympathies to those kids and I hope their parents grow out of it eventually.

IANAD @32:

Brian: "We're all individuals!"

Crowd (in unison): "We're all individuals!"

Isolated voice: "I'm not ... "

By palindrom (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

I am not a doctor@42:

Be sure to detox your keyboard with some coconut oil and some breastmilk.

You mean breastmilk bought online? Because the last time it didn't smell like milk and left my keyboard even stickier than before.

It will mean that they can no longer say that the measles virus doesn’t cause death within the US.

Why? The previous 32 deaths from SSPE haven't forced anyone into a sudden attack of honesty.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

I am surprised as well the bill has made it this far. After watching others go down in flames I am hoping that the CA legislature will hold firm and pass it. Of course that does leave it open to the governor who has not shown himself a fan of pro-vaccine legislation. I will continue to cross my fingers that it survives intact. If so then perhaps other legislatures can be convinced to take up similar bills before massive outbreaks happen. Miracles can occur. I wish I hadn't heard about the SSPE case. It makes me so sad. I feel for the child and parents, but no I don't think it will matter one whit to the anti-vaxxers. They care only for themselves, not for the suffering of others.

Or did you just mean that seat belts aren’t actually legally classified as “unavoidably unsafe?” I didn’t mean to imply that they were (I probably should have made that clearer), I was just trying to draw an analogy between vaccines (which are classified as “unavoidably unsafe” and a similar (sort of) product where it’s more intuitive why it can’t, by its very nature, be completely safe.

First of all, keep in mind that not all states have adopted comment k in the first place, and interpretations can vary by state.

"Unavoidably unsafe" means that a product cannot be made safe and still fulfill its intended purpose and that its utility to, or utilitarian demand within, society outweighs its risks.* As a result, the product – with proper manufacture and warnings – cannot be considered to be defective, and the manufacturer cannot be held strictly liable for the inevitable injuries that result from its normal use. Instead, one would have to prove negligence to recover for an injury due to the product.

Not all products that carry a risk in their normal use qualify, though. Seat belts don't have a chance of being unavoidably unsafe, because they are obviously open to claims of design defect. Almost nothing, in fact, is unavoidably unsafe.

Vaccines are specifically not "unavoidably unsafe" in the sense that the antivaccine nitwits mean – the leading lights have simply elected to declare that Bruesewitz (PDF) says exactly the opposite of what it does: the Court explicitly rejected the Bruesewitzes' claim** that the NCVIA statutorily codifies them as such (slip op. at 2, 9–12), and thus the halfwits who lap this stuff up simply repeat it over and over.

But, the preemption of state design-defect claims that resulted from Bruesewitz should not be confused with the (seeming) incompatibility between being unavoidably unsafe and design-defect claims: state courts are no longer relevant.

There's a brief review of the different state outcomes here:

h[]tp://druganddevicelaw.blogspot.com/2011/04/comment-k-some-of-way.html

* Cigarettes are an exception to the utility formulation.
** Their reasoning was that this would entitle them to a state-court case-by-case determination whether the product was unreasonably unsafe because unavoidably unsafe would represent an affirmative defense. Whether that would have flown is a separate question.

^ And comment k may be going by the wayside anyway, stripping the term of any meaning at all.

I'm impressed with the AMA's stance on this. Hopefully, it amounts to more than just lip service. Makes me want to renew my membership!

By Dr. Chim Richalds (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

@has
Clearly you did it wrong. Like all alternative treatments that don't work, it is your fault. Definitely not because the treatment is BS. /s

And yeah, it was tough hearing all those fussy children. I felt for them.

@palindrom's clever way of putting it prompted a thought in my tiny brain: The red shirts and the logistics of getting to the events (thanks NVIC) is the extent of the AV's ability to be coordinated. After that, they are all over the place. It seems like each one of the, has their own "unique" reason for doing what they do. Collectively, they are the the entire gish gallop. It was almost comical watching Barb and Jay try to coordinate their answers. I suppose that's what happens when a movement is not grounded in anything resembling sound science/logic/reason/reality.

By I am not a doctor (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

There was a particularly strident,and very libertarian commenter at the two recent Wired articles,who said that he really didn't care if the sick,the elderly,or infants caught a VPD and died,because this was a "force" of nature",and society has no right to protect the weak.Since this was a "force of nature" the family of the person who died of the VPD would have no right to sue for just this reason,Ayn Rand would have been proud.This sort of selfish "callous disregard",to steal St,Andrew's phrase,is something we will hear more and more from the more libertarian antis.Don't be too surprised if they crank it up to the next level and start saying the return of VPDs is a good thing,because it would "cull the herd" of the more weaker members of society.If there are not those saying as much already.

By Roger Kulp (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Best AoA comment so far on Taylor's invocation of Toni Bark's delusion:*

We would have to have the worst lawyers in the world to lose this case.

Sadly, neither Finn nor Waldman is licensed in California as far as I'm aware.

* It's preceded by some sort of legal analysis that immediately reveals once again that not a one of them has yet figured out where California's "right to education" comes from, i.e., read the state constitution and noticed that it's not stated.

Ok so they put up yesterday's hearing in the recent archives. And I just had to go back and find that moment in which Jay Gordon insulted Assemblywoman Burke.

She was clarifying her position regarding exemptions. And that she has a conditional exemption for her kid. And that her doctor said they do that regularly.

Jay interrupted and said, "Pardon me if I wasn't clear, but you're an assemblywoman in the state of California. You can get a medical exemption. There's gonna be a lot of families who cannot get a medical exemption."

Because doctors will do things for assemblywomen that they would not offer other people? Because she knows she has influence and uses it as leverage to get what other people can't have? Lmfao this guy is such a condescending liar.

Here's the full video of the meeting. This happens around 2:40:00.
http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=2950

By I am not a doctor (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Sadly, neither Finn nor Waldman is licensed in California as far as I’m aware.

Perhaps Orly Taitz is available.

RE # 55 A standard whine-meme of the AVx crowd is that despite a long list of medical problems, most of which fault of BigVax or BigPharm or just ThosePeople, their kid absolutely will not get a medical exemption under SB277, even in the cases where their own doctor urges them to the notion that a vaccine will kill their spawn in five seconds flat. So this interchange with Jay-Jay is important to digest...it seems that we have a privleged elite - Jay Jay and his minions - hyping anti-elite rhetoric in the proud tradition of Huel Long and, well, dare I say it? a long series of populist orators who throughout history have spell-bound masses with rhetoric against the rick..the exact historical meaning of the word "tyrant"

Nicely put, @barefoot.
Man. They play so dirty.

By I am not a doctor (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Oh, but the Dachelbot provides a delicious RFKʲʳ morsel (emphasis probably added by bot):

Meningococcal meningitis is exceedingly rare. There were only about 390 cases in the US last year and the rates were dropping before the vaccines came into use. In a population of 319 million, that is 1 case in 817,949 people.

Leaving aside the strange approach to the use of significant digits, it's as though he's not aware that the entire population doesn't live in college dormitories. Or when Menactra was licensed, although I'm not about to bother with an undocumented claim.

I was as surprised as anyone, when studying Greek history and philosophy. A tyrant was anciently, if not originally, one who stirred up the unschooled masses against conscientious types. According, at least, to some. I notice also that the petition websites are overwhelmed with anti277 claptrap so I started the new one, narrowly focused on the Jesuitical streak in Jerry Brown, to supplement the pro-and-con petition glut which he will mostly likely not pay too much attention to.

Corrected location link.
#59 RFK Jr also overlooks the menacing advent of meningitis B in the US - at Princeton and UCSB. It was only halted via IND for Novartis Bexsero, after strenuous lobbying by just a few people. Big university forces however could not stand for it so FDA caved despite early CDC resistance to the IND.

Barefoot -- Beautiful sidestepping of a Godwin. Sincerely!

golf clap.

By palindrom (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

I was as surprised as anyone, when studying Greek history and philosophy. A tyrant was anciently, if not originally, one who stirred up the unschooled masses against conscientious types. According, at least, to some.

Plato and Aristotle hew pretty much to the meaning that we have today; even when the word didn't refer to a true sociopathic Ivan the Terrible type, it referred to an authoritarian ruler. I'm curious where you're getting this alternate sense from.

Who are "conscientious types," BTW?

Roger Kulp @#53

I thought a lot of these diseases killed the strong as well because of their over reactive immune system

@ TrUTH

I was mostly repeating what I saw this guy say over at Wired.Antivaxers and logic are mutually exclusive.

I would like to see the AMA go after doctors who actively promote antivax ideas,maybe even revoke their license to practice,but you do risk creating a small army of "martyrs" a la Wakefield.

And speaking of revoked licenses has anyone heard from the Geiers lately?

By Roger Kulp (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

I would like to see the AMA go after doctors who actively promote antivax ideas,maybe even revoke their license to practice

The AMA is not a licensing body.

Speaking of car analogies, I've started to prefer refusing to have working brakes in your car over not using seat belts. Because then you get to tell people that riding on herd immunity is like careening through an intersection and depending on everyone else's brakes to work..

By Sian Williams (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

To Barefoot in re comment 61:
Your definition of tyrant matches the word 'demagogue'.

If I were drinking anything while reading these comments, then I would have had to replace the laptop several times over. I hope California passes this bill and Brown signs it. Whatever happens, I am going to urge my local legislators to take it up.

"In CA SB277 testimony, there was also a very sad letter from the doctor of a 4-year old who “will die in several months from a complication of measles contracted when the infant was only 5 months old…” (http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_28282200/vaccine-bill-protesters-r…)

Doesn't this "doctor" know that the infant "gap" was CREATED by vaccines? Back when everyone had the measles (pre-vaccine), most babies were protected by nursing, because only the WILD-type measles confirms life-long immunity strong enough to pass on to the next generation of babies. Think I am making this up? Just read the CDC's own 1967 document stating this. It also documents that the measles vaccine is a FAILURE. After originally promising only ONE shot, they are now up to THREE, and BABIES ARE NOW VULNERABLE. Vaccines just exchange one problem for many worse ones. Why don't you go hang out with Israelis that just got their OPV. Your scrawny IPV is no match. LOL!
And $billions has been paid out for the suffering (and death) of those injured by vaccines. We all wish we were God, don't we?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1919891/pdf/pubhealthrepori…
http://cmr.asm.org/content/8/2/260.full.pdf

By Toto "The Rock" (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Perhaps Orly Taitz is available.

Excellent choice. Someone should twirp her about the opportunity.

^ Oh, and Charles Carreon still has a California license. I don't know whether he gets out of Arizona much these days, though. I suspect that Tara would get along well with the rest of the fantasts.

Roger Kulp@66: These quacks are already famous fearless crusaders and persecuted martyrs within their own minds and those of their followers. Striking them off just stops them doing their damage under the medical profession's blessing. Call it a good start.

