As I sat down to lay down my daily (or at least week-daily) dose of Insolence last night, my thoughts kept coming back to vaccines. Sure, as I pointed out in yesterday's post, we seemed to have dodged a bullet in that President Trump appears on the verge of appointing someone who is actually competent and pro-vaccine as director of the CDC. Of course, none of that changes the issue that Donald Trump's proposed budget takes a meat axe to public health programs, including vaccines, and that if Republicans succeed in dismantling the Affordable Care Act a large chunk of money going to vaccine programs at the CDC will disappear. While it's true that the budget was declared "dead on arrival" in Congress, the very fact that Trump proposed it lets you know what his priorities are and that they aren't public health or medical research—or, for that matter, medical care. I joked that Trump has betrayed the antivaccine movement, having built up their hopes that he would launch bogus "investigations" into the CDC or appoint a presidential commission to look into vaccine safety, but then, like Lucy pulling the football away as Charlie Brown tried to kick it, he's basically done nothing. Indeed, he even appointed an honest-to-goodness pharma shill whose only redeeming feature to me (that he's pro-vaccine) is anathema to antivaxers.
Indeed, what surprised me the most about news of the appointment of Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald as CDC Director is how quiet the antivaccine movement has been about it. Sure, I cited Ginger Taylor's appeal on Facebook to call the White House to oppose her appointment (with a hilarious response of one of her readers urging that Trump appoint antivax physician Suzanne Humphries instead and another asking what happened to his "vaccine safety commission" and lamenting his proposals to slash Medicaid that would harm special needs children) and, of course, The Gnat. Interestingly enough, one of the most rabid antivaxers, Mike Adams, is also a rising star in the alt-right and an equally rabid trump supporter. I searched his website for Dr. Fitzgerald's name and found...nothing. Nada. Zip. News of the potential appointment broke roughly a week ago. Normally one would expect Mr. Adams to have gone on a full scale rant about Dr. Fitzgerald's history of very strong pro-vaccine advocacy since she took over running the Georgia Department of Public Health. For any other administration, Adams would be going ballistic, with hit pieces on Fitzgerald dragging her name through the mud for her pro-vaccine advocacy.
Come to think of it, despite his having attacked Scott Gottlieb as a pharma shill ten years ago (one of the rare times he actually made some valid points), Adams has been equally quiet when it comes to Trump's appointment of Dr. Gottlieb as FDA Commissioner. Maybe I should rub his face in these appointments. I'm not a fan of Gottlieb, but he was definitely the "least bad" option, given the libertarian free market-worshiping fairy dust sniffers who were also under consideration for the position.
Even though we've dodged a couple of bullets as far as vaccines are concerned, that was at the federal level. While it might give me great schadenfreude to see Ginger Taylor ranting about Dr. Fitzgerald or to contemplate the cognitive dissonance Mike Adams must be feeling as he keeps his trap shut over his hero Donald Trump's betrayals, there is plenty going on elsewhere to give cause for concern. In my talk at NECSS a week ago, I used the example of Texas because I had written about it before, first about how it's likely to be the next big state with large outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases due to its increasing number of personal belief exemptions to school vaccine mandates, and secondly about how it's a case study in the politicization of school vaccine mandates to a level we've never seen before. The situation there, however, is worse than I thought. Somehow I missed this article from a couple of weeks ago (which would have been perfect for my talk) on how the Texas legislature reached a deadly stalemate on vaccines:
It was mid-April, more than halfway through the legislative session, and Texans for Vaccine Choice was finally getting the fight it had been spoiling for. On April 11, a bill to require schools to report the number of unvaccinated kids had been heatedly debated in a House committee. Doctors, public health experts, parents and others had testified in favor of House Bill 2249, calling it a transparency measure that would simply provide information about vaccination rates at individual schools. The matter was pressing, they said, because more and more parents were opting their kids out of vaccinations using a “reasons of conscience” exemption created by the Legislature in 2003. Without action, recent high-profile outbreaks of mumps and measles in Texas would only grow worse.
But Texans for Vaccine Choice has a radically different frame. While the pro-vaccination crowd appeals to legislators on the basis of science and public health, the anti-vaxxers have their own funhouse mirror version. Vaccines contain toxic chemicals, they say. They cause autism. They overwhelm the immune system. But more than that, the activists, many of them mothers, framed their position as one of parental choice and personal freedom — a message that commands attention at the Texas Legislature.
“The responsibility for my son does not fall on the state or any other family,” said one woman at the committee hearing. “And I would never rely on the herd to keep my son safe.”
Two days later, Texans for Vaccine Choice held a “Freedom Fight” rally on the South Steps of the Capitol. The event featured two prominent members of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, Jonathan Stickland and Bill Zedler, close allies of the anti-vaccination activists.
I've written about this bill before, which antivaxers effectively quashed this year.
Notice how the reporter, Alex Hannaford, refers to the "radically different frame." It's a frame that has shown up in antivaccine arguments and propaganda for a long time. Indeed, in my talk, I showed images from over 100 years ago that used very similar language. However, in the era of the Tea Party and now Donald Trump, that frame appears to have become—dare I say?—radically more effective than it was even a decade ago. That frame is to cloak antivaccine ideas in the mantle of "parental choice," "individual rights," and "personal responsibility." It's a frame that has given antivaxers plausible deniability in a way that is less transparently bullshit than the frame of "I'm not 'anti-vaccine'; I'm a vaccine safety advocate." It's a frame that appeals to small (and anti-) government conservatives, libertarians, and, of course, Donald Trump supporters, some of whom are also drawn to him because of his long, sordid history of spewing antivaccine pseudoscience. (Certainly, the aforementioned Mike Adams loved this aspect of Trump.).
For example, Jackie Schlegel, executive director of Texans for Vaccine Choice has said:
Our message resonates with people. Texans value parental rights. We have a message of liberty. We have a message of choice.
She's not wrong. At least, she's not wrong about how framing school vaccine mandates as an issue of choice, liberty, and parental rights resonates with people of a conservative political bent, even those not inclined to antivaccine beliefs. That's because it's a misleading frame that completely ignores community. Thanks to the success of this frame, the stereotype of the typical antivaxer as a bunch of hippy dippy, granola-crunching left wingers is increasingly at odds with reality, if it ever jibed with reality in the first place. Increasingly, the face of the antivaccine movement is conservative and libertarian. At least the public face is, because that's where the loudest voices are coming from right now, groups like Texans for Vaccine Choice and, in my state, Michigan for Vaccine Choice and the Michigan Vaccine Freedom PAC. Some of these are funded by powerful conservative causes. Texans for Vaccine Choice, for instance, receives support from Empower Texans, which is using the antivaccine conspiracy theorists who run the group as cannon fodder, or a "foot in the door," in the service of their larger battle to decrease government regulation and promote far right wing causes.
In Texas, at least, this unholy alliance has produced results. Basically, Texans for Vaccine Choice has stymied nearly all efforts by the legislature to address the rising rate of personal belief exemptions. As I wrote before, it basically killed the proposed law that would have mandated school level reporting of exemption rate. (Funny how antivaxers are all for "transparency" and "more information" except when the numbers might embarrass them or when it's information that pro-vaccine parents would like to have to help them choose a school).) Meanwhile, legislators sympathetic to the group have been introducing a flurry of bills designed to enhance "choice":
The anti-vaxxers’ legislative agenda reflected this emphasis on “choice.” One bill, HB 1124, would’ve made it easier for parents to obtain exemptions from immunization for children in public school, reducing what was a weeklong process involving a signed affidavit to an instantly available online form.
Another proposal would’ve penalized health care providers who refuse to treat patients who won’t get vaccinated. And a third aimed to require health care providers to give parents what’s known as “vaccine excipient information” — a technical list of vaccine ingredients which, without context, can be misleading or worrisome.
Only one of the six antivax bills got a full committee hearing. Specifically, HB 1124, a bill authored by Matt Krause, a far-right member of the House Freedom Caucus from Fort Worth, would have made it easier for children to claim exemptions to immunization. Currently, a parent who wants a personal belief exemption for her child in public school must apply in writing for an exemption affidavit from the Department of State Health Services, which takes up to a week to process. HB 1124 would have eliminated the requirement for the written request by letting parents print out a blank exemption form from the health agency’s website.
Public health advocates were not wrong when they criticized the bill as a way of increasing exemption rates due to parents claiming them out of convenience. The experience in California and Michigan, as well as other states, have consistently shown that making exemptions harder to get decreases exemption rates. Indeed, in Michigan, we've had considerable success decreasing exemption rates by requiring parents requesting them to go to the local county health department and sit through an education program before a personal belief exemption will be granted, as well as eliminating the use of non-approved form in favor of a state-required form that acknowledges that by claiming an exemption the parent knows she might be endangering her child and others. Not surprisingly, our "freedom-loving" conservatives are trying to reverse this rule legislatively. They tried (and failed) during last year's legislative session. They tried (and failed) this year, helped by the governor saying he would not support the bill. I'm sure they'll try again next year. What frightens me is that one of these times they might well succeed.
Antivaxers in Texas appear to be doing the same sort of thing, and if you don't think these are antivaxers behind the bill, check this out:
Lakshmanan [Rekha Lakshmanan, of the nonprofit Immunization Partnership] said it was astonishing that the authors of all the anti-vaccination bills were from North Texas, scene of the worst measles outbreak in years, and that three — Bill Zedler, Krause and Fort Worth Senator Konni Burton — are from Tarrant County.
Joe Lastinger, whose daughter died in 2004 after contracting influenza, told the committee, “just like restaurant workers have to wash their hands, there are lots of common-sense things we do … and anything that weakens our vaccine safety net for convenience is a mistake.”
“I’m sorry for your loss,” Zedler replied. “It’s entirely different from washing your hands — that doesn’t negatively impact anybody. But people do die as result of adverse reactions to vaccinations. And as far as flu is concerned there are people who get a flu shot and who get flu.”
“If [the flu vaccine] was as good as other vaccinations, it would be a dream come true,” Lastinger answered. “It’s imperfect but better than doing nothing.”
Krause’s bill died in committee, but pro-vaccination forces also found their proposals stuck in a legislative logjam.
Stay classy, Mr. Zedler. Stay classy.
It's gotten really bad, too:
In the final days of the 85th legislative session, it looked like the pro- and anti-vaccine lobbies were going to have to make do with a draw. But at the 11th hour, a discussion over a bill authored by Representative Gene Wu, D-Houston, requiring Child Protective Services to give new children in its custody medical exams, suddenly turned into a feverish argument about vaccines.
Urged on by Texans for Vaccine Choice, Zedler proposed a surprise amendment that would exclude vaccinations from those checkups. Vaccines, he insisted, “do not qualify as emergency care.” He was joined by several Republican members of the Freedom Caucus, with Representative Tony Tinderholt, R-Arlington, arguing that it was an “issue of liberty.”
A plea from Representative Sarah Davis, R-West University Place, a cancer survivor, failed to move the majority of Republicans. Davis proposed a measure that would at least require foster children to be vaccinated against cervical cancer. Her proposal was defeated in a 74-64 vote. Zedler’s amendment, meanwhile, was adopted 74-58.
Though Wu’s bill died in the Senate, a similar version of Zedler’s amendment found its way onto another child welfare bill and was signed into law by Governor Abbott.
Texans for Vaccine Choice considered the session a victory, so much so that they held a victory party.
Here’s what worries me. Traditionally state vaccination policy and school vaccine mandates have been as close to a nonpartisan issue as we have in this country. There has usually been broad bipartisan support for such mandates and the idea that children should be vaccinated as a requirement to be able to attend school. It’s a consensus that has served the country well for many decades now and resulted in the near-elimination of measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases. What I fear is that this consensus is breaking down, and—even worse—school vaccine policies are becoming a partisan issue, every bit as bitter and divided as many others.
Here's how that could happen:
Pro-vaccine lobbyist Jason Sabo is anxious that mainstream Republicans, who might ordinarily have voted against potentially harmful anti-vaccination legislation, now see it as a primary issue.
“Only the extreme of the extreme show up to vote in the primaries: the anti-vaxxers, the pro-gun people, and the anti-annexation guys. Get four or five of these groups together and you have a bloc. And it’s really smart,” Sabo told the Observer. “So next session we have a choice: We either do the same thing and get the same results, or we come back with a different strategy.”
Exactly. As antivaxers cloak their message in the rhetoric of "freedom" and opposition to "government overreach" and "government mandates," they're pushing the frame under which the debate about school vaccine mandates occurs to ground far more favorable to them. In the process, I fear that vaccine science is now becoming as politicized as that of climate science, such that vaccine mandates are increasingly viewed as a partisan issue. That's how it's become in Texas. I also fear that's how it's becoming in Michigan. I fear that the battles in Texas are a harbinger of things to come across the country. Worse, given the reaction of idiots like Bill Zedler to parents like Joe Lastinger, I fear that it will take more than a few deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases to reverse the madness and prod enough antivaxers to come back to their senses.
Plus, the religious right strongly opposes the HPV vaccine because it protects against an STD. Many on the right have long been opposed to that specific vaccine for that reason, and in some cases as a result they have repeated false claims made by anti-vaxxers about alleged adverse effects of the HPV vaccine, when in reality they are just opposed to it because it prevents an STD, and don't care if it is dangerous or not. For example, I recall Michelle Bachmann claiming that the HPV vaccine could cause mental retardation-a claim that is nonsensical on it's face considering the vaccine isn't given until a child is 10-12 years old.
Religious conservatives repeating false claims about supposed adverse effects of the HPV vaccine is kind of like how the antiabortion crowd will sometimes falsely claim that abortion increases the risk of later developing breast cancer-in both cases, they don't care if it does, they just make the claim because it suits them/their agenda.
The anti-vaxxers are so big on "parental rights". What about the parental rights and the child rights of those who don't want to be exposed to their pestilential children?
@MI Dawn-Exactly. That is why we need something like SB77 implemented nationwide. That will never happen though.
Italy and France are ahead of the U.S. when it comes to vaccine policy now-vaccination is now compulsory for children in Italy, and will be beginning next year in France.
This last session was definitely an eye-opener about how far the anti-vaccination side is willing to go. However, I would like to point out that we were able to mobilize pro-vaccine supporters in ways we haven't seen before. There's still a long fight ahead of us but I can assure you that my group, Immunize Texas, and The Immunization Partnership will be continuing our efforts to fight back and move forward. After all, we have rights too and I value my freedom to raise my family in a place that is not overrun by vaccine preventable diseases.