On striking off doctors -- My impression is that the medical profession is rather loath to self-regulate. It's apparently difficult to get rid of doctors who are obviously dangerously incompetent, e.g. surgeons who botch operations too frequently. The occasional antivax pediatrician, even though they may be just as harmful in the long run, isn't perceived by most people as being dangerous.

Incidentally, what's the attrition rate in med schools these days?

By palindrom (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

"Nation of Islam Joins Anti-Vaccine Bill Protest in Sacramento"
Can it get any more ridiculous? My own assemblyman, Jim Patterson from Fresno, embarrassed himself by stating the law would strip away parental responsibility and parental rights. Republicans in California are desperate to regain some level of relevancy in Dem-dominated Sacramento. He shared the stage with Nation of Islam's Tony Muhammad who asked "Could this be a bill to destroy our boy babies?" Gee, wonder where he got that idea from. http://bit.ly/1ML7i1y

@Roger Kulp

Since this was a “force of nature” the family of the person who died of the VPD would have no right to sue for just this reason

By that logic, they would not be able to sue a contractor for failure to build to fire code in the event their house went up in flames. Nor would they be able to sue the fire department for failure to respond. The insurance company would not have to reimburse, either. Oh, and if the fire was started by someone, can't sue them. They didn't cause the blaze; they just created a small flame.

@Narad

it’s as though he’s not aware that the entire population doesn’t live in college dormitories.

The members of the anti-vaccine movement have never demonstrated a grasp of very, very basic epidemiological concepts like appropriate denominators.

Amendment I (1): Freedom of religion, speech, and the press; rights of assembly and petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ginger Taylor sounds an awful lot like Kent Heckinlively with her prose thankful for the opportunity to let the world see their plight. That is not a good thing for anti-vaxx groups in light of their atrocious behaviour such as threatening lawmakers, exploiting their children for their cause and holocaust references galore.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

There is such a lack of compassion and empathy on both sides of this "debate". I put that in quotes, because the level of discourse happening around SB277 is so low that I want to cry. Nobody is willing to see past their own version of the "science", which generally consists of cherry-picked studies and anecdotes. Yes, children are getting very sick from vaccines. Yes, children are getting very sick from being un-vaccinated. Any concerned parent who has actually done their own objective research can see that there is a pitiful lack of un-biased study on this issue.

Can we please take a moment to see that the vast majority of people on both sides of this issue are parents who desperately want to keep their children safe?

By Jesse Bay (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

To Toto "The Rock" #70,

Thanks for demonstrating how to move the goal posts (predicted in my post #18). I also appreciate the history lesson from your references.

To be clear, you are not saying that the measles virus is benign. You are saying that babies would be safe if mothers would just get measles naturally and pass their immunity on to their babies for a few months via breastfeeding. You blame the vaccine for mothers' failures to create baby-saving antibodies. Please correct me if I have made an error in your position.

The problems with your position are many. A mother who gets the measles may not survive to become a mother at all. And how would you propose to protect older children? Would you propose to selectively vaccinate only boys? Unfortunately, you have also fundamentally misunderstood the references you cite. They do not support your position.

The critical reading comprehension questions you should be asking after reading the strongly pro-vaccine articles that you cite are: 1) why do the authors (Sencer et al., 1967) believe so strongly in vaccination if natural infection is so awesome? and 2) why do the authors of the second paper (Wood and Brunell, 1995) believe so strongly in revaccinating those whose immunity may have waned?

If you will let me help you, it is because the risks of measles vaccine are so much less than the risks of measles disease. That was true in 1967 and 1995 and it is true today. Requiring a second dose of vaccine does not constitute a failure (schedule is for 2 doses, not 3). Babies are just a vulnerable as they have ever been and require community immunity (achieved by vaccination) to stay protected.

By Aglaonice (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

An anti-vaxer tried to claim that a breast-feeding mother would pass along the proper antibodies against measles to her child, if she had come by the disease naturally.

I attempted to point out that not only was it false, but that it defied logic, since everyone used to get measles - if mothers passed those antibodies to their children, then why did kids keep getting measles at the same rate?

Even without resorting to the science, the logic alone demolishes their position.

Lawrence I think that there ae some antibodies to some antigens passed in breast milk and also residually after delivery but the whole reason we vaccinate mucho and temprano (early) is that that immunity wanes fast. Don't know specifics re measles virus.

In the media today:
. SB 277 could influence laws in other states. The debate in the country's largest state could encourage lawmakers in states with loose vaccination requirements to limit nonmedical exemptions, according to Forbes.

According to IBT

So much is at stake this is not just a state level issue. Hence, the Woo Legions sent by the Wizard of Woo and the Wicked Witch of Woo. Being obvious references to certain well known frauds.

Back when everyone had the measles (pre-vaccine), most babies were protected by nursing

Well, no: (1) transfer of systemically-available (IgG) antibodies in humans occurs before birth; in contrast to (2) antibodies (mostly IgA) transferred through breast milk which provide local protection at the mucosal surfaces (the gut) rather than, say, in the respiratory tract; (3) measles is contracted via inhaled droplets rather than by ingestion; so (4) breastfeeding should not be protective against measles.

BM antibodies are IgA (not terribly useful for VPDs). Some IgG can cross the placenta and have some protective effect, but antibodies have a 1/2 life of about 2 weeks. Proper immunity requires the kid's own immune system to ramp up a response and create memory cells, hence vaccines.

By Roadstergal (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

I seem to have simulposted with brian. :p

By Roadstergal (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

"Most" babies weren't protected by nursing, because never in history was every baby breastfed by its mother. Babies were fed by wetnurses, cups, spoons, an aunt, as well as mothers (provided mom didn't die during the birth/postpartum period, was able to provide sufficient milk for the birthed infant(s), and had had the correct diseases.). Infant formulas were known way back, babies were fed with whatever milk (cow, goat, sheep, camel, etc) was available.

Why yes, history is an interest of mine, especially medical history.

I love the anti-vax view of the "golden age" of life. I still haven't figured out WHEN that time was, but I'd be really happy to send them back to it. When they manage to figure out the Golden Era, I'll send them literature about what that age was REALLY like.

Fellow Californios, there is a pro-SB277 call to action. If it suits you, could you take 10 minutes to call a small group of California assemblypeople?

They've been divided into 8 blocks of 10. Could you pick a block at random and call either the first five, or the last five, in that block? The opposition to SB277 has stated the goal of every Assemblymember getting "hundreds" of calls.

http://www.vaccinatecalifornia.org/what_can_you_do

Jesse Bay at #79:

Yes, children are getting very sick from vaccines.

Could you provide some citations to back up that claim?

Yes, children are getting very sick from vaccines. Yes, children are getting very sick from being un-vaccinated.

And how does the risk that a child will become 'very sick' as the result of being vaccinated compare to the risk of children becoming very sick as a consequence of contracting an infectious disease they have not been immunized against, Jesse?

Can we please take a moment to see that the vast majority of people on both sides of this issue are parents who desperately want to keep their children safe?

We do realize that anti-vax parents for the most part sincerely believe they are acting in their child's best interest by electing not to vaccinate have them vaccinated according to the recommended schedule. That doesn't change the fact that. unless the child has a medical condition which makes them an unsuitable candidate for vaccination, their belief is, quite simply, false.

Toto@ 70

From your link
"It is not known where or from whom my patient contracted measles," wrote Dr. Catherine Sonquist Forest, a family medicine doctor and medical director of Stanford Health Care at Los Altos. "But his family and I want you to understand, in no uncertain terms, that his death will be due to a failure of our herd immunity.

"As the mother of my patient told me last week, 'My child is dying because someone who chose not to be immunized exposed my vulnerable baby, and nothing can be done to save him,'" Forest added

Just one more example of the callous selfishness of antivaxers.Which is why the antivax mindset works so well with libertarian conservatism.

By Roger Kulp (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

JGC says of the anti-vax parents that though they "for the most part sincerely believe they are acting in their child’s best interest ... their belief is, quite simply, false."

Clearly, he or she is not in tune with the Zeitgeist. Charles Pierce, in Idiot America, lists the three great premises of life in Idiot America, the third of which is

Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it.

Get with the times!

Seriously, this is an absolutely perfect example.

By palindrom (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

California residents, please figure out who your Assemblyman is and give the office a call. You can get the information by following the links that Liz Ditz gives @87.

It is particularly important to call your own Assemblyman's office and identify yourself as a resident of the district.

There are a couple of other things -- when you call the office, just tell the person who answers that you would like to register your support for the pro-vaccine bill SB277. When I made the call, the person who answered asked me to repeat myself, because they have been getting calls from the anti-vaccine people. This gives you a chance to explain that you are a constituent of the Assembly member and that you are aware that the anti's are trying to flood them with calls. In my conversation, the staffer told me that a lot of the calls they have been getting are from outside their district. You can mention that some are probably even from out of state.

It doesn't hurt to mention that you are a normal person, and you understand that most normal people don't think much about the anti-vaccine side, because it is so silly, and most of us wouldn't think to call them about requiring vaccines, because it is so obvious. Mention that most of the normal people you know in the district are pro-vaccine and want to protect children.

Dr. Solar: "Congress shall make no law ..."

So what is the US Congress doing that you object to? Has someone told you to not speak? Or has a federal agent come to your house telling you to go to a certain church?

Come on be specific, and on topic. Because this is a discussion on a law being created by the California state legislature, not the US Congress. Big difference.

I'd like to know which religion Dr Solar feels is being impacted. The ONLY religion I know of (not counting made up ones like Jim Humble's) that doesn't approve of vaccines is Christian Science. But they also don't approve of doctors, medicines, or hospitals. So at least they are consistent.

#80 I have been urging my colleagues to use the term "community immunity" rahter than "herd immunity" for quite some time now glad to see someone else do so.
#92 Yes call your assembly rep but if you go to the facebook of Vaccinate Caligofornia and or join them you will get via email or on the FB a list of phone numbers of assembly persons who will ask your zip code and take a Yes on 277 period end of call.

Dr. Solar is simply casting around for things to hang on to. Because there are religious exemptions to a range of other activities, Dr Solar thinks that religion will be the saviour of the anti-vaxers. But Dr Solar being completely ignorant about religion doesn't realise that all the mainstream religions accept vaccination.

Fortunately for people like Dr Solar, there is a solution. The Church of Living Consciously. Even better this Church consists solely of a WordPress site and a Post Office Box. Although it has to share the latter with a home security installation firm. I am sure that the Church of Living Consciously will be happy to fleece Dr Solar of his hard-earned in return for ... well nothing really. It is a company and not recognised as a religion.

Perhaps Dr. Solar belongs to the Church of the Special Snowflakes.

Because this is a discussion on a law being created by the California state legislature, not the US Congress. Big difference.

No, because the First Amendment has been incorporated.

An anti-vaxer tried to claim that a breast-feeding mother would pass along the proper antibodies against measles to her child, if she had come by the disease naturally.

Maternal measles antibodies aren't conferred via breastmilk, they are transplacental and nearly gone by 6 months old.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

#77 etc
Dr Solar
"Amendment I (1): Freedom of religion, speech, and the press; rights of assembly and petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I imagine the more conservative Hindus like this. India has outlawed suttee. Look legal in the US.

By jrkrideau (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

Narad: "No, because the First Amendment has been incorporated."

Details, details.

Doesn’t this “doctor” know that the infant “gap” was CREATED by vaccines? Back when everyone had the measles (pre-vaccine), most babies were protected by nursing, because only the WILD-type measles confirms life-long immunity strong enough to pass on to the next generation of babies. Think I am making this up?

Yes.

Just read the CDC’s own 1967 document stating this.

If you mean the one you linked to, it doesn't state anything of the kind. It states, in passing, that everybody is susceptible to infection after maternal immunity has waned. But that's it. You made the rest of it up.

Incidentally, there doesn't appear to be any literature at all saying that passively acquired immunity to measles universally, without exception, all infants born to naturally infected mothers are completely immune to measles at four months, even on anti-vax sites.

So I take it that there is none.

There's plenty saying that passively acquired immunity lasts a little longer in the babies of naturally infected mothers than it does in the babies of vaccinated mothers, on average. But there are no guarantees. And the difference is not that huge to begin with anyway.

It's therefore just as sick and heartless that you're encouraging people to feel falsely confident about putting the lives of their babies at risk as it is that you're using some crap you made up all by your ignorant self as a basis for blaming that poor child's tragedy on vaccines.

Way to go.

Yeah, that sentence should have been something more like:

Incidentally, there doesn’t appear to be any literature at all saying that passively acquired immunity to measles universally, without exception, lasts four months or longer in all infants born to naturally infected mothers, including the stuff on anti-vax sites.

Post in haste, repent at leisure.

HDB, you are partially right but maternal IgAs do make it through the gut: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12850343

The rub here is that maternal circulating antibodies to whatever (and a limited repertoire of pathogens) are sufficiently high thus the claims of the majik boob juice fixing all that ails ye is rubbish.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

HDB, you are partially right but maternal IgAs do make it through the gut: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12850343

So they go through the infant's stomach (where proteolysis hasn't kicked in yet) and hang around in the intestines long enough to antibodify* any rotavirus that also gets into the gut? But without being absorbed into the infant as such?

* A perfectly cromulent word.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

Rockefeller/AMA: SPREADING THE VACCINE LOVE!
We welcome all African Americans!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyT9jTW7MHc

"At the group’s annual meeting in Chicago on Monday, members voted to mobilize the organization in order to persuade state legislatures to eliminate nonmedical reasons for exemption, such as religion, which are used to dodge crucial immunizations against diseases such as measles and whooping cough.
“As evident from the recent measles outbreak at Disneyland, protecting community health in today’s mobile society requires that policymakers not permit individuals from opting out of immunization solely as a matter of personal preference or convenience,” said board member Dr. Patrice Harris..."
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/06/mandatory-vaccinations-are-coming.h…

By Toto "The Rock" (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

So they go through the infant’s stomach (where proteolysis hasn’t kicked in yet) and hang around in the intestines long enough to antibodify* any rotavirus that also gets into the gut? But without being absorbed into the infant as such?

* A perfectly cromulent word.

Pretty much.

Antibodify, a word which I wished I was clever enough to slip into my dissertation. Thank you for enriching my vernacular.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

@Frankenmom
To what, then, do you attribute the EPIC measles vaccine failure discussed in this paper?
http://cmr.asm.org/content/8/2/260.full.pdf
Why do we now "need" 3 MMR's when only ONE measles vaccine was said to be needed in 1967? COULD THE SCIENTISTS HAVE BEEN WRONG?????????????? OMG!

While you're at it, check out the "herd immunity" rate given by the CDC in 1967............it ain't no 95% LOL LOL! MOOOOOOOOOOO!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1919891/pdf/pubhealthrepori…

Also, "herd immunity" theory for measles only applies to GROUPS exposed to wild-virus measles (immunity is passed on to infants). It has no statistical significance for INDIVIDUALS. Prior to vaccines, there was a very predictable 3 year outbreak cycle (dependent on immunity passed on to infants). The Doc in Baltimore only observed UNVACCINATED conditions.
DUH.

By Toto "The Rock" (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

Science Mom,

HDB, you are partially right but maternal IgAs do make it through the gut:

I'm reluctant to disagree with you, but I think you may have misread the study you cited (my emphases):

Differing from humans, IgG from breast milk in many animal species (rodents, bovines, cats, ferrets, etc.) are transported across the intestinal epithelium into the neonatal circulation. [...] In humans, in whom gut closure occurs precociously, breast milk antibodies do not enter neonatal/infant circulation. A large part of immunoglobulins excreted in milk are IgA that protect mainly against enteric infections. The specificity of maternal milk IgA is driven by an entero-mammary cell circulation. Human milk also contains anti-idiotypic antibodies capable of enhancing infant antibody response. Maternal milk antibodies coat infant mucosal surfaces and some have a clear protective role. This has been studied extensively in infectious disease models such as rotavirus, E. coli, poliovirus, and retroviruses. In the rotavirus model, antirotaviral IgA can be detected in stools of breast-fed but not bottle-fed neonates. [...] In humans, milk excreted antibodies play a major role in protecting infants from infection by pathogens having a mucosal portal of entry.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

Aglaonice@80:

To Toto “The Rock” #70,

The problems with your position are many. A mother who gets the measles may not survive to become a mother at all.

Gloating over their great superiority to dead people certainly puts Toto and its ilk at the malignant end of the narcissist scale. But hey, it's all just grist to their mill, right?

Jesse Bay@79:

There is such a lack of compassion and empathy on both sides of this “debate”.

Dear concern troll, kindly boil your head.

A lot of folks here have spent years shoveling out the endless stinking recycled stream of malicious and delusional lies of the anti-vax moment's most beloved modus operandi; not for their benefit but for the benefit of everyone else. Christ, it's got to the point where even a don't-give-a-shit misanthrope like me feels the need to step up and add my voice to the side of ethics and integrity, and having to motivate my ass like that makes me just a little resentful and punchy, and even then I've been unbelievably restrained compared to what's being thrown in return.

Look to your compadres' behavior before complaining about ours should our tempers occasionally get a little short. And while we've actually earned the right to some righteous fury, we're still a hundred times more measured and reticent in letting it fly because, unlike anti-vaxxers, our objective's not to amplify the fear and hatred in order to smash down all that's been achieved but to push back the damage that theirs has already caused.

Folks here have copious compassion and empathy for the "other side", not to mention a great deal of understanding and even personal insight. Hell, we can still feel compassion toward individual anti-vaxxers whose appalling behavior has clearly grown out of some huge personal stress and pain in their own lives.

Nevertheless, the anti-vaxxers movement's group tactic of feeding upon each others' distress and anger to reinforce and amplify it, then use it as a weapon upon every other hand that would otherwise offer to help them, really tests that patience and understanding to the limit at every single turn.

And as for their leaders, who maliciously exploit all this rage to advance their own lust for power and wealth, they have long since revoked any de facto right to compassion or empathy, for these are things they have never once shown to anyone else. They are wicked manipulators through and through, and the blood of innocents is on their hands, not ours.

I hope you will ruminate hard on that, and rethink what you're saying before you manage to remove all sympathy and benefit of doubt for yourself too.

When Toto comes back from his journey to Baum's Oz (goodness knows, I hope he's not in the real Oz...), I hope he posts something that makes sense. What he posted above (I did not click on his links THIS time) looks like drunken posting after a frat party. Or maybe the poor dear's highly well-bred mind (based on his family tree above) has finally gone and left him.

Krebiozen:
I’m reluctant to disagree with you, but I think you may have misread the study you cited (my emphases):

Seems to me that Science Mom is on the same page as you -- her correction to my earlier comment was making the point that breastmilk IgA makes it into the infant's gut, and even out the other end, even if it does not make it as far as the infant's bloodstream.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

Thanks Kreb but you have confused me.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

Quotable quote:
“…Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” — Marcia Angell, M, author of “The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It”

Big Pharma theme song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTrk4X9ACtw

By Toto "The Rock" (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

While you’re at it, check out the “herd immunity” rate given by the CDC in 1967…………it ain’t no 95% LOL LOL! MOOOOOOOOOOO!

Can you read? It ain't no anything. He says he doesn't know what the herd immunity rate is.

Also, “herd immunity” theory for measles only applies to GROUPS exposed to wild-virus measles (immunity is passed on to infants).

Passively acquired immunity wanes within about six months. There is no guarantee that it will last even that long for any infant, whether born to a naturally infected or vaccinated mother.

It has no statistical significance for INDIVIDUALS.

I have no idea what you think you're saying. Groups are made up of individuals. If 95 percent of the individuals in a given group are immune to measles infection, the 5 percent who are susceptible can't catch measles from them. And since that's sufficient to protect the group from measles epidemics, it confers some protection on the susceptible members of it by reducing their odds of exposure.

That's herd immunity.

But "susceptible" means "susceptible." So if any of the individuals who make up 5 percent of a group with herd immunity encounter some irresponsible jackass of an individual who insisted on preserving his or her freedom to catch measles and did so, they catch measles.

I hope that clears up the confusion.

Prior to vaccines, there was a very predictable 3 year outbreak cycle (dependent on immunity passed on to infants). The Doc in Baltimore only observed UNVACCINATED conditions.

You're making that up. The paper doesn't say anything remotely like it.

Why do we now “need” THE MICROBIOME when only THIMEROSAL was said to be needed in 2001? COULD THE ANTI-VAXXERS HAVE BEEN WRONG?????????????? OMG!

FTFY

"“As evident from the recent measles outbreak at Disneyland, protecting community health in today’s mobile society requires that policymakers not permit individuals from opting out of immunization solely as a matter of personal preference or convenience,” said board member Dr. Patrice Harris, according to Forbes. “When people are immunized they also help prevent the spread of disease to others.” Some pro vaccine shareholder twonk

This is total woo, Disney claimed no lives, even the CDC's explanation makes an anecdote look scientific " an unknown woman who may have stayed at Disney and was probably unvaccinated started the outbreak - whereabouts unknown.

If this is how desperate vaccine pushers have to go, let alone dragging up one case of diphtheria in Spain to justify vaccine Armageddon - you are all crackers.

forcing legislation on people is what military Juntas do, no wonder so many people are resisting.