I'm glad you understand that support for the rights of parents to make the vaccination decision does not equate to being anti-vaccine. It's quite reasonable for people to support vaccination and follow the CDC schedule while also supporting the rights of other parents to make a different choice.
The argument that vaccination should be required for school attendance school in order to protect other students only works for communicable diseases like measles. It doesn't hold for the Hep B or HPV vaccines because even if a student has those viruses, they don't pose a threat to other students and will not be prevented from attending school. Requiring those vaccines for school attendance comes across as more of a way to guarantee a market for those vaccines than a concern for children's health, particularly given Gov. Perry's attempt to include HPV on the required list of vaccines for Texas a few years ago.
Vaccinations are not emergency care for children taken into foster care, so I think not allowing vaccinations makes sense in that circumstances. If parental rights are terminated, then whoever ends up with custody would have the right to make that decision but unless and until the parental rights are terminated, that decision should remain with the parents.
I don't understand the objection to publication of exemption rates though. That should be publicly available and I don't think the arguments against doing so hold water.
Of course, when I hear the arguments based on “parental rights,” I always wonder: What about the child’s right to adequate healthcare, which includes being vaccinated on schedule? Funny, but these parents, be they antivaccine or simply so enamored of “parental rights” that they think their “right to choose” overrides the child’s right to standard of care health care, never seem to take that into account. Indeed, they remind me very much of parents who refuse chemotherapy for their children when they develop cancer or who choose prayer instead of medicine, even if their children die. That’s because it’s all about them and their "choice" and "rights," not the child's rights.
I forgot to include my favorite quote illustrating this. It comes from Rand Paul, and he said in an interview in 2015: “The state doesn’t own the children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom.” The antivaccine movement is full of this attitude, namely that parental “rights” trump any rights children might have as autonomous beings. The right of the child and any public health considerations are subsumed to parental “freedom to choose” and “parental rights,” with children viewed, in essence, as their parents’ property or an extension of the parents, to do with as they will, never mind what’s actually best for the child.
That’s because it’s all about the parents, not the child.
@Beth Clarkson-"I’m glad you understand that support for the rights of parents to make the vaccination decision does not equate to being anti-vaccine."
Well, the religious right people who oppose the HPV vaccine are not anti-vaccine in the same way that, say, somebody like Mark Blaxill is, but they *are* just as, if not more, unreasonable as the anti-vaxxers.
Also, although I know you will vehemently disagree with me, I *do not* think that parents should have the right to refuse vaccination, regardless of whether they oppose vaccination because they think vaccinations cause autism or because it "goes against their religious beliefs".
Do you also think that parents should be able to refuse antibiotic treatment for their child if their child has bacterial meningitis? Or that parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses should be able to deny their child a blood transfusion based on their religious objection to blood transfusions?
Because you know, that is basically what you are saying...
Indeed. Do these parents who argue that vaccines should be left to "parental choice" also argue that whether or not a diabetic child receives insulin or not should be left solely to "parental choice"? Do they also argue that whether or not a child with a very treatable cancer should receive treatment or not should be left solely to "parental choice"? Do they argue that whether children with a serious bacterial infection receive antibiotics should be left solely to "parental choice"? Vaccines are no different. They are part of standard-of-care medical care. The attitude of these parents invoking their "choice" or "rights" is basically that the children are their property, to do with as they see fit. As much as they will refuse to admit it, it's an attitude that underlies the examples of denial of medical care to children that I listed above.
No, Beth. You're wrong. You're very wrong. Hep B can be spread through many means - saliva, blood - and kids spit, bite, and bleed on each other. While it's true HPV shouldn't be required for school, it's a very good public health measure.
Parents should not be allowed to pick and choose which vaccines their children receive barring a medical reason. Personal choice or religious exceptions should not be allowed.
@MI Dawn-While I don't think that Beth actually believes that parents should be able to deny their children lifesaving medical interventions (like the examples I gave above), even though that is where the type of "logic" she uses eventually leads, sadly I do think that people like Rand Paul actually believe that, as is illustrated by the quote from Rand Paul that Orac posted above
I will also note that while Beth has previously claimed that she is not anti-vaccine, she is talking as if she is.
. It doesn’t hold for the Hep B or HPV vaccines because even if a student has those viruses, they don’t pose a threat to other students and will not be prevented from attending school.
This is objectively wrong. HBV can be spread through many body fluids, and preschoolers like to bite each other. While it's debatable whether it should be required for school entry, it is false to say there's no risk.
Same with HPV, especially when those teenagers are typically having sex with other teenagers. No matter how much some of us want to pretend they aren't, they ARE. And again, while we can have a discussion over whether it should be required for school attendance, there is a risk, especially for woman, especially since most men don't develop symptoms and therefore don't necessarily know they have it.
Both HPV and HBV are objectively risky in school populations.
I fear that it will take more than a few deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases to reverse the madness and prod enough antivaxers to come back to their senses.
Probably only after a few anti-vax legislators have family members die will they “maybe” come back to their senses.
And that is a lousy way to form policy.
Why am I reminded of the Big Endians and the Small Endians?
Comparing deciding against vaccination to deciding against antibiotic treatment for bacterial meningitis is like comparing circumcision to penis amputation. I can support that one remains legal and other not.
Regarding the child rights to adequate healthcare, I have no objection to allowing minors to receive medical treatment without parental consent as soon as they are capable of asking for it themselves, whether it be vaccinations or birth control. Until then, they are not autonomous agents and medical decisions should be made for them individually by their parents or legal guardians.
BTW, Dr. Fitzgerald has just been officially named as the CDC director.
I wish I could disagree with your concerns, but I can't.
One point: my understanding is that HB1124 did not make it out of committee.
It should have read: Got a hearing before the full committee. Hey, writing at 6 AM before I had to leave for work. Needed to write fast. Oh, well...
A couple of things- Dorit- Yes you are correct. HB 1124 died in committee. It did not come up for a vote. Secondly, to add more color to what is going on in Texas read the following article. There was an exchange during the HB 1124 hearing this session in which a committee member questioned the truthfulness of a pediatrician regarding VAERS. Politfact fact checked that exchange. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2017/may/11/bill-zedler/bill…
Another parent also reported to VAERS that a vaccine had turned his daughter into Wonder Woman.
“The state doesn’t own the children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom.”
I had forgotten about this Rand Paul quote, which demonstrates that he should not be elected dog catcher, let alone US Senator. It is an issue of freedom, but not for the reason Sen. Paul thinks: no human being should ever have the right to own another human being, full stop. This country fought a bloody civil war over this very issue, and Sen. Paul is explicitly putting himself on the side that nominally lost that war.
It's one thing to argue that parents should have the right to make decisions on behalf of their children who because of their young age are not competent to make those decisions for themselves. But it shouldn't trump the children's rights to have adequate health care, including being fully vaccinated (unless medically contraindicated). And it most certainly should not trump the right of other parents' children who depend on herd immunity to have that herd immunity. Most of all, it is always inappropriate to discuss matters as though the parents own their children.
Scratch a libertarian, and you will almost always find an authoritarian underneath. Rand Paul showed his true color with that quote.
I was thinking, like, wow, at least where I live (Arizona) doesn't have this same level of organization by AVers. But, lo and behold, there is an anti-vax group call "Arizonans for Vaccine Choice" founded in late 2016 (https://www.bizapedia.com/az/arizonans-for-vaccine-choice.html) that appears to be doing just that.
FYI, Arizona has had a lot of similar pro-vax bills get stuck in committee, such as one requiring schools to post immunization rates and another to repeal a law that says you can be a foster family in Arizona even if your own children are unvaccinated. There just hasn't been as much hoopla over these bills as in Texas.
I, too, worry AVers have established much more infrastructure in the last few years than we have realized.
@Beth Clarkson: yes, the parents need to make the decisions, preferably in conjunction with a reputable health care provider, one held to standards by participating in local health insurances rather than cash only practices. That way the children will receive appropriate preventative care according to their health care needs, rather than decisions parents made after "researching" on the internet.
@MI Dawn - Thanks for expressing your agreement with me on that one issue.
What is the objection to cash only practices? Personally, I'd prefer we had a single payer system with no charge for vaccinations of any kind. Not being able to afford vaccinations is a problem for many parents in this country and making them free for everyone would increase the vaccination rate. But I don't see why paying cash for your children's vaccination would be objectionable.
One thing that worked in California as we were working to get SB277 is building a grass-roots pro vaccine pro science action group, Vaccinate California (vaccinatecalifornia DOT org). Petitions, calling our electeds, calling various other health organizations to endorse the bill ... plain old political activism.
There is a similar group in Texas, Immunize Texas
Immunize Texas is a grassroots network of parents, friends, and community members dedicated to promoting immunization in Texas and keeping our communities protected from vaccine-preventable diseases. We know that vaccines protect Texans and a healthy Texas is a safe Texas.
There is also another group,
The Immunization Partnership (TIP) is a nonprofit organization that evolved from the partnership originally dedicated to supporting the Houston-Harris County Immunization Registry.
Recognizing the importance of expanding the range of strategies in order to achieve and sustain high immunization rates, in 2007 the Houston-Harris County Immunization Registry Board of Directors developed a new name and mission that truly reflects the broader scope of the organization. The organization became The Immunization Partnership (TIP).
The Partnership aims to eradicate vaccine-preventable diseases by developing and coordinating our communities' resources through public and private partnerships.
As part of its evolution into an organization that supports broader immunization issues, TIP has developed a community-wide program to educate individuals, parents and providers about the importance of on-time immunizations. TIP also advocates for evidence-based public policy and fosters collaborative efforts among the immunization partners.
The problem, unfortunately, is that these groups are out-funded and therefore outgunned. I discussed this issue the last time I discussed the politicization of school vaccine mandates. Antivaxers are well-funded and passionate:
But immunization advocates like Suh say it’s hard to counter the passion of her opponents. Most people consider vaccinations to be such a basic part of life, like clean drinking water, that it’s hard to motivate them to take time to show up at lawmakers’ offices.
“We’re completely outgunned,” said Suh, adding there are only about a dozen members whom she can call on to show up for events. Immunize Texas is part of the Immunization Project.
Suh often writes emails and posts to the group’s Facebook account from her cellphone while caring for her two sons. She juggles her immunization advocacy, a mostly volunteer gig, with other businesses she runs from home.
I'd say the difference is not so much passion. Clearly those running pro-vaccine groups are passionate, and I admire them greatly. The problem is that there aren't enough of them, and they don't have enough money.
@Beth Clarkson: oh, I'm all for universal health coverage, that pays for all preventative services with no expense to the patient. I think that would be a great thing, which is why I like the ACA so much and why the "Trumpcare" mess scares me so much.
However, most cash-only practices are not held to good clinical practices, like following the CDC vaccination schedule (see Dr Bob Sears and our friend Dr Jay Gordon). With no outside accountability, they are free to flout clinical guidelines for their precious snowflake clientele.
@MI Dawn - Thanks for your response, but I don't follow why cash only practices would be held to different standards of practice. Vaccinations are not required by pediatricians and cannot be administered without parental consent. What difference does having a cash only practice make? What is the outside accountability for doctors that accept insurance payments that cash only practices escape?
What is the objection to cash only practices?
In addition to the points MI Dawn makes above, there is the issue of fairness. In order to use a cash only medical practice, one has to have the cash, and as you correctly note, many parents don't. To deny someone healthcare solely due to that person's (or person's parents'/legal guardians') inability to pay signals something very wrong with a health care system.
@Beth: Regarding the post you made while I was typing my earlier reply to you: Insurance companies have an interest in making sure the treatments they pay for are effective. That's an additional and immediate deterrent to deviating from standard practices of medical care, because either the doctor or the patient would have to eat the cost of the disallowed procedure. Cash-only practices do not have to worry about this immediate feedback. There is still the regular medical discipline system, but it can take years for a complaint to reach the relevant body, and additional years to act on that complaint.
To take an example: Dr. Stan Burzynski, a frequent subject of this blog, does not accept insurance. Whether he knows from experience that insurance companies won't pay for his treatments or whether he feels he has enough demand just from people able and willing to pay cash, I don't know, but it's not important. What is important is that insurance companies are not telling him that he doesn't meet the standard of care. And in his case we have repeatedly seen that the Texas Medical Board is ineffective at restraining him.
@Eric Lund: re: Dr B - my employer has a medical policy specifically addressing his "antineoplastin therapy". We consider it investigational and won't pay for it. So yeah, not standard of care.
To clarify my comments to Beth: most (if not all) health insurance companies are monitored by many state and federal agencies. One of these is NCQA, which has guidelines for care. To remain NCQA certified, we have to have a certain percentage of members who meet those guidelines. Full immunization by the age of 6 is one of them. So yes, we care if a doctor doesn't follow guidelines.
And, on the financial side - it's much cheaper to pay for vaccines than the disease. Even if it's "only chicken pox", the cost of treatment, (whether it's a parent has to use leave time or lose pay, or MD visits, or hospitalization) far outweighs the cost of the vaccine. And the risks of vaccine related problems are far less than the risks from the disease.
Most insurance companies want to make a profit - or at least pay their bills if they are non-profit. Paying for lesser cost but as or more effective treatments makes fiscal sense.
@MI Dawn - Thanks. I wasn't aware of NCQA so that was new information for me. Vaccination is much less costly than treating disease, so I can understand that insurance companies would want to maximize vaccination as long as number of serious adverse reactions remain low enough that the cost of treating those vaccine injures is below the cost of treating outbreaks of the disease.
...vaccine science is now becoming as politicized as that of climate science...
Intuitive analogy and this may play out to the benefit of all.
Most important, Orac and a few of his minions have the communication skills to bring clarity to these most complicated health & safety issues.
Q. What do vaccine science and climate science have in common.
On a related note, the issue of parental consent is also being grossly distorted in the case of the British child Charlie Gard. Not only do the parents seem incapable of truly acting in the child’s best interests, but the hospital cannot defend its position due to privacy issues, which allows the public to get this whole issue totally wrong and assume that the “poor parents” are being “dictated” to by the uncaring hospital. I have been posting Orac’s view on parental rights everywhere I can, but like so many of these things, it’s a Sisyphean task.
From what little I know of the case, I remain amazed that UK law actually does put the interests of the child over those of the parents, even to the point of the courts making a very unpopular decision.
“The responsibility for my son does not fall on the state or any other family,” said one woman at the committee hearing.
I thought that was the whole point. I mean, Texas explicitly has no constitutional provision guaranteeing a right to state-supplied education for one's offspring.
I don't know about every state but in most states if a parent is unable to pay for the child vaccinations; the will receive them free of charge.