"Thanks Kreb but you have confused me." science duffer

Well that's simple, judging by your posting mummy

"There is such a lack of compassion and empathy on both sides of this “debate”.

there isn't a debate. the Kreb, NobRed and co seem to think that cut and paste cherry picking is science - oh well I suppose it is peer reviewed medical research in action. I wonder if that is what their paradigm is built on - a straw man of woo. I bet you can find a paper on that

Hey toto, looks like you have kicked ass here, these people are like catholics, their bible pubmed is about as insane as you can get. Editors of peer reviewed medical journals are saying peer review evidence is like pizza delivery.

YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR! LOL

"thus the claims of the majik boob juice fixing all that ails ye is rubbish." FRANKENMUM

So what you are telling us is what we've known all along, tits are for fondling and better orgasms - nothing to do with healthy children. You wouldn't happen to be a food scientist would you or a doctor - please do tell us.

Dig that hurdle 'O' one, it's getting higher and higher

This is total woo, Disney claimed no lives

Lucky us. We might not be so fortunate the next time. And the people infected could still develop SSPE years later.

forcing legislation on people is what military Juntas do, no wonder so many people are resisting.

Really? well, then every government that bans drunk driving and enforces fire codes and the like must be a Junta.
And yes, that's sarcasm.

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

forcing legislation on people is what military Juntas do, no wonder so many people are resisting.

That one's a really a classic of non-thought, even for him.

(HINT: You can't force anything on anyone without the use of force. And legislation that passes by a majority vote because the majority of people support it =/= the use of force.)

The parents of unvaccinated children are collecting in "dangerous pockets" according to the proponents of SB277. This bill will effectively segregate those children from schools - great, problem solved... Except for the fact that ALL of these children will continue to interact in public parks, playgrounds, shopping centers, movie theaters, etc. SB277 is a prime example of government overreach that will solve nothing. Improving vaccine safety and education will solve problems, not rushed legislation.

Will: "Improving vaccine safety and education will solve problems, not rushed legislation."

It has been shown that "education" of that set of parents does not work.

Vaccines have been monitored for safety for at least a century. Processes and policies have changed in that century as problems have been found. There is a reason the USA gives IPV instead of OPV, RotaShield was removed shortly after its introduction, in 1978 a safer rubella vaccine strain replaced the one that gave joint pain in the American MMR vaccine and that the Vaccine Safety Datalink Program exists.

If SB277 is rushed legislation, I wonder how long it typically takes the legislature of California to pass regulations.

Except for the fact that ALL of these children will continue to interact in public parks, playgrounds, shopping centers, movie theaters, etc.

But Will, there is a big difference between a large percentage of unvaccinated children congregating in a school setting for several hours as opposed to a few out and about as you described. It's a shame that a mandate even needs to be discussed much less legislated but selfish, entitled, scientifically-illiterate parents have created a dangerous enough situation that something needs to be done and as Chris said, no amount of education can achieve that.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

Except for the fact that ALL of these children will continue to interact in public parks, playgrounds, shopping centers, movie theaters, etc. SB277 is a prime example of government overreach that will solve nothing.

OK. If the problem with making school attendance contingent on vaccination status is that it doesn't prevent unvaccinated children from going to public parks, playgrounds, shopping centers, movie theaters, etc., how the effing eff is it overreach?

@Will

Improving vaccine safety

Can you be more specific? What level of safety would solve the problem? Please be as specific as possible. What rates of adverse reactions would result in all of those currently opposed to vaccines getting them?

At a rally in Oceanside today, Assemblyman Rocky Chavez has challenged PAN to a debate on #sb277. This about choice and a parent's rights to make important medical decisions on behalf of their child. The democrats have lost their way and have overstayed their welcome. Personal freedom will prevail. Let's make this happen. You'll be more informed after it does.

By WarriorMama (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

Yes Will - please be specific on what areas of vaccine safety need to be improved and what would convince you that vaccines had reached that threshold.

@ Johnnie
"forcing legislation on people is what military Juntas do, no wonder so many people are resisting."
Right, my mother was put under house arrest aka quarantine by the Michigan government just because she or her sister had some disease (scarlet fever?). I always thought Michigan was a dictatorship. I mean, why else would the capital be in Lancing of all places?

By jrkrideau (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

HDB & Science Mom,

Seems to me that Science Mom is on the same page as you [...] Thanks Kreb but you have confused me.

The confusion was apparently entirely mine. Caffeine deficiency led me to read, "maternal IgAs do make it through the gut", as meaning, "maternal IgAs do make it through the gut and into the infant's bloodstream". Sorry!

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

@Sian Williams
Speaking of car analogies, I’ve started to prefer refusing to have working brakes in your car over not using seat belts. Because then you get to tell people that riding on herd immunity is like careening through an intersection and depending on everyone else’s brakes to work..

I like it especially as the seatbelt analogy suffers from the problem that increasing drivers wearing seatbelts may increase pedestrian deaths. (no ref immediantely available but google John Adams risk to bring up something.)

By jrkrideau (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

This about choice and a parent’s rights to make important medical decisions on behalf of their child.

Parents will be just as free to make important medical decisions for their children under SB277 as they are now. They'll just be less free to make them for their children's classmates.

But that's not a right. So home-school if it's really that important.

WarriorMama: Do you mind letting me see your DD-214?

This about choice and a parent’s rights to make important medical decisions on behalf of their child.

If that is the point Mr. Chavez is taking then neither of you seems to know what SB277 is. No one is taking your choice away, in fact choices are being added. If you don't want to vaccinate (a choice) then you can homeschool (a choice) or you can vaccinate (a choice) and keep them in public/private schools (a choice). Conversely, what you seek is to take choice away from other parents by making them attend school with your disease vectors.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

Assuming that the bill passes --

Does anybody happen to know what political, electoral or monied interest Jerry Brown was serving when he added the religious exemption to AB2109?

Because if it was for vote-getting purposes then, it no longer applies. He's term-limited. But the thing is: It doesn't look like it was. He coasted, per news reports. Barely had to campaign. And a glance at his big donor list doesn't reveal anything. So I'm out of ideas. And I don't know enough about California politics to generate any.

Is it an inside Sacramento type of a thing? Does he have post-gubernatorial ambitions that might act as an influence? Was that bill less politically popular than this one? Or what the what?

Also, confidential to WarriorMama --

At a rally in Oceanside today, Assemblyman Rocky Chavez has challenged PAN to a debate on #sb277.

^^

He's just saying that in order to sucker you into thinking he's your champion at no risk or expense to himself, because he knows perfectly well that it will never happen.

Well...The answer to the question about political motives appears to be that the California Chiropractic Association has a PAC and knows how to use it.

But I can't seem to find a record of their expenditures and contributions.

Does anybody happen to know what political, electoral or monied interest Jerry Brown was serving when he added the religious exemption to AB2109?

It was a good bet that this frankly illegal action would make it much less likely that the state would have to pay to defend a lawsuit, off the top of my head. Or maybe that's just how he rolls.

HINT: You can’t force anything on anyone without the use of force. And legislation that passes by a majority vote because the majority of people support it =/= the use of force.

I don't think that invoking the tyranny of the majority is particularly sound choice, myself.

Memo to Philip Hills, Hope Osteopathic Clinic Essex, Rotary Club Thurrock Gateway, Brentwood Catenians:

Re: Comments 128–133

Keep it lowercase, protein stain. Your (plainly futile) aspirations for a "big J" are Too Much Information, as the kids say.

@#152 -- I'm not sure who would have both the funds and the motivation to file such a suit. But maybe.

@#153 -- I wasn't. But "ochlocracy" is probably my favorite word that I've never used.

...

D'oh!

@ Will #136

Relax - you don't seriously think all these coffee klatch antivaxxers are actually going to homeschool their kids, do you? Heck, just making getting a non-medical exemption slightly more difficult to get cuts the exemption rate by over half. Mississippi and West Virginia don't allow non-medical exemptions, and their percent school-age children who are homeschooled is in line with the national average. Instead, I predict an uptick in sales of quack products like "VacciShield" (maybe I should buy stock in this company now.)

He says he doesn’t know what the herd immunity rate is.

Without bothering to follow down whatever killfiled Phildo item that I presume this to be in response to, allow me to briefly point out that R₀ – from which flows casual remarks about herd-immunity thresholds – is an idealized construct that pertains, in its basic form, to expectations about transmission in a uniformly mixed, wholly susceptible population.

Such calculations from the effective R, which is a multivariate quantity with no a priori analytical form, would yield a data cube that would need to be captured by, say, a contour risk map calculated by accounting for corridor transmission and so forth.

Then again, I'm pretty sure the elementary concept of ring vaccination has already had the opportunity to bounce right the fυck off of Phildo's empty head.

I’m not sure who would have both the funds and the motivation to file such a suit. But maybe.

I would call to your attention New York's Dina Check and West Virginia's Jennifer Workman.

I meant a suit that would be enough of a real threat to the state of California in some way (ie -- legally, financially, or politically) that it justified making accommodations in order to avoid. They can handle Check/Workman-level stuff.

It is so interesting to me to read an article like this in which the author sits so high upon a soap box spouting out mightier than thou words and yet is so unbelievably filled with ignorance and idiocy. It appears that all you read into SB277 is that "anti-vaxxers" will be forced to vaccinate their children. An analysis that is so narrow minded it is almost comical if it weren't for the millions of people who also only see this outcome. This bill is not about anit-vaxxers getting kids vaccinated. Note that the SB277 states that independent and home schoolers will be exempt. In other words, those parents that are wealthy enough to have a non-working parent at home and available to home school their child are exempt. This bill does not effect the 1%of parents that don't vaccinate and live in wealthy neighborhoods. So, what's next? If the banner of public education (which by the way is a right of all children) is not an effective means of coercing the small (almost insignificant) minority of parents to vaccinate their children then shall we next move on to separate hospitals, churches, airplanes? This is a scary territory to navigate and imposes on some pretty significant freedoms. Secondly, SB277 states that children must be fully immunized. So partial immunization is not adequate. As an aside, most parents elect an alternative schedule than the recommendation by the CDC and are not anti-vaccine, just anti-injecting foreign toxins into their small infants that are not exposed to certain diseases. But I digress. Partial immunization is not adequate. This translates into discriminative public policy in which the rich, again, can afford to not put their children in childcare. Those parents that are working class and must maintain employment are coerced into a medical procedure in which their child is injected with something they may not want on a schedule that they may not like (because after all it is only a recommendation) in order for that parent to maintain employment. As a second aside, the CDC recommendation is based on child wellness visits because that is the best guarantee of follow through on vaccines as parents are most likely to bring their children in to the doctor the first year. An alternative schedule does not mean some one is anti-vaccine. It actually means that a parent has the intellectual capacity to follow through on vaccines on their own timeline. It appears to me that this bill wipes out the freedom of medical choice for those that might want to space out vaccines but are not wealthy enough to home school or have private nannies. For those parents that work and cannot home school their partially or un vaccinated child what's next? Are we going to waste valuable financial resources to involve child welfare (because not educating a child is illegal in the US)? Are we really interested in wasting tax payer money on hunting down parents that don't vaccinate rather than using social services and school services to protect those children that are beaten, abused, and neglected? Lastly, (although the list can go on and on) SB277 mandates the Hep B vaccine for childcare, preschool, elementary and public school. Regardless of your personal beliefs or home environment in which, lets say, a 6 year old is probably not using IV drugs or having sex to contract the disease, this aspect of the bill is absurd. A quick google search will inform you that persons who have Hep B are protected under the disability act and cannot be discriminated against in public school. In other words, a child infected with Hep B can attend school. But SB277 would prohibit a child that has not been immunized from attending school. How is it that you, the all mighty vaccine crusaders, think that a healthy child should not attend school when a carrier is perfectly acceptable?
We are not at war people. There is no fight amongst people who don't vaccinate, partially vaccinate or fully vaccinate. There is only fear and ignorance manifesting in public policy that is poorly written, discriminative, time consuming, and that will not have a positive outcome. California is at 97% vaccine compliance. The wheel is not broken. Get off your high horses and start using your heads. I hope that our public representatives can see through the haze and kill this bill.

I meant a suit that would be enough of a real threat to the state of California in some way (ie — legally, financially, or politically) that it justified making accommodations in order to avoid. They can handle Check/Workman-level stuff.

In the case of Workman, that involved litigating over a period of years until the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Is there a level I'm missing?

At a rally in Oceanside today, Assemblyman Rocky Chavez has challenged PAN to a debate on #sb277.

Assemblyman Chavez is planning to run for the US Senate in 2016. As Ann at 162 pointed out, it's an empty, feel-good move. And Chavez better hope that Pan does not take him up -- having listened to both, Pan would clean Chavez's clock. While there are things I like about Assm. Rocky, he's not a very skilled debator, while Pan's eloquence has been improving over the course of the SB277 developments.

Wow, momof3. I guess you were in a hurry to get that all down before the kids woke up? Paragraphs are your friend.

Again the boogey man of the Hep B vaccine! Look, lady. If you have 3 kids, and they are allowed to play with other kids, you know small children may bite, they may fall and bleed over each other. Uncle Joey who has Hep B might come for a visit and develop a sudden nose bleed while holding your baby. These are ALL ways young childen have acquired Hep B WITHOUT SEX OR DRUG USE!!!!! Are you going to wrap your kids in bubble wrap until you consider them old enough to have the vaccine?

You mention Hep B+ kids can attend school. So, if your kid gets the vaccine, they will be protected, momof3. Is that so hard for you to understand? The other child can't get the vaccine. So to protect YOUR child AND other children who have the right to attend school, you get your child vaccinated.

I really DON'T understand the mindset of these parents. And, by the way, momof3, you are ALSO talking about privilege if you can afford to vaccinate on an alternate schedule. One thing the CDC schedule IS set up for is to keep in mind not everyone can bring a baby to the doctor for vaccines every week or so (alternate schedule). Consolidating vaccines that can safely be given to the child all at one time not only decreases the trauma (fewer visits), it means fewer missed vaccines.

There. Paragraphs. Learn to use them and sound like an adult.

(And if I missed something you want a response to, please point it out. I happen to find "wall o' text" comments very hard to read and tend to skip over them after the first one.)

Momof3, can I introduce you to the concept of paragraphs?

Let us start with the most simple thing about SB277: it did not add any vaccines to the schedule. It simply changes the consequence of parents refusing vaccination.

SB277 is entirely silent on the vaccine schedule. Let's say the child is not in any kind of licensed care before the age of 60 months. A parent is free to refuse all vaccines until the child enters licensed care.

Then momof3 brings up the shopworn objections to the Hepatitis B vaccines. I repeat: SB277 did not add any vaccines to the mandated list. It simply changes the consequences for parents who refuse vaccines. Sensible people know that in about 30% of the pediatric cases of HepB, the source of the infection is not known.

Get off your high horses and start using your heads. I hope that our public representatives can see through the haze and kill this bill.

Since the California Senate voted 25 to 11 (with 3 abstemptions -- 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat) it is clear that the "haze" only affects Republicans, as the vote was largely on party lines.

Ann at 151

Does anybody happen to know what political, electoral or monied interest Jerry Brown was serving when he added the religious exemption to AB2109?

A reminder -- the "religious exemption" was not to vaccines, but to the requirement that vaccine-refusing parents discuss their vaccine objections with a qualified health care provider.

I've never heard a satisfactory explanation of this change (which came about in the signing statement). The language is:

I am a member of a religion which prohibits me from seeking medical advice or treatment from authorized health care practitioners. (Signature of a health care practitioner not required in Part A.)

2,675 of the 13,275 kindergarteners with a PBE filed a religious objection -- about 20%. It is a curious figure, as very, very few religions have such a restriction.

Liz Ditz @ 168
As per religious objections and restrictions,I know you are talking about mainstream religions,but I need only remind you of Tony Muhammed the other day.There are a number of Islamic web sites out there pushing the same old tired antivax lies.

Then there are a number of ultra-Orthodox Jews all over the world who are also increasingly antivax.I am sure both groups make up at least some of the PBEs with religious objection.

By Roger Kulp (not verified) on 13 Jun 2015 #permalink

Dr. Theresa Deisher also spoke against SB277:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga3m6fzRQCU

She skips the reason for the change in the American MMR's rubella strain was because it was causing issues. From:
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/Supplement_3/S164.full

It says:

First, the duck embryo and dog kidney vaccine strains caused significant joint reactions [24–27]. Second, reinfection on exposure to wild rubella virus was demonstrated frequently with all strains except the RA 27/3 vaccine [28–30]. Third, the good safety record of the RA 27/3 vaccine in Europe, plus the majority opinion of scientists, led the US Food and Drug Administration to license RA 27/3. Important pressure for this decision came from Dorothy Horstmann at Yale, who was convinced by her comparative studies of rubella vaccines [31], and by Maurice Hilleman at Merck, who sought a better rubella strain for measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine.

It is a curious figure, as very, very few religions have such a restriction.

This could be construed as implicit support for the notion of aversion to litigation that I tossed out above. The wording "I am a member of a religion which" is unconstitutional on its face, but it doesn't matter so long as nobody is ever given standing to point this out.

ARE VACCINES SAFE AND EFFECTIVE?

On Friday, I called most of the California Assembly member's offices and asked this VERY BASIC QUESTION regarding SB277. The answer was overwhelmingly SILENCE and then STAMMERING. Most answered that they were not qualified to answer that question. I then asked if those words were contained in SB277 as a QUALIFIER for MANDATING vaccines for public school children WITHOUT parental consent. The answer is NO. VACCINE SAFETY IS NOT MENTIONED AT ALL. For the 2 or 3 that did answer, "yes, vaccines are safe and effective," I then asked why the bill contained an opt out based on the opinion of a "licensed physician." They quickly pointed out that there were some children who had immunity deficits, and they couldn't take the vaccines. I then pointed out that this proves that VACCINES ARE NOT SAFE AND EFFECTIVE. They then changed their stance and said that, well, there was always some risk, but only very few could not take them. Of course, they could not cite any scientific study (and funding agent) to back up their assertion. I then pointed out that the words "safe and effective" are COMPARATIVE terms, often used in MARKETING. I then asked if vaccines were 100% SAFE AND EFFECTIVE, to which all admitted that they were not. (Even the Assistant Surgeon General admitted this fact to Congress.)

Once I established that VACCINES ARE NOT SAFE AND EFFECTIVE, I asked who had financial LIABILITY if a child was vaccine injured. Again, stammering and, "I don't know." I pointed out that ONLY THE CHILD'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN had full liability. Both doctor and drug manufacturer are legally protected from this. I also stated that vaccine choice would then be based on RISK ASSESSMENT. We currently have laws governing medical procedures which are based on INFORMED CONSENT; these laws give the PATIENT the final choice of whether to take the risk or not. SB277 would USURP the basic right of the patient and give the power to THE GOVERNMENT, at the same time MAXIMIZING profits for Big Opium- RISK FREE! WHAT AN AMAZING BUSINESS MODEL!

VOTE "NO"!
I was told they are fast tracking the bill through for a vote this MONDAY!
Call EARLY.

By Toto "The Rock" (not verified) on 13 Jun 2015 #permalink

@MI Dawn
What is that weird creature in the box next to your name?

Also, you never mentioned if your illustrious Virginia ancestors were slave owners/traders or opium merchants. BTW, Thomas Myddelton, the City of London based East India Company founder, financed (privateer pirate) Sir Frances Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh (of Virginia tobacco fame). He also financed "Big Sugar" in Barbados, home to the earliest English slave plantations, which became the business model imported to the American colonies- especially the Carolinas. America was founded primarily on profits from sugar, rum, opium, and slave trading, with a little tobacco thrown in.

By Toto "The Rock" (not verified) on 13 Jun 2015 #permalink

@#153, #173 --

You may be completely right. It doesn't make sense to me. But I don't know thing one about it.

However. FWIW, I'm not saying such litigation would be welcome. I'm just saying that on the face of it, I don't see in what way a Workman/Check-type suit would be so very costly to the state and/or the politicians implicated by it that they'd need to take preemptive measures against it unless there was something else in play -- ie, counsel advised them that they wouldn't necessarily win in court; they had a reason to think that they'd be going up against some person or entity who was more in the same weight class as they; the person/entity in question had some other kind of leverage or power over them; or whatever. Some kind of larger and more significant threat.

I mean, there are plenty of individual outraged citizens out there, waiting to try to make a federal case out of lots of things. You can't appease them all, and if you try, it only encourages them. It's just letting the terrorists win, so to speak.

So, I don't know.

...

Are Workman and/or Check fronting for one (or more) of those Center-for-Individual-Rights-type non-profits that make the vast right-wing conspiracy what it is?

Because if such suits are part of an organized (if diffuse and inconspicuous) attack of that kind, there would be a good reason to prevent them from insidiously, infinitely proliferating until one of them turned out to be the Citizens United of its kind.

But that's just one of many possibilities. You could well be right.

The Pacific Justice Institute is in the picture now, so if that (or something like it) was the threat against which the signing statement guarded, it's still there, fwiw.

Just briefly, as I haven't reviewed the entire comment:

Are Workman and/or Check fronting for one (or more) of those Center-for-Individual-Rights-type non-profits that make the vast right-wing conspiracy what it is?