“I’m sorry for your loss,” Zedler replied. “It’s entirely different from washing your hands — that doesn’t negatively impact anybody. Whoever this Zedler is, he is an idiot. I don't have any stats easily at hand but just in this country alone thousands of people get sick from unwashed hands be it their own or someone else's every year. How many people die in this country because of diseases passed along because of unwashed hands is probably difficult to impossible to calculate; but they do die. When I inspect a food facility what is the number one violation: lack of proper hand washing.
I do know one thing: When I move to Thailand in January and have a step-daughter (she'll be about 5 months old) she will be vaccinated following Thailand's schedule which has more vaccine requirements than the US schedule.
Great column. Dead on. I've been writing not-to-worry about Trump on vaccine policy per se, worry about the effect on vaccination from the larger atrocious healthcare and public health policy. But that's just talking about the federal level. Take the more comprehensive picture, and it's not-to-worry about federal vaccine policy per se, worry about antivax policy changes in the states with right wing legislatures.
Orac's also right to connect this to Trumpism. Now, it's important to understand that Trump isn't an idea guy, and Trumpism isn't about ideological content. Trumps positions are always mutating, going sideways, reversing, dropping. Trumpism is about ideological form – bullying, chest-thumping, Machiavellian mendacity, rule-breaking, sewing chaos and distraction... And above all else, the factor that most separates right-wing populism from 'mainstream' conservatism: a vicious mobilization of resentment. Mad at someone? Anyone? Trump's your bully-boy.
Consider the ideology that's articulated to these new antivax efforts:
an issue of choice, liberty, and parental rights resonates with people of a conservative political bent
Right. That's Rand Paul, Ted Cruz stuff, not Trump himself. But Trump will exploit it to his advantage, and it's adherants will see Trump-style as a way to git 'er done. That's what I mean by "articulated" – a connection that goes both ways. Orac nails what's really disturbing here. It's not so much that AVs are using Trumpism. They're still a fringe with limited political power. It's that Trumpist conservatives are using anti-vax as a tool for their wider agendas, building coalitions can gain and hold power at the state level, and then be beholden to the AVs for... something.
The hard-core anti-vaxers will never come to their senses. The question is what it will take for the right-wingers exploiting AV sentiment to come to their senses on vaccine policy. The optimist on one side of my brain hopes a Disneyland-type outbreak in their states would do the trick – that is, a lot of misery, but no deaths. But, as Orac notes, these asshats don't give a flying fark about anyone else in their communities. So the pessimist on the other side of my brain fears that "more than a few deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases" wouldn't change a damn thing. Hell, they still probably be a drop in the bucket of misery and death to come from the repeal of the ACA, the Medicaid cuts, and whatever else the GOP greedheads push/sneak through Congress.
she will be vaccinated following Thailand’s schedule which has more vaccine requirements than the US schedule
That is axiomatically unpossible.
I can't find the comments from the guy who just wanted Israel's minimalist vaccine schedule, though. This weird notion didn't exactly play in Peoria.
@Beth Clarkson #13:
Comparing deciding against vaccination to deciding against antibiotic treatment for bacterial meningitis is like comparing circumcision to penis amputation. I can support that one remains legal and other not
Only if you believe that vaccination has no more health benefits than circumcision - which is why trying to use "parental rights" as an end-run around the fact that you've lost on the science is, ultimately, a losing strategy. Everyone agrees that parental rights end somewhere,and like it or not, that line ultimately has to be drawn based on what the majority of reasonable, well-informed people think, not necessarily what the parents think. If that weren't the case, we'd have to let sincere breatharians choose not to feed their children.
Also, frankly, when you stop even trying to make the case that you're doing what's best for your child, and start falling back on the "it's my kid and I'll do what I want with it" defense, its time to step back and ask yourself whether you're genuinely motivated by you're child's best interests or your own stubbornness and pride.
Most insurance companies want to make a profit – or at least pay their bills if they are non-profit.
"Non-profit" is a term of art roughly denoting "funnel profit upward."
Narad, Thailand requires Japanese encephalitis vaccination of children starting at 12 months.
@Sarah #38: I don't know that circumcision has any health benefits. The issue under discussion is not whether limitations on parental rights exist, but where the line limiting those rights should be drawn.
My opinion is that vaccination should be a parental decision rather than mandated by law and that a publicly funded education should not be forfeit if parents don't make the preferred choice. This is because I feel the harm to society of forcing vaccination on people who don't want it is greater than the harm to society of allowing people to remain unvaccinated, but that's a moral decision.
For me, it's a weighing of the freedom to make one's own choices versus the safety and security obtained by requiring everyone else make that choice. In this case, I favor freedom over security, but other people place different values on those competing public goods with respect to vaccination.
Doc Bastard, a trauma surgeon, has written at length about the sad case of Jahi McMath (the brain-dead young woman whose parents are keeping her alive mechanically).
He recently wrote about Charlie Gard's RRM2B-related mitochondrial disease and prognosis.
It's such a sad story.
“It’s entirely different from washing your hands — that doesn’t negatively impact anybody." Whoever this Zedler is, he is an idiot. I don’t have any stats easily at hand but just in this country alone thousands of people get sick from unwashed hands be it their own or someone else’s every year.
Zedler's argument (I think) is that handwashing has no risk of side-effects and no costs for the handwasher (other than the violation of FREEDOM).
This is because I feel the harm to society of forcing vaccination on people who don’t want it is greater than the harm to society of allowing people to remain unvaccinated,
There are 25 dead Romanian kids who could have argued that point with you.
Plus, the religious right strongly opposes the HPV vaccine because it protects against an STD. Many on the right [...] are just opposed to it because it prevents an STD, and don’t care if it is dangerous or not.
I was looking at the program for AutismOne 2017 -- my life is full of poor decisions -- and there was an entire stream there for anti-HPV-vaccine stories.
Recent VICP Cases associated with HPV vaccination
Robert J. Krakow, JD
HPV Vaccines: How to create and maintain a market out of thin air
HPV Vaccine Victims in Colombia Fight Within the Legal System
Mario Lamo-Jiménez, MA in Intercultural Administration
What Biologically Plausible Mechanisms of Action are Health Agencies Ignoring?
Suzanne Humphries , MD
HPV vaccine: Benefit vs. Risk
HPV Vaccine Safety Panel
Robert J. Krakow , Esq.
(I have no idea why Krakow's title changes from "JD' to "Esq").
There is no attempt to pretend that HPV vaccines are related to 'autism', the nominal focus of the scamboree, it's just an expression of their broader anti-vax remit. The organisers know a hot-button for theocrats (and a potential income stream) when they see one. HPV is God's way of punishing sluts.
I am getting tired of hearing about parental rights trumps all other considerations. Can a parent physically or mentally abuse a child; of course not. In my book, not providing vaccinations for VPDs comes under child abuse. Yes, there is a small chance of a reaction to a vaccine (most are very minor) but is the risk to the greater than when he or she is not vaccinated? The answer is that the child is at greater risk without the vaccination. Not only is the child at greater risk but others are then at greater risk.
Parental rights is a concept that is wrong, a child is a person that is not fully capable of making correct decisions. It is the parents responsibility to protect a child until (in this country) they reach 18 years of age. Again denying vaccinations is to me a form of child abuse. Once a child a reaches the age where they can make their decisions, they can decide not to continue vaccinations (since many vaccines need updated as we grow older).
@shay simmons-And two German kids who died of SSPE after contracting measles at their pediatricians office from an unvaccinated child. They were too young to be vaccinated when they contracted measles. I wonder what Beth would say about that horrible case?
@Rich Bly (#45)-I'd use the term neglect, not abuse, but I otherwise agree-however, you forgot to state the obvious-not only does vaccine refusal endanger the unvaccinated child, it also endangers those who are exposed to the child, so you could argue it is actually *worse* than other forms of medical neglect.
Beth @41: Male circumcision is associated with reduced transmission and infection of HIV.
As for laws mandating public health, I know I've presented the actions taken by health departments before the advent of many vaccines (generally quarantine or the closing of schools, pools, movie theaters and other places where people congregate). Compared to those actions, vaccination is far less intrusive.
The point of government (of any stripe) is to keep people safe. Public health is the first and most basic part of that.
My opinion is that vaccination should be a parental decision rather than mandated by law and that a publicly funded education should not be forfeit if parents don’t make the preferred choice.
We had this fight on a previous thread. I pointed out that the intentionally unvaccinated pose a threat to those who can't be vaccinated and those who have leukaemia and similar diseases.
I feel the harm to society of forcing vaccination on people who don’t want it is greater than the harm to society of allowing people to remain unvaccinated
The harm of an unvaccinated individual passing on a disease to a child too young to be vaccinated is far greater and far more real than any theoretical harm done by sanctioning the deliberately unvaccinated.
Your argument is bad, and you should feel bad.
@Liz Ditz (42)-There is no hope for Charlie Gard, from what I understand, but is there any reason to think that the parents taking him to the U.S. for "experimental treatment" would actually do any harm?
My understanding is that his brain damage from the disease is so severe that he is no longer conscious, and therefore he isn't suffering...so while futile, keeping him alive for longer so that the parents could try experimental treatments wouldn't appear to do any harm (aside from being a waste of money).
If life support is withdrawn now, the parents might spend the rest of their lives wondering if things could have been different had they been able to take him to the U.S. for treatment, whereas if they are allowed to take him to the U.S. for experimental treatment, when he fails to improve and eventually is taken off life support despite the experimental treatment, they will be able to accept his death, feeling that they did everything possible to save him.
I guess what I'm saying is that while the parents are incorrect in thinking that any experimental treatment could save him, I have yet to hear a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to try-even though it would basically just be to make them feel better.
Jonas, I used the term abuse because there may be actual physical harm. Whereas neglect may not include actual physical harm. But this is just bashing of semantics.
I will soon be in part responsible for a young child (she's due Sept. 25th) and I mean to protect her to best of my ability without being a helicopter parent. I am old enough to have had most VPDs and don't want her to suffer from those preventable diseases.
@MI Dawn (#29)-You write "my employer has a medical policy specifically addressing his “antineoplastin therapy”. We consider it investigational and won’t pay for it. So yeah, not standard of care."
I can't help but wonder why insurance often covers acupuncture-after all, while Burzynski is a quack and his "treatment" is useless, acupuncture is just as useless, and even less biologically plausible.
With reference to #33/34: The case has just been referred back to the High Court by the Hospital responsible for his care (if memory serves; Great Ormond Street).
It would seem that a (Very) experimental treatment may be of some assistance to young Charlie, though the Consultants remain highly sceptical (Sorry; Skeptical).
There was an earlier reference regarding JWs and kids requiring blood transfusions. These are also routinely passed to the Judicial system and the Child is made a Ward of Court which removes parental control and allows appropriate treatment.
Enabling delusions to continue is not necessarily kindness, even if it may seem that way at the time.
Hm...we regularly have "more than a few deaths" from vaccines, as well as many lives destroyed by disability. But it hasn't reversed the pro-vax madness, or prodded enough pro-vaxers to come back to their senses.
I guess an industry worth hundreds of billions can buy a lot of seemingly respectable pushers and social engineers, to make it seem as if vaccines are all worth it.
we regularly have “more than a few deaths” from vaccines,
Citation desperately needed.
as well as many lives destroyed by disability
Citation desperately needed.
Protip: If you need to drop trou to produce a citation, it's probably invalid.
Once again NWOR provides allegations without citation.
I've often wondered what other conspiracy theories you believe. After all CT's rarely believe in just one.
Damn. I replied on my phone and missed earlier comments from our 'Very Vicar' and our esteemed host.
I'm now sitting on the naughty step and
wearing a pointy hat.
"Hundreds of Billions?"
You've off by a factor of 10.
And that's just revenue, not profit, which you're off by a factor of 20.
Peebs @ 59:
My comment wasn't showing because I'm on automatic moderation, since a sock attack.
@Shay #44 - Dead foreign kids are sad. You can attempt to score points in internet arguments with their tragedy, but I don't find it a compelling argument for why children taken into foster care should be given an HPV vaccine without their parents' consent.
@ Rich Bly Who has argued that parental rights trump all other considerations? My argument is that the benefits of vaccine mandates are not worth the cost in abrogating the parental right to decide what medical treatments are best for their child. Yes, there are circumstances when it's necessary for the state to step in. That's done on a case by case basis now which is fine.
I'm not convinced that herd immunity constitutes a public good worthy of that forcing it on children without their parent's consent. Nor do I think that unvaccinated children are too dangerous to be allowed in public schools or that parents who decide against vaccination for whatever reason should be prosecuted for child abuse. That's just insane to me. Like the atheists who term Sunday School indoctrination and call it child abuse.
Look, we require documentation of either a measles vaccination or an exemption because it is important to keep the unvaccinated children from attending school during an outbreak. That's a reasonable precaution for society to take. But I think it's more important for a child to have access to a public education than to insist that child be vaccinated, so I don't favor elimination of exemptions for religious or personal reasons.
@Jonas - See my response to Shay #44 above
@Justech #49 - Yes, those measures are far more intrusive. They are also generally taken only in the event of major outbreaks. Vaccination is less intrusive, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't question whether the benefit to public health justifies the intrusion into private lives and personal medical decisions. I'm not convinced that the benefit to public health is worth the cost of denying a better education to unvaccinated children. There's room for disagreement about that.
@Julian Frost - Yes, you pointed that out previously. I disagree that it was sufficient justification for most of the laws that failed in Texas. (I do think they should publish the vaccination exemption rates for the schools, so I didn't agree with that.)
"Your argument is bad, and you should feel bad." Is this your idea of a persuasive argument against mine? I don't feel at all bad about my argument, nor do I care what you think of me for putting it forth. I'm allowed to disagree with you about whether the existence of immune comprised people is a supportive argument for laws that allow children taken into foster care in Texas to be given HPV vaccinations without their parents consent.
Did ya'll hear? There was a horrific outbreak of *gasp* chickenpox in the Netherlands. You can witness the carnage in this video. The brave photographer, and the newscasters laughing in the face of danger, are a true inspiration. :D https://youtu.be/v8CbgaDsoHs
As for the "citations" y'all are so desperately seeking that show there is, in fact, a reason for the existence of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program...some lawyers do what the VICP prefers not to do: list the vaccine injuries they have successfully won compensation for. Here's the results from one firm: https://www.mctlawyers.com/vaccine-injury/cases/
NWO Troll, those are not citations. Those are just distraction.
Now please post the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers to support this assertion: "Hm…we regularly have “more than a few deaths” from vaccines, as well as many lives destroyed by disability. "
Also, newscasters are not reputable qualified researchers.