Not a chance. They both had Patricia Finn as attorney. Workman eventually garnered an amicus brief from "The Rutherford Institute," but nobody but nobody in terms of moneyed interests would choose a lawyer with a track record of 100% failure.

Seriously, Finn makes Maurice Thompson (the Sarah Hershberger bandwagon jumper) look high-powered.

SB277 is entirely silent on the vaccine schedule. Let’s say the child is not in any kind of licensed care before the age of 60 months. A parent is free to refuse all vaccines until the child enters licensed care.

Right. As I read it, parents of pre-schoolers who wanted to delay or forego vaccination for them until they were school-age would not actually be SOL. Making baby-sitting-pool-type arrangements with like-minded souls might require more effort and expense than none at all. But there aren't really any arrangements for pre-school childcare that working parents can make that don't.

@#176 --

Gotcha.

In case it doesn't go without saying, I'm not just canvassing the issue for the pure pleasure of being quarrelsome. I'm just trying to clearly identify the potential obstacles to passage. Because maybe something could be done to remove, reduce or combat them. One never knows.

In case it doesn’t go without saying, I’m not just canvassing the issue for the pure pleasure of being quarrelsome.

It goes without saying. I'm just not sure that there is an overarching explanation for Moonbeam's* illegally writing what turned out to be a flatly unconstitutional religious exemption into AB 2109.

Litigation is just something tangible, and in terms of parsimony, it's not a bad explanation for why New York State is the lone example of an actual administrative structure to consider the legitimacy of such exemptions.

* I still have a '92 campaign button somewhere, so don't take that the wrong way.

@#179 --

Agree.

Really, there could be any number of mind-numbingly dull and byzantine explanations. Because statehouse politics. I was just hoping for something clean, simple and obvious.

FWIW, the groups opposing AB2109 were:

California Federation of Republican Women
California Right to Life Committee, Inc.
Canary Party
Child and Family Protection Association
CORE Sacramento
Health Advocacy in the Public Interest
Maher Insurance and Financial Services
National Vaccine Information Center
Pacific Justice Institute
ParentalRights.Org
Private School Advocacy Center
.
And "over 400 individuals." According to this here:

Maher Insurance and Financial is based in Terre Haute. I've never heard of it before. But I know that because it caught my eye.

It is a curious figure, as very, very few religions have such a restriction.

Not even Christian Science, last time I checked, and nor have the JWs had a restriction since the 1960s. However, as I understand it, if a parent interprets the tenets of his or her religion as construing a prohibition on vaccination, the gov't has no place in questioning that interpretation. For instance, a lot of JWs still refuse to vaccinate their kids, although the WTBTS has officially held vaccination to be hunky-dory for quite some time now. There is also a Catholic School in Veneta, OR, which has the second-highest PBE rate in the state. This bears no relation to official, um, Catholic doctrine, but that particular group would seem to be abstaining for reasons of a religious nature.

In any case, how is it that religious exemptions in general are not unconstitutional? Unless they require nothing but a signature.

In any case, how is it that religious exemptions in general are not unconstitutional?

...

I'm not sure I see why they would be. Conscientious objections aren't. But maybe that's not a true analogy.

Ann and any other interested bystanders: One current ploy to defeat the bill. The previous votes have gone by party lines, except for a few science-based Republicans, and IIRC, one anti-abortion Democrat (but don't quote me on that, as I'm not quite sure).

(Transcription of a sceenshot from yesterday or today, on Facebook, in a closed group. A friend sent me the screenshot)
-----
Anti-vaccine, anti-SB277 white woman #1:
This is the breakdown of the Assembly. Total long shot, but here it is:
80 total -- they need 41 [yes votes on SB277] to win.
28 are Republican
9 Black Caucus.

We need to turn every member of the Black Caucus (CDC Whistleblower is the only strategy for that) and 3 more NOs/ABSTAINS. I think we have 3-4 possibilities for the few NOs/ABSTAINS. We need to make sure every Republican is shored up too.
----
Anti-vaccine, anti-SB277 white woman #2:
Anti-vaccine, anti-SB277 white woman #3, I s/w Bigelow's [Assembly Member Frank Bigelow R-5] today and he is still undecided because he has not looked at it yet. They said he has been busy with other leg. Will get prep'd Mon & Tues. Please rally your people to keep calling his office!
------
Anti-vaccine, anti-SB277 white woman #3:
WILL DO!
--------
Anti-vaccine,Anti-SB277 white woman #4:
Can we get Brother Tony Muhammad to work on the Black Caucus?
-------
anti-SB277 white woman #3:
YES GREAT IDEA Anti-SB277 white woman #4!

NOTE: Anti-vaccine,Anti-SB277 white woman #4 is the wife of a top-drawer Silicon Valley trial lawyer whose practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, trade secrets, intellectual property litigation, and employment/wage & hour law.

Anti-vaccine,Anti-SB277 white woman #4 posted this on FB

We are living in the very Valley of The Shadow of Death! If somebody doesn’t rise up to tell the truth, and marshal the forces for justice, then we’re going to be like this when your young girls become women.

Having a baby today is a disaster, because the minute the baby is born, now they want to take the child from you and give it an injection—some kind of “vaccination,” or some kind of chemical.

Robert Kennedy Jr. was at my home a week or so ago, and Bobby Kennedy Jr. was representing a man (Dr. William Thompson) in the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) who “blew the whistle” that the CDC was responsible for developing a vaccine that is genetically prepared, or concocted, to affect Black males.* [Please refer to Simpson University biochemist Dr. Brian Hooker’s research on Translational Neurodegeneration (2014) at http://www.translationalneurodegeneration.com/content/3/1/16 .]

This is the Bible: “Kill the male, spare the female”—and it’s going on right now. They’ll take your baby; they’re sneaking in the ward where the baby is born, if the parents are not looking, to take the babies and inject them. What are they injecting them with? According to Bobby Kennedy, and the research, and scientists, they are injecting them with vaccines that are high in mercury. And this mercury starts eating at the cells of the brain.

They realize their world is finished! There’s no more “White Supremacy” ruling—that’s over! We are awakening now: You’re going to have to compete with awakened Black men and women, awakened Brown men and women, awakened Red men and women, and awakened poor White people! You are not going to play the game over the masses of the people anymore. And that’s why Zbigniew Brzezinski said, “it is easier to kill a million people than to control a million people.” They’ve lost control; but they’re killing through food, vaccines … I’m not saying you shouldn’t take a vaccine. But you shouldn’t be stupid and think that the same man that gave the Indians smallpox through blankets, that that same man has your interest at heart when he says “we have a vaccine for you.” You better wake up, and look up!

Whew.

Conscientious objections aren’t.

That's questionable, at least insofar as they are limited to those with "religious" basis for their conscientious objection. The deletion of the "Supreme Being" clause did make things more equitable.

I’m not sure I see why they would be.

Most of them don't really seem to pass the Lemon test; as Narad mentioned about, the whole "I am a member of a religion which" wording is unconstitutional.

as Narad mentioned about above.

I’m not sure I see why they would be. Conscientious objections aren’t. But maybe that’s not a true analogy.

It used to be, but those started to fall apart with the Seeger decision. Even if one evades the Establishment Clause, allowing only religious objections – and calling them that, for Joe Citizen to sort out – is ripe to implode on more than just equal protection grounds, IMHO.

Somebody must have challenged New York's system, but I'm a bit too weary to look.

Anti-vaccine,Anti-SB277 white woman #4:
Can we get Brother Tony Muhammad to work on the Black Caucus?
——-
anti-SB277 white woman #3:
YES GREAT IDEA Anti-SB277 white woman #4!

Hm.

Even if one evades the Establishment Clause, allowing only religious objections – and calling them that, for Joe Citizen to sort out – is ripe to implode on more than just equal protection grounds, IMHO.

I notice that Oregon, which used to have only religious exemptions, has changed the language to "Non-Medical Exemptions."

Can we get Brother Tony Muhammad to work on the Black Caucus?

Comedy gold. Don't forget back when the AoA brain trust* was whining that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, Jr., hadn't gone to bat for them.

* Includes the commentariat, as, again, I'm kind of pooped.

^ Ah, but not too pooped to forget that at the time, I thought the similarity to (Charlie's) Helter Skelter was side-splittingly obvious.

I notice that Oregon, which used to have only religious exemptions, has changed the language to “Non-Medical Exemptions.”

I'm optimistic that following down the case law regarding what is and is not "unconstitutionally vague" could be an interesting way to spend some time.

Robert Kennedy Jr. was at my home a week or so ago, and Bobby Kennedy Jr. was representing a man (Dr. William Thompson)

What happened to Morgan Verkamp?*

* (Probably nothing. Fun fact from W—dia: "At fifteen, Kennedy was expelled from Millbrook School in New York state because of his behavior and poor grades." I'll bet Liddy could have kept him in line.)

Parentalrights.org appears to be something of a multi-clown-car pile-up, per its website.

(Allied organizations here and here).

Grover Norquist, of all people.

Woodwork squeaks. .

My comment is awaiting moderation. (Links.) But I forgot to specify that the second one is to the org's directors and officers page.

I’m optimistic that following down the case law regarding what is and is not “unconstitutionally vague” could be an interesting way to spend some time.

I am amused that, so far, I am picking up mainly oblique references to JWs... and sodomites.

Incidentally, as regards "religious exemptions" more broadly, I was often sorely tempted, as a schoolkid, to proclaim any number of things to be "against my religion." ("Spirit assemblies," etc.) I was thwarted in this largely by myself, as I was loathe to use the word "my," and since I have never been a convincing liar, which is funny for somebody who is a very convincing actress, both on stage and in life.

It was a nifty out when it came to reciting the pledge of allegiance, though, which by middle school at the latest I found to be a creepy practice.

^ Ah, and not only oblique reference to JWs. They have been an interesting people from a legal standpoint.

NOTE: Anti-vaccine,Anti-SB277 white woman #4 is the wife of a top-drawer Silicon Valley trial lawyer whose practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, trade secrets, intellectual property litigation, and employment/wage & hour law.

I've got 10 quatloos that say this represents craziness left on Tony Thurmond's FB page.

Extra Special Bonus: It's Schectertime!!!.

Some of the diverse religious groups and/or affiliates of them opposed to SB277 can be seen here, on Parentalrights.org's "Allied Organizations" page.

Which is one of the three keeping my post in moderation.

Do these assembly people know what kind of cray cray they are cosying up to? And if they do and don't care well then FSM help California.

That said, I seriously think we should encourage them to exploit the "CDC Whistleblower" fantasy.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 13 Jun 2015 #permalink

That said, I seriously think we should encourage them to exploit the “CDC Whistleblower” fantasy.

Or ask ol' Sid whether he'd let his daughter get it on with a spade, whatever.