Hey, good news! The HRSA does publish data about the number of vaccine deaths and injuries that were either compensated or dismissed. Sure, it's just a fraction of the actual cases, but it's a start. Too bad there's no right to a jury trial--we would likely see much different numbers. Anyway, the goodies are on page 5: https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data/vicpmonthlyreporttemplate…
Typical. Ginny comes at us with cherrypicked newscasts and a website from a lawyer's office? Do they post which cases they have not won? Otherwise, there is some bias there.
Developed countries do a good job of keeping track on cause of death. You can access that information freely from most countries (in an aggregate form). Take some time and put that law degree to good use and get some counts of deaths from vaccines. It should not be too hard to do.
Then come back and we can talk about your findings.
Are you dissing your beloved Health Resources and Services Administration, Mr. Low Ren District? They publish that vaccine injury and death data for your benefit--the least you could do is appreciate it.
Can a parent physically or mentally abuse a child[?]
Well, yeah. Most cases go unreported. But I'll assume Rich was talking about government policy and/or judicial rulings. There, 'parental rights' don't trump ALL other considerations, but they're given a lot of weight, resulting in some shocking parental action either being allowed under law, or given only wrist-slaps in court. It's wrong, of course, but a much wider, deeper and entrenched issues than vaccinations. Where we are as a society is that Rand Paul can get away with a public statement that just takes for granted that children are property before arguing who owns them. Granted that Paul wouldn't extend this concept of property to equate it to slaves who can be bought and sold in the market, shipped overseas in containers, and taken as capital loss tax write-offs if they die in the middle passage. But this Randian notion of 'property' is still close enough to slavery that it turns my stomach to think what all it has allowed in practice. Maybe someday, the majority in society will come to regard that sort of dehumanization in a similar light. Until then, that larger ideology will surround not just vaccination, but every other aspect of children's health, and we must fight the former if we want to right by the latter.
NWO Troll: "The HRSA does publish data about the number of vaccine deaths and injuries that were either compensated or dismissed."
We have known that for years. It is the basis of my little math story problem that no one will answer. The data is there, so what exactly is the ratio between thetotal number of given vaccines and the total number of compensated claims?
Plus, do tell us with actual factual statistics which vaccine on the present American pediatric schedule causes more harm than the diseases. Do I need to define the word "more" for you?
I'm sorry, but you've badly mangled that.
According to your own link, that was a U.S. Supreme Court decision, holding which "stated that the appellees did not sufficiently prove a textual basis, within the US Constitution, supporting the principle that education is a fundamental right."
I don't have access to lexisnexis at the moment to see if it's still good law, but this is also from teh same page:
Abbott District, a legal doctrine in New Jersey state constitutional law resulting from a series of cases holding that the education of children in poor communities was unconstitutionally inadequate.
Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby, a 1993 Texas decision recognizing that unequal funding of public school districts violated the Texas State Constitution.
Serrano v. Priest a post-Rodriguez decision in which California courts found that the method of funding schools violated the California Constitution's equal protection clause."
Finally, there's this, Tex. Const. art. VII
Sec. 1. SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE OF SYSTEM OF PUBLIC FREE SCHOOLS. A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.
Sec. 2. PERMANENT SCHOOL FUND. All funds, lands and other property heretofore set apart and appropriated for the support of public schools; all the alternate sections of land reserved by the State out of grants heretofore made or that may hereafter be made to railroads or other corporations of any nature whatsoever; one half of the public domain of the State; and all sums of money that may come to the State from the sale of any portion of the same, shall constitute a permanent school fund.
(Amended Nov. 8, 2011)
You are reacting the same way as a lot of comments I’ve been trying to refute. As I said, the hospital as stated that the child cannot be moved--to the home of the parents, or to Rome as the Pope offered. The hospital says the child is suffering. The experimental treatment has not even been tried in mice and the doctor offering it remains unnamed and has, in some sources, more-or-less withdrawn the offer.
There are apparently medical reasons for the hospital’s decision which, again, as I said, cannot be discussed due to privacy concerns. I’m putting my money on the hospital and courts who have the necessary details of the child’s condition. The parents remind me of those people who took their brain dead 13 year old home to “care for her” after refusing to take her off life support, or the parents in the Terry Schaivo case. They refuse to listen to any expert advice and keep going on about “give Charlie his chance”...whatever that’s supposed to mean. This kind of religiously inspired reverence for “life” seems grossly hypocritical to me.
@CJTX: I'm well aware of the Serrano cases; the second was a direct response to the SCOTUS ruling in the Texas case. I am also, however, disinclined to get up at the moment to try to disentangle the rest of your comment. It would help if you could be more specific than "badly mangled" plus copypasta.
Wow, NWOR. So, out of billions of doses, a little over 1200 were claimed to have caused death. But we don't know how many were actually compensated because the injury and death compensations are lumped together in the next column. I do note, however, that the ratio of dismissed to compensated is 2:1... So obviously, there are a lot of claims dismissed as not caused by vaccines.
Oh, and those 1200 cases? Over nearly 20 year time period (1988-2017). A lot more people died from accidents over those 20 years than from vaccines.
You always forget that we *will* check any links you post, don't you?
# 76 MI Dawn
You always forget that we *will* check any links you post, don’t you?
Clearly you are not playing fairly!
@NWOR (#67)-Did you even read anything in that link you posted? It states, quite clearly, that: "The United States has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in history. In the majority of cases,
vaccines cause no side effects, however they can occur, as with any medication—but most are mild.
Very rarely, people experience more serious side effects, like allergic reactions."
"Being awarded compensation for a petition does not necessarily mean that the vaccine caused the
Almost 80 percent of all compensation awarded by the VICP comes as result of a negotiated
settlement between the parties in which HHS has not concluded, based upon review of the
evidence, that the alleged vaccine(s) caused the alleged injury."
In other words, the link you provided COMPLETELY REFUTES your claims!
@NWOR (#67)-There were 62 deaths alleged (but NOT proven) to be related to either the MMR or MMRV between 1988 and 2017, according to the VICP link you posted. In contrast, in 2015 ALONE, there were 134,200 deaths from measles (and that's an underestimate, as it does not take into account the fact that measles increases the risk of death from other infectious diseases for a 2-3 year period after recovery from measles, due to "immunologic amnesia" induced by measles virus)
Especially considering the fact that the overwhelming majority of the deaths alleged to be due to the MMR were probably actually entirely unrelated to the MMR, it should be extremely obvious to everyone that the disease is far, far more dangerous than the vaccine.
Here is good breakdown you should read Jonas:
Beth Clarkson: "@Shay #44 – Dead foreign kids are sad."
Yeah, but they're just furriners. Best to ignore them and concentrate only on American kids, who are doing just fine...but of course, that has nothing to do with immunization, it's only a coincidence because them diseases were wiped out by sanitation. And remember, antivaccine messages from U.S. sources stop at our borders and never influence anyone abroad.
Let's further examine the information you provided in your link, NWOR.
Between 1988 and 2017, there were 1,006 petitions alleging illness or death from the MMR vaccine filed at the VICP.
555 of those were dismissed, and considering how low the bar is for evidence at VICP, we can be certain that those illnesses/deaths were not due to the MMR vaccine. Only 296 of the petitioners were compensated for alleged illness or death due to the MMR vaccine, and considering the fact that to get compensation, the petitioners claim only needs to be "legally probable, not medically or scientifically certain", many of the illnesses/deaths, which the petitioners were compensated for, were likely not due to the MMR either. In some cases, petitioners alleging that a vaccine caused an illness that has been proven NOT to be caused by vaccination have been compensated anyway (if I recall correctly, one person with MS that they claimed was due to the Hep B vaccine was compensated, even though studies have shown that the Hep B vaccine doesn't cause MS)
Now let's compare the 296 alleged (not proven) injuries or deaths from the MMR vaccine, which occurred over a 29-year period, to measles in 1951 in the U.S. ALONE-in 1951, 683 people died of measles in the U.S., and thousands more suffered severe complications (on average, 4,000 people developed encephalitis from measles each year in the U.S. in the pre-vaccine era-and remember, some of the survivors were left permanently brain damaged-and 48,000 were hospitalized).
So, in short, more people died of measles in 1951 alone than were compensated by the VICP for alleged (but not proven) illness or death from an adverse effect of the MMR vaccine between 1988 and 2017.
@Lawrence-Thanks for the link-I already knew that VAERS reports are pretty much worthless, but that link illustrates that well-it still doesn't top Dr. Jim Laidler being able to submit a report to VAERS claiming that a vaccine had turned him into the Incredible Hulk though!
Or the one where someone's daughter turned into Wonder Woman.
Here is a good one too, on HPV Vaccine & VAERS...the deaths that weren't.
@Lawrence-I skimmed the link from Just The Vax and found this:
"449334-1 Symptoms onset 968 days after vaccination. Patient was found to be positive for a genetic mutation (FUS) recently recognized as associated with early-onset, rapidly progressive ALS."
Why would anyone report something to VAERS if they knew for a fact that the cause of the illness was genetic?
That list also does a good job of illustrating why self-reports cannot be trusted, which is one of the primary reasons why the Mawson survey, that the anti-vaxxers have been so fixated on lately, is worthless.
Quoting Jonas at #51:
My understanding is that his brain damage from the disease is so severe that he is no longer conscious, and therefore he isn’t suffering…
The trauma surgeon I cited is of the opinion that Charlie Gard can experience pain.
The ethicist Arthur Caplan wrote yesterday,
So the issue is where does Charlie die, not if. If efforts were made to move him outside the ICU experts tell me he is highly unlikely to survive so he might die on a plane to the Vatican, New York or in an ambulance in the U.K. He might die when the untested drug is given to him in the U.S. or in London. He might die when the doctors decide enough is enough or a bit later if they decide to honor his parents’ wishes to keep the technology going. But, no one will cure Charlie. No one will keep him alive for more than months.
@Liz Ditz (#86)-Well, if so, then I can see why the hospital feels that support should be withdrawn now. I admit I haven't followed the case closely.
The Jahi McMath case is different-she is brain-dead, and her extremely religious parents have refused to accept that. One wonders if they ever will-she was declared brain dead in December 2013, and close to 4 years later they still haven't accepted it.
In any case, it would be best for all involved, in both cases, if the parents could accept the futility of continuing life support.
I saw that you went through all of Ginger Taylor's supposed "130 studies supporting a vaccine-autism link" and explained why each of the studies did not support the existence of such a link. Good work!
A few months ago, an anti-vaxxer on a different comment board posted a link to her list-I read the studies she'd listed, and my view of Taylor's credibility dropped even further-as many of the studies were not even related to vaccines!
And yet some people might see that list and, not bothering to actually read it, actually believe it.
Peebs wrote at #54
"There was an earlier reference regarding JWs and kids requiring blood transfusions. These are also routinely passed to the Judicial system and the Child is made a Ward of Court which removes parental control and allows appropriate treatment."
Unfortunately, that is not always the case. A 15-year old JW died after refusing a blood transfusion in Australia.
Jonas: there's also the issue of money. In California, there is no cap on a jury award if the victim is still alive, but a $250,000 cap if the victim dies. The McMath's have a very good malpractice claim, and they are suing for malpractice claiming that Jahai is still alive. One does not like to think the parents are motivated solely by money, but the lawyers no doubt are. And the parents have backed themselves into a pretty tight corner with their claims.
Beth: Vaccinations might not be emergent care but they certainly are urgent lest the child expose other children in a foster home or new school to communicable disease.
It always surprised me that Perry did what he did in regards to Gardasil, but I think it speaks to the fact that vaccination did, until very recently, enjoyed wide bipartisan support such to the point Perry didn't think twice about adding Gardasil to the schedule in Texas because of its potential to eliminate one of the most common cancers in women, and a rare cancer in men (cervical and penile respectively). Given that cervical cancer rates in young women are dropping, and the disease has the potential to be almost completely eliminated, he made the right call. It's a shame the religious nuts made him back off.
Vaccination can be a matter of parental choice. But your rights stop at my nose. If a parent chooses not to vaccinate their child, the state has a compelling interest to protect other children from that child bringing communicable disease into the classroom by barring unvaccinated children from school.
Don't want to vaccinate? Fine. Be prepared to home school, or send your kid to a private school at your own expense. The state does not have to subsidize such moronic decisions.
If you can't understand herd immunity, there's not much that can be done for you. You need to take a public health course and learn the definitions to terms like "vector" and "host" and "reservoir." You need to learn about the chain of infection, and how it works. Then learn a little something about how the immune system really works. Learn it in a real science classroom, not on the Internet.
But in the meantime, my nieces and nephews should not be put at risk because you refuse to accept what decades of scientific and medical research have shown us about WHY inoculation and vaccination are the greatest inventions of modern medicine.
dead foreign kids are sad
ANY DEAD KIDS ARE SAD. THEY'RE EVEN MORE SAD WHEN THEY ARE DEAD BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS EXERCISED PARENTAL RIGHTS NOT TO PROTECT THEM.
@Panacea-Yes, I'm surprised by that too-I don't generally agree with Perry, but I absolutely agree with the statement he made in May 2007, when he said: “I challenge legislators to look these women in the eyes and tell them, ‘We could have prevented this disease for your daughters and granddaughters, but we just didn’t have the gumption to address all the misguided and misleading political rhetoric,’ ”
“Your argument is bad, and you should feel bad.” Is this your idea of a persuasive argument against mine?
No, just my way of expressing exasperation at your rehashing of claims that were already addressed.
What percentage of vaccine injury cases are actually filed in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program? It's undoubtedly a very small percentage. Even the CDC admits that less than 10% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, and many place this estimate far lower, in the 1-3% range. And presumably a lot more cases of vaccine injury are reported to VAERS than are filed in the VICP.
@Beth Clarkson #41 –
The issue under discussion is not whether limitations on parental rights exist, but where the line limiting those rights should be drawn.
My point exactly. I am arguing that a) that line is drawn by society as a whole, not the parents themselves, and b) an accurate understanding of the risks and benefits is a prerequisite to deciding whether vaccines, or any medical intervention, should be required by law and under what circumstances. TBH, your examples were neither well chosen nor well explained, but I understood you to be arguing that vaccination is like circumcision in that there are strong opinions on both sides, but not enough evidence of either benefit or harm to convince a majority of reasonable and informed people that circumcision should either be legally required or banned. The problem is, your example begs the question: we have decades worth of powerful evidence that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks by such a large margin that refusing to vaccinate your child is, in the opinion of the majority of reasonable and informed people, closer to the “penis amputation” side of the spectrum than the “circumcision” side. And that’s before you even get to the potential harm to other people’s children.