Oh, the sensitive, lip all a-quiver Sebastopol mom calls for "balance" and compassion. Ms. Bey, you are who I used to be, the privileged, magical-thinking, worried well. As a former Sebastopudlian, I've been there and done that.

I got better.

I actually think you may be a third-level acquaintance of mine with one of the most beautiful little, unvaccinated two year-olds I've ever seen (oh, those big blue eyes). I've heard your antivaccine rants, couched in disingenuous claims about being "pro-science" and wanting balance for the last two years. I understand that your terror and conspiratorial paranoia overwhelms you when you look at your perfect little boy and think about Teh Ebilz Big Pharmerz and their cold, greedy hearts sticking him with toxins! It's a scary world sometimes.

But, rest assured, I will never talk to you about this when we meet at parties or flame you on Facebook, I know there is as we say in the language of Westcountese, "no listening" available for my ideas.

So, pop a drop of Rescue Remedy™ and read some Byron Katie. Breathe. Watch your child in the rear view mirror as he plays with his faceless anthroposophic dolls, safely ensconced in his $500.00 organic latex car seat in your XC90. When you take him into Community Market to buy those heritage tomatoes and deep-sea extremophile supplements, pray to the goddess that measles isn't floating, aerosolized in the gluten-free aisle. He might not be one of the lucky ones.

Namastay away.

By Pareidolius (not verified) on 14 Jun 2015 #permalink

(Allied organizations here and here).

It's kind of odd to my eye that those are keyed with UUIDs.

I’m optimistic that following down the case law regarding what is and is not “unconstitutionally vague” could be an interesting way to spend some time

@Narad - Clearly you and I have wildly differing ideas of what constitutes "an interesting way to spend some time," which reminds me that I forgot to thank you for the info re: the phrase "unavoidably unsafe." Thank you. In my defense, my memory lapse may have had something to do with a mild concussion induced by repeatedly banging my head against my desk. I promise from now on I'll leave the legal stuff to you and stick to science ^^*

My dearest brothers and sisters in scepticism:

In case you imagine that Pareidolius, being his legendary creative self, is blithely exaggerating or merely employing a measure of poetic justice in order to skewer those crunchy nut mums who fear the VAX,
let me inform you that I myself doubted when I first heard his tale of the waste-fry-oil-burning ancient Mercedes with a statue of Ganesha on the dashboard taxi-ing unseatbelted, vaccine-free urchins who tumbled around inside the smoky, smelly vehicle..

I saw the place myself AND IT"S ALL TRUE!
Believe me when I say that I have visited numerous hippie/ new age/ boho glamour chic enclaves and Sebastopol is quite exemplary - a veritable Woodstock** of the west.

Par example, my companion wanted to stop in a vintage clothing shop which was decorated by a mini Tour d'Eiffel: upon entering we were greeted enthusiastically by welcoming, high-spirited smoky-smelling youngsters employed by this bizarre emporium that presented only the best in secondhand clothing that was unattractive and tasteless on its first go round and now was unspeakably ugly and distorted at premium prices.

Then we enjoyed refreshment in an overpriced, fairtrade tea and chocolate shop before haggling with an older hipster who sold beads and essential oils.

For some un0dly reason, denizens of hippie havens seem to adore yours truly- and my companion- despite their age cohort ( which, in this case, was variable) because I suppose we look like 'fellow travellers' on the Controlled Substance Express...it's probably the artfully messy hair and studied thrown-together fashion sense. Or we talk pretty.

Leaving a gallery of sorts, after viewing street art assemblages***
there , there, across the street, in the blaze of the noonday sun was the Mercedes - or one similar enough to stand in for it- and its unruly elfin children squeaking whilst Gaia-mom beamed unabashedly, thrilled at the preciousness she had produced naturally.

Amazed like Alice upon emerging from the rabbithole, I drove thoughtfully towards the place where Hitchcock filmed my mind on previous real life horrors.

** not the concert, the town
*** g--gle Florence Avenue Sebastopol art

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 14 Jun 2015 #permalink

Yes, Ms. DW, I do indeed know of what I speak. As for Aubergine, I bought a great pair of vintage Justin boots and some perfect '70s (made in France) Lacoste shirts on my last go 'round there. You never know what you'll find. Next time you're in town, you'll have to see the Barlow. Quite upscale with only a whiff of woo. With enough warning, we'll buy you lunch at Zazu.

By Pareidolius (not verified) on 14 Jun 2015 #permalink

@Pareidolius

After skimming your bloviated posts, it's time to break out the Yiddish!
You are an ONGEPOTCHKET NUDNIK!
OY-YOY-YOY!

By Toto "The Rock" (not verified) on 14 Jun 2015 #permalink

TOTO WAS RIGHT:
"EPA Study: Autism Boom Began in 1988, Environmental Factors are Assumed

In an EPA study done in 2009, a “changepoint” year or spike in autism has finally been narrowed down. Most people diagnosed with autism have been determined to be born after 1987. The study, which looked at the growth of autism in California in addition to a couple of other countries, concluded that the increased autism between 1987 and 1994 could not be dependent on the change in diagnostic criteria at that time because it only accounted for a 2.2-fold higher cumulative incidence versus the 7-fold increase that was being reported in California over those years. Similar studies done in Denmark, Sweden and nationwide in the US provided consistent data to confirm that the greatest increase in prevalence was in children born between 1987 and 1992. Knowing the time frame helps to narrow down the list of factors that could be the cause for the growth in ASDs. While no causal relationship between vaccines and autism has been ordained, no studies have been done on vaccine ingredients and autism risk, nor on the entire vaccine schedule. In addition, between the years of 1988 and 1996, five additional vaccines were added to the vaccination schedule of the US."
http://focusautism.blogspot.com/2012/01/epa-study-autism-boom-began-in-…

By Toto "the Rock" (not verified) on 14 Jun 2015 #permalink

But no big surprise there.

It always pays to read the original study.

http://www.all.org/pdf/McDonaldPaul2010.pdf

If some portion of the observed increases in autism cases
in recent studies is not due to various artifacts, then such
rapid increases would be unlikely to result from genetic
mechanisms alone.This suggests that such an increase might
be due to an increasing exposure to exogenous environmental
factors affecting susceptible individuals during
vulnerable periods of their development.Some research has examined possible contributing environmental factors,
including measles,mumps,and rubella (MMR) vaccine,
thimerosal-containing vaccines,tetrachloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, and trihalomethanes in drinking water,and certain metals (e.g., mercury, cadmium, nickel)
and chemicals (trichloroethylene and vinyl chloride) in the
ambient air around birth sites.Subsequent studies on
MMR vaccine,and thimerosal-containing
vaccines (see review),did not support
a relationship with autism.In a 2004 report,the Immunization
Safety Committee of the Institute of Medicine determined
that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection
of a causal relationship between either MMR or thimerosal-
containing vaccines and autism.Work on tetrachlor-
ethylene,trichloroethylene,and trihalomethanes in drinking
water also has not supported a relationship with autism.

Certain airborne metals and solvents still require confirma-
tion of any relationship to autism . New research studies
are continuing to evaluate other possible environmental factors

By Roger Kulp (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

TOTO WAS RIGHT:
“EPA Study: Autism Boom Began in 1988, Environmental Factors are Assumed

Naturally, if TOTO gets all his information second-hand from people who tell him that the lies he wants to believe are true, TOTO is bound to think that.

But in reality, if TOTO thinks that that study -- which is here -- argues that the increased prevalence of autism diagnoses is due to environmental causes, TOTO IS WRONG.

^^ I meant "increase in" not "prevalence of."

"Lucky us. We might not be so fortunate the next time. And the people infected could still develop SSPE years later." Juliwoo

Lucky, I thought that medicine was science! Boolucks, it had nothing to do with it, there was no threat. Lucky you got away with it, almost scared people into the MMR.

Are you a soothsayer - predicting doom. That is what all doctors do, study entropy - got no idea what health is.

Just how many babies get hepatitis annually, and that isn't anally for those of you too quick to jump.

Hey toto, nice dismantle of the position there, we should all ring the Senate and put them on the spot - well done.

johnny:

Lucky, I thought that medicine was science! Boolucks, it had nothing to do with it, there was no threat. Lucky you got away with it, almost scared people into the MMR.

The death rate from measles in the US is around 1 in 300. That's thanks to advanced medical technology.
The fact that nobody died this time round doesn't mean that there wasn't a threat, just that this time we were lucky. Next time there's an outbreak, we might not be. And some of the measles patients from this outbreak may still develop S.S.P.E. and die.

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

Not that johnny will believe anything we say, but here are some numbers about kids getting Hep B

The extent to which children acquire HBV infection in the United States has not been appreciated, primarily because most infections in this age group are asymptomatic. In the United States, approximately 24,000 HBsAg-positive women gave birth in 2005. Without postexposure prophylaxis to prevent perinatal HBV infection, it is estimated that 12,000 infants and children would be infected with HBV annually. Furthermore, before the implementation of universal infant hepatitis B immunization, an additional 16,000 children younger than 10 years old were infected annually in the United States through exposure to HBsAg-positive household members or community contacts. Populations with the highest rates of these early childhood infections included Alaska Natives, children of Pacific Islander parents, and children of first-generation immigrants from countries where HBV is of high or intermediate endemicity.[5-8]

Franks AL, Berg CJ, Kane MA, Browne BB, Sikes RK, Elsea WR, et al. Hepatitis B infection among children born in the United States to southeast Asian refugees.
N Engl J Med 1989;321:1301-5.
Hurie MB, Mast EE, Davis JP. Horizontal transmission of hepatitis B virus infection to United States-born children of Hmong refugees. Pediatrics 1992;89:269-73.
Mahoney F, Lawrence M, Scott C, Le Q, Lambert S, Farley TA. Continuing risk for hepatitis B virus transmission among infants in Louisiana. Pediatrics 1995;96:1113-6.
Pon EW, Ren H, Margolis H, Zhao Z, Schatz GC, Diwan A. Hepatitis B virus infection in Honolulu students. Pediatrics 1993;92:574-8.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt04-hepb.html

For the uninitiated:

Focus Autism ( recently re-named, Focus for Health/ see websites) is the pet project of the Segal family who have quite unusual non-SBM views about what causes autism. They were sponsors/ keynotes at this year's Autism One conference. Amongst their coterie of experts are Brian Hooker and David Lewis and briefly Louise Kuo Habakus
( see Fearless Parent Radio website) served as their PR person. Their founder, Barry, attended many Health Freedom anti-vax conferences and was highly praised by a well-known health consumer activist ( see the Bolen Report).

I think it's important to know something about your sources..

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

@222 Denice. I have to say that, of all the crooks and cranks I've come across in the whole MMR thing, that guy David Lewis is the most appalling. At first he just appeared to be a Walter Mitty kind of character who pretended expertise and credentials he didn't have, and was just incredibly stupid.

But lately I've realized that he's a whole, more dangerous, kind of operator. He spoke at the Autism One conference and simply fabricated allegations against me in front of a whole bunch of desperate parents. Right out of whole cloth deceptions: saying, for instance, that I was working for the lawyers who brought the case against Wakefield, and that I published a report in the BMJ that was the same as an expert report by a paediatrician. An outright lie that can be checked simply by looking at them. But, of course, nobody will.

Obviously people were shocked, because he was making an allegation of corruption. But, apart from a guy who was hired by the anti-vaxxers a few years ago to plant the lie that I was working for a drug company, I've never yet seen one of them simply fabricate in the way this guy does.

I did think about writing to Barry Seagal about this, inviting him to investigate the truth of these things, to see the kind of people he was giving money to. But I shouldn't think he would give a toss.

By Brian Deer (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

Some of the crazies over at AoA are talking about resorting to civil disobedience if SB277 passes - deliberately bringing their unvaccinated kids to school in order to force the authorities to forcibly remove them so they can tape it and use the videos to stir up public sentiment and portray themselves as persecuted freedom fighters. Does anyone have any idea how effective this tactic would be? Do school officials have a plan in place for enforcing the law, assuming it passes?

That would be all "Gerg" would is spouting his little head off over there.....I seriously doubt that these "rich, white suburban" moms are going to stir up too much trouble...I don't think they are ready to get criminal records.

I don’t think they are ready to get criminal records.

They may be willing to bluff based on a conviction that they're above the law. We had an example of the ilk a few years ago mouth off to the juvenile court judge who was sentencing her precious darling to community service.

I'm told the look on her face when the bailiffs marched her out was priceless.

@#224 --

Intentionally subjecting a child to traumatic events so that you can shoot video and use it for PR purposes is not likely to be an effective tactic, imo.

@#225 --

I don’t think they are ready to get criminal records.

I think they totally want to get marched off in handcuffs. The question is really whether they'd be able to provoke that kind of response without making themselves look worse than the cops.

Somehow I don't think the cops are going to start beating the crap out of white suburban moms on camera, as much as they might be tempted to do so.

By palindrom (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

Intentionally subjecting a child to traumatic events so that you can shoot video and use it for PR purposes is not likely to be an effective tactic, imo.

This is just another example of how this is all about the parents, not the children. They apparently view the children as just props to be utilised accordingly. Pretty much what they've been doing during their protests of SB277 all along.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

Intentionally subjecting a child to traumatic events so that you can shoot video and use it for PR purposes is not likely to be an effective tactic, imo

I think the antivaxxers have amply demonstrated their willingness to use children (both their own and other people's) as props in their narcissistic passion plays. They've got their heads so far up their own butts I don't even think they realize how they come across to the average person anymore. For their kids' sakes, I hope it's just hot air, but I was curious how school officials would respond if someone did try it. It seems RI's readership includes experts on just about every topic, no matter how obscure, so I figure there must be someone on the CA school board :)

Science Mom.
Beat me to it.

By Roger Kulp (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

For their kids’ sakes, I hope it’s just hot air, but I was curious how school officials would respond if someone did try it.

Going out of your way to cause a public disturbance at a school is such a no-go that I honestly can't think of a precedent. Society kind of frowns on that sort of thing. So I don't know.

...

They're not really fighting to win as they are fighting to fight, tactically speaking. I mean, this is no way to win hearts and minds.

If one could safely assume that sensible professionals were running the show, that would suggest that they knew they couldn't win. But I'm not sure it's a safe assumption.

@ Brian Deer:

Unfortunately in my travels around Scamsterville, Lewis fits in well amongst a multitude of poseurs, pretenders, fabricators and grandiose confabulators forever calling themselves 'scientists' and
'investigators' who never seem to shut up long enough to take a deep breath: they really should sometime. I feel we should regard them as performers and fiction writers aiming at an audience who believe them and even PAY them for their drivel.

I am always astonished that their followers don't detect their motivation as they denigrate actual professionals' reputations in their quest for fame and money. Oddly, in an effort to deflect blame form themselves, that's what they usually accuse everyone else of doing. I imagine that person perception is not their audience's strong suit.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

I am not in the slightest worried about #antivax nutjobs pulling off show trials. It has not helped the likes of Operation Rescue nas it? WHat I am worried about is that GOvernor Brown, as Orac has pointed out, has a sketchy record given his notorious signing statement on the earlier bill AB 2109 I have been speaking out in various public forums despite a huge antivax organizing effort linking up the #antigmo wingnuts with the AVx crowd. If you google #antivax on FB search engine my petition is on top but there are 68 signatures as compared to a few on change.org that are antivax. This is worrisome. I hope it is acceptable if I remind RI bloggers of the url in hopes of boosting the signature count. I hope to hit 100 by tommorow morning when I am going to chastize my Board of Supervisors which voted against supporting #SB277. More to the point of RI, your awesome repartee is quite welcome as the commenters on the petition are #antivax including one antivaxxer who signed my petiton by accident ROTFL. https://www.causes.com/campaigns/93130-recall-vaccine-preventable-disea… petition is at

@Barefoot:

Just from my #perspective, #hashtag-speak in places where they're #meaningless is #really #freaking #annoying.

the Opposition had two attorneys queued up to testify, George Fatheree (an attorney who specializes in real estate transactions) and Allison Folmar (who previously represented Maryanne Godboldo). Fatheree represented himself as a an attorney who specializes in education law, but in fact he's a real estate attorney who has done pro bono work advocating for the rights of special education services.

Fatheree's son developed severe epilepsy early in childhood, in 2002, "following the DPT shot" at 2 months. The boy was diagnosed with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome. In the summer of 2004, the Fatherees took the toddler to William Rader's stem cell clinic in the Dominican Republic.

At that time, the boy was "medication free" but evidently was back on a different medication in 2005.

As of a December 2007 writeup in a local magazine:

“We’ve got very high expectations and hopes for him,” says George, who is now clerking for a federal judge in Pasadena before joining the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, where he hopes to offer pro bono assistance to parents who feel their children have been damaged by vaccines.

http://christinaalex.com/writing_01238_novdec.html

#236 #dulynoted

"In a 2004 report,the Immunization
Safety Committee of the Institute of Medicine determined
that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection
of a causal relationship between either MMR or thimerosal-
containing vaccines and autism."
Did this include the 2004 MMR/autism study done by WHISTLEBLOWER Dr. William Thompson who continues to maintain that the results of the paper were fraudulently altered to exonerate the MMR vaccines.

By Toto "the Rock" (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

Toto "The Rock[headed]", Thompson said no such thing. This has been mentioned and your claims proven false on this very blog before.

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

Not only has Thompson said no such thing, he hasn't said anything since the release of the statement by his lawyers......

Over at AoA, Ginger Taylor is trying to figure out why the vast majority of people are ignoring her and her cohorts.......

@ Lawrence:

She mentions a 'perp walk' for DeStefano and Boyle. Interestingly, over at PRN, Brian Hooker ( Focus for Health) carried on yesterday about Boyle: it seems he has LOADS of papers from Thompson that show how she perjured herself when speaking to Congress and that illustrate her long history de-fusing situations that would blow up the CDC ( Agent Orange) and her tainted studies that dismiss any connection between vaccines and autism. The woo-fraught host called for volunteer lawyers to start working on a massive class action suit.

As I said earlier, they're performers: data and reality mean little if you can wrest a good rant and stance from narrating imaginary actions between semi-imagined personalities.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

SB277 was amended yesterday and passed to third reading, which is when the assembly as a whole will vote on the bill. No Assembly Floor analysis has yet been published which means the vote will not be today, but just might be this week. Or not.

Spoke in person today to both my Senator's and my Assemblyperson's staffpersons. The former says beseiged by anti277 (but voted in favor). Latter: said amended to tolerate alternative schedules, which I told her was a bad idea, but that she thinks my rep will vote in favor despite that he will be running for a seat with two shame-listed schools and used to work for the leader of the local antivaxx-antigmo coalition. On the bright side, the pro-277 Senator mentored him and then, he has me running interference emphasizing that, like Texas Oil, Texas Woo is interfering with our great state (on behalf of the proven fraud, charlatan AJW.

Correction: despite that he will be running for a seat NEXT YEAR IN A DISTRCT with two shame-listed UNDERVACCINATED schools

@Toto #125
Late comment, but it's pretty cute (or depressing) how Marcia Angell gets always quoted by anti-vaxxers as if she supported their position.
Whenever she mentions vaccination, it's to regret that the pharma and health care abuses she does denounce makes it more difficult for children to get immunized.
See for example : http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/Exprts_intrvw/m_angell.htm
or her book available on Google Books, p.91-92.
https://books.google.fr/books?id=5DKwxAnhTygC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr…

Sigh. Another clueless politician, this time the head of the Republican Caucus in the California Assembly.

In an interview on the Broeske & Musson radio program last week, Olsen declared that, despite the Disneyland outbreak, “there’s really no need for this bill whatsoever,” dismissing it as an “emotional reaction” to a “one-time incident.”

“I think this is an example of people overreacting to incidences,” Olsen told the hosts. “What we need to make sure in Sacramento is we’re making decisions based on logic and sound data.”

Olsen represents District 12, the east side of the Central Valley.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/06/16/3670002/kristin-olsen-vaccin…

Meanwhile, pertussis continues to attack California:

*2,552 cases with onset in 2015 have been reported to CDPH.
o More than 300 cases were reported occurring in each of the months of January, February and March. While this is lower than the peak in May 2014, it remains above the interepidemic levels seen in 2013.
o 93 cases have been hospitalized; 20 (22%) of these required intensive care
* 62 (67%) of hospitalized patients were infants <4 months of age.
o One death has been reported in an infant that was <3 weeks of age at the time of disease onset.

Sorry, forgot the link to the June pertussis report from the Department of Public Health.

@Liz Ditz

Olsen represents District 12

All I can picture is Olsen jumping up and shouting, "I volunteer! I volunteer as tribute!"

@ Liz Ditz:

I heard via PRN that the Pacifica station at Berkeley censored one of its shows, Guns and Butter (?), twice because it featured anti-vax lunacy courtesy of Null and Humphries who are shrieking about it calling itself 'Free Speech Radio'.

Way to go, Berkeley!

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

There's some serious in-fighting going on amongst the opposition to SB277. Evidently one group paid for Brian Hooker, Toni Bark, and the attorney Allison Folmer (she defended Maryanne Goldbodo) and expected that they would be on the opposition speakers' panel. Allison Folmer was at the table but the 25-minute time limit ran out before she could speak -- or something.

All the mutual recriminations and shrieking is reminding me of when Tim Bolen went after the Canary Party.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/07/01/get-out-the-popcorn-this-i…