This is because I feel the harm to society of forcing vaccination on people who don’t want it is greater than the harm to society of allowing people to remain unvaccinated, but that’s a moral decision.
This single, seemingly banal sentence is such a perfect and terrible example of what having your head stuck up your own @$$ does for your ability to reason clearly that as an exercise and warning to others I’m actually going to waste half an hour of my life parsing it. Firstly, you’ve become so obsessed with your “parental rights” that you seem to have forgotten that our entire conversation up to this point has been about deciding when a parent's decisions pose an unacceptable risk to their child. The whole “herd immunity” thing is a separate issue, but it’s still based on the fact that by sending non-vaccinated children to public school you’re unilaterally deciding to impose an increased risk of infection on other children in addition to your own, not some vague idea of "harm to society."
Secondly, the bit about “forcing vaccination on people who don’t want it” should read “forcing parents who don’t want to vaccinate their children to do it anyways.” The difference may seem subtle but speaks volumes about who, in your point of view, this is really all about (hint – it’s not the child who’s actually getting the vaccine.) After all, no kid actually wants to get shots, just like kids don’t generally want to eat their veggies, buckle their seat belts, etc. A parent has the responsibility to make kids do things they don’t want to (or not do things they do want to do), and if they fail in that responsibility to the point that it presents an unacceptable level of risk to their child (again, “unacceptable” as decided by the majority of reasonable and informed people) then society may step in to protect the best interests of the child over the desires of the parents.You may disagree about what the "best interests" are, but when you frame the issue as society making the parents do something they don't want to you're not only missing the whole point but, frankly, displaying a degree of self-centeredness which seems to be inhibiting your ability to carry out basic cognitive tasks (like following a consistent line of reasoning) that require considering anyone else's point of view.
Thirdly, the “harm to society” of vaccinating vs not vaccinating is not a moral decision – it’s a scientific one. The risks and benefits of vaccination are well established, so totting up the total number of minor and major illnesses, hospitalizations, permanent disabilities, and deaths that will result from vaccinating vs not vaccinating is simple arithmetic. The question of whether anyone ever has the authority to impose their will on someone else is a moral question – and you seem to dimly grasp this in your next line:
In this case, I favor freedom over security, but other people place different values on those competing public goods with respect to vaccination.
But you’ve previously stated that you believe parents should be legally required to provide medical care in certain circumstances (e.g., antibiotics for bacterial meningitis,) so, again, your disagreement with the majority here isn’t due to the fact that you just love freedom so much more than they do, it’s based on your inaccurate assessment of the relative risks and benefits of vaccination. No matter how desperately you try to avoid the issue of whether vaccines work (understandably so, since this is a debate you've already lost,) it's always, always going to come back to bite you.
Not only is it likely that only a tiny percentage of vaccine injuries and deaths are ever filed in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, it's also a foregone conclusion that many will be dismissed. The decision-makers are appointed by the same system that aggressively promotes vaccination, and there's no right to a decision by a jury of your peers.
The VICP is basically a way to keep up the appearance of fairness, while ensuring that vaccine manufacturers don't have to face the same liability every other product manufacturer has to face in real court--or answer the tough questions or provide the discovery that court proceedings entail.
"you badly mangled that".
What I meant was you're wrong.
" Texas explicitly has no constitutional provision guaranteeing a right to state-supplied education for one’s offspring."
1) Perhaps I misread your comment, but why say such a thing when this was not a state case about the state constitution. It was filed in federal court, based on an alleged U.S. Constitutional violation, and eventually ended up at SCOTUS. I don't see any mention of the Texas Constitution in there.
2) All that copy pasta you failed to read was the Texas Constitution, which explicitly guarantees a free, state-provided education for the children of Texas.
Now, I don't have the history of that section, but whether that was added before or after the case you cited, you said, Texas "has" no such section.
In other words, no part of what you said was accurate.
That's why I said you badly mangled it.
@NWO Reporter #97, supporting evidence needed for every one of your claims.
@Sarah: [quote]My point exactly. I am arguing that a) that line is drawn by society as a whole, not the parents themselves, and b) an accurate understanding of the risks and benefits is a prerequisite to deciding whether vaccines, or any medical intervention, should be required by law and under what circumstances. TBH, your examples were neither well chosen nor well explained, but I understood you to be arguing that vaccination is like circumcision in that there are strong opinions on both sides, but not enough evidence of either benefit or harm to convince a majority of reasonable and informed people that circumcision should either be legally required or banned. [/quote]
No, I saying that evidence of benefit is irrelevant to my opinion on it's legality. I think that the harm inflicted by banning that particular infant body modification would be vastly greater than the good done by banning it. It is where I personally choose to draw the line about when a parental practice is harmful enough to children to justify making it illegal - i.e. the benefit of harm prevented by not allowing circumcision to the harm done to Jewish citizens (among others) by legally banning an ancient tribal rite.
IMO, the harm done to children by not permitting them to be vaccinated is not sufficient justify inflicting the harm upon their parents by forcing them to comply with preventative medical treatments. Nor is the risk to society of allowing the children to attend public school sufficient to justify the harm of not allowing them to attend public school.
That's about as plainly as I can state my opinion. You clearly disagree, which is your right. Nice talking with you.
"No, I saying that evidence of benefit is irrelevant to my opinion on it’s legality."
"IMO, the harm done to children by not permitting them to be vaccinated is not sufficient justify inflicting the harm upon their parents by forcing them to comply with preventative medical treatments. Nor is the risk to society of allowing the children to attend public school sufficient to justify the harm of not allowing them to attend public school."
This, this right here is your problem. By this same logic, speed limits or drunk driving are a violation of my freedom, no matter the demonstrated detrimental effect on other people or society.
Oh, dear. I have a paper cut. Does this mean I get to sue the paper manufacturer's for their unsafe sharp product? Should there be a warning label on every ream of printer paper I buy, warning me I could get a paper cut?
Of course, we don't know the rate people get paper cuts, since nobody would be silly enough to keep track. It's a minor inconvenience. Technically it's still an injury. But no one cares.
Seems kinda silly, given that in a couple of days the cut will be completely healed, and there won't even be a scar on my finger.
That's what we're really talking about here, when we talk about the vast majority of adverse reactions to vaccines. We're talking about soreness at the injection site. A bit of fever. Maybe a transient rash. Something that's gone in a few days at most, never to reappear, that leaves no permanent trace. A paper cut.
Something so silly that most parents won't bother to report them to their doctor, because it's harmless and transient, and self limiting.
Of course I'm sure that someone could get sepsis from a paper cut and die from it. But the odds would be so extreme as to almost never happen.
Sort of like the one serious vaccine reaction per 1.3 million doses of MMR given. Literally, a one in a million chance, and much better odds than the risk of a serious sequalae if you actually contract measles. Say the 1 in 20 chance a child has of getting pneumonia.
I've had pneumonia. It sucks and the first time I had it, I almost died. Much more serious than a paper cut. And it's why we have prevention. So parents don't have to bury their children before they're two.
But the NWO Troll wants us to upend all that because she's afraid of a freakin' paper cut.
It truly must be sad to live in the world she does, where everything is fear and conspiracy. I suppose she views herself as some kind of hero, fighting the lone valiant fight against the things that go bump in the night.
Which would be fine if she just saw UFOs. Unfortunately, convincing people not to vaccinate has real world consequences for normal, sane people.
You know what, Panacea Diarrhea? The judicial system that handles product liability claims for every product on the market except vaccines is working just fine. Even pharmaceutical drug manufacturers, whose products kill over 100,000 people every year when properly prescribed and administered, are making billions in profit, while still operating within that product liability system.
It definitely raises the question of just how many people vaccines are killing and disabling every year, that their manufacturers would go belly-up if they faced the same product liability. And why we would want such a product at all.
I actually studied product liability - and the vaccine reporting systems you mention seem to have nothing to do with product liability.
If these vaccine claims WERE held up to the same standard as a product liability claim, they would fail: Faulty/negligent x caused y damages is clearly and scientifically proven with regards to SUV's that roll over and explode - not with vaccines. See, evidence is required.
For further reading, I suggest you google: tobacco litigations, asbestos litigation, a few "big pharma" fails, etc.
(actually, please don't)
If vaccines were actually killing people we would know. Unsafe vaccines have been taken off the market before, and replaced by safer vaccines.
That 100,000 number you're citing is from a 1998 study that used faulty data. It also does not take into account all kinds of confounding factors like co morbid conditions, how the patient took the medication, and so on.
Even if I accepted that number as true, modern medications improve so many lives, they can be considered to be worth the risks of taking them. Medical care is always a risks vs benefits equation.
Vaccines are so safe, they barely register a blip in terms of medical error or patient harm.
Actually, please don't.
CJTX, you're off-topic. Drug manufacturers are held to the usual product liability standards. That's the closest comparison to vaccines--not SUVs rolling over.
Panacea, if vaccines are so safe, there would be no problem subjecting them to the same product liability standards that drug manufacturers, and every product manufacturer, is subjected to. Vaccine manufacturers weren't granted protection from liability in the 1980s because their product was safer than any other product--that's just nonsense. They were facing a mountain of lawsuits at the time.
No, I think I have the point.
As they say, "what we have here is a failure to communicate."
You're arguing cause and effect, which is a higher standard than liability.
Once again, you've totally missed hte point and undermined your own position.
The Idiot @ 106:
The standard of evidence used in the Vaccine Court is essentially nonexistent. Absolutely none of the cases that have been compensated (a vanishingly small proportion of doses of vaccines delivered) would have passed muster in an actual court of law.
Sure, these people's children had medical problems and they should receive help. It's an absolute outrage that in this damned country the only way to do so is to dream up some culprit who supposedly "caused" the problem and sue them, but here we are.
It's still totally made-up bullshıt, but since the Vaccine "Court" is the only court in the country that requires absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that's where they go.
Billions of us have been vaccinated. No side effects. No deaths.
NWOR you have lost it years ago.
Read just a bit of social history. Just a tiny bit.
NWOR sez, #106:
Drug manufacturers are held to the usual product liability standards. That’s the closest comparison to vaccines–not SUVs rolling over.
Panacea, if vaccines are so safe, there would be no problem subjecting them to the same product liability standards that drug manufacturers,
Since vaccines are made by drug manufacturers, these statements make no sense whatsoever.
and every product manufacturer, is subjected to.
very product manufacturer is subject to product liability with a few exceptions. Gun manufacturers, for example, aren't liable for misuse of a gun, but they are liable for manufacturing defects. Vaccine manufacturers are liable for manufacturing defects too; since they do not have design control over the vaccines, their liability does not ands should not include "design defects".
Vaccine manufacturers weren’t granted protection from liability in the 1980s because their product was safer than any other product–that’s just nonsense.
They were given immunity from design-defect suits for at least two reasons:
(a) they don't have design control of these products, and
(b) the anti-vax religiosi were trying to get into the drug industry's "deep pockets" by making spurious claims of design defects.
They were facing a mountain of lawsuits at the time.
Yup, they were facing a mountain (well, maybe a small dunghill) of spurious lawsuits by anti-vax parents and their lawyers, trying for a massive payday at everyone else's expense.
NWO Troll: Vaccine producers are subject to the same liability standards as everyone else. The Vaccine Court makes it easier to win an award, not harder. And you can still sue.
Problem is, if you sue, you must provide actual evidence the vaccine caused the harm. And since it is so rare it actually happens, no one can prove it, you can't certify a class, and taking the matter through the court system becomes an exercise in futility when you can go to the Vaccine Court that requires very little proof, and you can actually get an award . . . albiet a very small one compared to the dream payouts people wish up when they sue for anything.
You live in a fantasy land.
Beth Clarkson @100
Nor is the risk to society of allowing the children to attend public school sufficient to justify the harm of not allowing them to attend public school.
The risk is there, Beth.
I don’t want to go back to the days of my childhood with classrooms emptied by outbreaks of infectious disease.
If you are so concerned about ensuring that children get an education, why are you so complacent about allowing it to be disrupted?
But Chris: it's perfectly OK for the average school child to miss 3 months of school due to mumps then measles, then deal with the decreased immunity left and have 6-7 additional colds and miss MORE school. It's fine in this world for the teacher to write on the report cards: "I am not able to give XXXX a grade this quarter due to excessive absences."
We'll just flunk everyone for excessive absenteeism and start over again.
Ah, it's not a big deal, MI Dawn. We'll just send the kids homework to do, sort of like home schooling.
After all, I saw it on the Brady Bunch!
The Very Reverend Baffled Cracks of Inanity -- that makes as little sense as most of your comments. Vaccine manufacturers were paying through the teeth for injuries proven in court before the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Under your bizarre theory, those proven injuries magically disappeared because of the VICP, and people started being compensated for no particular reason. Utter nonsense. The only thing that disappeared was the liability of vaccine manufacturers for those injuries...along with the discovery and hard questions about their "research studies" they had to face in a real court.
Panacea Diarrhea, do you ever stop excreting lies? Vaccine manufacturers don't pay the awards in the VICP--vaccine users do, with a charged tacked on to the price of the vaccine. The only time they face liability is if someone challenges the VICP ruling in court...or like Merck, if one of their employees blows the whistle on their vaccine research fraud and sues.
You're foaming at the mouth. Take a few deep breaths before posting.
MI Dawn -- miss three months of school for measles? :D Who tells you to say this stuff? And decreased immunity? I suppose you got that from that one lame "study." Here's what doctors who were actually treating measles cases were saying about it in 1959, before the "miraculous" vaccine:
"In the majority of children the whole episode has been well and truly over in a week, from the prodromal phase to the disappearance of the rash, and many mothers have remarked ‘how much good the attack has done their children’, as they seem so much better after the measles."
Or how about this one: "In this practice measles is considered as a relatively mild and inevitable childhood ailment that is best encountered any time from 3 to 7 years of age. Over the past 10 years there have been few serious complications at any age, and all children have made complete recoveries.”
From Measles: Reports from General Practitioners, British Medical Journal, February 7, 1959. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1992477/pdf/brmedj02957-01…
Yes, cause 1959 was the absolute height of medicine and human knowledge.
Oh, look, it was a series of cases studies from british Gp's - how scientific!
oh look, they mention complications, including pneumonia. which is what all these people here have said is the primary problem with allowing measles to run rampant in the first place.
here's a mention of a small percentage of cases where there was "severe postration" and "rapid respiration." See, I can cherry pick quotes too?
here's another dr. that refers to an outbreak in two consecutive years. How healthy!
Your ignorance is truly bottomless.
The vaccine manufacturers threatened to quit making vaccines because they were being inundated by frivolous lawsuits from idiots like you. Why not? The profit on vaccines is absolutely negligible compared with heart drugs and boner pills....
In order to prevent that, the Vaccine "Court" was started, a table of "injuries" was established that theoretically could be caused by vaccination (although much more likely by the next fever the child got), and billions of dollars have been paid out that should have come from medical insurance--because these people do need help.
Unfortunately because of this, a fantasy has been concocted in the brains of the weak-minded--like you--that these conditions are actually "injuries" caused by vaccines, which of course almost none of them are. Vaccines are just the only "culprit" that requires no evidence to be convicted.
CJTX, the following is a partial list of the serious adverse events observed during trials of the MMR vaccine. You'll notice that pneumonia is among them. No vaccine is going to fix a fragile immune system.
...vasculitis; atypical measles; pancreatitis; diabetes mellitus; thrombocytopenia; leukocytosis; anaphylaxis; arthritis; encephalitis; pneumonia; nerve deafness; retinitis; and death. http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf
Note also that the MMR has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, as with all vaccines. Whereas reductions in the risk for several cancers have been observed after natural infection and recovery from measles.
It's a sunday, can someone with more work ethic than me take this on?
(if it were cancer causing, you'd need a plausible mechanism and cancer rates would have a correlation to vaccines...i'm just guessing, but they don't. And don't feed me any bullshit stats about rates of cancer pre and post vaccine - early detection and treatment, access to healthcare, DOCUMENTED and PROVEN poisons, etc explain all that)
And decreased immunity [following measles]? I suppose you got that from that one lame "study.”
Type less, read more:
Abt, Marion, Evelyn Gassert, and Sibylle Schneider-Schaulies. 2009. "Measles virus modulates chemokine release and chemotactic responses of dendritic cells." J Gen Virol 90 (Pt 4):909-14. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.008581-0.
Avota, Elita, Evelyn Gassert, and Sibylle Schneider-Schaulies. 2010. "Measles virus-induced immunosuppression: from effectors to mechanisms." Med Microbiol Immunol 199 (3):227-37. doi: 10.1007/s00430-010-0152-3.
Clemens, J. D., B. F. Stanton, J. Chakraborty, S. Chowdhury, M. R. Rao, M. Ali, S. Zimicki, and B. Wojtyniak. 1988. "Measles vaccination and childhood mortality in rural Bangladesh." Am J Epidemiol 128 (6):1330-9.
Coughlin, Melissa M., William J. Bellini, and Paul A. Rota. 2013. "Contribution of dendritic cells to measles virus induced immunosuppression." Rev Med Virol 23 (2):126-38. doi: 10.1002/rmv.1735.
de Vries, Rory D., and Rik L. de Swart. 2014. "Measles immune suppression: functional impairment or numbers game?" PLoS Pathog 10 (12):e1004482. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004482.
de Vries, Rory D., Stephen McQuaid, Geert van Amerongen, Selma Yuksel, R. Joyce Verburgh, Albert D. M. E. Osterhaus, W. Paul Duprex, and Rik L. de Swart. 2012. "Measles immune suppression: lessons from the macaque model." PLoS Pathog 8 (8):e1002885. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002885.
Desgrees du Lou, A., G. Pison, and P. Aaby. 1995. "Role of immunizations in the recent decline in childhood mortality and the changes in the female/male mortality ratio in rural Senegal." Am J Epidemiol 142 (6):643-52.
Griffin, Diane E., Wen-Hsuan Lin, and Chien-Hsiung Pan. 2012. "Measles virus, immune control, and persistence." FEMS Microbiol Rev 36 (3):649-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2012.00330.x.
Hahm, B. 2009. "Hostile communication of measles virus with host innate immunity and dendritic cells." Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 330:271-87.
Holt, E. A., R. Boulos, N. A. Halsey, L. M. Boulos, and C. Boulos. 1990. "Childhood survival in Haiti: protective effect of measles vaccination." Pediatrics 85 (2):188-94.
Karp, C. L., M. Wysocka, L. M. Wahl, J. M. Ahearn, P. J. Cuomo, B. Sherry, G. Trinchieri, and D. E. Griffin. 1996. "Mechanism of suppression of cell-mediated immunity by measles virus." Science 273 (5272):228-31.
Koenig, M. A., M. A. Khan, B. Wojtyniak, J. D. Clemens, J. Chakraborty, V. Fauveau, J. F. Phillips, J. Akbar, and U. S. Barua. 1990. "Impact of measles vaccination on childhood mortality in rural Bangladesh." Bull World Health Organ 68 (4):441-7.
Koga, Ritsuko, Shinji Ohno, Satoshi Ikegame, and Yusuke Yanagi. 2010. "Measles virus-induced immunosuppression in SLAM knock-in mice." J Virol 84 (10):5360-7. doi: 10.1128/jvi.02525-09.
Li, Mei-Zhong, Fu-De Xu, Xue-Huan Huang, Xin-Chun Chen, Qi-Wen Deng, Shui-Teng Liu, Yan Liu, Liu-Mei Xu, Huo-Sheng Wang, and Jian-Jun Cui. 2008. "[Immunosuppression induced by measles virus in adult patients is not related to CD4+ CD25+ regulatory T cell induction]." Zhonghua Shi Yan He Lin Chuang Bing Du Xue Za Zhi 22 (3):211-3.
Mina, Michael J. 2017. "Measles, immune suppression and vaccination: direct and indirect nonspecific vaccine benefits." J Infect 74 Suppl 1:S10-s17. doi: 10.1016/s0163-4453(17)30185-8.
Mina, Michael J., C. Jessica E. Metcalf, Rik L. de Swart, A. D. M. E. Osterhaus, and Bryan T. Grenfell. 2015. "Long-term measles-induced immunomodulation increases overall childhood infectious disease mortality." Science 348 (6235):694-9. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa3662.
Rafat, Cedric, Kada Klouche, Jean-Damien Ricard, Jonathan Messika, Antoine Roch, Sonia Machado, Romain Sonneville, Olivier Guisset, Wilfried Pujol, Claude Guerin, Jean-Louis Teboul, Natacha Mrozek, Michael Darmon, Frank Chemouni, Matthieu Schmidt, Emmanuelle Mercier, Didier Dreyfuss, and Stephane Gaudry. 2013. "Severe Measles Infection: The Spectrum of Disease in 36 Critically Ill Adult Patients." Medicine (Baltimore). doi: 10.1097/MD.0b013e3182a713c2.
Romanets-Korbut, Olga, Larysa M. Kovalevska, Tsukasa Seya, Svetlana P. Sidorenko, and Branka Horvat. 2016. "Measles virus hemagglutinin triggers intracellular signaling in CD150-expressing dendritic cells and inhibits immune response." Cell Mol Immunol 13 (6):828-838. doi: 10.1038/cmi.2015.55.
Sato, Hiroki, Misako Yoneda, Reiko Honma, Fusako Ikeda, Shinya Watanabe, and Chieko Kai. 2015. "Measles Virus Infection Inactivates Cellular Protein Phosphatase 5 with Consequent Suppression of Sp1 and c-Myc Activities." J Virol 89 (19):9709-18. doi: 10.1128/jvi.00825-15.
Schneider-Schaulies, S., and J. Schneider-Schaulies. 2009. "Measles virus-induced immunosuppression." Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 330:243-69.
Sellin, Caroline I., Jean-Francois Jegou, Joelle Renneson, Johan Druelle, T. Fabian Wild, Julien C. Marie, and Branka Horvat. 2009. "Interplay between virus-specific effector response and Foxp3 regulatory T cells in measles virus immunopathogenesis." PLoS One 4 (3):e4948. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004948.
Tran-Van, Hieu, Elita Avota, Charlene Bortlein, Nora Mueller, and Sibylle Schneider-Schaulies. 2011. "Measles virus modulates dendritic cell/T-cell communication at the level of plexinA1/neuropilin-1 recruitment and activity." Eur J Immunol 41 (1):151-63. doi: 10.1002/eji.201040847.
Brian, measles virus is introduced into the body via the vaccine.
that is such a succinct and profound misunderstanding of both vaccines and measles.
Oh, wow. That is hilarious.
Brian, measles virus is introduced into the body via the vaccine.
Hey, Ginny, let's see: you made a statement based on the ignorance that you highlighted by your use of scare quotes to indicate that you are unaware of the work that shows that infection with wild-type measles virus produces profound and years-long immunosuppression; when confronted with citations to articles that could have helped you to remedy that specific aspect of your ignorance, you chose to post an unrelated comment rather than admit that, yet again, you are unable to understand the scientific evidence.
Oh, wow. That is hilarious.
It's just warmed-over Th1Th2 shіtrain.
See, here's the thing, Bray-on. You have clear data showing that deaths from measles had declined more than 95% well before the vaccine was ever licensed. Even the CDC estimates 9 out of 10 measles cases never sought medical attention at all by the 1950s. You have doctors in the decade prior to the vaccine saying that measles is a largely benign disease in which full recovery is typical. You have parents and doctors noticing that not only is measles mild, but some children even seem stronger and healthier after natural infection and recovery from measles.
Still, you produce a list of research that you claim shows that natural infection with measles is extremely dangerous, while claiming that injecting a concoction containing the attenuated measles virus into the body is good for us.
Then, you have people like Dr. Marcia Angell who, as an editor of a prestigious medical journal for more than 20 years, has reviewed more medical research than anyone in this room. And she says:
"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.” http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doc…
It's no mystery why people are calling what you are peddling PSYENCE.
I hope I can claim all this work as public service on my taxes.
"well before the vaccine was ever licensed"
"Even the CDC estimates 9 out of 10 measles cases never sought medical attention at all by the 1950s"
Citation needed - and even if true, fuck the other 1 cases that developed severe complications. 9/10 vs. several hundred million americans, somebody do the math - i suck at fractions.
"You have doctors in the decade prior to the vaccine saying that measles is a largely benign disease in which full recovery is typical."
"largely" is the key word there, you've given away your own case.
"You have parents and doctors noticing that not only is measles mild"
we've addressed this already, moving on
"but some children even seem stronger and healthier after natural infection and recovery from measles."
Citation needed...and of course, kids seem to be healthier after a sickness, and of course, "seem" is not scientific evidence.
"you produce a list of research that you claim shows that natural infection with measles is extremely dangerous'
I'd say it's a pretty impressive list that DEMONSTRATES it...but maybe you want to test the laws of gravity every morning.
"while claiming that injecting a concoction containing the attenuated measles virus into the body is good for us."
It is! It's been proven to...wait for it... PREVENT MEASLES.
"“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.”"
Ah, this lovely quote again. One doctor, who is calling out the obvious problems with funded studies, now trumps all the studies (and real world statistics of the hundreds of millions who've been vaccinated).
What part of greatest triumph in the history of medicine and public health do you not understand?
Parents and children of thee 40's and 50's feared each summer, knowing friends and children would be in hospitals because of polio. I, in my life, have NEVER met a polio victim - and that's because of science and vaccines.
Once again, "I love to watch the Masons squirm."
Even crazier is that these same scare tactics are even being used with chickenpox now. Did this video get lost in the fray? It's such a great example of how organized fear propaganda is being used to boost vaccine consumption. While "health authorities" in the US are getting "alarmed" by "outbreaks" of chickenpox (newscasters put on serious worried faces), children in the Netherlands with red bumps are playing and getting their school pictures taken (newscasters chuckle over the cuteness). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8CbgaDsoHs
Ah yes, the youtube video - the final arbiter of science.
You've posted it before - and it bears no relation on complications, outbreaks, missed school, missed work, or another 100 things.
Even crazier is . . . .
Have you ever thought twice about the glassy-eyed head shot that you have on your completely deranged Web site, Ginny? Do the words "take up your china doll" mean anything to you? Do you understand the etymology of the word "testify"?
If you're actually trying, an unlikely proposition as far as I'm concerned, you're not just failing, you're apparently also failing to understand how and why.
Such is the lot of purveyors of low-rent bad faith.
Still, you produce a list of research that you claim shows that natural infection with measles is extremely dangerous, while claiming that injecting a concoction containing the attenuated measles virus into the body is good for us.
The articles that I cited are among those that show (contrary to the uninformed statement that you adorned with scare quotes) that measles virus infection produces profound immunosuppression, which, in fact, affects the outcomes from not only measle but from other diseases. That's clear.
OTOH, there is clear evidence that "injecting a concoction containing the attenuated measles virus into the body is good for us" at least to the extent that it reduces morbidity and mortality.
Ginny, why do you think that demonstrating your ingorance advances your position?
Drug manufacturers are held to the usual product liability standards. That’s the closest comparison to vaccines–not SUVs rolling over.
Oh fυck, this doubtlessly forthcoming legal disquisition should be priceless.
why people are calling what you are peddling PSYENCE.
Assertions of this kind usually translate as "I call something 'psyence', and I shall pretend that I represent a vast ground-swell of like-minded individuals."
You shouldn't worry so much about saying the same thing as other people, NWOR.
On a more practical level, however, this redesign is abysmal. Number 3 under "Today’s most popular Insolence" has had its comments closed, with the broken boilerplate.
Whereas reductions in the risk for several cancers have been observed after natural infection and recovery from measles.
Isn't that one of Vera Schreibner's charming contributions to the pool of nescience?
The only thing that disappeared was the liability of vaccine manufacturers for those injuries…along with the discovery and hard questions about their “research studies” they had to face in a real court.
I don't know how to break it to NWOR that there are legal systems (real courts!) outside the US and outside the coverage of the vaccine-court legislation, while vaccine manufacturers also extend outside the US, where they are not shielded from "discovery and hard questions". Yet somehow these all-revealing lawsuits aren't happening.
Herr doktor, sounds like you need to look up the English Rule when it comes to attorneys fees. Losing a vaccine injury claim in court would mean bankruptcy for a typical family in Europe. It's no surprise few are willing to take that risk, knowing there is a bottomless pit of industry funds to pay "experts" willing to testify that their child's death or disability after vaccination was just a coincidence.
There is a class action lawsuit in progress in the US for people injured or killed by the shingles vaccine Zostavax, which is not covered by the ViCP. Anyone who experienced blindness, paralysis, brain damage, liver failure or death after the vaccine may want to check it out. https://www.classaction.com/zostavax/lawsuit/
Aw, freaky weird. Did the NWO Troll just claim the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than actually getting measles? Whoa!
What evidence did she provide? Oh, it was nothing. Okay, carry on.
Ooooh, look... she decided to switch to chicken pox. Well, she has obviously never cared for a six month infant with chicken pox. I would add more words, but it would be put into double moderation (and because of a certain sock puppet my normal address is put there for reasons, erg).
Dear G-d, Gindo, barf up a case number rather than some brain-dead advertising site. Given that there's literally no way that someone with a license to practice law can be that fu*cking stupid, your options are now professional incompetence or bald-faced lying, which is pretty close.
Do you have any financial stake in this chase searching for an ambulance?
Losing a vaccine injury claim in court would mean bankruptcy for a typical family in Europe. It’s no surprise few are willing to take that risk,
Is NWOR really telling us that no-one outside the US ever sues large corporations? OK, whatever.
@NWOR: Sorry, I took most of the weekend off because tearing down an old shed is more interesting than reading your misinformation.
As for the 3 months: I have documentation that my mom missed that much school in 2nd grade from having the mumps then the measles, along with several colds due to decreased immunity (my grandmother was a huge letter-writer). And, I have my mom's report card with that comment.
As for measles being so "benign"...her brother nearly died from the fever and my grandmother didn't dare see her sister or nephew for those 3 months, including Christmas, because they didn't want the baby to possibly catch the diseases. So much for people not being afraid of them.
There is a class action lawsuit in progress in the US for people injured or killed by the shingles vaccine Zostavax, which is not covered by the ViCP
You have figured out that vaccine manufacturers can be sued. Baby steps.
What fun seeing Ginny play vaccine whack-a-mole.
Irrespective of how mild chickenpox might be, there prime benefit of never getting it because one is vaccinated is that one will never get shingles.
But of course Ginny will say that is some mild, nay hamless condition, no doubt.
Maybe she can post a YouTube video of some reporters laughing hysterically at the old folk who are blind from ophthalmic zoster, or racked with pain from permanent post herpetic neuralgia.
What a hoot!
i'll save you some time - she doesn't believer there is has been any scientific link mad between chickenpox and shingles.
And that's not a joke - she's said that.
Is NWOR really telling us that no-one outside the US ever sues large corporations?
Don't forget that every other country in the world has a loser-pays civil court system, as well.
P.S. Now the "you are posting comments too quickly" routine is back. Of course, I only posted one comment. Well played, SB monkeys.
CJTX & dingo199: My husband is recovering from shingles; the outbreak was over his face and inside one ear. For more than a week, he was ill and in severe pain and couldn't do much except lie on the sofa and swallow painkillers. Three months on he's over the worst, but he's still weak and easily tired, and still getting pain in his ear.
He's like to have a word with Ginny.
NWOR, you might not be aware that chicken pox contracted in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy can cause congenital varicella, with serious permanent effects to the infant. Absolutely preventable thanks to the vaccine.
I don't expect you to give a crap, of course.
sounds like you need to look up the English Rule when it comes to attorneys fees.
I think New Zealand is a typical example of such jurisdictions. Costs are awarded according to the judge's discretion. Typically following a set scale of what the plaintiff or defendant could reasonably have spent on the case, rather than what inflated legal bills they might present. Expert-witness disbursements must also be 'reasonable'.
NWOR makes the mistake of basing her legal knowledge upon the Wackyweedia.
@ CJTX #101
When I said that "evidence of benefit is irrelevant to my opinion on it’s legality.” I was referring to circumcision specifically. My conclusion is that banning would do more harm than allowing it to continue, so any benefits it provides won't alter that conclusion. It's unwarranted to jump to the conclusion that benefits never matter on any issue to me and conclude that I think speed limits aren't necessary anywhere. I'm pretty sure than can be classified as a straw man argument or some other fallacy.
The demonstrated detrimental effect on other people or society is certainly something that matters. That I think the detrimental effects of denying attendance in public schools is greater than the detrimental effect of allowing unvaccinated children to attend public schools can be debated.
Would you like to discuss that or did you just want to distort my opinion in order to ridicule it?
" That I think the detrimental effects of denying attendance in public schools is greater than the detrimental effect of allowing unvaccinated children to attend public schools can be debated.
Would you like to discuss that or did you just want to distort my opinion in order to ridicule it?
I think I'll ridicule it; i didn't misstate your opinion, "my thoughts about its damage to society is my opinion," cause it's patently, plainly, and demonstrably ridiculous.
That I think the detrimental effects of denying attendance in public schools is greater than the detrimental effect of allowing unvaccinated children to attend public schools can be debated.
So you would be all in favor of not allowing parents to deny their kids public school attendance by refusing to get them vaccinated?
@Beth Clarkson #154:
I think the detrimental effects of denying attendance in public schools is greater than the detrimental effect of allowing unvaccinated children to attend public schools
We had this argument on a previous thread. Intentionally unvaccinated children up the risk to those who are immunosuppressed, those who can't be vaccinated and those too young to be vaccinated.
As I responded then, the effect would be to deny or harm the rights to an education of those who can't be vaccinated and the immunosuppressed.
That I think the detrimental effects of denying attendance in public schools is greater than the detrimental effect of allowing unvaccinated children to attend public schools can be debated.
Your granting of permission is duly noted. Now, how about "Earthers"? Surely, there's no particular harm to society that would owe to allowing barefootedness in public schools, is there?
Surely, there’s no particular harm to society that would owe to allowing barefootedness in public schools, is there?
I've actually never understood why so many people think going barefoot is "unsanitary" or something. Your feet touch the ground. They don't, as a rule, touch anything else. You don't open doors with them or use them to operate the copy machine.
I used to go barefoot in the department and was once stopped and told by a (non-favorite) colleague that "that's really bad." Of course, this only made me do it more.
It did actually gain me the immediate friendship and respect of Sara F., though. She's even more hardcore about going barefoot than I am, though, she would walk on gravel paths in the Arb barefoot.
(When I was a little kid, I used to call it going "rat-footed." I think it's because I heard it as "bear-footed" and I figured, well, rats don't wear shoes either. Why rats in particular? Probably had something to do with Splinter from the Ninja Turtles.)
I hardly ever go bare-foot indoors, since I broke a toe by getting it too close to a sofa leg (negative distance). I never go bare-foot outdoors since cutting a foot open on a piece of glass. IOW, I never go bare-foot 'cause it hurts. YMMV.
I used to call it going “rat-footed.”
It just causes confusion when you say "my feet go sky-clad".
@CJTX #155 Thanks for your honesty.
@ Se Habla Espol #156 No.
@Julian #157 Yes, we've have this discussion before. I don't deny that "Intentionally unvaccinated children up the risk to those who are immunosuppressed, those who can’t be vaccinated and those too young to be vaccinated." I think where we diverge is regarding which policy would be the greater harm to society overall. Those too young to be vaccinated are also too young to attend school, so it's only the immunosuppressed students that have a bearing on this aspect of the discussion. My belief is that there are more unvaccinated by choice students who's parents would be legally required to homeschool than immunosuppressed students who would be forced to homeschool due to the danger posed by unvaccinated classmates, but I could be wrong about that. Do you have evidence to the contrary on that aspect? Do you think that a public school education is more important for immunosuppressed students than unvaccinated children?
@ Narad #158. What is the harm or risk to their classmates of allowing children to attend school without shoes?
My belief is that there are more unvaccinated by choice students who’s parents would be legally required to homeschool than immunosuppressed students who would be forced to homeschool due to the danger posed by unvaccinated classmates
So you claim the right to choose for the immunosuppressed students by being allowed to vicariously endanger them We understand the greed of the anti-vax religion, so that's not a surprise.
Beth, you still don't get it. Danger to immunocompromised patients and infants too young to be vaccinated aside, not vaccinating your child, unless there is a legitimate medical reason why they cannot be vaccinated, is neglect, and parents do NOT have the right to neglect their children.
Would you also say that it's OK for parents not to make sure that their children wear seatbelts? Because you know, that's basically what you are saying, that it is OK for parents to fail to protect their children.
Also, in terms of possible transmission of VPDs to immunocompromised patients or infants too young to be vaccinated, immunocompromised children have a right to an education, and immunocompromised children and infants too young to be vaccinated also should be able to go to doctor's offices/ urgent care centers/emergency departments etc, without having to fear that they could contract a VPD from an unvaccinated child.
Because of the latter concern, a few doctors now have a policy of refusing to treat unvaccinated children, so that their other patients don't have to worry about getting a VPD at their own doctor's office (I have mixed feelings about this, because it could drive anti-vax or vaccine hesitant parents into the arms of quacks).
How about the danger from unvaccinated children to the unborn babies of their friends' pregnant mothers? Why is it that none of these brave warriors give a rat's behind about the unborn? Oh, never mind..I'm sure there is really no connection between VPDs and birth defects. That's probably just Big Pharma propaganda.
JP @159: It's considered unsanitary because there are diseases you can pick up by walking barefoot. More of them are not a problem in the modern US, but intestinal parasites (I think ringworm) was a *huge* problem in the 19th and early 20th century agricultural South, where people got it by walking through human poop. The weakness caused by parasites was a *huge* drag on the economy.
The individual fix was shoes (and purging medication), the population solution was sanitary outhouses and plumbing.
There is also a parasitic disease in South East Asia that is caught by walking over contaminated ground (I think it has something to do with snails? It's been a long time.) that is prevented by wearing sandals.
So historically being barefoot was a way to catch diseases. It's also a mark of poverty, which is probably the bigger reason it's a social faux pa.
(I personally, like shoes. They keep my feet dry and warm and away from poky things.)
@Jonas: We disagree that parents who consciously decide to skip or delay vaccinations are being neglectful of their children. They are making a personal medical choice for their children; that's a difference of opinion about the best way to raise children, not neglect.
We disagree that parents who consciously decide to skip or delay vaccinations are being neglectful of their children.
I also disagree with Jonas here: it's not neglect, it's abuse.
They are making a personal medical choice for their children; that’s a difference of opinion about the best way to raise children, not neglect.
They're also making a "personal medical choice" for everyone else's children, the choice to be endangered by VPD vectors. But I guess that's just a difference of opinion on who gets to make choices for whom: does the non-abusive parent get to choose health for his kid, or does the greedy, abusive nonvaccinating parent get to choose for everyone.
@Ellie #163 What is the danger from unvaccinated children to the unborn babies of their friends’ pregnant mothers? I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but a pregnant mother can limit her contact with unvaccinated children if it's important to her. It would strike me as rather silly, but it's up to her to do what she thinks best and she wouldn't be the only mother who restricts her children from playing with unvaccinated friends.
You don't see how or why this point and your reaction to it are exactly backward?
How does a newly-pregnant woman know soon enough to avoid contact with voluntary VPD vectors? How does a newly-pregnant woman know which voluntary VPD vectors are "hiding in the herd", ready to pounce?
"Beth, you still don’t get it."
She gets it. She's deflecting.
So basically Beth is saying its up to the vulnerable population to avoid all contact with the vax refusers. If you are in a vulnerable population, it's your job to avoid getting sick by staying away from people who might communicate the disease to you.
Of course, this is nonsense since the unvaccinated would be contagious in many cases before they even knew they were sick, or without even being around someone who is sick. Measles comes to mind, since you can get the disease hours after the infected person has left the room.
We have vaccines so that people can be safe from infection without having to screen all their contacts before hand . . . because it's impossible to know who does and doesn't have something.
Beth, what you said in 166 is stupid beyond measure.
Thank you - her whole argument was far too convoluted to me to even try to explain how wrong it was.
Beth, what you said in 166 is stupid beyond measure.
Panacea, it's not clear whether Beth is being stupid or just being greedy for the 'rights' she would deny others.
Beth: " I’m not sure what you are referring to here, but a pregnant mother can limit her contact with unvaccinated children if it’s important to her"
So no going out in public, not going to work, not getting groceries, and definitely not dropping the older kid off at preschool.
Perhaps it would be easier to just isolate the unvaxed child.
Beth, I rarely comment here. If I do it's usually with an historical anecdote about my time in training, and experience in the Medical Branch of the Royal Navy. So have an anecdote:
I was on weekend leave when I noticed a rash. Without the experience in infective diseases later taught to me in my training; I returned to the Naval Hospital where I was training.
I spent four hours on trains and on the Underground returning to my unit; where I was immediately diagnosed with Rubella and placed in isolation.
I shudder to think how many people I may have unwittingly exposed to German Measles that evening. But hey, it's okay for your kids to do it..
It’s considered unsanitary because there are diseases you can pick up by walking barefoot. More of them are not a problem in the modern US, but intestinal parasites (I think ringworm) was a *huge* problem in the 19th and early 20th century agricultural South, where people got it by walking through human poop.
Human poop on the ground is unsanitary; it's a condition that spreads disease. Bare feet, in and of themselves, are not unsanitary; they don't spread disease any more than shoes do.
In any case, we have indoor plumbing where I live.
Bare hands on the other hand, are relatively disgusting and germy, and they spread all kinds of disease, but you don't see "no shirt, no gloves, no service" signs.
I just find it bizarre that some people actually get upset about people going barefoot, like it's wrong. Doubly amusing is the fact that those people wouldn't give a second thought to walking barefoot on the beach, but in a setting where they don't expect it? Blasphemy!
I find walking barefoot on sand to be incredibly painful, as the sand separates to allow my foot to indent it, but pulls my sole apart in the process. The pain is greatest in the instep, which is not accustomed to the pressure of standing and walkintg. Again, YMMV.
(I think ringworm) was a *huge* problem in the 19th and early 20th century agricultural South, where people got it by walking through human poop.
Actually, wait: why the heck were people walking through human poop? There are a lot of things I don't get about the South, but that's just weird.
I mean, jeebus, I live in the middle of nowhere and my family has for generations, but people around here (rural NW) were smart enough to use outhouses in the days before indoor plumbing, not just go around pooping on the ground or whatever.
Actually it was hookworm, and a reason outhouses became popular. Blame the Rockefellers:
Okay there were a couple of others:
Yes, I spent a good bit of my childhood without shoes. But at least there were in places with functioning sewer systems or outhouses (one with a fabulous water view... no door, but a great view).
@Beth Clarkson #169:
a pregnant mother can limit her contact with unvaccinated children if it’s important to her.
And what if the expectant mother doesn't know she's pregnant? Suppose she's just two weeks along and hasn't yet skipped a period? Should all women of reproductive age avoid the unvaccinated everywhere just because they might be pregnant and get exposed to rubella, mumps, or something even worse?
Beth, your argument is ludicrous.
(I think ringworm)
A classic from the Belfast Cowboy, BTW.
Beth: A quick illustration to show just how brain dead this is. You said: "a pregnant mother can limit her contact with unvaccinated children if it’s important to her."
Replace "unvaccinated child" with "drunk driver." Both an unvaccinated child and a drunk driver pose measurable risks for people who come into contact with them, although the risk level differs. Why should we treat unvaccinated children as special cases who are allowed to endanger the general public while drunk driving is a criminal offense? Why should society bear the burden for one and not the other? Note that I am not suggesting that sending an unvaccinated child to school should be a criminal act; that's a separate discussion.
@Peebs: Why isn't the pregnant mother responsible for getting vaccinated herself rather than relying on herd immunity to protect her? BTW, I vaccinated my children (adults now) for that disease in order to protect them. Vaccines work. I'm just saying that people should be allowed to make the choice for themselves. An unvaccinated child is not disease ridden vermin who needs to be kept isolated from contact with the rest of society in order to protect the herd.
@Panacea #173, Chris #176 and Julian #182
Everyone is a potential disease vector, even vaccinated adults. since vaccines are not 100% effective. Whether or not school children are vaccinated is not relevant to a pregnant mother deciding to go to the work, grocery shopping, etc.
Isolating unvaccinated children by not allowing them to attend school won't make her risks significantly safer because she still won't have any idea of which adults around her are immune to VPD's and which are not. So why should the unvaccinated child be kept out of school to protect this vulnerable pregnant mother?
@Opus - I don't think that drunk driving and choosing not to vaccinate are sufficiently similar for this comparison to work. Being drunk is a temporary condition voluntarily entered into by an adult. There is no 1 in a million chance they will have a fatal allergic reaction to not driving in that condition.
"Everyone is a potential disease vector, even vaccinated adults. since vaccines are not 100%"
Except even the 80% effectiveness of the DTaP is much better than 0% by skipping the vaccine. And the 97% effectiveness for measles after two MMR doses is incredibly higher than the 0% of not getting the vaccine.
The promotion of "parent knows best" over basic protecting the child from disease decreases community immunity, and raises the chances of disease spread for everyone.
@Beth Clarkson (#185)-You write "Everyone is a potential disease vector, even vaccinated adults. since vaccines are not 100% effective."
Let's remember two things-one, two doses of the MMR vaccine provides 97% protection against measles, and two, there is only a single documented case of a fully vaccinated patient starting a measles outbreak-it was in NYC in 2011.
Usually, fully vaccinated patients who contract measles anyway have a much milder course of illness than unvaccinated patients who contract measles, and it appears that they are less contagious, as well. For example, not only did two fully vaccinated doctors who contracted measles despite vaccination have a milder course of illness than would be excepted, but they also did not spread measles to anyone else, even though they exposed numerous people to measles-and considering how contagious measles typically is (90% of susceptible persons exposed will contract the disease), that is reason to believe that vaccinated patients who get measles anyway are less contagious.
So, while it's technically true that "anyone" can spread measles, given the 2011 outbreak, your statement was still misleading as it seemed to imply that vaccinated persons routinely spread VPDs when in reality that is quite rare.
Beth @ 185. You said. "@Opus – I don’t think that drunk driving and choosing not to vaccinate are sufficiently similar for this comparison to work. Being drunk is a temporary condition voluntarily entered into by an adult. There is no 1 in a million chance they will have a fatal allergic reaction to not driving in that condition."
I think you missed the point entirely. Let me try again.
When a parent chooses not to vaccinate his/her child and then sends that child out into the public, the parent has made a choice which has a real, measurable chance of causing harm to members of the public,up to and including death, through no fault of their own.
When a person chooses to drink and drive, he/she has made a choice which has a real, measurable chance of causing harm to members of the public, up to and including death,>/b> through no fault of their own.
The chance of a fatal reaction to the vaccine has nothing to do with it - we are discussing a private choice which endangers the public. If I want to drink and drive I can do so, as long as I stay on my ten-acre slice of paradise and warn the public that I may do so. If you anti-vaxxers want to protect your children from the minuscule chance of a fatal reaction to a vaccine you are free to do so, as long as you keep them on your property and warn the public that they are at risk by setting foot on your property.
See, that's not so difficult to understand, is it?
@Chris & Jonas:
Yes, deciding to not vaccinate your children "decreases community immunity, and raises the chances of disease spread for everyone." I understand and agree with you on this point.
Where we disagree is whether that increase in risk is sufficient to justify keeping unvaccinated by choice children from attending public school. I don't agree that it is. Pointing out facts I am already aware of will not affect my opinion. Pointing to a detailed risk analysis for both policies that might, but I haven't seen that yet.
Where are those studies and do the results support your argument? What is the change in risk to society by allowing unvaccinated children to attend public schools versus not allowing it?
Two states have had such policies in place for many years, so their overall health and education outcomes could be compared to similar states without such laws over a long time period to determine a reasonable estimate on how effective such policies are at promoting public health and what the detrimental effects on education were. Currently, I don't see the benefits of such a policy as sufficient to justify the costs but given that data, if it were substantially different than I think it is, I would reconsider my opinion.
Isolating unvaccinated children by not allowing them to attend school won’t make [a pregnant woman's] risks significantly safer
They will if the woman in question works at a school. But there's another factor. The inconvenience of having to homeschool often causes "hesitant" parents to vaccinate. That ups rates, lowering risks.
@ Opus #188 There is a big difference between the government requiring citizens to take an action and requiring citizens to refrain from an action. In general, the case for compelling some action must be much stronger than the case for forbidding an action. Thus, I don't find your comparison of drunk driving restrictions to be at all applicable to the case for requiring vaccination.
BTW, please refrain from making assumptions about my views. I'm not opposed to vaccination. I vaccinated my kids. I'm against government overreach into people's private lives and how they choose to raise their kids, including whether or not they choose to vaccinate.
@ Julian - Why isn’t the pregnant mother responsible for getting herself vaccinated? She cannot expect her fellow citizens in public spaces, including work spaces, to be universally vaccinated.
I agree that the more inconvenient our society makes non-vaccinating, the more the vaccination rate will rise. It's a reasonable step to make vaccination the default and opting out the bigger hassle in order to encourage vaccination. I just think requiring the unvaccinated child to be homeschooled is going a bit too far.
Not all parents are allowed to homeschool in all states, some have fairly restrictive requirements for homeschooling parents. However, currently the states that require vaccination for school attendance do not also have restrictive laws on homeschooling, so that has not been an area of conflict yet.
How would this situation be resolved? Parents who don't want to vaccinate and who also don't meet the state requirements for homeschooling so that isn't a legal option for them.
@ Narad #158. What is the harm or risk to their classmates of allowing children to attend school without shoes?
I take it that you are asserting that this would also fall under the category "a publicly funded education should not be forfeit if parents don’t make the preferred choice," yes?
How about pants?
Beth: doubling down on a stupid argument doesn't make you look smarter.
As Jonas points out, since a vaccinated person spreading a VPD is so incredibly rare, the benefits greatly outweigh the purported (not actual) risks.
But this one is a real howler: "@ Julian – Why isn’t the pregnant mother responsible for getting herself vaccinated? She cannot expect her fellow citizens in public spaces, including work spaces, to be universally vaccinated. "
Because pregnant women can't be given live vaccines you twit! It's only been said on this blog a million time. You don't give live vaccines to pregnant women. MMR is a live vaccine. Varicella is a live vaccine. You have to wait until after they deliver and pray they don't contract the disease itself.
That didn't used to be a problem until the anti vax movement made it one; when we had high uptake rates of vaccination we really didn't worry about it. Now we do have to worry.
When I first started working as a nurse, back before the varicella vaccine became available, some of my co-workers had never had chickenpox as children. When we got someone with shingles or chicken pox in the hospital (not uncommon 30 years ago), those colleagues couldn't take care of those patients. They couldn't even go into the room. So those of us who knew we'd had chickenpox would have to care for those patients because we weren't at risk.
It is unreasonable to ask the pregnant woman to jump through hoops to protect herself because she can't account for every variable when she doesn't even KNOW she's been exposed until it's too late. It makes much for sense for society to protect pregnant women (you know . . . value unborn life?) by getting vaccinated.
Face facts Beth. You are anti vax to the core.
Well done Panacea!
"There is a big difference between the government requiring citizens to take an action and requiring citizens to refrain from an action."
The IRS would disagree with you...as would the rules requiring mandatory reporting of suspected abuse to authorities...and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Actual lawyers, I suspect, will tell you there's very little difference. For example, contracts can be to do something or refrain from doing something. Restraining orders, by definition, prevent you from doing all sorts of things (moving forward with an environmentally hinky development, suspected abuses from calling/visiting/harassing their partners/kids, etc.
@Narad #192 - What is the harm to their classmates if they aren't wearing pants? When I was in school nearly half a century ago, girls weren't allowed to wear pants. It was part of my junior high dress code in seventh grade. I wouldn't be comfortable there, but frankly, if a nudist colony wanted to make their schools clothes optional, I'm not sure why it should be automatically illegal.
@Panacea: And why wasn't this hypothetical pregnant mother (she had kids already in the original hypothetical) vaccinated prior to getting pregnant? Or are we going the further hypothesize that she's underage and has anti-vaccine parents?
Think of me however you want, but I'm not opposed to vaccination. I'm opposed to the extremes that are proposed to force vaccinations on the children of families that would prefer not to, for whatever personal reasons they might have. I don't particularly care if their reasons are medical, religious or fears spawned by internet misinformation. I don't think it should be considered child abuse or neglect to decide against vaccination. I don't think unvaccinated children are a sufficient risk to justify not allowing them to go to public schools. If you think that makes me sound like an anti-vaxxer to the core, well, you can label me however you like. I am inclined to think you are overly judgmental regarding someone about whom you know nothing more than a few nuances of their position on one issue. We are both entitled to our opinions of the other, however inaccurate they might be.
"I’m opposed to the extremes that are proposed to force vaccinations on the children of families that would prefer not to, for whatever personal reasons they might have."
I don’t particularly care if their reasons are medical, religious or fears spawned by internet misinformation.
I don’t think unvaccinated children are a sufficient risk to justify not allowing them to go to public schools
See, the problem is, NONE of this is based on evidence, reality, or practical concerns. The downside is people getting severely sick and even dying because of what, essentially, superstitions.
I'm done, this person has way more stamina than me for this argument.
Well, Beth, thanks to anti vax views like yours (and you ARE anti vax), more and more young women are not getting vaccinated, and therefore their pregnancies are becoming vulnerable because they cannot be vaccinated while pregnant.
All pregnant women get blood work done in the first trimester, usually around 6-8 weeks once the highest risk for spontaneous miscarriage is past. This blood work includes titers for rubella and varicella.
Rubella in people is mild and self limiting. In pregnant women, there's a risk of miscarriage and congenital rubella syndrome in the neonate which can result in congenital deformities including blindness, deafness, cardiac defects, and mental retardation. The highest risk is in the first 6-8 weeks so by the time the titer is drawn, the fetus is already in danger if the patient is not immune.
Some people who are fully vaccinated don't seroconvert (develop immunity) as you should know by now. This is why pregnant women depend on herd immunity. That herd immunity is being destroyed by misinformed opinions such as yours, making it impossible for pregnant women to "check their contacts." Unless you're suggesting they live in a bubble during their entire reproductive years, that is.
And she doesn't have to be under age. Anti vax nonsense is not new; I've met plenty of young women in their 20's whose stupid parents did not get them vaccinated either because their parents were BSC anti vax, or just too lazy to get them to the doctor's office . . . or because their families didn't qualify for Medicaid and they couldn't afford it.
And yeah. I'm judging you. Your pig headedly wrong position on vaccines endangers the public health. Your rights stop at my nose. School mandates are not "forced" no matter how you try to twist the English language. Actions have consequences; refusing to vaccinate comes with the consequence that your kids can't attend public school.
@Beth Clarkson #195:
Think of me however you want, but I’m not opposed to vaccination.
If the item in question perambulates like an anatidaeid and vocalises like an anatidaeid, consideration must be given to the possibility that the item in question is an anatidaeid.
[E]ven if a student has [Hep b or HPV], they don’t pose a threat to other students...
Hepatitis B can survive outside the body for up to a week. Incorrect. Children bite scratch, cut themselves and roughhouse with other children.
I feel the harm to society of forcing vaccination on people who don’t want it is greater than the harm to society of allowing people to remain unvaccinated
The evidence is against you. Deliberately unvaccinated children have spread diseases to those they have been to school with, including the immunosuppressed and those who can't be vaccinated. As I pointed out, this harms the rights of those students to an education.
My belief is that there are more unvaccinated by choice students who’s parents would be legally required to homeschool than immunosuppressed students who would be forced to homeschool due to the danger posed by unvaccinated classmates
The difference here is that the parents of the immunosuppressed did not choose to have their children immunosuppressed. The parents of intentionally unvaccinated children chose not to have their children vaccinated.
We are free to choose, but not free to avoid consequences.
Those too young to be vaccinated are also too young to attend school
But not too young to attend kindergartens that may be attached to school (like my niece and nephew did) or aftercare where there may be older children.
Everyone is a potential disease vector, even vaccinated adults. since vaccines are not 100% effective.
This is such a dishonest argument that even though it's been refuted, I'm going to tackle it again.
The risk of a fully vaccinated person passing on a disease is orders of magnitude lower than that of an unvaccinated person doing the same. As we know, the vaccinated are far less likely to catch the diseases, and when they do, are sick and infectious for a much shorter period of time.
To summarise: you have argued for parental choice while ignoring that those choices can severely negatively impact others, downplayed the risks of the deliberately unvaccinated passing infections on to others, and downplayed the effectiveness of vaccination as a preventer of diseases. All antivaccine tropes and tactics.
You. Are. Antivaccine.
JP @180: People weren't deliberately walking through poop, but without enough sanitary outhouses, it happens. Here's a scenario: person who cannot afford shoes is working in a field. The nearest outhouse is all the way back at the house, maybe several miles away.
The worker can't afford to loose that much time to going to the outhouse, so they choose to go behind a bush on the edge of the field.
What they don't know is that someone else with hookworm (thanks Chris!) did the same thing a few days before and didn't bury the poo well, so now the second person has walked barefoot through the worms and eggs. Presto, infection.
Thus if *you* wear shoes, you won't get infected (through your feet). Or someone with money can come and build enough outhouses for everyone, and then there won't be parasite-laden poo lying around on the ground surface.
Justatech, it worse than your case states. In most cases there are not enough sanitation facilities for farm field workers. These workers cannot properly wash their hands and will pass along many diseases to consumers. Two cases in point are frozen raspberries from Turkey and Cilantro from Mexico. There many more examples but would takes pages and pages.